Thompson v. Mountain Home Good Samaritin Village
2014 Ark. App. 493
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Thompson sustained a compensable back injury in April 2005 while working in Good Samaritan Village’s maintenance department.
- Barrett-Tuck assigned a ten percent impairment rating to the body as a whole in 2008, which respondents did not accept.
- The May 1, 2013 hearing led to a finding that Thompson did not prove permanent and total disability and that five percent impairment plus ten percent wage-loss benefits were appropriate.
- The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision denying PTD but awarding additional pain management and a ten percent wage-loss disability over the impairment.
- Thompson argued permanent total disability, a higher wage-loss award, a higher impairment rating, and a constitutional challenge to the Act; the court reversed in part and remanded for impairment and wage-loss determinations while affirming the PTD denial and the constitutionality ruling.
- The court remanded to allow consideration of whether the impairment rating should be based on annular tear causation and related evidence, and to reassess the wage-loss impact if the impairment rating changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent and total disability denial | Thompson contends PTD is proven by overwhelming evidence. | Commission found no PTD supported by the record. | Denial affirmed; PTD not established by substantial evidence. |
| Wage-loss award adequacy | Ten percent wage-loss is too low given earning-potential loss. | Wage-loss supported by age, education, and work history and impairment. | Remand to reconsider wage-loss after impairment rating is resolved; not solely based on current impairment. |
| Impairment rating validity and basis | Barrett-Tuck’s ten percent rating supported by annular tear and related degenerative changes. | Rating improperly based on annular tear; Commission may apply its own rating. | Remand for impairment determination; require causal link between compensable injury and annular tear; Commission may base rating on AMA Guides after proper causation showing. |
| Constitutional challenge to AWCA | Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act provisions are unconstitutional. | Act is constitutional; consistent with Long v. Wal‑Mart. | Constitutionality upheld; affirm on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Crawford Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 54 Ark. App. 130, 923 S.W.2d 886 (1996) (wage-loss framework and future economic earning considerations)
- Coleman v. Pro Transportation, 97 Ark. App. 338, 249 S.W.3d 149 (2007) (annular tear vs. impairment rating under AMA Guides; precedent on impairment basis)
- Dokes v. Smart Style, 2012 Ark. App. 696 (2012) (causation standard for impairment due to annular tear)
- Firestone Bldg. Products v. Hopson, 2013 Ark. App. 618, 430 S.W.3d 162 (2013) (agency may set impairment rating using AMA Guides)
- Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, 250 S.W.3d 263 (2007) (constitutional challenges to AWCA principles rejected)
- Main v. Metals, 2010 Ark. App. 585, 377 S.W.3d 506 (2010) (definition and criteria for permanent impairment under statute)
- Rheem Mfg., Inc. v. Bark, 97 Ark. App. 224, 245 S.W.3d 716 (2006) (agency credibility and evidentiary weighing in impairment determinations)
- Jordan v. Home Depot, Inc., 2013 Ark. App. 572, 430 S.W.3d 136 (2013) (substantial-evidence standard of review)
- Sanchez v. Pork Grp., Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 570 (2012) (standard for affirming absence of relief when reviewing for substantial evidence)
- Woodmancy v. Framco, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 785, 387 S.W.3d 286 (2011) (credibility and weight of evidence in commission findings)