Court Opinion

ID: 9772734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:28:16.041716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:47.650500
License: Public Domain

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge, dissenting. Today this court takes a stroll down the primrose path, lured by a disingenuous argument. By this decision, the majority holds that the Workers’ Compensation Commission cannot consider evidence demonstrating the absence of functional incapacity in determining whether or not a claimant has suffered any degree of permanent disability. In other words, it is being held that the issue of permanent functional or anatomical impairment is a question to be determined purely by expert medical testimony. The majority so holds based only on the dubious authority of two second injury fund cases that touch upon the concept of impairment as it relates to the fund’s liability, as well as on an equally dubious reference to an introduction contained in the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. I submit that this decision is unprecedented and contrary to our established law that it is the function of the Commission to weigh all of the evidence, resolve conflicts, and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Therefore, I dissent. Permanent impairment, which is usually a medical condition, is any permanent functional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has been reached. Johnson v. General Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994). 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 this case, only one of appellee’s three physicians was of the opinion that appellant had suffered a permanent impairment stemming from his injury. Even this physician assigned only a minimal rating of five percent. The Commission discounted that opinion based on evidence, unknown to that physician, demonstrating appellant’s ability to perform strenuous manual labor without any apparent difficulty. In the videotape that the Commission had before it, appellant was observed operating a yard service and doing such things as lifting heavy machinery, running, and jumping. Appellant was also said to be engaged in cleaning offices. In light of appellant’s demonstrated physical capabilities, the Commission gave no weight to the doctor’s opinion and concluded that appellant had suffered no functional or anatomical impairment so as to justify an award of permanent disability. We should be guided in our decision by the standard of review. Where the Commission denies a claim because of the claimant’s failure to meet his burden of proof, the substantial evidence standard of review requires that we affirm the Commission’s decision if its opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Johnson v. American Pulpwood Co., 38 Ark. App. 6, 826 S.W.2d 827 (1992). In conducting our review, we have recognized that it is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Crow v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 46 Ark. App. 295, 880 S.W.2d 320 (1994). We have said that the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence as it does any other evidence, and that resolving any conflict is a question of fact for the Commission. Id. We have further recognized that, although the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard the testimony of any witness, it is not bound by medical opinion. Reeder v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 38 Ark. App. 248, 832 S.W.2d 505 (1992). The Commission is also entided to examine the basis for a doctor’s opinion, like that of any other expert, in deciding the weight to which that opinion is entitled. Id. The Commission is charged with the duty of translating the evidence into findings of fact. Johnson v. General Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994). Fairly recently, we have also observed that the Commission is not limited, and never has been limited, to the consideration of medical evidence alone in arriving at its decision as to the amount or extent of permanent partial disability suffered by an injured employee. Id. In Johnson v. General Dynamics, the Commission had both denied wage loss benefits and found that the claimant had not sustained a permanent anatomical impairment because the evidence failed to include a numerical impairment rating. We upheld the Commission’s denial of wage loss benefits, but we reversed the Commission’s decision that appellant was not entided to benefits for permanent anatomical impairment. We held that the absence of a numerical impairment rating was no impediment to a finding of permanent functional impairment. In making that decision, we considered not only medical evidence but also the testimony of the claimant as to her physical limitations resulting from the injury. And also recently, we considered evidence of the appellant’s ability to work as a truck driver ten to twelve hours a day, five to six days a week, in sustaining the Commission’s denial of permanent partial disability. Crow v. Weyerhaeuser Co., supra. More to the point, in Bibler Brothers, Inc. v. Ingram, 266 Ark. 969, 587 S.W.2d 841 (Ark. App. 1979), we expressly approved of the Commission’s consideration of lay testimony in addition to the medical evidence in assessing permanent partial impairment. Nevertheless, the majority holds today that the evidence relied upon by the Commission is not pertinent evidence to consider when determining the existence or degree of permanent functional disability, and that such evidence is only relevant to a determination of wage loss. I can find no support for this proposition. “Disability” means incapacity because