Henderson v. Winchester, CA
| Decision Date | 27 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Parties | J. S. HENDERSON/Henderson Brothers, Employer, et al., Appellants, v. Edgar N. WINCHESTER, Employee, Appellee. 79-318. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, Little Rock, for appellants.
Gibson & Gibson, by R. Bynum Gibson, Jr., Dermott, for appellee.
This is a workers' compensation case. On April 20, 1977, the claimant suffered a back injury. Claimant was seen and treated immediately after the injury by Dr. Roland Colclasure, a chiropractor, who then referred him to Dr. Joe K. Lester, an orthopedic surgeon, who has performed all subsequent orthopedic treatment. Claimant was hospitalized and a back disc was removed at the L5-S1 level. He returned to work with the same employer for a brief period but was unable to continue, and left his employment. He has not worked since that time. After leaving work the last time, Mr. Winchester has been seen and treated by Dr. Lester on numerous occasions. In addition to Dr. Lester, claimant has been seen and evaluated by various persons from the standpoint of possible vocational rehabilitation.
Claimant had been discharged by Dr. Lester with a 20% anatomical disability. Based upon all of the medical and other evidence, the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission found that Mr. Winchester was permanently and totally disabled as the result of the admittedly compensable injury which he received on April 20, 1977, in the course of his employment.
On appeal respondents are not questioning the fact that this is an appropriate case for an award of economic disability in addition to the anatomical disability found by Dr. Lester. Respondents concede that the doctrine of Glass v. Edens, 233 Ark. 786, 346 S.W.2d 685 (1961), should be applied in some degree to this case. However, respondents question the finding of total and permanent disability, and argue there is no substantial evidence to support the extent of the award. That is the only issue on appeal.
The question before this court is not to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lay, but whether the order of the commission is supported by substantial evidence. It is well settled that the findings of the commission are entitled to the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury.
We have carefully reviewed the record and have concluded that there is substantial evidence to support the findings and award of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission in this case. Mr. Winchester was thirty years of age when injured. He injured his back and has been unable to work since. He attended school for only three or four years, and never learned to deal with even first grade materials. His educational training has been almost totally lacking. His work history and experience are also very limited. He began full time work as a farm laborer at the age of nine, and has done this type of employment over the years. It is undisputed that his back is very stiff and he has little ability now to bend, stoop or lift. When he does engage in any physical exercise, even light work, or stays in a prolonged position, the pain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rork v. Szabo Foods
...employment history, rehabilitative potential, and availability of work that the claimant can do." See also, Henderson v. Winchester (1980), Ark.App., 594 S.W.2d 866; Cohn v. Haile (1979), Ark.App., 589 S.W.2d 600; Inland Robbins Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission (1980), 78 Ill.2d 27......
-
Eslinger v. Cole Grain Co.
...employment history, rehabilitative potential, and availability of work that the claimant can do." See also, Henderson v. Winchester (1980), Ark.App., 268 Ark. 710, 594 S.W.2d 866; Cohn v. Haile (1979), Ark.App., 267 Ark. 734, 589 S.W.2d 600; Inland Robbins Construction Co. v. Industrial Com......