 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Powers v. City of Fayetteville Municipal League WCT10/12/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Retired Fayetteville firefighter Martin Powers brings this appeal from a decision of the Arkansas Worker's Compensation Commission (Commission) denying his claim for hearing loss. While Arkansas Code Ann. ยง 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(c)(Supp. 2003), recognizes hearing loss as a compensable injury, the Commission found that the claimant failed to establish that his hearing loss was supported by objective medical evidence that was not under his voluntary control. Because the existence and extent of the appellant's hearing loss was stipulated to and accepted as fact by the Commission, the decision is reversed.
Appellant Powers began working for the Fayetteville Fire Department in 1986 and first sought medical treatment for hearing problems with ear, nose, and throat specialist Dr. Thermon Crocker in 1992. Dr. Crocker ordered audiological diagnostic testing for the appellant again in 1995, 1998, and 2001. Dr. Crocker testified that the appellant's hearing deteriorated from 1992 through 2001, although he was not entitled to an impairment rating until 2001. Dr. Crocker also testified that while he considered the impact of other causation factors for the injury such as guns, power tools, and loud music, his opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty was that the appellant's hearing loss resulted from exposure to occupational noise as a firefighter.
Appellant filed a claim for workers' compensation on July 31, 2002. Stipulations were made by appellant and appellees at a pre-hearing conference before the administrative law judge (ALJ) that included an agreement that the appellant had hearing loss at the impairment level of 9.4%. Although the ALJ accepted this stipulation as fact in the course of rendering its opinion, it nevertheless determined that the appellant failed to prove the existence of a compensable injury because of the lack of objective findings. The ALJ found that the diagnostic testing relied upon by the appellant was within the voluntary control of the patient and therefore cannot be considered an objective finding that would satisfy the statutory requirement for compensable injuries. Appellant appealed the ALJ's denial of benefits to the Commission, which affirmed and adopted ALJ's decision. This appeal followed.
When an appeal is taken from the denial of a claim by the Worker's Compensation Commission, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires that we affirm the Commission's decision if its 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. Mays v. Alumnitec, Inc., 76 Ark. App. 274, 64 S.W.3d 772 (2001). There may be substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision even though the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion if it had sat as the trier of fact or heard the case de novo. Brower Mfg. Co. v. Willis, 252 Ark. 755, 480 S.W.2d 950 (1972). We will not reverse the Commission's decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. White v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 339 Ark. 474, 6 S.W.3d 98 (1999). In making our review, we recognize that
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.
|
|