Opinion ID: 1767053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Total-permanent-disability benefits for the back injury

Text: For his third point on appeal, Hickman argues that the Commission erred in finding that he did not have a compensable back injury and that he failed to prove total-permanent disability. Specifically, he contends that prior to the April 26, 2002 incident, no doctor identified a back problem at the L1-2 or L2-3 levels, and that the accident aggravated his condition. Kellogg counters by arguing that Hickman failed to prove that he sustained a compensable back injury or permanent-total disability. Kellogg asserts that there is substantial evidence supporting the Commission's finding that Hickman's back injury was the result of a preexisting degenerative disc disease and prior back surgeries. Permanent benefits are only awarded upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause of a disability or impairment. Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a). Permanent impairment, which is usually a medical condition, is any permanent functional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has been reached. Ouachita Marine v. Morrison, 246 Ark. 882, 440 S.W.2d 216 (1969). An injured employee is entitled to the payment of compensation for the permanent functional or anatomical loss of use of the body as a whole whether his earning capacity is diminished or not. Id. In the case of Wilson & Co. v. Christman, 244 Ark. 132, 424 S.W.2d 863 (1968), we stated that the Commission is not limited, and never has been limited, to medical evidence only in arriving at its decision as to the amount or extent of permanent partial disability suffered by an injured employee as a result of injury. It is the duty of the Workers' Compensation Commission to translate the evidence on all issues before it into findings of fact. Gencorp Polymer Prods. v. Landers, 36 Ark.App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (1991). Regarding an aggravation, an employer takes the employee as he finds him, and employment circumstances that aggravate preexisting conditions are compensable. See Parker v. Atlantic Research Corp., 87 Ark.App. 145, 189 S.W.3d 449 (2004). A preexisting disease or infirmity does not disqualify a claim if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce the disability for which workers' compensation is sought. Homes v. Beard, 82 Ark.App. 607, 120 S.W.3d 160 (2003). An aggravation is a new injury resulting from an independent incident, and being a new injury with an independent cause, it must meet the definition of a compensable injury in order to establish compensability for the aggravation. Heritage Baptist Temple v. Robison, 82 Ark.App. 460, 120 S.W.3d 150 (2003). We agree with the Commission's decision that Hickman failed to prove that he suffered a compensable back injury on April 26, 2002. Hickman testified that he first injured his back in 1984 in a work-related injury. Subsequently, he underwent two neck surgeries and four back surgeries. Additionally, in May of 1997, Hickman sustained another work-related injury to his shoulder and hip, but medical records reflected that he received extensive treatment for his back. Prior to that injury, a myelogram detected a small disk bulge and ligamentous hypertrophy at the L2-3 level. Prior to the 2002 accident at issue, Hickman had hardware installed at every level of his lumbar spine other than L1-2 and L2-3. One doctor stated that the degeneration of Hickman's lumbar spine was some of the most severe that I have ever seen. More significantly, on May 28, 2003, Dr. Bernie McHugh performed a lumbar decompression surgery at L2-3. Dr. McHugh testified that Hickman's facet hypertrophy and ligamentous hypertrophy compressed the L2 and L3 levels. Further, Dr. McHugh testified that, when he performed the surgery, he found progressive degenerative changes rather than any acute traumatic injury. Dr. McHugh's finding was corroborated with Dr. Peeples's medical examination in 2004 about which Dr. Peeples testified, I believe his back situation would be impossible to apportion out to his different episodes of surgery and to his degenerative condition. Thus, based upon this evidence before the Commission, we hold that there was not substantial evidence to support a finding that Hickman's back injury was related to his April 2002 compensable injury. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission's ruling that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable back injury or a total permanent disability. Affirmed.