Bost Human Development Services; AIG Claim Service v. Viviene Cumbie

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE DIVISION I CA07-1095 April 16, 2008 BOST HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES; AIG CLAIM SERVICE APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. E913515] V. VIVIENE CUMBIE APPELLEE AFFIRMED The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission found that appellee, Viviene Cumbie, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical services administered by her physician were reasonable and necessary for the treatment of her compensable left-hip injury. Appellants assert on appeal that the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The Commission’s decision is affirmed. Before the administrative law judge (ALJ), the parties stipulated that appellee suffered a compensable injury to her hip on June 11, 1998. Medical records introduced into evidence indicate that on August 4, 2006, appellee’s orthopedic surgeon, Dr. James W. Long, initiated a program of injecting medication in the area of appellee’s left greater trochanter. In a letter written March 3, 2007, Dr. Long stated that appellee had suffered from a “protracted long term pain syndrome involving the motor vehicular accident that occurred in 1998” and had undergone “extensive workup and treatment in the years immediately following the event,” but that no “injections were given into the trochanteric area/hip on the [left].” He noted that he had been treating her with injections into the right hip area and that the series of injections “demonstrated that her pain seems to arise from a chronic greater trochanteric, post-traumatic tendonitis/tendinosis.” He “recommended that she continue with a series of non-surgical treatments consisting of injections” and remarked that “no surgical option should be entertained until this is tried for a long period of time.” In his March 21, 2007, deposition, Dr. Long stated that the injections “break[ ] the pain so they can do exercises and ice massage and strengthening, and that can make them less susceptible to it and keep up the range of motion of the joint involved and hopefully they get better.” Dr. Long stated that the injections had alleviated appellee’s pain, that his plan for her was to “[t]ry to make her better nonsurgically,” and that surgery was a “last resort.” In her testimony before the ALJ, appellee agreed that the injections from Dr. Long constituted the first treatment since 1998 that seemed to alleviate her pain. The ALJ found that appellee proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical services administered by Dr. Long were reasonable and necessary for the treatment of her compensable hip injury. The Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings. Appellants argue on appeal that, after nine years of treatment, “appellee has seen more than enough physicians and had more than enough tests to satisfy appellants’ obligation to provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment” and that further treatment is unreasonable and -2- CA07-1095 unnecessary. The ultimate issue, however, is whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that additional medical services administered by Dr. Long are reasonable and necessary for the treatment of appellee’s compensable left-hip injury. The workers’ compensation statutes provide that an “employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical ... services ... as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (Supp. 2007). What constitutes reasonable and necessary treatment is a question of fact for the Commission. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Eng’g, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). On appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commission’s decision, and the decision is affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that the medical services administered by Dr. Long are reasonable and necessary for the treatment of appellee’s compensable left-hip injury. As the ALJ wrote in the opinion adopted by the Commission, “Dr. Long has indicated that these injections according to [appellee’s] reports alleviate her discomfort,” that “this should and can lead to her being able to undergo therapy which hopefully would resolve her problem ideally,” and that this “will alleviate any possibility of more invasive treatment.” Accordingly, the Commission’s decision is affirmed. Affirmed. VAUGHT and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree. -3- CA07-1095

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.