Am. Railcar Indus., Inc. v. Gramling
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 625
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA10-107
AMERICAN RAILCAR INDUSTRIES,
INC. and SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES
APPELLANTS
V.
KYLE GRAMLING
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered September
22, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[NO. F811161]
AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
This is a workers’ compensation appeal in which appellee Kyle Gramling suffered an
admittedly compensable left-foot injury in April of 2008 while working for appellant American
Railcar Industries (ARI). Gramling was initially examined by the company physician who
returned Gramling to light-duty work for one day, then released him to full duty thereafter.
Because the pain in his foot continued to worsen, Gramling was subsequently referred to an
orthopedic physician who diagnosed Gramling with a more significant injury. Afterward
Gramling returned to various light-duty work for ARI.
On October 28, 2008, Gramling was terminated by ARI. The stated reason for the
termination was that Gramling had been caught sleeping on the job and had become a safety
hazard due to the somnolence caused by his Crohn’s disease medications. Gramling had been
diagnosed with Crohn’s disease prior to his employment with ARI; had passed a pre-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 625
employment physical despite the diagnosis; and had taken the offending medication throughout
his year-and-a-half employment with ARI without previous complaint. ARI relied on a single
examination and “fitness of duty” report by a nontreating physician completed that same date
at the request of ARI.
Gramling filed a claim for temporary total disability benefits. ARI and its carrier,
Specialty Risk Services, resisted the claim, arguing that appropriate benefits were being paid as
a result of his compensable left-foot injury, but that Gramling was not entitled to temporary
total disability benefits because his current problems were related to his Crohn’s disease and not
his work-related injury. Gramling prevailed before the administrative law judge (ALJ). ARI and
its carrier appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Commission seeking reversal of the award
of temporary total disability benefits. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision. ARI and
Specialty Risk Services now appeal the Commission’s decision alleging that there was
insufficient evidence to support the award of temporary total disability benefits following
Gramling’s termination on October 28, 2009. We affirm.
We review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission to determine whether
there is substantial evidence to support it. Rice v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 72 Ark. App. 148, 35
S.W.3d 328 (2000). Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146,
41 S.W.3d 822 (2001). We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom
in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings and will affirm if its findings are
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 625
supported by substantial evidence. Geo Specialty Chem. v. Clingan, 69 Ark. App. 369, 13 S.W.3d 218
(2000). The issue is not whether we might have reached a different decision or whether the
evidence would have supported a contrary finding; instead, we affirm if reasonable minds could
have reached the conclusion rendered by the Commission. Sharp County Sheriff’s Dep’t v. Ozark
Acres Improvement Dist., 75 Ark. App. 250, 57 S.W.3d 764 (2001). It is the Commission’s province
to weigh the evidence and determine what is most credible. Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337
Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).
Appellants initially argue that, because Gramling was not totally incapacitated from
earning wages and had returned to work after his injury, he is barred from receiving temporary
total disability benefits for the period following his termination.
Appellants claim that
Gramling’s ability to return to work reveals that he was not totally incapacitated from earning
wages as a result of his compensable injury. However, it is not necessary for a claimant with a
scheduled injury1 to prove that he is totally incapacitated from earning wages in order to collect
temporary total disability benefits. Fendley v. Pea Ridge Sch. Dist., 97 Ark. App. 214, 245 S.W.3d
676 (2006). Rather, he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits during his healing period
or until he returns to work, whichever occurs first, regardless of whether he has demonstrated
that he is actually incapacitated from earning wages. Wheeler, 73 Ark. App. at 152, 41 S.W.3d at
826.
1
The ALJ found that Gramling’s injury was a “scheduled injury” pursuant to
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-521 (Repl. 2002). The Commission adopted that
finding, and appellants do not contest it.
-3-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 625
Thus, the real issue is whether Gramling’s return to both full and light duty work during
his healing period bars his claim for temporary total disability benefits. Appellants assert that
Gramling’s return to work bars his claim for temporary total disability benefits.
First, Gramling’s attempt to return to full duty work does not act as a bar to his claim.
After diagnosing a bruised foot, Dr. Schott, the company physician, released Gramling to full
duty after one day of light duty restrictions. Gramling repeatedly complained that his symptoms
worsened over time and requested a referral to a specialist. The orthopedic specialist, Dr.
