Court Opinion

ID: 9611282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:54:38.855239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:12.024459
License: Public Domain

John B. Robbins, Judge, dissenting. I agree with appellants’s argument that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Ms. Jefferson presented evidence of objective medical findings. Therefore, I must dissent from the majority’s substituted opinion on denial of rehearing. It is clear that muscle spasms can constitute objective medical findings to support compensability. Estridge v. Waste Management, 343 Ark. 276, 33 S.W.3d 167 (2000). However, in the present case there was no evidence that muscle spasms were observed by anyone other than Ms. Jefferson. I simply cannot agree with the majority’s view that the emergency room notation “c/o muscle spasms in back from old injury” constitutes an objective medical finding. In my view, the only reasonable interpretation of this notation is that Ms. Jefferson was complaining of spasms, and not that spasms were actually observed by medical personnel. While the notation was under the heading “observations,” this indicates only that its author observed that Ms. Jefferson was complaining of spasms. It may be that someone other than Ms. Jefferson observed back spasms, but if that is true it is not documented anywhere in the record. Nor do I agree with the majority’s holding that a Flexeril prescription supplies the missing proof. The majority relies on Estridge v. Waste Management, supra, where our supreme court stated, “A doctor would not prescribe medication to be taken ‘as needed for muscle spasm’ if he did not believe muscle spasms were existent.” 343 Ark. at 281, 33 S.W.3d at 171. The supreme court went on to hold that Estridge established an objective medical finding, which consisted of a finding of a straightened lumbar-spine. While a physician would not prescribe medication to treat spasms unless he thought the spasms were existent, this is something different than a physician making an objective medical finding of spasms. In this case, it is entirely conceivable that Flexeril was prescribed on the sole basis of Ms. Jefferson’s subjective complaints, and there is nothing in the record to indicate otherwise. Because there was no substantial evidence of any objective medical findings to support Ms. Jefferson’s claim for workers’ compensation, I would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing and reverse the Commission’s decision awarding benefits.