Jimmy Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION III
CA06-398
December 6, 2006
JIMMY SINGLETON
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COM PENSATION
COMMISSION [NO. F302526]
V.
CITY OF PINE BLUFF
REVERSED AND REMANDED
APPELLEE
JOHN M AUZY P ITTMAN, Chief Judge
The appellant was employed by the City of Pine Bluff as a police officer. While
acting in the course and within the scope of that employment on March 1, 2003, appellant
was struck on the right side of the head and shot in the left ankle by a felon. He was
provided medical benefits and subsequently filed a claim asserting that he was entitled to
disability benefits for his injuries. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission found
that he failed to prove that he sustained a compensable anatomical impairment or wage-loss
disability and denied his claim. On appeal, appellant argues that this finding was in error.
We agree, and we reverse.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support decisions of the
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 fair-minded
persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at
by the Commission. Wal-Mart 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).
Here, the Commission’s opinion fails to display a substantial basis for the denial of
relief. It is undisputed that appellant was shot in the left ankle. It is likewise undisputed that
five bullet fragments remain in appellant’s ankle because doctors determined that it would
be more dangerous to remove them than to allow them to remain in place. There is,
therefore, unquestionably objective evidence of physical injury in this case. Nevertheless,
the Commission denied relief by employing an analysis that expressly rejected all evidence
of physical impairment that was not objective.
Although it is irrefutably true that the legislature has required medical evidence
supported by objective findings to establish a compensable injury, it does not follow that
such evidence is required to establish each and every element of compensability. Stephens
Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997). All that is required is
-2-
CA06-398
that the medical evidence of the injury and impairment be supported by objective findings,
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 11-9-102 (4)(D) and 11-9-704(b)(4)(B) (Repl. 2002), i.e., findings that
cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102
(16)(A)(i). Here, the claimant’s allegations of a foot injury affecting his mobility are quite
clearly supported by observed bullet fragments embedded in his foot. Nevertheless, although
the requirement of support by objective findings had been satisfied, the Commission rejected
the medical opinion offered by Dr. Baskin that appellant’s ankle injury resulted in eightpercent anatomical impairment simply because it was based in part upon non-objective
evidence, i.e., Dr. Baskin’s observation that appellant exhibited an antalgic gait. After
rejecting Dr. Baskin’s observations of a defective gait because they did not meet the statutory
standard of objectivity, the Commission concluded that, although appellant still had bullet
fragments in his ankle that cause discomfort and occasional swelling, he “miraculously . . .
sustained no permanent structural damage to his ankle as a result of his gunshot wound.”
As the Commission acknowledges in its opinion, there is no requirement that medical
testimony be based solely or expressly on objective findings, only that the record contain
supporting objective findings. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. v. Brock, 63 Ark. App. 118, 975 S.W.2d
857 (1998). Furthermore, credibility is a matter for the Commission to determine, even
where the basis for the credibility finding is “specious at best.” Id. Nevertheless, we think
that a determination of credibility based on rejection of subjective evidence in favor of a
“miraculous” result is less than specious and fails to show a substantial basis for denial of
-3-
CA06-398
relief. Clearly, the Commission arbitrarily and improperly rejected subjective evidence in
determining that appellant sustained no anatomical impairment as a result of his ankle injury,
and it appears that this error also may have affected the Commission’s findings with respect
to the other issues in this case. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. In so doing, we do not hold that the Commission could not,
under any circumstances, find that Dr. Baskin’s opinion lacked credibility; instead, we hold
only that the Commission erred in doing so for the reasons stated in the order from which
appellant appealed.
Reversed and remanded.
B IRD and N EAL, JJ., agree.
-4-
CA06-398
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.