Cooper v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
2017 Ark. App. 58
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Claimant Graylon Cooper, a surgical technician, injured his neck/back at work in May 2011; UAMS accepted the compensable injury and paid benefits.
- Cooper underwent cervical fusion (C5-6, C6-7) in Aug. 2012 and received an 11% whole-person impairment rating; UAMS paid permanent-partial benefits on that rating.
- Later medical opinions conflicted: Dr. Collins assessed 25% impairment (later withdrawn); other treating/consulting physicians maintained 11% and objective studies (EMG/nerve conduction) were unremarkable.
- A July 2015 FCE found Cooper could perform sedentary material handling but could not sustain an 8-hour workday and required frequent rest breaks.
- Cooper testified to severe pain, medication side effects (drowsiness, memory/concentration issues), limited activity, and inability to work more than an hour at a time; evidence also showed travel for leisure and limited cooperation with vocational services.
- ALJ found Cooper not permanently and totally disabled but awarded 23% wage-loss disability; the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (2–1) adopted the ALJ’s opinion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooper is permanently and totally disabled | Cooper says pain + medication effects + medical and FCE evidence show inability to earn any meaningful wage | UAMS says Cooper is educated, has transferable skills, lacked job search effort, and exhibits questionable credibility/motivation | Commission’s credibility findings and weighing of evidence supported conclusion that Cooper failed to prove permanent total disability; affirmed |
| Whether 23% wage-loss award is supported by substantial evidence | Cooper argues 23% implies ability to earn unrealistic weekly wages given his restrictions, so award is unsupported | UAMS argues Cooper’s lack of motivation and refusal to pursue vocational options justify limiting award | Court held 23% wage-loss award is supported by substantial evidence and affirmed |
| Role of objective medical evidence vs. claimant testimony | Cooper contends subjective complaints and treating physicians’ opinions require finding of total disability | UAMS emphasizes objective tests (EMG, nerve studies) and conflicting impairment ratings to challenge total-disability claim | Court deferred to Commission’s resolution of medical conflicts and credibility assessments; substantial evidence supported Commission’s outcome |
| Whether Whitlatch compels reversal | Cooper relies on Whitlatch (claimant with severe pain and medication effects found totally disabled) to argue Commission erred | UAMS distinguishes Whitlatch by Cooper’s higher education, transferable skills, and lack of job-search effort; cites Frost as more analogous | Court found Whitlatch distinguishable; reasonable minds could agree with Commission’s different result and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- SSI, Inc. v. Cates, 350 S.W.3d 421 (Ark. App. 2009) (Commission may adopt ALJ opinion as its own)
- Parker v. Atl. Research Corp., 189 S.W.3d 449 (Ark. App. 2004) (standard for reviewing Commission decisions; substantial-evidence test)
- Parker v. Comcast Cable Corp., 269 S.W.3d 391 (Ark. App. 2007) (appellate review focuses on whether reasonable minds could reach Commission’s result)
- Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 284 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. App. 2008) (Commission’s duty to resolve credibility and medical conflicts)
- Redd v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 446 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. App. 2014) (Commission may increase impairment rating based on wage-loss factors)
- Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 201 S.W.3d 449 (Ark. App. 2005) (wage-loss factor defined as effect on earning capacity; Commission considers education, age, work experience)
- Whitlatch v. Southland Land & Dev., 141 S.W.3d 916 (Ark. App. 2004) (case where combination of severe pain and medication effects led appellate court to reverse Commission and find permanent total disability)