Opinion ID: 1773236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objective Findings.

Text: Section 11-9-102(4)(D) requires that [a] compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by `objective findings' as defined in subdivision (16) of this section. Section 11-9-102(16) defines objective findings as those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. In one of its findings, the Commission states: [N]or are there any objective findings in the medical evidence presented as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16). (Emphasis added.) This finding by the Commission ignores the April 5, 1999 notation in the medical record by physical therapist Milner that Mr. Edens exhibited tight musculature and spasm activity in the lower back. We have held that muscle spasms reported by a physician or physical therapist constitute objective findings under section 11-9-102(16). Continental Express, Inc. v. Freeman, 339 Ark. 142, 4 S.W.3d 124 (1999). The Commission may not arbitrarily disregard the testimony of any witness, nor may the Commission arbitrarily disregard other evidence submitted in support of a claim. Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, supra . Because the Commission has arbitrarily disregarded the physical therapist's notation referencing muscle spasms, we must reverse on this point as well. The dissent incorrectly states that the Commission found that Mr. Edens failed to bear his burden of proof in establishing that he suffered a compensable injury at any time in January, 1999. The Commission actually adopted the administrative law judge's finding that Mr. Edens did not prove that he sustained an injury ... on January 17, 18, 19, or 20, 1999. This finding could be interpreted to mean that Mr. Edens failed to prove that his injury occurred on a specific date in January, or it could be interpreted to mean, as the dissent concludes, that Mr. Edens did not sustain a compensable injury at all. Considering the fact that the dissent agrees that the Commission relied upon an erroneous statutory interpretation and an erroneous factual finding in reaching its decision, the ambiguity in the Commission's finding is best resolved by the Commission itself upon remand, not by this court on appeal. The dissent's conclusion that there is a substantial basis for the Commission's denial of relief is speculation. While the Commission is free to accept or reject medical evidence and assign weight to evidence as it deems appropriate, it is not free to arbitrarily ignore objective medical findings, nor is it free to reach a conclusion based on an erroneous statutory interpretation. The fact that the dissent has reached a conclusion that may be similar to the one originally reached by the Commission does not necessarily mean that the Commission would have issued the same findings had it applied a correct interpretation of the statute and had it considered all of the objective medical findings. Because we refuse to speculate on how the Commission would have ruled under a correct statutory interpretation and considering all objective findings, the only appropriate remedy is to remand. We reverse and remand for findings consistent with our interpretation of sections 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) and 4(D). CORBIN, J., dissenting.