# Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering

Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163 (1996), is a workers compensation appeal. The worker (appellant Gansky) was injured while working as a machinist for the employer (appellee Hi-Tech Engineering). When the employer began refusing to pay medical expenses, he brought his claim before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ ruled for the worker. The employer appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. The Commission ruled for the employer. The worker then appealed the Commission's decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, which was evenly divided. The worker filed a petition for review, and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed to take the case. On review, the supreme court ruled for the worker and reversed the court of appeals' decision. The case was remanded to the Commission to collect further medical evidence.
Justice Robert L. Brown wrote the opinion for the Court. A dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Andree Layton Roaf.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
325 Ark. 163
Rick GANSKY v. HI-TECH ENGINEERING; ITT Hartford
Petition for Review from the Arkansas Court of Appeals
No. 96-335. --- Delivered: June 24, 1996. -->
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Roaf
* WORKERS' COMPENSATION—SUPREME COURT REVIEW.—The Arkansas Supreme Court reviews a workers' compensation case under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(f) as though it had originally been filed in the supreme court.
* WORKERS' COMPENSATION—REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TREATMENT—QUESTION OF FACT FOR COMMISSION.—What constitutes reasonable and necessary treatment under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (1987) is a question of fact for the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission.
* WORKERS' COMPENSATION—STANDARD OF REVIEW.—In reviewing a workers' compensation case, the appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision and affirms that decision when it is supported by substantial evidence; the Commission's decision will be affirmed unless fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have arrived at the conclusion reached by the Commission.
* WORKERS' COMPENSATION—CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES WITHIN PROVINCE OF COMMISSION.—The credibility of witnesses is a matter exclusively within the province of the Workers' Compensation Commission.
* WORKERS' COMPENSATION—TEMPORARY AGGRAVATION OF PREEXISTING CONDITION IS COMPENSABLE INJURY.—The temporary aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a compensable injury.
* WORKERS' COMPENSATION—FAIR-MINDED PERSONS COULD NOT DECIDE THAT ADDITIONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY OR THAT APPELLANT'S HEALING PERIOD HAD ENDED.—Where the treating neurosurgeon prescribed a functional-capacity assessment for appellant employee that was not performed because appellee employer would not pay for it, the supreme court could not agree with the Commission that additional medical treatment was not ​reasonably necessary or that the healing period had ended; the court concluded that fair-minded persons, viewing the same evidence, could not decide otherwise.
* WORKERS' COMPENSATION—DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED—MATTER REMANDED TO COMMISSION.—The supreme court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the matter to the Commission with directions (1) to order payment of continued reasonable and necessary medical treatment, including a functional-capacity assessment, and (2) to determine whether to order payment of additional benefits.
On Petition for Review from the Arkansas Court of Appeals; Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed; remanded to Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission.
Lane, Muse, Arman & Pullen, by: Donald C. Pullen, for appellant.
Anderson & Kilpatrick, by: Randy P. Murphy, for appellees.
[Opinion of the Court by Justice ROBERT L. BROWN. Dissenting opinion by Justice ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, joined by Justice GLAZE. Justice DUDLEY not participating.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse