Mills v. Aerocare Holdings, Inc.
2017 Ark. App. 131
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Claimant Daniel R. Mills, a respiratory therapist, injured his left shoulder in June 2012 lifting a 200‑lb oxygen tank.
- Dr. Russ B. Rauls performed left arthroscopic surgery (subacromial decompression and distal clavicle resection) in September 2012; Mills was released to full duty March 20, 2013.
- Mills obtained a one‑time change of physician to Dr. Christopher A. Arnold and saw him beginning November 19, 2013; Dr. Arnold gave an injection and said he would consider repeat surgery if symptoms recurred.
- The Commission denied Mills’s claim for additional left‑shoulder treatment recommended by Dr. Arnold, relying on prior treating‑physician findings (postop improvement, no objective tear on MRI/surgery, bilateral strength testing showing left stronger) and gaps in records documenting persistent left‑shoulder problems.
- Mills also moved to recuse ALJs and argued the workers’ compensation statute establishing ALJs is unconstitutional; the Commission rejected those constitutional challenges.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission on both the denial of additional medical treatment and the rejection of the constitutional challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeat left‑shoulder surgery recommended by Dr. Arnold is reasonably necessary | Mills: Arnold recommended repeat arthroscopy if symptoms persisted; the initial surgery failed and continued symptoms are work related | Employer: Prior treating surgeon released Mills to full duty; imaging and intraop findings did not show a tear; strength testing and records do not establish need for more treatment | Commission and court: Denial affirmed — substantial evidence supports conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove need for additional treatment |
| Whether provisions creating ALJs under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act are unconstitutional | Mills: ALJs and the Commission are improperly appointed/subject to executive influence; recusal sought due to alleged threats | Employer: Prior precedent rejects these constitutional challenges; ALJs lawful | Commission and court: Constitutional challenge rejected; precedent controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Tyson Poultry, Inc., 504 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. Ct. App.) (Commission entitled to use medical expertise and resolve conflicting evidence)
- Nichols v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 374 S.W.3d 148 (Ark. Ct. App.) (employer liable for natural consequences of work injury where causal connection shown)
- Jordan v. Home Depot, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 136 (Ark. Ct. App.) (substantial‑evidence standard requires affirming Commission when a substantial basis supports denial)
- Rippe v. Delbert Hooten Logging, 266 S.W.3d 217 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (rejecting similar constitutional challenges to workers’ compensation adjudicators)
- Long v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 263 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (same)
- Thompson v. Mountain Home Good Samaritan Vill., 442 S.W.3d 873 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate review defers to Commission credibility and reasonable inferences)