CLAIM NO. D811894
JESSE DOLLARS, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. MONROE AUTO PARTS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JUNE 3, 1997
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE PHILLIP WELLS, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by the HONORABLE RICHARD LUSBY, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed as modified.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] The respondent appeals an opinion and order filed August 30, 1996 by an administrative law judge. In that opinion and order, the administrative law judge found that the claimant has sustained a 20% permanent impairment to his earning capacity in excess of the 15% anatomical impairment established by the medical evidence. After conducting a denovo review of the entire record, we find that the claimant sustained a 10% permanent impairment to his earning capacity in excess of the 15% anatomical impairment established by the medical evidence. Therefore, we find that the administrative law judge’s decision must be affirmed as modified.
[3] When determining the degree of permanent disability sustained by an injured worker, the Commission must consider the degree to which the worker’s future wage earning capacity is impaired. Grimes v. North American Foundry,
42 Ark. App. 137,
856 S.W.2d 309 (1993). In addition to medical evidence demonstrating the degree to which the worker’s anatomical disability impairs his wage earning capacity, the Commission must also consider other factors, such as the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and any other matters which may affect the worker’s future earning capacity, including the degree of pain experienced by the worker. Bradley v. Alumax,
50 Ark. App. 13,
899 S.W.2d 850 (1995).
[4] In the present case, the claimant is 42 years old and holds a GED certificate. The claimant worked as a body repairman for a short period of time and has spent the majority of his working life performing factory work.
[5] The claimant sustained three compensable back injuries while working for the respondent. The first injury occurred in April, 1984, for which the claimant underwent a diskectomy. The claimant was treated conservatively for his second back injury in December, 1987 and for his third back injury in August, 1988.
[6] The claimant remained off work following the third injury. He returned to light-duty work for the respondent for one day in November, 1994. This work involved operating a drill press and required minimal physical effort. The claimant could sit and stand as needed. However, the claimant “collapsed” after only four and one-half hours, and the employer transported him to the hospital. He has not worked since November, 1994.
[7] The claimant testified that he is physically unable to work, even in a light duty or sedentary environment. However, the limitations averred by the claimant do not comport with the mobility and minimal limitations indicated by a series of videotapes proffered by the respondent. These surveillance videotapes, recorded between April, 1993 through June, 1995, depict the claimant hoeing vigorously in his garden, bending at the waist, operating a self-propelled lawn mower, part of the time walking up an incline and mowing up a slope, operating a riding mower, turning sharply around trees and operating a tiller with one hand. In addition, the claimant is seen removing and nailing shingles on a storage building, climbing up and down a ladder, and servicing his vehicle’s engine.
[8] Therefore, after considering the claimant’s relatively young age, his education, work experience, and the relatively minor nature of the limitations indicated by the videotapes over a two year period, as well as all other evidence of record, we find that the claimant sustained a 10% impairment to his earning capacity in excess of the 15% anatomical impairment established by the medical evidence. Therefore, we find that the decision of the administrative law judge must be, and hereby is, affirmed as modified.
[9] All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and with interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the administrative law judge’s decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §
11-9-809 (Repl. 1996). For prevailing in part on this appeal before the Full Commission, claimant’s attorney is hereby awarded an additional attorney’s fee in the amount of $250.00 in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §
11-9-715 (Repl. 1996).
[10] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[11] Commissioner Humphrey concurs.
