 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roach v. Dolgencorp4/27/2005
He opined that appellant had a "slight" compression fracture.
On July 10, 2001, appellant was involved in an automobile accident. As a result, she sustained an injury to her back. Fifteen days later, Dr. Adametz, in a letter, wrote the following:
Ms. Hazel Roach does have a very slight compression fracture in her cervical spine. I have not thought this was unstable or would require surgical intervention, but she has continued to have muscle spasm, stiffness and pain due to it. I feel like she qualifies for a 4% permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole.
Subsequently, appellant filed a claim for benefits alleging that she was entitled to the four percent physical impairment rating assessed by Dr. Adametz. Appellee controverted appellant's claim. Appellee argued that appellant was unable to show that her August 28, 2000, injury was the major cause of her four percent impairment rating and that Dr. Adametz had only reviewed appellant's MRI and x-rays and did not review Dr. Rutherford's notes and the bone scan.
In an October 10, 2003, opinion, the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied appellant's claim for benefits. The ALJ wrote:
Because Dr. Adametz did not have access or did not request all of the previous diagnostic test and did not have benefit of the reports of Dr. Rutherford, this examiner feels that the greater weight of the medical evidence should be placed on those reports and opinions of Dr. Johnson and Dr. Rutherford, as opposed to those of Dr. Adametz.
It is significant to this examiner, although not asserted by respondent, that Dr. Adametz assessed no physical impairment rating until after the claimant's motor vehicle accident on July 10, 2001. His assessment of an impairment rating came fifteen days after the claimant's motor vehicle accident.
The full Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the ALJ. From that decision comes this appeal.
In reviewing decisions from the Commission, the appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Smith v. City of Fort Smith, 84 Ark. App. 430, 143 S.W.3d 593 (2004). Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion. Id. When a claim is denied because the claimant has failed to show an entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Id.
Appellant argues that the Commission erred when it found that her August 2000 injury was not the major cause of her current physical impairment. Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(5)(F)(ii) (Supp. 2003) provides that permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause of the disability impairment.
The Commission found that appellant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her August 2000 injury was the major cause of her physical impairment assessed by Dr. Adametz. In reaching its decision to deny appellant's claim for benefits, the Commission gave greater weight to the medical notes of Drs. Johnson and Rutherford than those of Dr. Adametz. In making our review, we recognize that it is the Commission's function to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Williams v. L & W Janitorial, Inc., 85 Ark. App. 1, 145 S.W.3d 383 (2004). Moreover, the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if the evid
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.
|
|