Chamber Door Indus., Inc., v. Graham,

CHAMBER DOOR INDUSTRIES, INC., and Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company v. Larry GRAHAM

CA 97-510                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                  Court of Appeals of Arkansas
                           Division II
               Opinion delivered December 3, 1997


1.   Workers' compensation -- challenge to sufficiency of evidence -- factors
     on review. -- In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to
     sustain the Workers' Compensation Commission's factual
     findings, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the
     light most favorable to those findings and must affirm if
     there is any substantial evidence to support them.

2.   Workers' compensation -- medical evidence -- Commission's duty to weigh. -
     - The Workers' Compensation Commission has the duty of
     weighing the medical evidence as it does any other evidence,
     and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and
     effect of a jury verdict.

3.   Workers' compensation -- Commission's findings -- when reversed. -- The
     appellate court may reverse the Workers' Compensation
     Commission's findings only when we are convinced that fair-
     minded people with the same facts before them could not have
     arrived at the conclusion reached by the Commission.

4.   Workers' compensation -- healing period -- ending of -- factual
     determination. -- The healing period is that period for healing
     of the injury that continues until the employee is as far
     restored as the permanent character of the injury will permit;
     if the underlying condition causing the disability has become
     more stable and if nothing further in the way of treatment
     will improve that condition, the healing period has ended;
     whether an employee's healing period has ended is a factual
     determination to be made by the Workers' Compensation
     Commission.

5.   Workers' compensation -- healing period -- continuation of -- worker not
     required to offer objective medical evidence. -- A worker is not
     required to offer objective medical evidence to show that his
     healing period continues.  

6.   Workers' compensation -- sufficient evidence supported findings that
     appellee was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits. -
     - The appellate court held that the evidence presented, such
     as appellee's inability to perform tasks upon his return to
     work without help from his co-workers and the history detailed
     in his medical records, was sufficient to support the Workers'
     Compensation Commission's findings that appellee was entitled
     to additional temporary total disability benefits after his
     release by a treating physician and that medical treatment
     rendered by other physicians was reasonable and necessary.


     Appeal from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;
affirmed.
     Barber, McCaskill, Jones & Hale, P.A., by: Michael L.
Alexander and Wendy S. Wood, for appellants.
     Lane, Muse, Arman & Pullen, by: Donald C. Pullen, for
appellee.

     John F. Stroud, Jr., Judge. 
     Larry Graham, a twenty-five-year employee of Chamber Door
Industries, Inc., sustained a compensable cervical injury in
November 1993.  He was seen by orthopedic surgeon Robert Kleinhenz,
who recommended a pain clinic or a rehabilitation specialist after
epidural steroid injections were given and an MRI showed no need
for surgery.  Mr. Grahamþs case manager sent him to Dr. Reginald
Rutherford at the Pain Care Center.  Dr. Rutherford released him to
return to work on May 16, 1994.  He sought follow-up care after
finding it difficult to perform his job, but Chamber Doorþs
insurance carrier told him that his problems were not related to
employment.  On July 10, 1995, he returned at his own expense to
Dr. Kleinhenz.  Dr. Kleinhenz referred him to Dr. Donald Boos for
pain management, and Dr. Boos later referred him to Dr. Thomas Ward
for rehabilitation.  Dr. Ward released him to return to light duty
work on January 3, 1996.  
     Claimant petitioned for additional temporary total disability
benefits and payment of additional medical expenses.  A hearing was
held in January 1996, and the administrative law judge reinstated
temporary total disability benefits from July 24, 1995, through at
least January 3, 1996.  The ALJ also found that all medical and
related expenses from Dr. Kleinhenz and subsequent referrals were
reasonable and necessary, as well as related to employment; and
ordered the carrier to pay for those expenses and to remain
responsible for continued reasonable and necessary medical
treatment.  On appeal the Commission affirmed the decision of the
law judge, finding that the claimant was entitled to additional
temporary total disability benefits, and that medical treatment
rendered by Dr. Kleinhenz and others was both reasonable and
necessary.  Chamber Door and its carrier appeal, contending that
there was not sufficient evidence to support the Commissionþs
findings.  We disagree and affirm.  
     In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the
Commissionþs factual findings, we review the evidence in the light
most favorable to those findings, and we must affirm if there is
any substantial evidence to support them.  Pilgrims Pride Corp. v.
Caldarera, 54 Ark. App. 92, 923 S.W.2d 290 (1996).  The Commission
has the duty of weighing the medical evidence as it does any other
evidence, id., and its resolution of the medical evidence has the
force and effect of a jury verdict.  McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29
Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (1989).  We may reverse the
Commissionþs findings only when we are convinced that fair-minded
people with the same facts before them could not have arrived at
the conclusion reached by the Commission.  Id. 
     Appellants contend that the claimantþs healing period ended on
May 17, 1994, and that he is entitled to no additional benefits. 
They argue that no objective medical findings underlie his
complaints of pain and that treatments from July 1995 forward have
addressed only these exaggerated complaints.  They point to entries
in the medical records referring to chronic pain syndrome and
symptom magnification and to the testimony of a private
investigator concerning the claimantþs activities.  
     The healing period is that period for healing of the injury
which continues until the employee is as far restored as the
permanent character of the injury will permit.  Nix v. Wilson World
Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  If the underlying
condition causing the disability has become more stable and if
nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that
condition, the healing period has ended.  Id.  Whether an
employeeþs healing period has ended is a factual determination to
be made by the Commission.  Ketcher Roofing Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark.
App. 63, 901 S.W.2d 25 (1995). 
     At the hearing, the claimant testified about going back to
work after Dr. Rutherford released him.  He said that he could not
perform tasks such as lifting glass without help from his co-
workers, that he þjust couldnþt deal with the pain,þ and that his
situation became þmore and more difficult.þ  The medical records
show that he was kept off work most of the time after returning to
his initial treating physician:  Dr. Kleinhenz took him off work
from July 24, 1995, until he was treated by Dr. Boos; Dr. Boos
continued him off work for seven more weeks, noting improvement due
to cold laser treatments and rotator cuff exercises; and Dr. Ward
did not allow him to return to light duty until January 3, 1996.  
     Appellants ask us to hold that a claimant must offer objective
medical evidence to prove not only the existence of an injury, but
also to show that his healing period continues.  We decline to do
so, just as we recently refused to require a claimant to offer
objective medical evidence to prove the circumstances under which
an injury was sustained.  See Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58
Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).  The evidence summarized
above was sufficient to support the Commissionþs findings that the
claimant was entitled to additional temporary total disability
benefits after his release by Dr. Rutherford and that medical
treatment rendered by Dr. Kleinhenz and others was reasonable and
necessary.  
     Affirmed.  
     Arey and Jennings, JJ., agree.