 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
John B. May Construction Co. v. Jordon3/15/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
In November 1972, appellee Homer Jordon suffered a myocardial infarction while shoveling mud out of a ditch while working for appellant May Construction Company. May accepted the heart attack as a compensable injury. It was determined that the heart attack resulted from blockage in one of the coronary arteries, and that Jordon was permanently totally disabled as a result of the heart attack. In 1981, due to further blockage of his coronary arteries, Jordon was required to undergo quintuple bypass surgery. May accepted responsibility for the surgery and following care without question. In 1996, Jordon began having recurrent admissions to the hospital for congestive heart failure. At that time, May controverted Jordon's claim that his 1972 heart attack was the cause of his current need for medical treatment, arguing that his pre-existing coronary artery disease was the cause of his current problems.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Jordon had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to additional medical treatment as a result of his 1972 compensable injury. This finding was based upon the opinion of Dr. James Cooper, a cardiologist and Jordon's most recent treating physician, who, in an October 9, 1997, report, opined that Jordon's medical problems were "a direct result of his previous myocardial infarction." The ALJ noted that Dr. James Doherty offered a contrary opinion, indicating in a November 7, 1995, report that it was his opinion that appellee's most recent cardiac symptoms were related to the coronary disease that pre- existed appellee's heart attack and not necessarily to the heart attack itself. However, the ALJ specifically found that Dr. Cooper's opinion was entitled to greater weight because he was appellee's treating physician during one hospitalization while Dr. Doherty had merely reviewed appellee's medical records, and because Dr. Cooper's report was written after appellee began experiencing problems in November 1996, while Dr. Doherty's report was written almost one year prior to that date. The Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's opinion. Appellant now brings this appeal, arguing that there is not substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding.
On appeal, this court must determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's result. Harvest Foods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996). Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and is given its strongest probative value in favor of the Commission's decision. Barrett v. Arkansas Rehabilitation Servs., 10 Ark. App. 102, 661 S.W.2d 439 (1983). The question is not whether the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion from the one found by the Commission if it were reviewing the case de novo, or even whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Disheroon, 26 Ark. App. 145, 761 S.W.2d 617 (1988). The Commission's decision should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Johnson v. Democrat Printing and Lithograph, 57 Ark. App. 274, 944 S.W.2d 138 (1997).
The Commission, as fact finder, must resolve any conflicts in evidence. Warwick Electronics, Inc. v. Devazier, 253 Ark. 1100, 490 S.W.2d 792 (1973). The Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinion and the authority to determine its medical soundness and probative f
Page 1 2 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|