CLAIM NO. E608308
ROY EASON, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY RESPONDENT and ZENITH INSURANCE, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JANUARY 12, 1998
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by the HONORABLE AMY BRAZIL, Attorney at Law, Conway, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.
[1]
OPINION AND ORDER [2] The claim for benefits asserted herein was denied by the administrative law judge in a decision dated September 8, 1997. After a de novo review, we find that the judge reached the correct result and that her decision should be affirmed. [3] The claimant was employed as a bus driver for the respondent. The claimant’s job duties required him to transport handicapped persons from their place of residence to the respondent’s location so they could undergo training and counseling sessions. The claimant testified that on June 13, 1996, he injured his back while attempting to assist a person in a wheel chair. The claimant further testified that he advised his supervisor’s assistant as soon as possible after the injury, and later, also advised his supervisor when she returned to the office. Shortly after the injury, the claimant’s employment with the respondent was terminated. [4] The only issue submitted for determination in this case is the compensability of the claim and his entitlement to medical care. In regard to that issue, the claimant contends that he injured his lower back while attempting to maneuver a person in a wheel chair to the loading ramp on his bus. The claimant also contends that the respondent has refused to provide him with reasonable and necessary medical care and that the treatment that he has since received on his own should be the responsibility of the respondent. The respondent contends that the claimant’s injury did not occur and that he has not established that he is entitled to any workers’ compensation benefits whatsoever. [5] No witnesses testified as to the occurrence of the compensable injury other than the claimant. The claimant stated that while attempting to maneuver a motorized wheel chair onto the loading ramp, the occupant of the wheel chair apparently hit the activator switch which caused the wheel chair to roll back into the claimant, knocking him against a wall. The claimant further testified that his back injury caused him to suffer considerable pain and discomfort and that he advised his immediate superiors regarding his injury as soon as possible. The claimant also testified that because of the pain from his back, he was forced to walk in a stooped position. [6] The respondent called two witnesses who were former co-employees of the claimant. Both of them testified that they saw the claimant at work immediately following the injury and that he did not evidence any sign of a back injury. They both also indicated that the claimant did not state to them or in any other way represent to them that he had injured his back at work. On the other hand, both of the witnesses acknowledged that the claimant was, as far as they knew, a truthful person. [7] The claimant testified that his treating physician was Dr. William Ball of Little Rock, Arkansas. The record contains several progress notes which are unsigned but are presumably from Dr. Ball. The notes do reflect that the claimant was seen on June 19, 1996, and was complaining of a back injury suffered at work while picking up a motorized wheel chair. The notes indicate that the claimant was treated with medication and Marcane injections. [8] It does not appear from our review of the medical records introduced at the hearing that any radiographic or any other diagnostic tests were ever performed on the claimant. Also, the notes do not reflect that the examining physician detected any muscle spasms, swelling, bruising, abrasions, or any other objective signs or symptoms of a physical injury. [9] The administrative law judge held that the claimant had not established the occurrence of a compensable injury. For that reason, the judge denied and dismissed the claim. The law judge’s decision and the briefs submitted by the parties on appeal primarily deals with the question of credibility regarding the claimant’s testimony. However, in our opinion, this case turns not upon credibility but whether the claimant has met the objective evidence standard as required by A.C.A. §
11-9-102 (5) (B) and §
11-9-102 (16). Previously, the Court of Appeals and the Commission have held that abrasions, burns, back spasms, and other objective and verifiable signs of injury do constitute objective findings sufficient to meet the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Dugan v. Sweetser, Inc.,
54 Ark. App. 401,
928 S.W.2d 341 (1996); Stutts v. Catfish Plus, Full Commission opinion, March 17, 1997 (WCC No.
E515182). However, the medical records in this case do not contain any mention of any type of objective findings or discovery sufficient to satisfy the objective findings requirement set out by the Workers’ Compensation Act. Therefore, even if the claimant’s testimony is accepted as totally credible, he has still not offered sufficient evidence to entitle him to receive benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. We therefore find that the claimant has failed to establish the occurrence of his injury by objective medical findings and, for that reason, his claim for benefits should be denied and dismissed. [10] For the reasons set out above, we find that the claimant has failed to offer any objective medical findings or similar evidence which are sufficient to establish the occurrence of a compensable injury. Accordingly, this claim for benefits is respectfully denied and dismissed. [11] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[12] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.