Court Opinion

ID: 9656603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:52:13.853387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:52.867411
License: Public Domain

Terry Crabtree, Judge, dissenting. I dissent as I believe that we should reverse and remand this case to the Commission for additional findings of fact. We are to construe the workers’ compensation statutes strictly. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(3) (Repl. 1996). Strict construction requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 346 Ark. 487, 58 S.W.3d 369 (2001). The doctrine of strict construction is to use the plain meaning of the language employed. American Standard Travelers Indem. Co. v. Post, 78 Ark. App. 79, 77 S.W.3d 554 (2002). In considering the meaning of a statute, we construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Leathers v. Cotton, 332 Ark. 49, 961 S.W.2d 32 (1998). The statute should be construed so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant, and meaning and effect must be given to every word in the statute if possible. Locke v. Cook, 245 Ark. 787, 434 S.W.2d 598 (1968). To reverse an agency’s decision because it is arbitrary and capricious, it must lack a rational basis or rely on a finding of fact based on an erroneous view of the law. Social Work Licensing Bd. v. Moncebaiz, 332 Ark. 67, 962 S.W.2d 797 (1998). Although an agency’s interpretation is highly persuasive, where the statute is not ambiguous, we will not interpret it to mean anything other than what it says. Id. The Commission erred as a matter of law when it concluded that it was without authority to find that appellant had fulfilled its obligation to provide medical treatment to appellee. The Commission is not only authorized, but also required to make findings of fact, unless after a de novo review, it expressly adopts the findings of the administrative law judge. See Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 26 Ark. App. 51, 759 S.W.2d 578 (1988). In this instance, the Commission arbitrarily chose not to make specific findings as to whether Dr. Citty’s treatment of appellee was reasonably necessary. The Commission should have reviewed appellee’s medical history, including her failure to seek any treatment for almost two years, to determine whether further treatment was reasonably necessary. Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-514(3)(A)(ii) plainly states that a claimant has an absolute right to a one-time change of physician. Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-508(a) provides that employers are only liable for medical treatment and services that are deemed reasonably necessary for the treatment of employees’ injuries. I suggest that when we read these statutes together, construing them strictly, we should conclude that an employer is only liable for medical treatment rendered pursuant to a claimant’s onetime change of physician if that treatment is deemed reasonably necessary. Because the Commission did not make a finding regarding whether the treatment rendered from Dr. Citty was reasonably necessary, we cannot say whether appellant is liable for that treatment. The majority contends that Collins v. Lennox Industries, Inc., 77 Ark. App. 303, 75 S.W.3d 204 (2002), requires us to affirm. However, I do not believe that Collins holds that employers are required to pay for treatment rendered pursuant to a one-time change of physician. I read Collins in a more limited fashion to hold that the provisions in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-514 (3) (A) (ii) are mandatory, which allow a claimant an absolute right to a onetime change of physician. If Collins stands for a broader holding, then it should be overturned.