CLAIM NO. E404373
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HONORABLE DONALD RYAN, Attorney at Law, Hot Springs, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by HONORABLE A. GENE WILLIAMS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge: Vacated and remanded.
OPINION AND ORDER
Claimant appeals the January 2, 2003 opinion of the Administrative Law Judge denying this claim for additional benefits. For reasons explained below, we remand this matter to the Administrative Law Judge to settle the record. Additionally, we vacate the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge and remand for additional findings.
Initially, we note that the record does not appear to contain all of the evidence introduced by the parties at the hearing. For instance, the documentary evidence attached to claimant’s Prehearing Questionnaire was supposed to be in the record. However, the transcript does not contain any of these documents. Further, claimant has attached several documents to his brief on appeal, and respondent has not objected to any consideration of this evidence. Therefore, we remand this matter to the Administrative Law Judge to settle the record.
Additionally, the Administrative Law Judge found that “[t]he claimant’s claim for additional treatment for his low back and left foot is not supported by evidence that establishes a causal connection between his ongoing complaints and his compensable injury of February 28, 1994.” The Administrative Law Judge’s rationale for this finding is that “[t]here are no “objective findings” in the medical evidence to suggest ongoing treatment for the claimant’s low back or foot, or at least not treatment which would be the liability of the respondents.” Thus, it appears that the Administrative Law Judge determined that objective findings are necessary to support an award of additional medical treatment, and to establish a causal connection between claimant’s current condition and his compensable injury. That is not how we read the law. “Objective findings,” as that phrase is used to establish the existence of a compensable injury, is not an absolute requirement in either instance.See Williams v. Prostaff Temporaries, 64 Ark. App. 128, 979 S.W.2d 911
(1998) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522
(1999).
For the foregoing reasons, we remand this matter to the Administrative Law Judge to settle the record. Additionally, we vacate the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge and remand for additional findings, and we direct the Administrative Law Judge to adjudicate claimant’s entitlement to additional medical treatment by applying the correct legal standard.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
_______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
_______________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner