Continental Express, Inc. v. Donald Hollis

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

CA 00-112

August 30, 2000

CONTINENTAL EXPRESS, INC. AN APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

APPELLANT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

E812184

VS.

DONALD HOLLIS AFFIRMED

APPELLEE

Donald Hollis injured his left leg on a clutch pedal on September 15, 1998, in his employment as a long-haul truck driver for appellant. The law judge found that appellee had sustained a compensable injury which resulted in a cellulitis condition and awarded temporary total disability benefits from September 24, 1998, through November 3, 1998, and from January 9, 1999, through February 1, 1999. The Commission affirmed and adopted thesefindings. Appellant argues that there is no substantial evidence to support such decision. We disagree and affirm.

Appellee testified that he was sitting in his truck and had turned around to get papers out of a briefcase. As he turned back around, he struck his left leg on the metal clutch pedal. He stated that he had a nick on his leg but did not consider it to be serious. He proceeded to deliver his load but became nauseated, began to vomit and started running a high fever. His leg began to swell and redden. When he arrived in Little Rock he reported his injury to his supervisors. Appellee first saw Dr. Scott Carle but was treated primarily by Dr. Calvin Masterson. He was hospitalized from September 24, 1998, to September 28 and was unable to work from that time through November 3, 1998. He was again off work from January 9, 1999, through February 1 during which time he was hospitalized for five days.

Dr. Masterson diagnosed Hollis as having cellulitis, an acute inflammatory condition of the skin generally characterized by swelling and redness. It is most often caused by bacterial infections but may also stem from diabetes or vascular problems. Dr. Masterson testified that appellee's cellulitis in January 1999 had been caused by a previously sustained abrasion or puncture wound. Dr. Masterson noted that he had seen appellee on September 24, 1998, for an abrasion that appellee had reported wasfrom getting in and out of his truck and that he had diagnosed cellulitis at that time. Dr. Masterson stated that appellee's January 1999 condition was recurrent cellulitis stemming from the first incident. The doctor testified that, "Most likely, there was not a complete resolution of the initial infection."

The Commission primarily relied on the testimony of Dr. Masterson who had stated that he felt the cellulitis was the result of an abrasion and puncture wound to appellee's left leg, which was consistent with the history appellee provided about striking his leg on a clutch pedal in his truck on September 15, 1998. The Commission noted that Dr. Masterson stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that appellee's cellulitis in September 1998 and January 1999 was caused by the injury appellee sustained on September 15, 1998. The Commission awarded appellee benefits according to the dates he was unable to work surrounding his hospitalizations.

When reviewing decisions from the 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 its decision is supported by substantial evidence. Welch's Laundry & Cleaners v. Clark, 38 Ark. App. 223, 832 S.W.2d 283 (1992). A decision by the Commission should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could notreach the same conclusion as the Commission if presented with the same facts. Silvicraft, Inc. v. Lambert, 10 Ark. App. 28, 661 S.W.2d 403 (1983). The Commission has the authority to accept and reject medical opinions and the authority to determine its medical soundness and probative force; it must use its experience and expertise in translating expert medical testimony into findings of fact. Hope Livestock Auction Co. v. Knighton, 67 Ark. App. 165, 992 S.W.2d 826 (1999).

Appellant argues that the Commission should not have relied on Dr. Masterson's opinion because appellee had provided an inaccurate history by failing to disclose that he had been treated for an infection caused by a spider bite on the same leg seven years prior. There was evidence that the appellee had insect bites on his leg which can cause cellulitis if they become infected. Appellant maintains that appellee gave conflicting stories of how the injury occurred. First, appellee claimed he was injured from getting in and out of his truck, and then he claimed he was injured when he struck his leg on the clutch pedal. Finally, appellant argues that appellee did not prove that he was still within his healing period and that he was totally incapacitated from any and all gainful employment.

The Commission was entitled to rely on Dr. Masterson's opinion which was that appellee's cellulitis was likely caused by theinjury appellee sustained in the work-related incident. Any inconsistencies in appellee's testimony was for the Commission to determine. Patterson v. Frito Lay, Inc., 66 Ark. App. 159, 992 S.W.2d 130 (1999). Finally, the record reflects that appellee was off work because of two separate hospitalizations, and temporary total disability benefits were awarded accordingly. For these reasons, we affirm the Commission's decision as it is supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

Crabtree and Pittman, JJ., agree.