Averitt Express, Inc., American Casualty Company v. Gary D. Gilley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISIONS III, IV & I
No. CA08-152
AVERITT EXPRESS, INC.
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY
APPELLANTS
Opinion Delivered
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
V.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [NO. F606191]
GARY D. GILLEY
AFFIRMED
APPELLEE
WENDELL GRIFFEN, Judge
1.
WORKERS’
COM PENSATION
–
M EDICAL EVIDENCE
–
OPINION BASED UPON INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION CAN CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.–
While the Workers’ Compensation
Commission may give greater weight to a treating physician rather than a doctor who sees a patient
once for an independent evaluation, the Commission is not required to do so; the opinion of a
doctor who performs a one-time examination of the claimant can constitute substantial evidence
of the Commission’s opinion.
2.
WORKERS’ COM PENSATION – M EDICAL EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINIONS – SPECIFIC “M AGIC WORDS”
NOT REQUIRED.– While one of the claimant’s physicians did not cite to the AMA Guidelines when
stating his opinion of the claimant’s impairment rating, Arkansas does not require any specific
“magic words” with respect to expert opinions; said opinions are to be judged upon the entirety
of the opinion, not validated or invalidated on the presence or lack of “magic words”; further, the
Commission found that the AMA Guidelines supported the physician’s rating, and appellants failed
to present a record showing the contrary.
3.
WORKERS’
COM PENSATION
–
WAGE- LOSS
DISABILITY
AWA RD
WAS
SUPPORTED
BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.– The record supported the Commission’s decision to award 20% wage-
loss disability; the claimant was fifty-nine years old at the time of the hearing and most of his career
had been spent driving long-haul trucks; he received a permanent-impairment rating and still
suffered from pain that restricted his life activities; the claimant could not use his left upper extremity
for long periods of time; therefore, it was reasonable to believe that he would be unable to return
to driving over the road for eleven hours a day.
An appeal from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission; affirmed.
Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, PLC, by: Michael J. Dennis, for appellants.
McDaniel & Wells, P.A., by: Phillip Wells, for appellee.
On November 27, 2007, the Workers’ Compensation Commission found that Gary
Gilley had sustained 12% permanent physical impairment and 20% wage-loss disability.
Averitt Express, Inc., and its carrier, American Casualty Company, challenge both the physicalimpairment rating and the award of wage-loss disability, contending that neither decision is
supported by substantial evidence. We affirm, as both awards are supported by substantial
evidence.
Facts
At the time of the hearing, appellee was age fifty- nine and had a high school diploma.
He had two years of military experience, and since November 1967, he had been an over-theroad truck driver. He began working for Averitt in January 2005 and made $1000 to $1200 per
week. Appellee suffered an admittedly compensable injury on June 1, 2005, when he slipped
on the side of a truck and suffered a torn rotator cuff on his left shoulder. He stopped working
for Averitt in February 2006, just prior to undergoing surgery.
Appellee received treatment from Dr. Henry Stroope. Dr. Stroope released appellee to
work on July 26, 2006, but appellee did not return to Averitt. Instead, he found other
employment driving a dump truck for his friend, Gary Barker. When appellee worked for
Averitt, he drove eleven hours a day, per government regulations. His job also required him to
-2-
hook up trailers and to load and unload heavy appliances and freight. Appellee testified that his
condition prohibited him from doing that work. On cross-examination, appellee admitted that
no doctor had forbidden him from driving over the road, though he explained that he did not
return to Averitt because it could not offer him any work within his abilities. He stated that he
was unable to pick up his three-year-old son or four-year-old daughter and that his wife had to
help put his belt in the back loops. Appellee’s job driving the dump truck only paid $350 per
week, but he only drives fifteen to twenty minutes at a time. Other than driving, the only thing
he does with the dump truck is flip a switch and push a button to load and unload the truck.
