ÿWPCC????
??????ûÿ??2?
???ÿÿ????B?????????J???
?????@É?‡Ï????ð?????\?ðf!’NX?@?#|?x???????????ûÿ??2???????????<???ÿÿ!???–?????X???·???ÿÿE???Q???Courier?Courier Bold?????????????????HPLAIIPL.PRS?Û?x???
?????@É?‡Ï????,?ð?8?t?0(#õŒX?@Courier 10cpi?Courier 10cpi Bold?<?ÿÿ‰???x?x?x?,??????2ô?x?þ?6?X??????@É?¹`7?û?X?@þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿ?ÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¸?ÿÿ‰???x?x?x?,??????)Æô?x?Ð??? ??????`É?“?7?û?X?€þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ?#|?x????????????????Û\ô?x?þ?6?X??????@É?“8Ç?;?X?@þþþþþþþÿþÿÿÿþÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿHP LaserJet IIP Plus?????????????????HPLAIIPL.PRS?Û?x???
?????@É?‡Ï????,?ð?8?t?ûÿ??2???????????A???????????????????????????????????Õ?y?????????X???????»œÁàL?ì???ÁAEROQUIP, INC. Ã?ÃvÄ?Ä. TILLEYƒÁ`à?(#D?ÁPage ?ƒ
爬
y??ÕÐ????????ÐÐ????????ÐÔ???*?ì????ÔÐ?
Ô?????Ä????ÔÃ?ÃvÄ?Ä. Roy "Junior" TILLEYÔ???*?ì????ÔÐ????????ÐÔ?????` ???ÔÐ?
CA 97©343Á`˜?(#=?Á___ S.W.2d ___ƒ
Áà\
ì???ÁCourt of Appeals of Arkansasƒ
ÁàX?ì?%?ÁDivision IIƒ
Áà¸
Ô?
Ô?
appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable
inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to
the Commission's findings and will affirm if those findings
are supported by substantial evidence; substantial evidence
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion; the issue on appeal is
not whether the appellate court might have reached a different
result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary
finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's
conclusion, its decision must be affirmed. Æ(#??Æ
Ô?
Ô?
Compensation Commission to determine the credibility of the
witnesses and the weight given to their testimony; the
Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if
the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of
fact for the Commission; the Commission is not required to
believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness,
but may accept and translate into findings of fact only thoseÔ????? (??????????0*0*0*°?°????Ô
Ô?
compensable injury ©© Commission's finding of compensable
Ô?
Compensation Commission's finding of a compensable injury was
supported by substantial evidence; the Commission found both
that appellee had shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that he had sustained a compensable injury that arose out of
and in the course of his employment and that although appellee
had suffered for some time from some degenerative disc
disease, the main source of appellee's current complaints and
the recommended surgery arose from his L5©S1 problem area; the
appellate court found that reasonable minds could have reached
a similar result where the medical evidence prior to the
accident showed that although appellee suffered from some back
problems, none seemed to require operative intervention, nor
did they include a large ruptured disc at L5©S1. Æ(#??Æ
Ô?
Ô?
claims that appellee had reason to feign the injury because he
had no more time available to take a leave of absence and
therefore his testimony could not be considered a credible
basis for the finding was without merit; it is the function ofÔ?????€%??????????0*?'?'Ð?Ð????Ô
credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their
testimony. Æ(#??Æ
Ô?
medical evidence to prove circumstances under which injury
sustained ©© no error in Commission's finding of compensable
Ô?
Commission erred in finding a compensable injury where there
was no medical evidence supported by objective findings of the
injury was without merit; a claimant need not offer objective
medical evidence to prove the circumstances under which the
injury was sustained or the precise time of the injury's
occurrence; although the legislature has required medical
evidence supported by objective findings to establish a
compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is
required to establish each and every element of
compensability; the Commission's decision was affirmed. Æ(#??Æ
Á???????ÁAppeal from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;
affirmed.
Á???????ÁÃ?ÃFrederick S. "Rick" SpencerÄ?Ä, for appellants.
Á???????ÁÃ?ÃFriday, Eldredge & ClarkÄ?Ä, by: Ã?ÃWilliam M. Griffin IIIÄ?Ä and
Ã?ÃClifford W. PlunkettÄ?Ä, for appellee.Ô?????€%??????????0*?'?'Ð?Ð????ÔŒÔ?
