Stewart v. Arkansas Glass Container11/16/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant, Bobby Stewart, argues that substantial evidence does not support the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision to deny him additional medical treatment. Specifically, he contends that the Commission arbitrarily disregarded evidence showing his need for additional medical treatment. We affirm the Commission.
In considering this issue, we note that an employer must promptly provide an injured employee such medical services as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the employee's injury. Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-508(a) (Supp. 2005). The employee, however, has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonable and necessary, and what constitutes reasonably necessary treatment under the statute is a question of fact for the Commission. Hamilton v. Gregory Trucking, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (March 16, 2005). On appeal from a denial of benefits, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, we determine whether there was a substantial basis for the denial. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 19, 2004). The Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence, and the resolution of conflicting evidence is a question of fact for the Commission. Stone v. Dollar Gen. Stores, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 8, 2005). Moreover, the Commission can reject or accept medical evidence and determine the probative value to assign to medical testimony. Hamilton, supra. The Commission, however, may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness. Patchell, supra.
In denying additional medical treatment, the Commission reviewed the following facts in its opinion. On August 8, 2001, in his employment with appellee Arkansas Glass Container, appellant "felt something pull" in his back. Appellees provided medical treatment and temporary total disability compensation. On August 17, 2001, a CT of appellant's lumbar spine showed a " road based HNP at L5-S1 with compression of both S1 nerve roots," along with a " isc bulge at the other levels with slightly small canals but not the same degree of nerve compression as at L5-S1." On April 12, 2002, a CT of appellant's lumbar spine showed " ild degenerative circumferential disc bulging, L2 through S1, without significant spinal canal or neuroforaminal stenosis."
On April 25, 2002, Dr. Edward Cooper, Jr., an orthopedic surgeon, opined that appellant had " isc bulging L5-S1 with some lateral recess stenosis worse on the left than on the right which appears to be mild enough that he should be able to get over this without surgery." On June 27, 2002, Dr. Earl Peeples, an orthopedist, concluded that appellant was not a surgical candidate, that appellant's L5-S1 level "is near normal," that appellant's tests of April 12, 2002, did not indicate major compression of the exiting nerve roots at L5-S1, that appellant had "an unusual affect," and that appellant should undergo psychological testing. On July 28, 2002, appellant was seen by a psychologist, Dr. Winston Wilson, who diagnosed hypochondriasis. On November 12, 2002, Dr. Moacir Schnapp, a pain clinician, opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement and had no objective permanent physical impairment. Dr. Cooper concluded on December 12, 2002, that appellant was not a surgical candidate. He further noted that appellant had "no significant objective findings" and that his "impairment rating is 0." He stated that appellant's "options have played out" and recommended treatment with a psychiatrist. His impression was " ow back pain wi
Page 1 2 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|