By letter dated August 22, 2006, Dr. Stroope assessed appellee with an impairment
rating of 10% to his upper extremity, which translated to 6% to the body as a whole. By
agreement of the parties, however, appellee underwent an independent medical evaluation on
March 21, 2007. Dr. David Collins, an orthopedic surgeon, agreed that appellee suffered a full
thickness rotator cuff tear and decreased range of motion in his left shoulder. Dr. Collins
wrote:
It would appear that he is well suited for his present occupation. I believe that he has
reached maximum medical improvement. He has sustained permanent partial
impairment as it relates to his work related injury and its treatment on the basis of
anatomic alteration of the skin, subcutaneous tissue, deltoid muscle, acromion process,
coracoacromial ligament, subacromial bursa and the rotator cuff. Impairment is equal
to 20% to the upper extremity, equal to 12% to the body as a whole.
I believe there has been alterations of coracoacromial archway that render his shoulder
more weak in forward elevation than one might expect. I believe there is limited
capacity to recover active forward elevations even with superb restoration of muscular
strength.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that appellant suffered 12% permanent
-3-
physical impairment as well as 20% wage-loss disability. In a separate opinion, the
Commission affirmed the findings of the ALJ. While it recognized Dr. Stroope’s assessment,
it relied on Dr. Collins’s findings. Regarding wage loss, the Commission found that appellee
was unable to return to work with Averitt due to his injury, his surgery, and his physical
limitations.
Standard of Review
Appellants challenge both the 12% permanent physical-impairment rating and the 20%
wage-loss disability award. 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 decision and affirm if that decision is supported by
substantial evidence. Smith v. City of Ft. Smith, 84 Ark. App. 430, 143 S.W.3d 593 (2004).
Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Williams v. Prostaff Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). The issue is not
whether the reviewing court might have reached a different result from the Commission; if
reasonable minds could reach the result found by the Commission, we are required to affirm.
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). Our review is
limited to the findings of the Commission. Logan County v. McDonald, 90 Ark. App. 409,
206 S.W.3d 258 (2005).
Permanent-Impairment Rating
Under two separate points, appellants challenge the 12% permanent impairment rating.
First, they assert that the Commission erred in relying on Dr. Collins, who only saw appellee
-4-
once, rather than Dr. Stroope, appellee’s treating physician. Appellants correctly state that the
Commission may give greater weight to a treating physician rather than a doctor who sees a
patient once for an independent evaluation. See Guy v. Breeko Corp., 310 Ark. 187, 832
S.W.2d 816 (1992). However, the Commission is not required to do so. See, e.g., Roberson
v. Waste Mgmt., 58 Ark. App. 11, 944 S.W.2d 858 (1997) (holding that a doctor’s medical
records supported the Commission’s findings despite the fact that the doctor only examined
the claimant for ten minutes). The opinion of a doctor who performs a one-time examination
of the claimant can constitute substantial evidence of the Commission’s opinion.
Second, appellants contend that there was no evidence to show that Dr. Collins used the
AMA Guides to make an evaluation of permanent impairment. They rely on the dissenting
Commissioner’s
analysis of the impairment rating, which determined that Dr. Collins’s
findings could not be reconciled with the Guides. While Dr. Collins does not cite to the AMA
Guides when stating his opinion of appellee’s impairment rating, Arkansas does not require
any specific “magic words” with respect to expert opinions; said opinions are to be judged
upon the entirety of the opinion, not validated or invalidated on the presence or lack of “magic
words.” See Wackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). Further, the
Commission found that the AMA Guides support Dr. Collins’s rating, and appellants fail to
present a record (or argument except for citation to the dissenting Commissioner) showing
the contrary.
Wage-Loss Disability
Appellants also contend that the award of wage-loss disability is not supported by
-5-
substantial evidence. They observe that appellee’s treating physician returned him to work with
no physical restrictions and assert that the Commission’s finding that he had significant
physical restrictions that prevented him from working full-time with Averitt was not supported
by substantial evidence.
Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b)(1) (Repl. 2002), the Commission has the
authority to increase a claimant’s disability rating when a claimant has been assigned an
anatomical impairment rating to the body as a whole. See Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 89 Ark.
App. 228, 201 S.W.3d 449 (2005). This wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable
injury has affected the claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood. McDonald, supra. In considering
wage-loss disability, the Commission can consider such factors as the claimant’s age,
education, work experience, and “other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her future
earning capacity.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b)(1).