Ð??????????ÐÁ???????ÁThis is a workersÀ??À compensation case. Appellee, Roy "Junior"
Tilley, was employed by appellant, Aeroquip, Inc., and performed
manual labor. The Commission found that appellee sustained a
compensable injury on July 30, 1994, while working for appellant,
and awarded appellee temporary total disability benefits from
August 7, 1994, through September 15, 1994, and temporary partial
disability benefits for two weeks subsequent to September 15, 1994,
based on six©hour working days. Appellant was also ordered to pay
all reasonable and necessary medical costs associated with
appelleeÀ??Às injury and attorneyÀ??Às fees.
Á???????ÁAppellant and its insurance carrier appeal from the
CommissionÀ??Às decision arguing that: (1) the CommissionÀ??Às finding
that appellee proved he sustained a compensable injury is notÔ?????h)??????????0*0*0*°?°????Ô
finding a compensable injury where there was "no medical evidence
supported by objective findings of the injury." We disagree and
affirm.
Á???????ÁOn appeal in workersÀ??À compensation cases, we view the evidence
and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most
favorable to the CommissionÀ??Às findings and will affirm if those
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Ã?ÃMorelock v.
Kearney Co.Ä?Ä, 48 Ark. App. 227, 894 S.W.2d 128 (1995). Substantial
evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Ã?ÃCollege Club Dairy v.
CarrÄ?Ä, 25 Ark. App. 215, 756 S.W.2d 128 (1988). The issue on appeal
is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether
the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable
minds could reach the CommissionÀ??Às conclusion, we must affirm its
decision. Ã?ÃBearden Lumber Co. v. BondÄ?Ä, 7 Ark. App. 65, 644 S.W.2d
321 (1983).
Á???????ÁIt is the function of the Commission to determine the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to their
testimony. Ã?ÃWhaley v. HardeeÀ??ÀsÄ?Ä, 51 Ark. App. 166, 912 S.W.2d 14
(1995). The Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence
and, if the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question
of fact for the Commission. The Commission is not required to
believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, but may
accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of
the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Ã?ÃWhaleyÄ?Ä, Ã?ÃsupraÄ?Ä. Ô??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????ÔŒÁ???????ÁAppellant first argues on appeal that the CommissionÀ??Às finding
of a compensable injury is not supported by substantial evidence.
Specifical¬ly, appellant argues that appellee failed to prove by a
preponder¬ance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable
injury that caused his current back problems. Appellee testified
that, at the time of his injury, he was working on a bonding
machine. According to appellee, in an effort to stop a rope from
going through the machine too fast, he grabbed the rope to stop it
and was jerked over the table. Appellee testified that the mandrel
he grabbed weighed somewhere between 700 and 800 pounds. Appellee
stated that he reported the incident to his supervisor, Jerry
Claypool, the next day and went to the emergency room that day
where he was treated by Dr. Black, who later referred appellee to
Dr. Foster.
Á???????ÁAppellee also testified that he has had previous back
problems, dating as far back as the early 1980's. Appellee stated,
as evidenced by the medical information presented, that he has seen
various chiropractors, orthopedic doctors, and regular family
practitioners regarding his back problems over the years. In
addition, appellee testified that prior to this incident, he had
recently missed work due to his current emotional problems.
Á???????ÁJerry Claypool, appelleeÀ??Às supervisor at the time of the
accident, testified that on July 29, 1994, he talked with appellee
regarding his concern over attendance and told appellee that he had
used up all of his vacation and sick time. Mr. Claypool stated
that on July 31, 1994, appellee reported to him the accidentÔ??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????Ô
Mr. Claypool further testified that he was unaware of appelleeÀ??Às
previous back condition and stated the reason for appelleeÀ??Às missed
work during the month of July was due to appelleeÀ??Às nervous
problems. Susan Hughes, the human resources administrator for
appellant, testified at the hearing that in July of 1994, appellee
had brought in a certification from the Twin Lakes Chiropractor
Clinic requesting that he be off work for six days.
Á???????ÁMedical reports in the record track appelleeÀ??Às back problems
since the early 1980's. The medical reports prior to appelleeÀ??Às
accident reveal that for the most part appelleeÀ??Às back problems
stem from degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. A report
dated July 19, 1994, from the Kerr Medical Clinic, indicates that
appellee was experiencing low back pain. The report indicated that
five films were taken, and the impression was that appellee
suffered from a mild to moderate degenerative disc disease, mostly
around L4 and L5.
