Donald Groom v. Nekoosa Papers, Inc., et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE  DIVISION II  CA06­406  December 13, 2006  DONALD GROOM  APPELLANT  APPEAL  FROM  THE  ARKANSAS  W O R K E R S ’   C O M P E N S A T I O N  COMMISSION [NO. E711686]  NEKOOSA PAPERS, INC., ET AL.  APPELLEES  AFFIRMED  IN  PART;  REVERSED  IN  PART AND REMANDED  V. The appellant in this workers’ compensation case was employed as a maintenance  man by appellee Nekoosa Papers in January 1997 when he fell and sustained an admittedly  compensable back injury that required four separate surgical procedures to his spine.  His  claim for permanent total disability benefits was denied by the Commission, which instead  awarded permanent partial disability benefits of forty­two percent to the body as a whole,  reflecting its findings of fourteen percent anatomical impairment and twenty­eight percent  wage loss.  On appeal, appellant argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the  Commission’s finding that he failed to prove permanent total disability, and that there is no  substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding of fourteen percent anatomical  impairment. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support decisions of the Arkansas  Workers’ Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences  deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and affirm if  they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that a reasonable person might  accept as adequate to support a conclusion.  Carman v. Haworth, Inc., 74 Ark. App. 55, 45  S.W.3d 408 (2001).  We will not reverse the Commission's decision unless we are convinced  that  fair­minded  persons  with  the  same  facts  before  them  could  not  have  reached  the  conclusions arrived at by the Commission.  Wal­Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 80 Ark. App. 51,  91 S.W.3d 93 (2002).  Where, as here, the Commission has denied a claim because of the  claimant's failure to meet his burden of proof, the substantial evidence standard of review  requires that we affirm if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial  of relief.  Williams v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 267 Ark. 810, 590 S.W.2d 328 (Ark. App.  1979).  We  hold  that  the  Commission  properly  could  find  that  appellant  failed  to  prove  permanent total disability.  “Permanent total disability” is defined as inability, because of  compensable injury or occupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages in the same or  other  employment.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11­9­519(e)(1)  (Repl.  2002).    In  its  opinion  the  Commission found that appellant had obtained the equivalent of a high­school diploma, had  received electrical and communications training in the Navy, and had completed a two­year  program in heating and air, obtaining a contractor’s license.  The Commission also found,  based on the outcome of a functional capacity evaluation, that appellant was able to return ­2­  CA06­406  to  full  or  part­time  sedentary  work.  Finally,  the  Commission  found  that  appellant  demonstrated the physical ability to tend a large acreage and livestock.  These findings are  supported by the evidence, and we cannot say that the Commission erred in finding that  appellant failed to prove he was permanently and totally disabled.  With respect to its determination of anatomical impairment, however, the Commission  denied  relief  by  employing  an  analysis  that  expressly  rejected  all  evidence  of  physical  impairment that was not objective.  We hold that, in so doing, the Commission erred as a  matter  of  law.  Medical  evidence  of  the  injury  and  impairment  must  be  supported  by  objective findings, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 11­9­102 (4)(D) and 11­9­704(c)(1)(B) (Repl. 2002),  i.e. findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §  11­9­102 (16)(A)(i).  (Repl. 2002).  There is no question that there were objective findings  in  the  record  supporting  appellant’s  claim  of  back  injury  and  resultant  impairment.  Nevertheless,  the  Commission  rejected  the  medical  opinions  regarding  the  degree  of  impairment offered by Dr. Green and Dr. Moore simply because those opinions were based  in part on subjective findings.  Quite clearly, the analysis engaged in by the Commission  disregarded all non­objective evidence simply because it was subjective.  We hold that this  was  an  arbitrary  rejection  of  medical  evidence.    There  is  no  requirement  that  medical  testimony be based solely or expressly on objective findings, only that the record contain  supporting objective findings.  Swift­Eckrich, Inc. v. Brock, 63 Ark. App. 118, 975 S.W.2d  857  (1998).    Although  credibility  is  a  matter  for  the  Commission  to  determine,  a  determination of credibility based on arbitrary rejection of an entire class of evidence cannot ­3­  CA06­406  stand.  Consequently, we reverse and remand for the Commission to decide this issue in  accordance with the correct law.  Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.  GRIFFEN  and GLOVER, JJ., agree. ­4­  CA06­406 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.