Court Opinion

ID: 9765910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:24:26.254201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:16.645044
License: Public Domain

Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge, concurring. I agree that the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission should be affirmed but am not in full accord with the majority opinion’s discussion of the “negative factors” theory invented by the administrative law judge who conducted the hearing in this case. There should be no occasion to even discuss the law judge’s decision. Twenty years ago the Supreme Court of Arkansas said “it is the duty of the Commission to make a finding according to a preponderance of the evidence, and not whether there is any substantial evidence to support the ruling of the Referee.” Moss v. El Dorado Drilling Co., 237 Ark. 80, 81, 371 S.W.2d 528 (1963). More recently that court said, “We give the law judge’s findings no weight whatever.” Clark v. Peabody Testing Service, 265 Ark. 489, 495, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979). The decisions of this court should have made it abundantly clear that we think the above statements are still the law. See Roberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184, 649 S.W.2d 402 (1983); Oller v. Champion Parts Rebuilders, 5 Ark. App. 307, 635 S.W.2d 276 (1982); Dedmon v. Dillard Dept. Store, 3 Ark. App. 108, 623 S.W.2d 207 (1981); and Jones v. Scheduled Skyways, Inc., 1 Ark. App. 44, 612 S.W.2d 333 (1981). The problem is that the Commission’s opinion in this case really does not state that the Commission has made any findings for itself. The opinion states: “Our de novo review of the record developed before the Administrative Law Judge leads us to the conclusion that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and must be affirmed.” There is no real difference between that statement and the one in Moss v. El Dorado Drilling Co., supra, which caused the court there to point out that it is the Commission’s duty to make a finding according to a preponderance of the evidence. The appellant, however, states in its brief that the Commission’s action in this case made the findings and conclusions of the law j udge those of the Commission. Since the appellant accepts these as made by the Commission, I also will so accept them. It, therefore, becomes necessary to consider the “negative factors” theory invented and advanced by the law judge. According to the law judge’s opinion, he gets this theory from two cases where the Commission found the disability to be less than that found by the law judge. One is an unpublished opinion by this court and under Rule 21 of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals is not to be “cited, quoted, or referred to by any court or in any argument, brief, or other materials presented to any court.’’ See, 279 Ark. 516. The other case is Oller v. Champion Parts Rebuilders, supra. In that case this court noted that the Commission had referred to the Claimant’s lack of interest in exploring vocational rehabilitation. We then discussed a case decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court and one which we had decided and said, “If in the instant case, appellant’s lack of interest in exploring vocational rehabilitation was an impediment to the Commission’s full assessment of appellant’s loss of earning capacity, she cannot be heard to complain of that now.” The law judge takes this and, as the appellant says, “reasons that the inverse must be true — absence of negative factors can increase the amount of wage loss disability, or at least support an award of wage loss disability.” I think the law judge missed the point of the statement in Oiler. If there was any problem with what we meant in Oller, it should have been clarified in Chism v. Jones, 9 Ark. App. 268, 658 S.W.2d 417 (1983), and Nicholas v. Hempstead County Mem. Hospital, 9 Ark. App. 261, 658 S.W.2d 408 (1983). In the first case we noted that the Commission’s opinion appeared to say that any wage loss disability was precluded by the claimant’s [negative] attitude toward rehabilitation, but we pointed out that even if he had refused to participate in a rehabilitation program that alone would not preclude the Commission from determining his wage loss disability rating. In the Nicholas case we said that while under the law, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1310(f) (Supp. 1983), an employee cannot be required to enter a program of vocational rehabilitation, the failure to participate may hinder or prevent the Commission from fully assessing the wage earning loss. Nothing in the above cases would seem to me to justify the law judge’s theory that the absence of negative circumstances can add to or support any wage loss determination, and it is difficult for me to understand how he could so misread our opinions. But whatever his inspiration, I do not agree with the majority opinion that the law judge’s reference to the absence of negative factors was merely a way of saying that this made appellee’s evidence of diminished earning capacity “a more acceptable basis” for the law judge’s finding or “a factor to be considered” in determining whether appellee had sustained his burden of proof as to his wage loss disability. I would totally reject the law judge’s theory as having any proper place in the consideration or determination of a workers’ compensation claim. I do think the evidence supports the Commission’s decision. Since the appellant accepts the law judge’s decision as the Commission’s decision, I agree to affirm that decision on the basis that it is right and should be affirmed even if a wrong reason has been given in its support. See, Popeye’s Famous Fried Chicken v. Willis, 7 Ark. App. 167, 646 S.W.2d 17 (1983).