CLAIM NO. E515207
TRESWELL CARTER, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. BEMIS BAG COMPANY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and ST. PAUL FIRE MARINE INSURANCE CO., CARRIER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JUNE 11, 1997
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by KENNETH E. BUCKNER, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by JOSEPH E. KILPATRICK, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] Respondent appeals from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed September 17, 1996 finding that the claimant is entitled to additional workers’ compensation benefits. Based upon our de novo review of the record, we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to further medical treatment. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[3] The claimant is employed by the respondent as a paste maker. On May 16, 1995, the claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury to his left knee when he stepped in a hole. The claimant had previously sustained a compensable injury to his left knee on July 25, 1990. The claimant was treated and ultimately released to return to work on October 1, 1990. The claimant received additional treatment for his left knee in June of 1991.
[4] After his May 16, 1995, compensable injury, the claimant was treated by Dr. James Mulhollan on June 20, 1995. Dr. Mulhollan diagnosed the claimant with a possible hyperextension sprain. Dr. Mulhollan recommended that the claimant perform exercises, including terminal extension, swimming and riding a stationary bicycle. Dr. Mulhollan also recommended that the claimant lose weight. The claimant returned to Dr. Mulhollan on July 26, 1995 who examined the claimant and advised him to return in one month if the pain continued. The claimant did not return to Dr. Mulhollan until October 3, 1995. The claimant complained of discomfort in his knee and difficulty in straightening his knee. Dr. Mulhollan performed x-rays on the claimant’s knee. The x-rays showed no significant findings and his report stated that no additional specific treatment was indicated.
[5] The claimant testified that in August of 1995, he and his wife participated in two dance contests, winning one contest. The claimant testified that he danced for twenty minutes. In addition, the claimant testified that he was able to deer hunt virtually every day which required him to climb up and down a deer stand. He also testified that he was able to turkey hunt and fish.
[6] The respondent presented the testimony of Adolphus Henry, the claimant’s supervisor, and Raymond Cokert, the plant manager. Both testified that the claimant had not complained of knee problems or shown any signs of discomfort while he was working. The claimant has continued to work since the May 16, 1995, injury.
[7] The sole issue on appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to continued medical treatment. Employers are only liable for medical treatment and services which are reasonably necessary for the treatment of employee’s injuries. DeBoard v. Colson Co.,
20 Ark. App. 166,
725 S.W.2d 857 (1987). In addition, the claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that medical treatment is reasonable and necessary. Norma Beattyv. Ben Pearson, Inc., Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Feb. 17, 1989 (
D612291); B.R. Hollingshead v. Colson Caster,
Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Aug. 27, 1993 (
D703346). In workers’ compensation cases, the burden rests upon the claimant to establish his claim for compensation by a preponderance of the evidence. Kuhn v. Majestic Hotel,
50 Ark. App. 23,
899 S.W.2d 845 (1995); Bartlett v. MeadContainer Board,
47 Ark. App. 181,
888 S.W.2d 314 (1994).
[8] The evidence does not support a finding that the claimant is entitled to continued medical treatment. The evidence shows that the claimant has led a normal life since August of 1995. He has been able to deer hunt, turkey hunt, fish, dance and work without limitation. The claimant has continued to work. In addition, he has not complained or shown any signs of discomfort associated with his knee. Moreover, the October 3, 1995, report of Dr. Mulhollan indicates that the x-rays showed no significant findings and that he did not recommend any additional treatment for the claimant. Therefore, based upon our de novo review of the record, we find that the claimant is not entitled to any additional medical treatment. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[9] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[10] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
