Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 287 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CA10-1113 ST. EDWARD MERCY MEDICAL CENTER and SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM APPELLANTS V. AMBER WILKERSON APPELLEE ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge Appellee, Amber Wilkerson, sustained an admittedly compensable low-back injury on June 24, 2007, while working as an LPN for appellants St. Edward Mercy Medical Center and Sisters of Mercy Health System. Appellants accepted her compensable injury to her low back and provided medical care and treatment up to and including an initial evaluation provided by Dr. Luke Knox. However, when Dr. hemilaminotomy and microdiscectomy and recommended L4-5 marcaine injections to help determine if a lumbar fusion would be of benefit, appellants controverted the claim. Following a hearing, the ALJ concluded additional medical treatment provided by Dr. Knox, following his initial examination, wasOpinion Delivered APRIL 20, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F707400] AFFIRMED Knox suggested that appellee consider a that appellee had established that the
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 287 reasonable and necessary and remained appellants’ responsibility. The ALJ also found that appellee was entitled to permanent-disability benefits based upon a seventeen-percent impairment rating to the body as a whole. This impairment rating included a seven-percent permanent-physical-impairment rating and an additional ten-percent wage-loss disability benefit. The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s decision. In this appeal, appellants contend that substantial evidence does not support either of these findings. We affirm by memorandum opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Memorandum opinions may be issued in any or all of the following cases: (a) Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence; (b) Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial court or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm; (c) Where the trial court or agency does not abuse its discretion and that is the only substantial issue involved; and (d) Where the disposition of the appeal is clearly controlled by a prior holding of this court or the Arkansas Supreme Court and we do not find that our holding should be changed or that the case should be certified to the supreme court. This case falls within categories (a) and (b). Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the necessity of the additional medical treatment and the award of permanent-disability benefits. The ALJ’s opinion, affirmed and adopted by the Commission, adequately explains the decision, and we are affirming. 2
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.