 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garland v. City of Little Rock Police Dep't8/31/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
This workers' compensation case arose from a June 4, 2002, injury sustained by Patrolman Mark H. Garland of the Little Rock Police Department when his patrol car was rear-ended by another vehicle. Although the initial injury was accepted as compensable, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge to determine entitlement to additional medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. The law judge found that treatment provided after September 6, 2002, by Drs. Evelyn Cathcart, Thomas Hart, and Zachary Mason was reasonably necessary relative to the compensable injury; and that Garland was temporarily totally disabled from November 13, 2002, until a date yet to be determined. The Workers' Compensation Commission reversed, making these findings: Garland failed to prove that medical treatment by the three doctors was reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injury; and the award of temporary total disability benefits was not well-founded. Garland now appeals, contending that the Commission erred in reversing the decision of the law judge. We disagree and affirm the Commission's decision.
When an appeal is taken from the denial of a claim by the Workers' Compensation Commission, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires that we affirm the decision if the Commission's opinion contains a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Dalton v. Allen Eng'g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Winslow v. D&B Mech. Contrs., 69 Ark. App. 285, 13 S.W.3d 180 (2000). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Dalton v. Allen Eng'g Co., supra.
Medical Benefits
An employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical services as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-508(a) (Supp. 2003). What constitutes reasonable and necessary treatment under this statute is a question of fact for the Commission to decide. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Eng'g, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). An employer takes an employee as he finds him, and employment circumstances that aggravate pre-existing conditions are compensable. Continental Express, Inc. v. Freeman, 66 Ark. App. 102, 989 S.W.2d 538 (1999). While it is within the province of the Commission to weigh conflicting medical evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence, nor can it ignore evidence that the worker's symptoms significantly improved after surgery. Hill v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 74 Ark. App. 250, 48 S.W.3d 544 (2001).
Evidence before the Commission included Garland's testimony at the hearing; medical records of treatment by Drs. Cathcart, Hart, and Mason; deposition testimony and hearing testimony of other doctors, whose treatment was provided by appellees; and other documents. The Commission noted that Garland underwent two courses of medical treatment, one that was provided by appellees and one that Garland pursued of his own accord. On the day of the accident Garland reported pain to his supervising officer and was sent to the emergency room at Baptist Medical Center. A nurse with the city referred him to general practitioner Dr. Sharon Meador, who saw him the day after the accident and later referred him to Dr. Kent Davidson at Arkansas Specialty Orthopedics. Dr. Davidson prescribe
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|