 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Quality Foods v. Mugley5/11/2005
002.
An aggravation is a new injury resulting from an independent incident. Farmland Ins. Co. v. DuBois, 54 Ark. App. 141, 923 S.W.2d 883 (1996). A recurrence is not a new injury but merely another period of incapacitation resulting from a previous injury. Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (2000); Atkins Nursing Home v. Gray, 54 Ark. App. 125, 923 S.W.2d 897 (1996). A recurrence exists when the second complication is a natural and probable consequence of a prior injury. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Constr., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). Only where it is found that a second episode has resulted from an independent intervening cause is liability imposed upon the second carrier. Maverick Transportation v. Buzzard, 69 Ark. App. 128, 10 S.W.3d 467 (2000). In this instance, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company served as the second carrier.
After reviewing all of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Commission specifically found appellee to be a credible witness. The Commission also found: Clearly, the June 20, 2003, incident as described by the claimant could have logically produced the subsequently diagnosed "new" injury to his right shoulder. . . here is no evidence of any other logical cause for this "new" injury and the sudden onset of increased symptoms in his right shoulder. It is . . . obviously the opinion of Dr. Powell that the significant increase in symptoms to the claimant's right shoulder was, in fact, due to a "new" injury, rather than a natural progression or spontaneous reoccurrence of his prior compensable injury and this expert medical [opinion] is supported by other evidence presented.
Before the June 20, 2003, accident, appellee had been released to full duty. Although he occasionally still experienced some soreness, Dr. Powell had opined that appellee had reached maximum medical improvement. As of June 3, 2003, appellee reported that he was no longer using his anti-inflammatory medication. However, the increase in appellee's symptoms following June 20, 2003, required a new round of medical treatment as evidenced by the medical reports. The July 10, 2003, MRI demonstrated to the Commission that the June 2003 injury produced additional internal physical harm to appellee's right shoulder. In addition, as a result of the 2003 injury, Dr. Powell took appellee off work.
We are persuaded that an aggravation or new injury occurred on June 20, 2003, when we read appellee's description of the incident that day. It is no wonder that a new injury occurred when appellee placed such a great weight of 350 to 400 pounds upon his shoulder. Appellee stated that he, "gave [the dolly] one more hard pull" when his shoulder "popped." We believe that this incident and the resulting treatment cannot logically be described as a natural progression of the condition of his right shoulder.
In short, we cannot say that the Commission's conclusion that the 2003 injury was a new injury or aggravation of appellee's pre-existing condition was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we affirm the Commission's decision and its finding that appellants are liable for the right shoulder injury of June 20, 2003. See Maverick, supra.
Affirmed.
Neal and Roaf, JJ., agree.
|