Schechter, discovered that Gramling had suffered an injury to the peroneal nerve, a more
significant injury than previously diagnosed by Dr. Schott. Dr. Schechter then removed
Gramling from full duty and placed light duty restrictions upon his ability to work. Thus, while
Gramling did return to full duty work at ARI for several months, he was unable to continue on
such course due to the pain and numbness associated with his compensable injury. An
unsuccessful attempt to return to the workforce does not act as a bar to additional temporary
total disability benefits. See Farmers Co-op v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002).
Nor does Gramling’s return to work with light duty restrictions bar his claim. Arkansas
Code Annotated section 11-9-526 (Repl. 2002) provides that “if an injured employee refuses
employment suitable to his capacity offered to or procured for him, he shall not be entitled to
any compensation during the continuance of the refusal, unless the refusal is justified in the
Commission’s opinion.” Thus, under the express wording of the statute, if Gramling had refused
the proffered light duty work, his claim would be barred. To find that his acceptance of that
-4-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 625
same work would also act as a bar would render an absurd result.
Next, appellants claim that the ALJ erred in relying on Superior Industries v. Thomaston, 72
Ark. App. 7, 32 S.W.3d 52 (2000), for the conclusion that, because ARI terminated Gramling,
he was incapacitated from earning wages and was, thus, eligible for temporary total disability
benefits. This argument is misplaced.
First, in Thomaston, we refused to apply Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-526 by
analogy to a situation where an employee was terminated. We found that there was no evidence
that Mr. Thomaston had refused employment; rather, he had accepted employment and was later
terminated at the option of his employer. We then focused on whether Mr. Thomaston was
within the healing period and was totally incapacitated from earning wages. After reviewing the
record, we found that Mr. Thomaston was clearly within his healing period when he was
terminated and that there was evidence that he was totally incapacitated as he could not continue
with his light duty work.
Appellants distinguish Thomaston by asserting that Gramling was terminated purely
because of his own conduct—falling asleep—not because of an inability to perform his duties
as a result of a compensable injury. ARI attributes Gramling’s inability to perform his job
requirements to the medication Gramling was taking for his Crohn’s disease, not his
compensable injury.
The Commission found otherwise. The ALJ’s opinion adopted by the Commission noted
that Gramling had been receiving medical treatment for his Crohn’s disease since 1999, and there
-5-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 625
was no evidence that it had served as an obstacle to his employment prior to his compensable
injury. The Commission found that, after sustaining his compensable injury, Gramling was
“belittled by his group leader, specifically monitored or stalked by [the] Safety Administrator, and
directed to stop talking to his co-workers by Human Resources Manager.” The Commission
further found that ARI’s referral to a non-treating physician for a “fitness for duty evaluation”
appeared, on its face, to be “nothing more than a ploy to punish [Gramling] and to remove him
from the work premises.” Additionally, the Commission noted that Gramling was taking pain
medication for both his compensable injury and his Crohn’s disease and determined that, based
on the evidence presented, any sleep disturbance Gramling was experiencing was the product of
pain growing out of his compensable injury.
In workers’ compensation cases, the Commission functions as the trier of fact. Blevins v.
Safeway Stores, 25 Ark. App. 297, 757 S.W.2d 569 (1988). The determination of the credibility and
weight to be given a witness’s testimony is within the sole province of the Commission. Murphy
v. Forsgren, Inc., 99 Ark. App. 223, 258 S.W.3d 794 (2007). The Commission is not required to
believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, but may accept and translate into
findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Farmers Co-op.
v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. at 4–5, 69 S.W.3d at 902. Further, the Commission has the authority to
accept or reject medical opinions, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and
effect of a jury verdict. Maya v. Newberry’s 3N Mill, 102 Ark. App. 119, 282 S.W.3d 269 (2008).
The Commission, rejecting the evidence presented by ARI as not credible, found that
-6-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 625
Gramling was terminated, not because of misconduct, but because of his physical inability to
perform his duties as a result of a compensable injury. Reviewing the evidence and all reasonable
inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s findings, we find
that there is substantial evidence in the record to support its conclusion.
The Commission further found that Gramling was within his healing period. Appellants
argue that Gramling’s condition had, at best, stagnated and he had not proceeded toward any
improvement as it related to the compensable foot injury. However, appellants completely
ignore the evidence to the contrary. On the date of his termination, Gramling had an
appointment scheduled to discuss an upcoming recommended spinal cord stimulator implant.
Additionally, on February 10, 2009, Dr. Schechter opined that Gramling had not reached
maximum medical improvement.
Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the
Commission’s findings.
Because Gramling was within the healing period and because he has not “returned to
work” for purposes of the statute, he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits.
Accordingly, we affirm.
GLADWIN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
-7-
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.