Ray Baxter, P.A. v. Baxter
2012 Ark. App. 251
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Baxter, an attorney and former claims adjuster, sustained a July 17, 2006 motor vehicle accident while en route to a client’s house to complete discovery.
- Union denied Baxter’s workers’ compensation claim in full; the ALJ found no compensable injury arising out of employment and the Commission reversed, finding a compensable injury and notice proper.
- Baxter had a long history of back problems with prior surgeries before the July 2006 incident.
- Post-accident medical treatment included Dr. Peek’s evaluation, spinal injections, bone scans, and eventual spine surgeries beginning in January 2007.
- Dr. Peek opined that the July 17, 2006 collision aggravated preexisting conditions and caused a new thoracic postlaminectomy syndrome requiring fusion and further procedures.
- The Commission found the injury to be compensable and that Baxter gave notice to his employer around the time of the accident; Union challenged these findings on substantial evidence and notice grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baxter sustained a compensable injury. | Baxter asserts injury arose from the July 17, 2006 collision and is compensable. | Union contends the record does not show a compensable work injury. | Affirmed: Baxter sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of employment. |
| Whether Baxter gave timely notice to his employer. | Baxter notified employer on or about the date of injury through Baxter’s role and actions. | Union argues notice was not timely to the employer. | Affirmed: Baxter’s notice complied; employer had knowledge and notice was not a bar. |
| Whether the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, including credibility determinations. | Baxter-supported medical opinions and objective findings support compensability. | Union challenges credibility of Baxter and Dr. Peek and asserts conflicting medical records. | Affirmed: Commission’s findings supported by substantial evidence; credibility determinations within its province. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Frolic Footwear, 59 Ark.App. 12 (1997) (standard of review for substantial evidence)
- White Consol. Indus. v. Galloway, 45 S.W.3d 396 (Ark. App. 2001) (substantial evidence standard description)
- Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. Conner, 284 S.W.3d 57 (2008) (appellate review of Commission findings)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 91 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. App. 2002) (objective findings include muscle spasms)
- Neal v. Sparks Reg’l Med. Ctr., 289 S.W.3d 163 (Ark. App. 2008) (credibility and weight of witness testimony within Commission’s province)