Michael David Luten v. Xpress Boats & Backtrack Trailers
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN M AUZY PITTM AN, CHIEF JUDGE
DIVISION II
CA07-126
October 3, 2007
MICHAEL DAVID LUTEN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [NO. F410396]
V.
XPRESS BOATS
TRAILERS
&
BACKTRACK
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
This is an appeal from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial
of the appellant’s claim for additional temporary total disability benefits for an admittedly
compensable injury sustained while employed as a truck driver for appellee. Appellant
argues that the Commission erred in that it mischaracterized the evidence and erred as a
matter of law in requiring him to provide objective medical evidence to prove that he
remained in his healing period. We reverse and remand.
The presumption of correctness that attaches to a decision of a court of record does
not apply to decisions of an administrative agency such as the Workers’ Compensation
Commission; instead, an agency's action must be upheld, if at all, on a basis articulated by
the agency itself. See AT&T Communications v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 40
Ark. App. 126, 843 S.W.2d 855 (1992). Here, the Commission’s opinion is unclear with
respect to the basis for its findings and conclusions. The opinion states, in pertinent part,
that:
In conclusion, the claimant has failed to prove by objective
medical findings that his physical condition has worsened since
his release by Dr. Smith in November of 2004. Moreover, the
record demonstrates that the claimant reached the end of his
healing period no later than November 3, 2004, in that there is
no objective medical evidence demonstrating a change in his
physical condition since that time. Further, the claimant has
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has
been totally incapacitated from earning wages from November
4, 2004, to a date yet to be determined. The objective medical
evidence presented in this claim simply does not corroborate the
claimant’s self-serving testimony. . . .
We expressly held in Chamber Door Industries, Inc. v. Graham, 59 Ark. App. 224,
956 S.W.2d 196 (1997), that, although a claimant must offer objective medical evidence to
prove the existence of an injury, objective medical evidence to show that his healing period
continues is not required. Here, the Commission’s opinion suggests that it believed that
proof by objective medical evidence was essential to show that appellant remained in his
healing period. Because the Commission’s opinion does not clearly explain whether the
Commission believed that the lack of objective medical evidence to show continuance of the
healing period was of itself fatal to appellant’s claim, we are unable to determine whether
it resolved the issues before it in conformity with the law.
See Wright v. American
Transportation, 18 Ark. App. 18, 709 S.W.2d 107 (1986). Therefore, we reverse and remand
for the Commission to clarify the basis for its decision.
Reversed and remanded.
-2-
CA-07-126
G LADWIN, J., agrees.
R OBBINS, J., concurs.
-3-
CA-07-126
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.
