Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 206 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA11-1074 GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION Opinion Delivered March 14, 2012 and SEDGEWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION V. COMMISSION [NO. F407353] DIRK LAWHON and DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND APPELLEES AFFIRMED JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge Georgia Pacific Corporation and Sedgewick Claims Management Services argue that substantial evidence does not support the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision that Dirk Lawhon suffered a compensable injury to his cervical spine and was entitled to medical services and temporary total-disability benefits. 1 We affirm. The parties stipulated that on June 30, 2004, Lawhon sustained a compensable injury to his thoracic spine while pushing bark into a feeder with a heavy metal rod. According to Lawhon, he suffered from pain at the base of his neck and in his shoulder blades. A July 15, 1 Employees are to be accorded medical services “reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (Supp. 2011). Further, temporary-total disability is that period within the healing period in which a claimant suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. See, e.g., Tyson Chicken, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 2012 Ark. App. 99. The healing period is “that period for healing of an injury resulting from an accident.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(12). To be entitled to temporary total-disability benefits, the claimant must prove that he remains within his healing period and suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Tyson Chicken, Inc., supra.
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 206 2004 MRI showed a normal cervical spine. On October 22, 2007, however, an MRI showed at the C6-7 level a small central protrusion with an associated small central annular rent, resulting in light contouring of the ventral cord, and minimal mixed biforaminal protrusions resulting in abutment of the exiting left C7 nerve. Dr. Brent Sprinkle opined that the 2007 MRI findings were new findings and concluded that it would be speculative to say that the 2007 MRI findings were related to the 2004 accident. In his deposition, Dr. Sprinkle further opined that he could not say within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the 2004 injury caused the changes discovered on the 2007 MRI. Dr. Barry Thompson, however, opined that Lawhon’s ruptured cervical disc at C6-7 resulted from the 2004 injury and that from January 15, 2008, he remained temporarily totally disabled from work as a result of that injury. Dr. Vincent Forte opined that Lawhon’s problems were the result of his 2004 injury and that he was totally disabled. Dr. Darin Wilbourn opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Lawhon’s current need for medical treatment was causally related to the 2004 injury. Dr. Bernie McHugh performed on Lawhon an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion at C6-7 and opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Lawhon’s 2004 injury was the major cause of his problems and that he was temporarily totally disabled from January 2008. A hearing was held on compensability. The Commission found that Lawhon proved by a preponderance of the evidence that in 2004 he sustained a compensable injury to his neck and cervical spine and was entitled to additional medical treatment and temporary total-disability benefits. In its opinion, the Commission noted objective findings in the form of 2
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 206 muscle spasms. The Commission credited Dr. Wilbourn’s opinion that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Lawhon’s need for medical treatment was causally related to the 2004 injury and awarded Lawhon medical services. The Commission also credited Dr. Thompson’s opinion that Lawhon was temporarily totally disabled from work beginning January 15, 2008, and found that he was entitled to temporary total-disability benefits from January 16, 2008, to November 4, 2010. On appeal, appellants contend that substantial evidence does not support the Commission’s determination that Lawhon suffered a compensable injury to his cervical spine and was entitled to medical services and temporary total-disability benefits. In support of their contention, appellants assert that there were no objective findings, that Lawhon complained only of pain in the thoracic spine after the incident, that he had degenerative changes in the cervical spine, that the 2004 MRI of the cervical spine was normal, that he received treatment and was returned to work, that there were extended periods of time in which Lawhon did not seek medical attention, and that Lawhon can perform a variety of tasks. While acknowledging Dr. Wilbourn’s opinion that the 2007 findings were caused by the 2004 injury, appellants assert that Dr. Wilbourn’s opinion was not credible because he did not examine the 2004 MRI and did not explain the positive findings on the 2007 MRI when the 2004 MRI was normal. Appellants also assert that Dr. Sprinkle’s opinion that he could not conclude there was a causal relationship was entitled to greater weight. In sum, appellants assert that there were no objective findings, that there was no causal connection between the 2004 injury and the 2007 findings, and that the evidence supporting the award of benefits was not credible. The Commission’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Ozark 3
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 206 Natural Food v. Pierson, 2012 Ark. App. 133, 389 S.W.3d 105. Our workers’ compensation statutes provide that a “compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Supp. 2009). “Objective findings” are defined as findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). When a claimant relies on medical opinions to establish compensability, the medical opinions must be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(B). Here, the 2007 MRI showed that Lawhon sustained a herniated cervical disc, which constitutes an objective finding. Lawhon presented several physician opinions that, in sum, causally linked Lawhon’s cervical problems and his need for treatment to the 2004 incident and established that he was temporarily totally disabled from January 15, 2008. Further, such matters as determining the weight and credibility to be afforded medical opinions are for the Commission. See, e.g., Tyson Chicken, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 2012 Ark. App. 99. Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s decision. Affirmed. VAUGHT, C.J., and ROBBINS, J., agree. Roberts Law Firm, P.A., by: Susan Fowler and Jennifer Wells, for appellants. Bell & Boyd, P.A., by: Michael W. Boyd, for appellee. 4
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.