Court Opinion

ID: 9620140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:39:06.392508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:29.441870
License: Public Domain

Sarah J. Heffley, Judge, dissenting. Though I might have reached a different result from that reached by the Commission in awarding Walker further medical benefits including surgery, I recognize the standard of review. Applying that standard, I join in the portion of the majority opinion affirming that award. However, applying the same standard to the Commission’s denial of TTD following Walker’s voluntary termination, I must respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion reversing on that point. When reviewing a decision of the Commission, the issue is not whether we might have reached a different result from the Commission, but rather whether reasonable minds could have reached the result found by the Commission. Superior Industries v. Thomaston, 72 Ark. App. 7, 9, 32 S.W.3d 52, 53 (2000). Reasonable minds could conclude, as did the Commission, that Walker was not physically unable to perform light-duty work and that he refused suitable employment at Cooper Tire and was, therefore, disqualified from receiving TTD. As recognized by the Commission, Walker returned to his normal, light-duty work at the tire plant immediately after his injury; he did not stop working until June 30, 2006, having signed a voluntary termination agreement on June 28. Moreover, as noted by the Commission, no physician ever recommended that Walker cease his light-duty position. The majority implies that Walker was forced to sign the termination agreement due to the Cooper Tire plant closure. However, as recognized by the Commission, the record reveals no firm evidence that Cooper Tire’s closure was imminent. At the time Walker was offered the termination agreement —• implying that he had a choice — there were layoffs occurring at the plant. But Walker does not assert that he was laid off or that he had been notified of a certain job loss. Instead he testified that he “agreed to take the voluntary termination because, man, it wasn’t no way that I could keep working on my knee the way it was. They offered me that severance package and I decided to take the little money that they was giving me. My number was coming anyway so I got the money to get me some medical attention.” There was no ambiguity about whether Walker voluntarily chose to leave his work at Cooper rather than seek other job duties to accommodate his knee pain. Any potential ambiguity was clarified by Walker’s own testimony. This case is unlike Superior Industries, cited by the majority, where Thomaston was involuntarily terminated for misconduct. 72 Ark. App. 7, 32 S.W.3d 52 (2000). The court there stated that “Mr. Thomaston did not refuse employment; he accepted the employment and was later terminated not by his choice, but at the option of his employer.” 72 Ark. App. at 11, 32 S.W.3d at 54 (emphasis added). Here, regardless of whether Walker’s knee pain played a role in his decision, he admits that the termination was by his choice. Walker could have rejected Cooper Tire’s offer of a voluntary termination package and sought a lighter or different work duty from Cooper Tire. Indeed, Cooper Tire had a statutory duty to provide him with suitable work. Ark. Code Ann. § 11 — 9— 526. But because Walker continued to work, Cooper had no need to make such an offer. Walker accepted a termination agreement and voluntarily gave up his job. His refusal to continue working disqualified him from benefits.1 This case is also distinguishable from Barnette v. Allen Canning Co., cited by the majority. 49 Ark. App. 61, 896 S.W.2d 444 (1995). There, Barnette was unable to work in any capacity at the canning company and the employer failed to offer her suitable work. Our case is different because at no time before he signed the voluntary termination agreement did Walker become unable to perform his normal light-duty work. A reasonable person, considering Walker’s continuing to work, the medical records, the language of the agreement, and Walker’s testimony, could have found that he refused the work at Cooper Tire, not due to his knee pain, but because he was offered a voluntary termination package. Walker would not receive TTD benefits if he had taken an early retirement instead of seeking suitable work at Cooper Tire. I see the same logic at work here. By reversing this case, the majority eschews the standard of review, and gives Walker a double-reward: a voluntary termination package plus TTD benefits even though he refused to work at Cooper Tire.   Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-526 states that “[if] any injured employee refuses employment suitable to his capacity offered to or procured for him, he shall not be entitled to any compensation during the continuance of the refusal, unless ... the refusal is justified.”