Terrell v. Arkansas Trucking Service, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 60 Ark.App. 93,959 S.W.2d 70 |
| Parties | Tyrone H. TERRELL, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS TRUCKING SERVICE, INC., Appellee. 97-649. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Jo Ellen Carson, Ft. Smith, for Appellant.
Winston Bryant, Attorney General, Kelly Terry, Assistant Attorney General, Little Rock, for Appellee.
Tyrone H. Terrell appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission that denied him a psychological evaluation and temporary total disability benefits during any necessary treatment. He argues that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We agree that appellant should have been granted a psychological evaluation and reverse and remand to the Commission for that purpose.
Appellant, a truck driver, was injured in a compensable vehicle accident on August 10, 1995, and sustained injuries to his neck, right shoulder, right leg, and lower back. It was stipulated that the injuries were compensable and that medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits had been paid through January 28, 1996. Appellant sought additional medical treatment in the form of a psychiatric evaluation and treatment for depression.
Appellant testified that he was nearing a bridge in Meridian, Mississippi, on a two-lane road when another truck pulling a large, oversized fabricated home tried to pass him and collided with his truck. Appellant's truck was forced into a wall on the bridge, the other truck jackknifed in front of him, and the trucks became tangled and went down an embankment. Appellant was treated for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar strain with physical therapy and work hardening and was certified as having reached maximum physical improvement on January 19, 1996.
After the accident, appellant began having recurring dreams in which a truck he was driving would go off of a bridge, explode, or catch on fire with him inside, apparently unable to get out. He said he also began to have frequent headaches and debilitating pain and was afraid to drive a truck again. Following a recommendation by Joyce Kay Hamilton, M.L.A., a psychotherapist who interviewed appellant in connection with the work-hardening program, appellant's treating physician referred him to Dr. Louis E. Deere, D.O., a psychiatrist. However, appellant said Dr. Deere visited with him for only about fifteen minutes and scheduled him for a return appointment for evaluation. Appellee refused to authorize payment, and appellant did not go back. Appellant testified that he felt like he needed continued medical treatment because he suffers from sleep deprivation, chronic pain, and nightmares about the accident.
The administrative law judge held that appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that a psychological evaluation or treatment was reasonable or medically necessary to treat the injuries he sustained in the August 1995 accident. The Commission affirmed and adopted the opinion of the law judge.
When we review 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 and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Clark v. Peabody Testing Serv., 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979); Crossett Sch. Dist. v. Gourley, 50 Ark.App. 1, 899 S.W.2d 482 (1995). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Carroll Gen. Hosp. v. Green, 54 Ark.App. 102, 923 S.W.2d 878 (1996); Wright v. ABC Air, Inc., 44 Ark.App. 5, 864 S.W.2d 871 (1993). We do not reverse a decision of the Commission unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have arrived at the conclusion reached by the Commission. Milligan v. West Tree Serv., 57 Ark.App. 14, 941 S.W.2d 434 (1997); Willmon v. Allen Canning Co., 38 Ark.App. 105, 828 S.W.2d 868 (1992).
On appeal, appellant argues that the Commission's decision that he had failed to prove that a psychological evaluation or treatment was reasonable and necessary for treatment of his compensable injury is not supported by substantial evidence. He contends that he is totally disabled by his mental distress and that his primary physician recommends that he not return to work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kroger Ltd. P'ship v. Fee
...not from his own injuries but instead from the death of the other driver involved in the accident. In Terrell v. Arkansas Trucking Service, Inc., 60 Ark.App. 93, 959 S.W.2d 70 (1998), the claimant was involved in an accident in which his truck overturned on a bridge embankment, and he subse......
-
Clark v. Wal-Mart Stores
...that any mental injury has a causal connection to his June 1995 fall. See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-113; Terrell v. Arkansas Trucking Serv., Inc., 60 Ark. App. 93, 959 S.W.2d 70 (1998). As such, we remand for a determination of causation if it is found that appellant has sustained a mental Reve......
-
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Griffin
...to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Terrell v. Arkansas Trucking Service, Inc., 60 Ark.App. 93, 959 S.W.2d 70 (1998). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a ......