Gregory v. Tyson Poultry Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 325
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CA10-1118
Opinion Delivered
M AY 4, 2011
S.C. GREGORY
APPELLANT
V.
TYSON POULTRY COMPANY,
TYNET CORPORATION and DEATH
& PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY
FUND
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[NO. F700802]
AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge
This appeal challenges the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s
determination that appellant S.C. Gregory did not prove that his May 11, 2005 compensable
left-knee injury was causally connected to his January 24, 2008 left-knee replacement.
Appellant contends that the Commission erred in failing to find that he was entitled to
medical benefits, total-temporary disability, additional permanent-partial disability, and
permanent disability. Further, appellant claims that the Commission erred in giving
controlling weight to an independent-medical examination garnered by appellee Tyson
Poultry. These arguments address the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Commission’s
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 325
decision adequately displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm
by memorandum opinion.
On May 11, 2005, appellant sustained a compensable left-knee injury while working
for his employer, Tyson Poultry. Appellant underwent surgery on May 26, 2005, and
returned to work under restrictions. Appellant again underwent surgery on his knee on
August 3, 2006, and on June 6, 2007. On July 30, 2007, appellant’s treating physician, Dr.
Newbern, recommended a total-knee replacement, opining that the work-related injury
appellant had sustained to his knee was the main cause for the need of a knee replacement.
However, Dr. James McKenzie, an orthopedic surgeon who performed an independentmedical evaluation, opined that appellant’s compensable injury was not the cause of the need
for the total-knee replacement. He concluded that he could find no evidence in his review
of the medical records that suggested that the arthritis in appellant’s knee, which led to the
need for the knee replacement, was caused by the trauma from the compensable knee injury.
The ALJ denied appellant’s claim, relying on Dr. McKenzie’s evaluation. Appellant appealed
the ALJ’s decision to the Commission, which affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s decision.
Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the claimant’s failure to meet
his burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the
Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Parson v. Ark.
Methodist Hosp., 103 Ark. App. 178, 287 S.W.3d 645 (2008). Substantial evidence is evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Williams v. Prostaff
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 325
Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). From our review, we conclude that the
Commission’s opinion more than adequately explains its decision and displays a substantial
basis for the denial of relief. Therefore, we affirm the Commission’s decision by this
memorandum opinion pursuant to In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d
63 (1985).
Affirmed.
V AUGHT, C.J., and G RUBER, J., 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.
