CLAIM NOS. D002535 E304902
DEWEY ZENTNER, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. GARDEN CITY NURSERY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT NO. 1, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT NO. 1, DARRELL BOLING/HOME BUILDERS, RESPONDENT NO. 2 SECOND INJURY FUND, RESPONDENT NO. 3
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JANUARY 22, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by JAY N. TOLLEY, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondents No. 1 represented by MICHAEL RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented pro se.
Respondent No. 3 represented by DAVID PAKE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This case comes on for review before the Commission on remand from the Arkansas Court of Appeals. In an opinion delivered September 13, 1995, the Court of Appeals remanded this matter to the Commission to determine whether claimant suffered any permanent anatomical impairment as a result of a compensable 1989 myocardial infarction. Citing Johnson v. General Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994), the Court stated that “[w]here the record contains evidence from which reasonable minds could conclude that a claimant sustained some degree of permanent impairment it is the duty of the Commission to translate the evidence into findings of fact, notwithstanding the absence of medical evidence which assigns a precise numerical rating.” After our de novo review of the entire record, we find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to benefits for a permanent anatomical impairment of 20% to the body as a whole.
[3] In October 1989, claimant suffered a compensable injury in the form of an acute inferior myocardial infarction. A totally occluded right coronary artery was successfully revascularized with balloon angioplasty. The records of Dr. Charles Inlow indicate that claimant suffered a moderate amount of damage to the myocardium; that a treadmill exercise test “showed significant scarring in the area of the heart muscle supplied by the right coronary artery;” and that there is a significant amount of damage to the heart muscle. Claimant was restricted from lifting in excess of 50 pounds and from working in dusty areas. Claimant was further advised to avoid exposure to extremely warm or cold temperatures. Claimant was placed on a restricted diet and prescribed medications for his heart condition. In December 1989, claimant returned to work for the employer and experienced no chest pains until he suffered another myocardial infarction in August 1992.
[4] In determining the extent of claimant’s permanent anatomical impairment, we have consulted the AMA’s Guides to the Evaluationof Permanent Impairment. It really does not matter whether the Third Edition or the Fourth Edition to the Guides is used in this particular case. Using either edition, claimant is clearly entitled to benefits for a permanent anatomical impairment of 20% to the body as a whole.
[5] In either edition, the criteria for an individual falling within Class I (an impairment of 0 to 10% to the body as a whole) are the same. The guides provide that “it is not reasonable to classify the degree of impairment as 0% to 10% in any patient who has symptoms of coronary heart disease corroborated by physical examination or laboratory tests. This class of impairment should be reserved for the patient with an equivocal history of angina pectoris on whom coronary angiography is performed. . . .” Thus, this classification applies to individuals who have not had a myocardial infarction, do not have symptoms of coronary heart disease corroborated by physical examination or laboratory tests, and have not had surgery to correct the condition. Therefore, claimant does not fall within Class I for evaluating permanent impairment.
[6] Claimant falls squarely within the criteria for a Class II patient. He has a history of myocardial infarction and angina pectoris that was documented by appropriate laboratory studies; he required moderate dietary adjustment and medication to prevent angina; his treadmill stress test appeared adequate; and he had recovered from angioplasty and remained asymptomatic during ordinary daily activities. This clearly places claimant within Class II.
[7] Under Class II, the Third Edition rates a claimant’s impairment between 15% and 25%, while the Fourth Edition provides impairment ratings of 10% to 30%. In each, Example 1 under Class II provides a 20% impairment to the body as a whole for a patient suffering a recent inferior wall myocardial infarction, like claimant. An uncomplicated recovery from an anterior wall infarction is given the maximum in each class. A patient suffering an inferior wall myocardial infarction is given the impairment rating in the middle of the range. Thus, in each edition, claimant would qualify for an impairment rating of 20% to the body as a whole. Therefore, based on the above, we find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to benefits for a permanent anatomical impairment of 20% to the body as a whole.
[8] Accordingly, we reverse the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge finding that claimant is not entitled to benefits for permanent anatomical impairment. Respondents are directed to comply with the award of benefits set forth herein. 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 opinion of the Administrative Law Judge. For prevailing in part before the Commission, claimant’s attorney is hereby awarded an attorney’s fee in the amount of $250.00.
[9] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
[10] Commissioner Holcomb concurs.
