City of El Dorado v. Smith
2017 Ark. App. 307
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Claimant (Smith), 57, had L5–S1 fusion and decompression on Oct. 15, 2014 for spinal stenosis/spondylolisthesis; Dr. Peek cleared him for regular work effective Dec. 1, 2014.
- On Dec. 2, 2014, claimant slipped stepping out of a work truck and hit his back; he sought treatment the same day for severe back and bilateral leg pain.
- Post-accident records show increased pain, reported spasms and restricted motion; treatments included injections and follow-up with Drs. Smart, Sprinkle, and Peek; EMG and MRI performed in Jan. 2015.
- Employer initially stipulated compensability then withdrew and controverted, arguing symptoms were continuation of preexisting condition and that prior payments covered treatment.
- ALJ found claimant proved a compensable injury (Dec. 2, 2014), that all medical treatment (including future surgery recommended by Dr. Peek) was reasonably necessary, and that claimant remained in his healing period and entitled to TTD from Dec. 3, 2014 forward; Full Commission adopted the ALJ opinion.
- Employer appealed, arguing (1) no new objective findings to show a compensable injury, (2) healing period ended Jan. 22, 2015, and (3) no medical evidence supporting award of surgery. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (City of El Dorado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensability: whether Dec. 2, 2014 event caused a new compensable injury | The Dec. 2 fall aggravated preexisting spine condition and produced objective findings (spasms, increased pain) tied to work incident | No new objective findings; symptoms reflect preexisting condition/surgery, not a new compensable injury | Affirmed: Commission reasonably found aggravation/compensable injury supported by objective findings and contemporaneous records |
| Healing period: whether claimant remained in healing period after Jan. 22, 2015 | Claimant remained symptomatic and treating with surgeon; no release to work from Dr. Peek | Employer relies on Dr. Sprinkle’s Jan. 22 note releasing to work and stating future care was related to preexisting condition | Affirmed: Commission credited treating-surgeon timeline and resolved conflicting medical opinions in claimant’s favor |
| Medical benefits (surgery): whether future surgery is reasonably necessary and related to work injury | Surgery recommended by Dr. Peek for ongoing severe symptoms; claimant credible that surgeon recommended surgery | Employer argues no medical evidence supports additional surgery causally tied to the Dec. 2 incident | Affirmed: Commission may award future medicals based on testimony and record; claimant found credible that surgery was recommended |
| Attorney’s fee (not appealed) | N/A — claimant sought fee | Employer did not appeal ALJ’s award of maximum statutory fee | ALJ awarded maximum fee; not at issue on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. L & M Janitorial, 145 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App.) (employer takes employee as found; aggravation of preexisting condition compensable)
- Liaromatis v. Baxter Cty. Reg’l Hosp., 236 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. Ct. App.) (claimant must present objective findings establishing a new compensable injury)
- Mooney v. AT & T, 378 S.W.3d 162 (Ark. Ct. App.) (preexisting spasms and unchanged imaging do not satisfy objective findings for new injury)