Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise
| Decision Date | 17 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-21-188,CV-21-188 |
| Citation | 637 S.W.3d 280,2021 Ark. App. 459 |
| Parties | SHERIDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Arkansas School Boards Association, and Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund, Appellants v. Jennifer WISE, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Barber Law Firm PLLC, by: Karen H. McKinney, Little Rock, for appellant.
Laura Beth York, Little Rock, for appellee.
The Sheridan School District (SSD) appeals an order of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that appellee Jennifer Wise sustained a compensable injury. SSD argues that the Commission erred in finding that Wise proved a compensable injury and in finding that the medical records corroborated Wise's testimony. We find no error and affirm.
Wise was employed by SSD as a paraprofessional. In February 2019, Wise helped a coworker set up tables on the cafeteria stage for an assembly later that day. In the process of moving the tables, she felt a twinge in her left side. Wise did not immediately report the incident because she did not believe she had injured herself. Instead, she finished the school day that Friday, assuming that "it would be gone in a day."
Wise returned to work on Monday. By the end of the workday, she was sore and achy in her lower back. On Tuesday, she had a hard time standing for long periods and had to sit frequently throughout the day. Although she worked with difficulty on both days, she did not report her injury to SSD because she thought she had simply "stretched something that didn't normally get used" and that it "would calm down after a few days."
On Wednesday, however, Wise's back was "really hurting" so she went to the assistant principal. Wise told the assistant principal about moving the tables and related her discomfort to that incident. SSD provided Wise with the necessary paperwork and got her an appointment by the end of the day at the Winston Clinic.
At the direction of SSD, Wise presented to the Winston Clinic for an "acute visit" related to "workman's comp."1 In her history, Wise reported left-side low back pain for six days after lifting and moving tables up a small flight of stairs. In her "review of systems," she complained of back pain, stiffness, and muscle aches. On examination, she reported tenderness to palpation over her left sacro-iliac (SI) joint and over the left lumbar paraspinals. She was diagnosed with acute sciatica
and was prescribed cyclobenzaprine and ibuprofen, was given back-care instructions, and was released to return to work, but she was advised to return in two weeks if she saw no improvement.
On Thursday, Wise could not get out of bed. She emailed her principal and asked to go back to the Winston Clinic; however, the clinic had no available appointments that day. Instead, Wise sought medical treatment from a MedExpress clinic in Pine Bluff. On examination, she had a full but painful range of motion during flexion of the lower back and diminished patellar reflexes on the left. She received steroid and anti-inflammatory injections, was diagnosed with back sprain
/strain, and was sent home with a prescription for Medrol.
On Saturday, eight days after her injury, Wise attended a school competition for her daughter, sitting in the bleachers to watch. Halfway through the competition, she had to leave because of the pain. She sought medical attention at a nearby MedExpress in Benton for numbness and pain that radiated from the SI area to her hip and into her calf. On examination, she exhibited an abnormal gait and stance, decreased strength in her lower left extremity, decrease in tactile sensation, absent patellar tendon reflexes, and diminished Achilles tendon reflexes. MedExpress recommended that Wise go immediately to the nearest emergency department for further evaluation.2
On MedExpress's recommendation, Wise went to the emergency department at CHI St. Vincent in Little Rock for further treatment.3 St. Vincent emergency room records indicated that Wise had been Dr. Pate, the emergency room physician who treated Wise, wrote that (Emphasis in original.) At St. Vincent, Wise underwent an MRI. Dr. Kusenberger interpreted the MRI results as revealing abnormalities at L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5.4 Dr. Pate discharged Wise from the emergency department with a diagnosis of "lumbar disc herniation."
On the basis of a referral from Dr. Pate, Wise received treatment from Dr. Rammos. Dr. Rammos reviewed Wise's MRI and observed the presence of "lumbar spondylosis
and stenosis and bilateral foraminal stenoses [at] L4-L5." He took her off work until March 12, 2019, at which time she could return without restrictions. He discussed various treatment options with Wise, and she opted for physical therapy.
Wise received physical therapy and experienced some relief from her back pain. She expressed a desire to continue with physical therapy because she wanted her back to return to its prior state. Her physical therapist recommended that Wise refrain from "car duty" at school and limited her to lifting ten pounds for two weeks.
An administrative law judge found that Wise failed to prove that she sustained a compensable injury.5 Wise appealed the ALJ's opinion to the full Commission, which, in a 2-1 decision with no written dissent, reversed and found that Wise had proved she sustained a compensable injury. The Commission expressly found Wise to be a credible witness and found that the medical records corroborated her testimony that she sustained a work-related injury to her back while lifting a table at work on February 15. SSD timely appealed the Commission's decision to our court.
When reviewing a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission. Ark. Dep't of Parks & Tourism v. Price , 2016 Ark. App. 109, 483 S.W.3d 320. We must affirm the decision of the Commission if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion of the Commission. Id. We reverse the Commission's decision only if we are convinced that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusion with the same facts before them. Bronco Indus. Servs., LLC v. Brooks , 2021 Ark. App. 279, 625 S.W.3d 753.
In its first point on appeal, SSD contends that the Commission erred in finding that Wise proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury that is supported by objective medical evidence. Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012) defines a compensable injury as
Concerning Wise's compensable injury, the Commission wrote:
The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012). The claimant proved that she sustained an accidental injury causing physical harm to the body. The claimant proved that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and required medical services. The injury was caused by a specific incident and was identifiable by time and place of occurrence on February 15, 2019.
SSD argues, however, that the evidence in this case fails to support a finding that Wise sustained an injury that is supported by objective medical evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B) (Repl. 2012) provides that any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical or mental findings. "Objective findings" are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i) (Supp. 2021). As the claimant, Wise bears the burden of proving a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i).
SSD argues that Wise failed to meet her burden. It points out that Wise's first medical record from the Winston Clinic reflects that she was prescribed medication for "back pain." It further cites the records from both MedExpress clinics reflecting she suffered from "tenderness" in her lower back, an altered gait, and diminished reflexes. SSD contends that these findings are not "objective medical findings" in the sense that Wise failed to prove they were not within her voluntary control.6 Essentially, SSD attacks the Commission's specific finding that "the claimant established a compensable injury by medical evidence supported by objective findings not within the claimant's voluntary control" and invites this court to reassess the weight of the evidence assigned by the Commission. We decline the invitation because the issue for us is not whether we might have reached a different result from the Commission but whether reasonable minds could reach the result found by the Commission. Ark. Dep't of Health v. Lockhart , 2020 Ark. App. 166, 594 S.W.3d 924.
In reaching its conclusion that Wise established a compensable injury, the Commission determined that the medical evidence was supported by objective findings:
These objective medical findings included the annular tear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bean v. Reynolds Consumer Prods.
...150, 960 S.W.2d 453 (1998). It is well settled that the ALJ's findings are irrelevant for purposes of appeal. Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise , 2021 Ark. App. 459, 637 S.W.3d 280. "As such, we do not recount the ALJ's conclusions herein." Id. at 5 n.5, 637 S.W.3d at 283 n.5. We give the ALJ's f......
-
Johnson v. Peco Foods, Inc.
... ... injury. Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark.App ... 459, 637 S.W.3d 280. Under Arkansas ... ...