Cossey v. Pepsi Beverage Co.
2015 Ark. App. 265
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- In August 1993 Cossey, a Pepsi route driver in his mid-30s, suffered a compensable low-back strain while stocking a cooler; he later received an 11% whole‑body anatomical impairment rating.
- Imaging documented multilevel degenerative disc disease; treatment over years was conservative (medication, injections, PT); multiple functional-capacity evaluations indicated capacity for light work with restrictions.
- Cossey stopped working after the injury, received Social Security disability and Pepsi retirement, and had not sought other employment; surveillance and records showed intermittent physically demanding activity after the injury.
- Multiple independent examiners over the years (including Dr. Martimbeau) attributed ongoing pain and treatment needs to chronic degenerative disease rather than the 1993 strain; the Commission found MMI in January 1996.
- Cossey sought additional pain‑management treatment and wage‑loss benefits beyond the 11% impairment; the Commission denied additional medical treatment but awarded 25% wage‑loss disability; Cossey appealed and Pepsi cross‑appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cossey) | Defendant's Argument (Pepsi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to additional medical treatment (pain management) | Treatment is reasonable, necessary, and causally related to 1993 work injury | Ongoing care is due to preexisting/progressive degenerative disease, not the 1993 strain; employer already paid reasonable care | Commission denial affirmed: substantial evidence supports that ongoing treatment is for degenerative disease, not the 1993 injury |
| Wage‑loss benefits beyond anatomical impairment | 1993 injury more severely limited his earning capacity; should receive greater award | No wage loss attributable to the 1993 injury | Commission award of 25% wage‑loss (in excess of 11% impairment) affirmed as supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Treadaway, 433 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of substantial‑evidence review of Commission findings)
- Howell v. Scroll Techs., 35 S.W.3d 800 (Ark. 2001) (review when claimant fails to meet burden; substantial basis for denial)
- Santillan v. Tyson Sales & Distribution, 386 S.W.3d 566 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (post‑healing‑period treatment must be for management of compensable injury)
- Walker v. United Cerebral Palsy of Ark., 426 S.W.3d 539 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (treatment causation and compensability principles)
- Wal‑Mart Assoc., Inc. v. Keys, 423 S.W.3d 683 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (wage‑loss factor and Commission authority to increase rating)
- R.L. Landscaping v. Jones, 374 S.W.3d 761 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (factors for assessing wage‑loss disability)
- Maulding v. Price’s Utility Contractors, Inc., 358 S.W.3d 915 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (consideration of non‑medical factors in wage‑loss analysis)
- Logan County v. McDonald, 206 S.W.3d 258 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming Commission discretion in awarding wage‑loss benefits)