of injury to earn, in the same or any other employment, the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5) (1987).1 Arkansas Code Annotated § ll-9-522(a) (1987) provides: A permanent partial disability not scheduled in § 11-9— 521 shall be apportioned to the body as a whole, which shall have a value of four hundred fifty (450) weeks, and there shall be paid compensation to the injured employee for the proportionate loss of use of the body as a whole resulting from the injury. In Glass v. Edens, 233 Ark. 786, 346 S.W.2d 685 (1961), the supreme court held that the legislature’s use of the term “loss of the use of the body as a whole” does not mean merely functional disability, but also includes loss of use of the body to earn substantial wages, i.e., wage loss. In so holding, the court relied on a passage from Professor Larson’s treatise: The key to the understanding of this problem is the recognition, at the outset, that the disability concept is a blend of two ingredients, whose recurrence in different proportions gives rise to most controversial disability questions: the first ingredient of disability in the medical or physical sense, as evidenced by obvious loss of members or by medical testimony that the claimant simply cannot make the necessary muscular movements or exertions; the second ingredient is de facto inability to earn wages, as evidenced by proof that claimant has not in fact earned anything. 233 Ark. at 787, 346 S.W.2d at 686-87 (quoting A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 57.10). While noting the distinction between physical and wage-loss disability, I can find nothing in Larson’s or our case law since the decision in Glass v. Edens that draws a bright line between the kind of proof that can be considered to support either concept of disability. In no decision, since either Glass v. Edens or even the inception of our law on workers’ compensation, has it ever been held that evidence demonstrating the lack of functional limitation is not relevant to the issue of functional impairment or disability. Perhaps that is so because common sense dictates a contrary conclusion. While in some instances medical testimony might be considered indispensable, that does not lead to a strict conclusion that non-medical testimony is not relevant to either supplement the medical testimony or to contradict it. Of course, the natural corollary to the decision in this case is that even the claimant’s testimony as to his or her physical abilities is not competent evidence for the Commission to consider in assessing functional or anatomical impairment. It has been held that in examining the record for substantial evidence to support an award or denial of compensation for permanent partial disability, the examination is directed to all the competent evidence and is not confined to the medical evidence alone. Vaccaro-Grobmeyer Co. v. McGarity, 249 Ark. 1132, 463 S.W.2d 372 (1971). And Larson, as is embodied in our case law, see, e.g., Reeder v. Rheem Mfg. Co., supra, recognizes that if a Commission wishes to enter an award contradicting the medical testimony, it must take care to show in the record the valid competing evidence or considerations that impelled it to disregard the medical evidence. 2B A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 79.52(d) (1995). That is precisely what the Commission did here. It evaluated the medical testimony assigning a five percent impairment rating against evidence demonstrating that the appellant was not suffering from any degree of functional or anatomical impairment, and it concluded that appellant was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits. To make that assessment is undeniably within the purview of the Commission, and I cannot say that its disregard of the medical opinion was arbitrary in any way. In sum, the Commission’s decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of permanent disability benefits. Perhaps the majority’s confusion stems from the fact that the videotape happens to show appellant performing work-related activities. If so, the majority has missed the point. The point made by the tape is not that appellant can perform his job, but rather that the activities portrayed, regardless of their nature, tend to demonstrate that he is not, in fact, physically impaired in any degree. To be of the opinion that the Commission is only permitted to consider expert medical opinion and testimony in determining the existence or degree of permanent functional or anatomical impairment is without precedent. To hold that evidence showing the absence of physical limitation is irrelevant is nothing short of preposterous. With all due respect, such evidence is highly probative in determining the existence or degree of permanent disability. I cannot agree then with this court’s erection of a line of demarcation in the kind of proof that can be offered. Furthermore, I seriously question the majority’s citation to the AMA Guidelines as authority. Our legislature never adopted those standards and to use what amounts to a preface in that literature to add substance to our body of law is not only misguided but also strikes me as judicial legislation. In closing, I also take issue with the majority’s direction to the Commission on remand. Its discussion of Dr. McCarron’s testimony gives the firm impression that the court considers his opinion more worthy of belief. It should go unsaid that it will be for the Commission to decide issues of credibility and weight to be given the various witnesses’ testimony. Rogers, J., joins in this dissent.   This case is governed by the law prior to the 1993 legislative enactment.