Appellants heavily rely on evidence that appellee did not attempt to return to Averitt
after his surgery. They are correct in stating that factors such as motivation to work, lack of
interest, and attempts to return to work are valid factors to be considered in a determination
of an award of wage-loss disability. See, e.g., SSI, Inc. v. Lohman, 98 Ark. App. 294, 254
S.W.3d 804 (2007); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. McGinnis, 37 Ark. App. 91, 824 S.W.2d 406
(1992). But the Commission considered evidence, in the form of appellee’s testimony, that
he was unable to continue his duties with the employer. The Commission was entitled to rely
upon this testimony, and once the Commission finds a claimant credible, we are bound by that
determination. See Lohman, supra.
-6-
The record shows that appellee was fifty- nine years old at the time of the hearing and
that most of his career was spent driving long-haul trucks. He received a permanentimpairment rating and still suffered from pain that restricts his life activities. Appellee cannot
use his left upper extremity for long periods of time; therefore, it is reasonable to believe that
appellee would be unable to return to driving over the road for eleven hours a day. The record
supports the Commission’s decision to award 20% wage- loss disability, and we affirm on this
point as well.
Affirmed.
HART , GLADWIN, BAKER, and HUNT , JJ., agree.
PITTMAN, C.J., ROBBINS , VAUGHT , and HEFFLEY, JJ., dissent.
VAUGHT , J., dissenting.
I dissent from the majority because I believe that substantial
evidence does not support the Commission’s decision. Accordingly, I would reverse and
remand.
There are two issues in this case: whether substantial evidence supports the
Commission’s award of 12% impairment and 20% wage-loss. On both issues, the majority
answers yes; however, the majority (as did the Commission) fails to actually state what that
substantial evidence is.
Regarding the 12% impairment rating, the majority concludes that substantial evidence
supports the award because the Commission can give greater weight to an independent medical
physician over the treating physician. See Roberson v. Waste Mgmt., 58 Ark. App. 11, 944
S.W.2d 858 (1997). While this proposition of law is correct, the majority fails to identify any
-7-
facts supporting the Commission’s decision to weigh the medical evidence in this way.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-522(g)(1)(A) (Repl. 2002), requires that the
Commission adopt an impairment- rating guide to be used in the assessment of anatomical
impairment. The Commission adopted the American Medical Association’s Guide to the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993), to be used in this assessment. See
Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 34. While Rule 34 does not require that
a doctor specifically state that he or she is issuing an impairment rating as per the AMA Guide,
the rule does require that the AMA Guide be used in the assessment of anatomical impairment.
Id.
The Commission found that “[t]he Guides at Table 3, page 3/20 support Dr. Collins’s
assessment of a 12% whole-body impairment rating.”1 The majority opinion agreed, stating that
“the Commission found that the AMA Guides support Dr. Collins’s rating.” However, AMA
Guide Table 3 page 3/20 is merely a chart that converts upper-extremity ratings to whole-body
ratings. This table does not demonstrate how an upper-extremity rating is assessed.
The only finding made by the Commission on the impairment-rating issue was that “the
rating assigned by Dr. Collins was based on ‘anatomic alteration of the skin, subcutaneous
tissue, deltoid muscle, acromion process, coracoacromial bursa and the rotator cuff.’” Based
on that finding, the Commission concluded that “the record indicates that these findings were
objective and not within the claimant’s voluntary control.” Again, the Commission and the
1
Dr. Collins’s report did not include this information.
-8-
majority fail to cite the AMA Guide or any other facts in the record that support this
conclusion.
While, as the majority stated, no magic words are required, citing the AMA Guide and
not applying it to the specific injury makes a mockery out of section 11-9-522(g)(1)(A). I
would remand for the Commission to apply the AMA Guide and make findings of fact, which
we can review on appeal.
I would also remand the 20% wage-loss award to be reexamined in light of the findings
on the impairment rating.
PITTMAN, C.J., and ROBBINS and HEFFLEY, JJ., join.
-9-
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.