Court Opinion

ID: 9677034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:41:31.737961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:53.255137
License: Public Domain

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge, dissenting. This is a classic case of dueling doctors, and under our standard of review, we must affirm. Therefore, I dissent. As pointed out in the majority opinion, the Commission “found that the opinions of Dr. | sAcker man, Dr. Cathey, and Dr. Carle were entitled to more weight than the opinions of Dr. Pace and Dr. Shahim.” It is well established that what constitutes reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for the Commission. Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark.App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999). The Commission has the duty of weighing the medical evidence and, if the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of fact for the Commission. Green Bay Packaging v. Bartlett, 67 Ark.App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 695 (1999). We are obligated to affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusions. Id. And, in this case, there is. The majority cites Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296, 40 S.W.3d 760 (2001), for the proposition that the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard evidence submitted in support of a claim. That is certainly the law, but this case is just as certainly not an example of its application. In the twenty-two page Commission opinion, all five of the treating doctors’ opinions were discussed — at length. The Commission did not disregard any evidence. As such, had the Commission relied on the opinions of Drs. Pace and Shahim and found the surgery com-pensable, I would have readily voted to affirm that decision. When there is evidence to support a decision of the Commission, and it has made credibility and weight decisions on questions of fact, we must affirm. The majority focuses its entire analysis on a single statement contained in the Commission’s opinion that they say is not supported in the evidence: “It is clear that | ;)Dr. Pace’s recommendation of surgery, and Dr. Shahim’s agreement, is based upon Dr. Pace’s inaccurate assumption that the claimant’s calf muscle[s] were equal prior to claimant’s injury in January of 2005. That is simply NOT the case. The claimant’s left leg has been small[er] than his right leg most of his life.” The majority holds that the record does not support this finding by the Commission. Whether it does or does not is immaterial to our decision. The question is whether the evidence supports the Commission’s decision that the medical evidence — including the opinions of Drs. Ackerman, Cath-ey, and Carle — justifies the denial of benefits. That question must be answered in the affirmative. In any event, an examination of Dr. Pace’s deposition as abstracted by appellant includes his discussion of the “muscle wasting” on the claimant’s left leg. Dr. Pace stated: It surprised me he had muscle wasting when he came back to see me. His herniation on the MRI was termed moderate. I think that’s fair. But his exam findings were not moderate. They were severe. I am speaking of the wasting in his leg. I have not seen any evidence of wasting when I last saw (sic) him in the spring of 2005. [[Image here]] Now, had he come in with muscle wasting at that time, I wouldn’t have put him through conservative treatment. I would have recommended surgery, because he had a severe neurological deficit. It therefore appears that at least some of Dr. Pace’s reasoning for recommending surgery was based on the claimant’s deficit in his left leg, whether called atrophy or ■J^muscle wasting. In any event, the decision of the Commission did not rise or fall on this one finding nor should our decision to reverse. I believe that the Commission’s decision is well founded in the evidence, and I would affirm. I am authorized to state that Judge Gladwin joins this dissent.