 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wells v. Wal-Mart Stores11/9/2005
her May 2001 injury. Therefore, the Commission's finding that further treatment was not reasonable or necessary is supported by substantial evidence.
Appellant also argues that the Commission erred when it failed to award her further temporary-total-disability benefits. Temporary-total-disability is that period within the healing period in which an employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. K II Constr. Co., supra. When an injured employee is totally incapacitated from earning wages and remains in his healing period, he is entitled to temporary total disability. Id. The healing period ends when the employee is as far restored as the permanent nature of his injury will permit, and if the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and if nothing in the way of treatment will improve that condition, the healing period has ended. Id. The determination of when the healing period has ended is a factual determination for the Commission and will be affirmed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002). These are matters of weight and credibility, and thus lie within the exclusive province of the Commission. Id.
The Commission found that the medical records did not support a finding that appellant was in her healing period. Appellant's medical records reveal that in July 2002, Dr. Mulhollan found that she had reached maximum medical improvement. Following her release to work, appellant worked almost a year before deciding she could no longer work. As stated earlier, appellant's current problems are related to her degenerative condition and not her May 2001 injury. Thus, we agree with the Commission's finding that appellant was not in her healing period and, therefore, not entitled to further temporary-total-disability benefits.
Affirmed.
Pittman, C.J., and Bird, J., agree.
|