Court Opinion

ID: 9690460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:13:38.716497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:57.258434
License: Public Domain

John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I agree with the majority’s decision that the Commission erred. I write separately, however, because I differ with the majority’s holding that anatomical impairment is not a necessary element of permanent total disability. It is true, as the majority notes, that an anatomical impairment is expressly required by the Act in cases of permanent partial disability, but is not mentioned with regard to permanent total disability. Compare Ark. Code Ann. §§ 1 l-9-522(b) (1) and 11-9-519(c) (Repl. 2002). It is also true that section ll-9-519(c) states that permanent total disability shall be determined “in accordance with the facts.” Nevertheless, it does not follow that no showing of anatomical impairment is necessary in cases of permanent total disability. The direction in section ll-9-519(c) that permanent total disability should be decided “in accordance with the facts” cannot be read in isolation. It must, instead, be read in light of the subsection immediately preceding it, § ll-9-519(b), which establishes a rebuttable presumption of permanent total disability in cases where certain scheduled injuries are combined. Section ll-9-519(c)’s subsequent statement that “[i]n all other cases, permanent total disability shall be determined in accordance with the facts” simply means that the rebuttable presumption does not apply in situations other than those specified in § 11 — 9—519(b). The majority places great stock in the statement that cases of permanent total disability are to be determined on the facts. But that statement immediately poses the truly important question: Which facts? And the answer, to my mind, is to be found in the definition of “disability.” Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-102(7) (Repl. 2002) defines “disability” as incapacity because of compensable injury to earn the same wage that the worker was receiving at the time of the injury. Because “a compensable injury” is defined as something causing physical harm to the body, see Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9— 102(4) (A) (Repl. 2002), there can in normal circumstances be no permanent disability in the absence of continuing bodily harm,1 i.e., physical impairment. We have expressly held that, although the definition of “disability” fails to include any specific reference to physical impairment, both physical and earning impairment are components of “disability” Arkansas law. Golden v. Westark Community College, 58 Ark. App. 209, 948 S.W.2d 108 (1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 333 Ark. 41, 969 S.W.2d 154 (1998). Simply put, the “facts” that must appear in order to support an award of permanent total disability include continuing anatomical impairment because physical impairment is included within the definition of disability. Therefore, although I agree that this case must be reversed, I must dissent because I differ with the majority regarding the law to be applied on remand. I would hold that a finding of continuing anatomical impairment is necessary to support an award ofperma-nent total disability, but that the Commission erred in refusing to find anatomical impairment in this case simply because it was unable or unwilling to find an impairment that is ratable under the Guides adopted by the Commission. There was overwhelming evidence that appellant suffers continuing physical impairment in this case that is directly attributable to appellant’s compensable injury. Before she was hit by a train while working for her employer, she could and did perform prodigious physical labor despite her many preexisting infirmities. There was considerable evidence that she became physically de-conditioned during her long recovery to such an extent that she was unable to regain the physical abilities that she possessed prior to her compensable injury. If believed, this would plainly be an “anatomical impairment” resulting from her compensable injury under Arkansas law; whether such an anatomical impairment is ratable by this Commission under their Guides is completely immaterial and is not a rational basis for denying this woman relief. The substantive law is to be found in the Workers’ Compensation Act as enacted by the General Assembly and interpreted by the Arkansas judiciary, not in a set of guides adopted and interpreted by administrative functionaries. Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 102 Ark. App. 305, 285 S.W.3d 253 (2008). If the Guides do not provide an express rating for an anatomical impairment, it is Commission’s duty to arrive at such a rating by reasonable analogy or to amend the Guides accordingly. Griffen, J., joins in this opinion.   Even mental illness arising out of and in the course of employment is compensable only when caused by a physical injury to the employee’s body, the sole exception being where the mental illness is caused by a crime or violence. See Ark. Code Ann. § 11 — 9-113(a)(l) (Repl. 2002).