Jordan v. Home Depot, Inc.
430 S.W.3d 136
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Jonathan Jordan suffered a compensable 2003 lumbar injury; he underwent fusion surgery in 2009 after prior conservative care and interventions.
- The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) previously found Dr. Raben’s 2009 surgery reasonably necessary and awarded benefits through a yet-to-be-determined date (September 2008 decision not appealed).
- In 2011–2012 Jordan sought (1) additional temporary total-disability (TTD) benefits from February 2011 forward and (2) additional medical treatment recommended by Dr. James Blankenship (including SI‑joint treatment, PT, and possible CT).
- Evidence included treatment records, an MRI (June 1, 2011), Jordan’s testimony, and Dr. Blankenship’s deposition (he opined the fusion was solid, gave a 10% impairment rating, and attributed new SI‑joint pain to the prior fusion).
- The Commission denied additional TTD benefits (finding the healing period ended before Feb. 2011 and Jordan not totally incapacitated) but awarded the additional medical services recommended by Dr. Blankenship as related to the 2009 fusion.
- Jordan appealed only the denial of TTD benefits; Home Depot cross‑appealed the award of additional medical treatment. The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to additional TTD benefits from Feb. 2011 | Jordan: healing period had not ended due to ongoing pain, deconditioning, lack of neurosurgical follow‑up, and no MMI or release to work | Home Depot: healing period ended and Jordan was not totally incapacitated | Commission and court: denied TTD — substantial evidence supports finding healing period ended before Feb. 2011 and Jordan not totally incapacitated |
| Causation / necessity of additional medical treatment | Jordan: Dr. Blankenship’s plan (SI injection, PT, CT) is reasonably necessary and related to the compensable injury/fusion | Home Depot: Blankenship found fusion solid and attributed pain to SI joint; thus proposed treatment not causally related to original injury | Commission and court: awarded treatment — Blankenship’s opinion linking SI pain to prior fusion provided probative evidence of causal relation; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (standard to affirm Commission when findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Woodmancy v. Framco, Inc., 387 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (review of Commission denial requires showing a substantial basis for denial)
- Hickman v. Kellogg, Brown & Root, 372 Ark. 501, 277 S.W.3d 591 (Ark. 2008) (defines healing period and TTD entitlement)
- Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (Commission’s role in credibility and weighing evidence)
- Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight, 372 Ark. 233, 273 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2008) (view evidence in light most favorable to Commission)
- Parker v. Comcast Cable Corp., 100 Ark. App. 400, 269 S.W.3d 391 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate court defers to Commission where reasonable minds could reach its result)
- Foster v. Gilster Mary Lee Corp., 387 S.W.3d 212 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing denial of additional TTD benefits)
- Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002) (Commission may accept/reject medical opinions and assess probative value)
- Hamilton v. Gregory Trucking, 90 Ark. App. 248, 205 S.W.3d 181 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (what constitutes reasonably necessary treatment is a factual question for the Commission)