Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. v. Jackson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 568
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CA10-200
Opinion Delivered
PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT & RISK
MANAGEMENT RESOURCES
APPELLANTS
V.
CAROLYN JACKSON & SECOND
INJURY FUND
APPELLEES
September 1, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [F704526]
AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Appellee, Carolyn Jackson, suffered a compensable injury to her right lower
extremity after falling at work. There is no issue with respect to her right-leg injuries.
However, she also sought benefits for injuries to her left lower extremity, which she
claimed arose from the same fall. Appellants, Pulaski County Special School District and
Risk Management Resources, took the position that any problems with appellee’s left leg
were not caused by the fall at work and denied her claim. Following a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge concluded that appellee had proven compensability of her leftleg injuries and awarded medical benefits and a seven-percent impairment rating for a
scheduled injury to the left knee. The ALJ’s opinion was affirmed and adopted by the
Commission, and this appeal followed. We affirm the Commission by memorandum
opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 568
Appellants contend that the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence, arguing that appellee failed to report a left-knee injury to her employer; that she
failed to mention any work-related left-knee problem to a treating physician for over a
year after her fall; that the orthopedist did not state that the objective findings concerning
the left knee were associated with the work injury nor that the impairment rating was due
to the fall; that the orthopedist was not informed that appellee had prior left-knee
complaints and treatment; and, that at the time of the hearing, appellee’s only complaints
were about her feet and ankles, not her left knee.
Memorandum opinions may be issued in any or all of the following cases:
(a)
Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the
evidence;
(b)
Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial
court or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm;
(c)
Where the trial court or agency does not abuse its discretion and that is the
only substantial issue involved; and
(d)
Where the disposition of the appeal is clearly controlled by a prior holding
of this court or the Arkansas Supreme Court and we do not find that our
holding should be changed or that the case should be certified to the
supreme court.
In re Memorandum Opinions, supra. The case at bar fits within the first two categories. The
only issue before us involves the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Commission’s
decision, and the Commission has adequately explained its decision. We therefore issue
this memorandum opinion, holding that the Commission’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence and is therefore affirmed.
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 568
Affirmed.
HART and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-3-
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.