Á???????ÁDr. Foster, who saw appellee after his accident, indicated in
his report dated August 5, 1994, that appellee had a large disc
herniation at L5©S1 on the left, being probably an extruded
fragment, and which would likely require operative intervention.
A medical evaluation dated November 16, 1994, by Dr. Ledbetter of
Ozark Orthopedic Associates agreed with Dr. FosterÀ??Às assessments
finding that appellee had a large L5©S1 ruptured disc with probable
free fragment on the left. Dr. LedbetterÀ??Às impression was that
appellee suffered from herniated nucleus pulposus at L5©S1 left,Ô??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????Ô
pulposus at L4©5 with degenerative disc disease. Further, it was
Dr. LedbetterÀ??Às impression that appelleeÀ??Às main symptoms stemmed
from the L5©S1 left©sided herniated nucleus pulposus and that
appellee would benefit from a discectomy at L5©S1.
Á???????ÁThe Commission found that, based on a review of the evidence,
appellee had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he had
sustained a compensable injury which arose out of and in the course
of his employment. The Commission further found that although
appellee had suffered for some time from some degenerative disc
disease, the main source of appelleeÀ??Às current complaints and the
recommended surgery arose from his L5©S1 problem area. We cannot
say that, in the case at bar, reasonable minds could not have
reached a similar result. The medical evidence prior to the
accident showed that although appellee suffered from some back
problems, none seemed to require operative intervention, nor did
they include a large ruptured disc at L5©S1.
Á???????ÁAppellant also claims that appellee had reason to feign the
injury because he had no more time available to take a leave of
absence (other than through workersÀ??À compensation) and therefore
his testimony in this case cannot be considered a credible basis
for the finding. As we previously stated, it is the function of
the Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the
weight to be given to their testimony. Ã?ÃWhaleyÄ?Ä, Ã?ÃsupraÄ?Ä.
Á???????ÁAppellant next argues that the Commission erred in finding a
compensable injury in this case where there was "no medicalÔ??????'??????????0* ( (@?@????Ô
specifically, appellant argues that, although there is objective
medical evidence of a herniated disc in this case, there is no
objective medical evidence that the herniation occurred as a result
of appelleeÀ??Às accident on July 30, 1994. However, in Ã?ÃStephens
Truck Lines v. MillicanÄ?Ä, 58 Ark. App. 275, ____ S.W.2d ____ (1997),
we held that a claimant need not offer objective medical evidence
to prove the circumstances under which the injury was sustained or
the precise time of the injuryÀ??Às occurrence. We stated in
pertinent part that:
Ð??????????ÐÂ?X???????ÂÂ?X?` ` ??ÂAlthough it is irrefutably true that the
legislature has required medical evidence
supported by objective findings to establish a
compensable injury, it does not follow that
such evidence is required to establish each
and every element of compensability. The
statutory defini¬tion of compensability as set
out in Ark. Code Ann. À??À 11©9©102(5) contains
many elements that simply are not susceptible
of proof by medical evidence supported by
objective findings. For example, a
compensable accidental injury must be shown to
have been caused by a specific incident and to
be identifiable by time and place of
occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. À??À 11©9ª102(5)(A)(i). Injuries inflicted at a time
when employment services were not being
performed are not compensable, Ark. Code Ann.
À??À 11©9©102(5)(B)(iii), nor are injuries
resulting from engaging in horseplay. Ark.
Code Ann. À??À 11©9©102(5)(B)(i). We know of no
type of medical examination or test that would
result in objective findings to show exactly
where and when an injury was incurred, or
whether the employee was injured while
performing employment services rather than
engaging in horseplay. Even statutes that
must be strictly construed will not be given a
literal interpretation leading to absurd
consequences that are clearly contrary to
legislative intent. Ã?ÃThomas v. StateÄ?Ä, 315 Ark.
79, 864 S.W.2d 835 (1993).Æx?` ÆÔ?????Ø'??????????0* ( (@?@????ÔŒ™Ã?ÃStephensÄ?Ä, 58 Ark. App. at 279©80, ____ S.W.2d ____ (1997).
Ð??????????ÐÁ???????ÁBased upon the foregoing, we find that there was substantial
evidence to support the CommissionÀ??Às finding and affirm the
CommissionÀ??Às decision.
Á???????ÁAffirmed.
Ô?