Arkansas Power & Light Company v. Ronnie M. Miller

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

DIVISION II

ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

APPELLANT

V.

RONNIE M. MILLER

APPELLEE

CA03-618

January 7, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

[NO. E614567]

AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge

The appellee in this workers' compensation case was employed by appellant as an instrumentation and control technician when he sustained a compensable neck injury on October 22, 1996. Appellee underwent neck surgery to prevent further deterioration of his condition, and continued to suffer from pain, restricted mobility, depression, and insomnia. He filed a claim for benefits asserting that he was permanently totally disabled. After a hearing, the Commission found that appellee had sustained bodily impairment of twenty-five percent to the body as a whole and an additional fifty-percent decrease in his wage earning capacity. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, appellant contends that the Commission erred in finding that appellee was entitled to a wage-loss benefit of fifty percent. On cross-appeal, appellee contends that the Commission erred in finding that he was not permanently and totally disabled.

In 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 we affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 80 Ark. App. 51, 91 S.W.3d 93 (2002). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 63 Ark. App. 235, 977 S.W.2d 487 (1998). The issue on appeal is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, we must affirm the Commission's decision. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brown, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 25, 2003).

Appellant contends that the Commission erred in finding that appellee was entitled to a wage-loss benefit of fifty percent. Appellee, on cross-appeal, asserts that the Commission erred in failing to find that he is permanently and totally disabled. We find no error, and we affirm on appeal and on cross-appeal.

A determination of wage-loss benefits requires, in addition to the medical evidence, consideration of the appellant's age, education, experience, and other matters affecting wage loss. The record shows that, at the time of his injury in 1996, appellee was forty years old and held an associate's degree in industrial technology, with specialized training in the field of electronics. He had been employed by appellant since 1980, and was classified as an Instrumentation and Control Technician. His duties required him to troubleshoot, diagnose, and repair automated control systems scattered throughout a facility stretching approximately one-half mile. His job involved a considerable amount of climbing ladders and stairs, crawling, kneeling, and maintaining awkward positions for fifteen to twenty minutes. His job also required him to lift weights of up to one hundred pounds. Appellee was injured in 1996 when, while attempting to stop a runaway cart, he struck his head on an overhead pipe. Appellee experienced continuous pain after his injury but continued to work on light duty until May 1998, by which time he was experiencing a significant loss of the ability to use both arms and legs and a steady degradation of his condition. He underwent neck surgery to prevent further degradation of his condition in May 1998, and has not since returned to employment. He continues to experience considerable pain and takes pain medication on a daily basis, including Oxycontin, MS Contin, Kadian, and Methadone. Pain and depression resulting from his injury have resulted in chronic insomnia, requiring him, in addition, to take Sonata and Valium as sleep aids. Appellee has received therapy for his depression, including the recommendation that he should get out of the house and socialize more. Appellee resumed his hobby of bowling, joining a league that bowls three games per night, five nights per week. Typically, appellee drives one hour to the lanes, remains for two or three hours, and drives home. Appellee testified that he misses one or two nights of bowling per week because of his injury, but his depression has improved.

The primary dispute in the present case involves the weight and inferences to be drawn from the evidence that appellee is still able to bowl three to five nights per week after his injury. Appellant argues that this demonstrates that appellee is physically capable of working; appellee argues that his participation in league bowling events is recommended treatment for his post-injury depression, and that his attendance is so undependable because of his pain and insomnia that it is not relevant to his ability to do remunerative work. It is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and to draw inferences when the testimony is open to more than a single interpretation; when it does so, its findings have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Hooks v. Gaylord Container Corporation, 67 Ark. App. 159, 992 S.W.2d 844 (1999). Given the evidence before it, the Commission could reasonably have reached either conclusion, and we cannot say that it erred in balancing these inferences so as to find that appellee sustained a fifty-percent wage-loss disability but is not permanently and totally disabled.

Affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal.

Stroud, C.J., and Bird, J., agree.