Ozark Natural Food v. Pierson
2012 Ark. App. 133
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Pierson, age 40, injured October 8, 2007 at Ozark Natural Food when a door was slammed open causing right arm/shoulder and neck/back pain.
- She sought medical care the next day (October 9, 2007) and was diagnosed with a right-shoulder hyperextension injury with work restrictions.
- Orthopedic evaluation February 1, 2008 noted cervical disc narrowing at C6-7 and diagnosed scapulothoracic myofascial syndrome; released to work with restrictions and referred for physical therapy.
- MRI in June 2008 (independent medical evaluation) showed significant cervical spondylosis/kyphoscoliosis; doctor found current symptoms related to work injury but not solely due to degenerative changes.
- Follow-up treatment included more physical therapy and spine specialist referrals; July 2009 MRI showed left C6-7 disc herniation; surgery discussed; medical opinions later debated causation.
- ALJ found compensable aggravation of preexisting cervical problems due to the work injury and reasonable and necessary treatment; TMJ jaw injury denied; discussion of temporary-total-disability benefits from May–September 2010; Commission affirmed 2–1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pierson proved a compensable aggravation of preexisting cervical problems. | Pierson relied on objective MRI findings and medical opinions linking the aggravation to the work incident. | Defendants argued lack of objective causation evidence and reliance on preexisting degenerative disease. | Yes; substantial evidence supports compensable aggravation. |
| Whether medical treatment for the cervical aggravation is reasonably necessary. | Treatment was necessary to address the aggravation and was related to the work injury. | Treatment largely addressed preexisting conditions; not all care was causally related to the incident. | Yes; medical treatment for the cervical aggravation was reasonably necessary. |
| Whether Pierson’s jaw/TMJ injury is compensable. | No argument provided beyond neck injury; jaw symptoms tied to work-related pain. | TMJ not related to October 2007 incident. | TMJ injury not compensable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Bemis Co., Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 65 (Ark. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing Commission findings; substantial evidence required)
- Montgomery v. J & J Lumber Co., 2011 Ark. App. 129 (Ark. App. 2011) (deference to ALJ/Commission when weighing evidence)
- Grothaus v. Vista Health, LLC, 2011 Ark. App. 130 (Ark. App. 2011) (aggravation of preexisting condition compensable if injury met criteria)
- Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296 (Ark. 2001) (causation may be established without objective findings if supported by medical certainty)
- Heptinstall v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 84 Ark.App. 215 (Ark. App. 2003) (causation with reasonable certainty in medical opinions)
- Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 2009 Ark.App. 581 (Ark. App. 2009) (court weighs medical opinions; substantial evidence standard)