 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woods v. Dub Clenney Construction Co.9/3/2003
ony of Dr. Pace. The Commission reasoned that because Dr. Pace's opinion was based on facts relayed to him by appellant, Dr. Pace's opinion should be given little weight. Therefore, based upon the remaining evidence, the Commission found that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury on January 14, 2000.
On appeal, appellant asserts that he did show by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury on January 14, 2000. 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, and we affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Watson v. Tayco, Inc., 79 Ark. App. 250, 86 S.W.3d 18 (2002). Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion. Daniels v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 77 Ark. App. 99, 72 S.W.3d 128 (2002). When a claim is denied because the claimant has failed to show an entitlement to compensation by a preponderance of the evidence, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Id.
The employee has the burden of proving a compensable injury. Watson v. Tayco, Inc., supra. In order to prove a compensable injury a claimant must prove, among other things, a causal relationship between the injury and the employment. Horticare Landscape Mgmt. v. McDonald, 80 Ark. App. 45, 89 S.W.3d 375 (2002). Objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury but not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and a work-related accident. Id. Objective medical evidence is not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and a work-related accident where objective medical evidence establishes the existence and extent of the injury, and a preponderance of other non-medical evidence establishes a causal relation to a work-related incident. Id.
In the case at bar, the objective medical evidence establishes that appellant had a back injury; however, it failed to establish a causal relationship between the injury and the January 14 incident. The Commission chose to give little weight to Dr. Pace's opinion that appellant's injury was causally related to the January 14 incident because Dr. Pace's opinion was based solely on what appellant had told Dr. Pace about the incident. It is well settled that the Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinion and the authority to determine its medical soundness and probative force. Williams v. Brown's Sheet Metal, Ark. App. , 105 S.W.3d 382 (2003). Furthermore, the Commission is not bound by a doctor's opinion that is based largely on facts related by a claimant where the claimant's own testimony is less than determinative. Id. The non-medical evidence also failed to support a finding that appellant's injury was causally related to the January 14 incident. Appellant neglected to bring forth the testimony of any of his co-workers who might have witnessed the incident or who could have testified that he was bedridden for three days. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commission, we cannot say that reasonable minds could not reach the same result as the Commission; therefore, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Stroud, C.J., and Crabtree, J., agree.
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|