CLAIM NO. E116622
RUSSELL BERNARD GRAHAM, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. MASTERS OF MASONRY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT NO. 1 and HARTFORD INSURANCE, CARRIER, RESPONDENT NO. 1 and SECOND INJURY FUND, RESPONDENT NO. 2
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 28, 1994
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by SILAS H. BREWER, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 1 represented by GENE A. WILLIAMS, Attorney at Law, Attorney at Law, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by the TERRY PENCE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on January 28, 1994. We find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he is permanently and totally disabled as a result of his scheduled injuries. Therefore, we affirm this portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion. However, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law ordering respondent to pay for an IME for claimant. Thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[3] A review of the evidence indicates that claimant suffered a compensable scheduled injury. Claimant presently contends that he is permanently and totally disabled as a result of the odd-lot doctrine. However, a review of the evidence indicates that claimant is not permanently and totally disabled. Therefore, he is not entitled to any permanent partial disability benefits beyond those statutorily prescribed.
[4] Claimant is only 28 years old. Despite the fact that he has multiple skills, he had not made any effort to return to work.
[5] The work experience of claimant includes masonry construction, fence and window installer and as a furniture upholsterer. Claimant has also worked as a maintenance man, performing roofing and plumbing, as well as, laying carpet. Claimant testified that he could still perform upholstery work in a supervisory capacity.
[6] We find it significant that claimant has exhibited an unwillingness to pursue rehabilitation. Claimant has made no effort to find any vocational rehabilitation program. Respondent paid an additional six weeks of temporary total disability benefits for the purpose of allowing claimant the time to explore rehabilitation.
[7] Claimant has the transferrable skills necessary to find employment but is apparently unmotivated to return to work. Therefore, we find that a preponderance of the credible evidence does not support his contention that he is permanently and totally disabled. Thus, we affirm this portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
[8] We reverse the portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision directing respondent to pay for an independent medical evaluation. No party has requested an IME. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a need for an independent medical evaluation. Claimant has been treated for approximately two years by two different orthopedic surgeons. Both surgeons have opined that claimant reached maximum medical improvement. He has been assigned a permanent impairment rating. We are at a loss as to what question the independent medical evaluation would resolve. The issue of permanent impairment has been decided by this opinion. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ordering respondent to pay for an independent medical evaluation.
[9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[10] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner
[11] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
