Court Opinion

ID: 9634617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:18:13.988013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:06.667281
License: Public Domain

Wendell L. GRIFFEN, Judge, concurring. While I agree to affirm the Commission’s decision, I do so pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 11 — 9-102(5)(F) (ii) (b), which states: If any compensable injury combines with a preexisting disease or condition or the natural process of aging to cause or prolong disability or a need for treatment, permanent benefits shall be payable for the resultant condition only if the compensable injury is the major cause of the permanent disability or need for treatment. I affirm because I agree with the Commission’s apparent finding that the February 6, 1998 incident is the major cause of David Buzzard’s need for treatment. As the principal opinion indicates, Buzzard sustained a non-compensable injury to his left knee in 1990, and suffered another injury to that knee in 1996 while employed by J.B. Hunt. The record shows that he was released to work without restrictions in April 1997, and that he returned to driving flatbed trucks for Hunt without missing any further work because of his knee. He left employment with Hunt in December 1997, and started working for Maverick Transportation in January 1998 after having fully disclosed his preexisting knee injuries during the pre-employment application/interview process and after having been medically cleared to work as an over-the-road driver. The condition for which his present claim for benefits was made arose from a February 6, 1998 incident that in Buzzard’s testimony, which the Commission found credible, occurred when he started to rise from a squatted position while securing a load on his truck. He heard a pop, felt severe pain, and was unable to walk on his left knee or operate the clutch of his truck afterwards. Before July 1, 1993, the effective date of Act 796 of 1993, Buzzard’s claim would have been governed by decisions that simply focused on whether the February 6, 1998 incident was an “aggravation” — meaning a new injury — or a “recurrence” — meaning a continuation of a previous injury. The cases cited by the parties in their briefs reflect that history. If Act 796 of 1993 had not been enacted to include Ark. Code Ann. § ll-9-102(5)(F)(ii)(b), then those cases would be controlling on our decision. However, the Seventy-Ninth General Assembly rendered that body of case law obsolete when it enacted Act 796 during a special session convened for the sole purpose of reforming our workers’ compensation law. At Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-1001 (Repl. 1996), the General Assembly declared: It is the specific intent of the Seventy-Ninth General Assembly to repeal, annul, and hold for naught all prior opinions or decisions of any administrative law judge, the Workers’ Compensation Commission, or courts of this state contrary to or in conflict with any provision in this act. Arkansas Code Annotated section 11 — 9—102(5)(F)(ii)(b) was added to the workers’ compensation law of Arkansas by Act 796. It is a significant departure from preexisting law pertaining to liability for subsequent conditions and injuries because it does not employ the aggravation/recurrence distinction characterized by the cases cited in the principal opinion and other decisions. See Home Ins. Co. v. Logan, 255 Ark. 1036, 505 S.W.2d 25 (1974); Moss v. El Dorado Drilling Co., 237 Ark. 80, 371 S.W.2d 528 (1963); Aluminum Co. of America v. Williams, 232 Ark. 216, 335 S.W.2d 315 (1960); see also Atkins Nursing Home v. Gray, 54 Ark. App. 125, 923 S.W.2d 897 (1996); Bearden Lumber Co. v. Bond, 1 Ark. App. 65, 644 S.W.2d 321 (1983). Prior law focused on whether the subsequent condition or injury appeared to constitute a new injury as opposed to continuation of a previous condition or injury. If the subsequent condition or injury was deemed the natural consequence flowing from the previous injury or condition, the employer for the previous injury or condition was deemed liable for benefits based on a finding that the subsequent condition was a recurrence rather than an aggravation. See International Paper Co. v. Tuberville, 302 Ark. 22, 786 S.W.2d 830 (1990); Bearden Lumber Co. v. Bond, supra. This analytical process resulted in what the Seventy-Ninth General Assembly deemed an unsatisfactory broadening of the scope and erosion of the purpose of workers’ compensation, judging from the legislative declaration of intent for Act 796 found at Ark. Code Ann. § 11 — 9— 1001. But Act 796 changed the analytical construct. As Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(F)(ii)(b) states, the relevant inquiry now is twofold: (a) did a compensable injury combine with a preexisting disease or condition or the natural process of aging to cause or prolong disability or a need for treatment; and (b) is the compensa-ble injury the major cause of the permanent disability or need for treatment. “Major cause” means more than fifty percent of the cause, and a finding of major cause shall be established according to the preponderance of the evidence. See Ark. Code Ann. § 11 — 9— 102(14) (Supp. 1999). I believe that this twofold analysis is the only legitimate construct for determining the compensability of subsequent incidents for cases arising under Act 796 and that continued reliance on the aggravation/recurrence construct is inappropriate and misleading. Continued use of the aggravation/recurrence construct is inappropriate because of the clear and unambiguous expression of legislative intent at Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-1001 that all prior case law contrary to or in conflict with any provision of Act 796 is repealed, nullified, and held for naught. And continued use of the aggravation/recurrence construct is misleading because it would detract from the “major cause” focus that Act 796 commands. I am unable to contemplate how the aggravation/recurrence construct can satisfactorily be superimposed on the major-cause analysis without diminishing the meaning of “major cause.” Had the General Assembly intended to continue our reliance on the aggravation/ recurrence distinction, it would not have created the “major cause” construct. Although the Commission did not employ the Act 796 analytical process in deciding that Maverick Transportation is liable for Buzzard’s February 1998 knee injury and its consequences, I agree that the Commission reached the proper result nonetheless. Maverick Transportation does not deny that the February 1998 incident combined with Buzzard’s preexisting condition to cause the need for treatment. The only question is whether the February 1998 incident was the major cause of the need for treatment. The Commission found Buzzard’s testimony credible and discounted that of Dr. Gary Miller in reaching the conclusion that Buzzard’s physical problems after February 6, 1998, were caused by the injury of that date. Although the Commission did not use the term “major cause,” its opinion leaves no doubt that it deemed the February 6, 1998, incident accountable for more than fifty percent of the cause for Buzzard’s need for additional treatment. Therefore, I join the decision to affirm. Yet I hope that the Commission and counsel for workers’ compensation litigants will discontinue employing the outdated — and now plainly invalid — analytical framework that predated Act 796 in future cases involving this kind of dispute.1    I concede that we have not employed this new analytical process in our post-Act 796 decisions. See Atkins Nursing Home v. Gray, supra. Furthermore, I accept a measure of responsibility for our continued use of the invalidated aggravation/recurrence distinction, as I also conceded in my recent dissenting opinion in Davis v. Old Dominion Height Line, Inc., 69 Ark. App. 74, 13 S.W.3d 171 (2000). Although Davis involved a fact situation governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(F)(iii) rather than (ii), Act 796 remains the controlling authority for our decision-making in these claims rather than the case law that existed before July 1, 1993, the date it took effect. By writing this concurring opinion, I hope to alert counsel for workers’ compensation litigants that I will look to Act 796 and the analytical process that it prescribes in analyzing future cases.