Court Opinion

ID: 9680808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:39:04.240449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:30.631069
License: Public Domain

Olly Neal, Judge, dissenting. I write separately because I am not convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could have reached the same conclusions as the Commission. Appellee sustained a compensable injury to- her back on January 13, 2000; subsequently, appellee sought additional medical treatment for a neck injury that she claims occurred at the same time as her back injury. Following her accident, appellee sought treatment from Dr. Jim Citty. Dr. Citty’s medical notes indicate that on January 25, 2000, appellee’s neck was normal. His notes also indicate that on February 16, 2000, appellee’s neck was supple, i.e., flexible, bendable, or pliable. The first documented record indicating appellee had complaints about neck pain is dated April 30, 2000, and in a letter dated July 3, 2000, Dr. Citty stated that his “nurse confirms the fact that on several occasions there were complaints of neck and upper thoracic pain and this is alleged true by the patient.” The letter does not provide any time frame for when these complaints might have occurred and does not state or even suggest that they occurred prior to April 30, 2000. There is a conflict in the evidence and the Commission acknowledged this conflict when it stated the following: In this regard, Dr. Citty’s contemporaneous medical reports might understandably have led the respondents to question the claimant’s story that she was hurting over time in her neck, as well as her lower back after the incident. After all, Dr. Citty’s several follow-up reports did not mention any ongoing neck complaints in the January through March period. Nevertheless, Dr. Citty’s letter of July 3, 2000, to Dr. Williams should have cleared up any confusion on the respondents’ part, since at that time, Dr. Citty corroborated that the claimant had been making neck complaints in his office. I am mindful of the fact that the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence as it does any other evidence, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 80 Ark. App. 51, 91 S.W.3d 93 (2002), and that the Commission’s findings are insulated to a certain degree from appellate review. Tucker v. Roberts-McNutt, Inc., 69 Ark. App. 150, 12 S.W.3d 640 (2000); Lloyd v. United Parcel Serv., 69 Ark. App. 92, 9 S.W.3d 564 (2000). However, its decisions are not, and should not be so insulated that it would make appellate review meaningless. Tucker v. Roberts-McNutt, Inc., supra; Lloyd v. United Parcel Serv., supra. Hence, I believe that this is one of those rare occasions where we should not defer to the Commission’s resolution of conflicting evidence. I am convinced that fair-minded people with the same evidence before them as the Commission would not reach the same conclusions as the Commission and therefore I would reverse the Commission’s award of benefits. I am authorized to state that Judge Roaf joins in this dissent.