University of Arkansas Public Employee Claims Division v. Tocci
2015 Ark. App. 505
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- U of A appeals a WC Commission decision awarding Tocci additional medical treatment for a compensable back injury sustained April 6, 2012.
- Tocci, a print-machine operator, was treated with chiropractic care, physical therapy, and orthopedic consultation; pain management later focused on medication and PT.
- U of A controverted additional PT after March 2014; Tocci sought deep-tissue massage and joint mobilizations described in a Trinity Rehabilitation April 2014 report.
- ALJ found Tocci entitled to additional physical therapy at Trinity Rehabilitation; Commission affirmed the decision.
- U of A argues the Commission misapplied 11-9-508(a) and that substantial evidence does not support the award.
- Medical evidence included Tocci’s testimony, therapist reports, Dr. Thurman’s statements, and an MRI showing mild stenosis with degenerative changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of 11-9-508(a) | Tocci argues the statute requires reasonably necessary treatment under the injury; University challenges the construction. | U of A contends the issue centers on the meaning of 'reasonable and necessary' and urges proper statutory interpretation. | Court declines merits-based statutory construction; treats as factual question under substantial-evidence review. |
| Sufficiency of substantial evidence for PT award | U of A asserts ongoing PT was not reasonably necessary and was not supported by evidence. | Tocci and medical witnesses show continued PT, including deep-tissue massage, is beneficial and necessary. | Evidence supports the Commission’s award of additional physical therapy at Trinity Rehabilitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tango Truck Servs., Inc. v. Skinner, 2013 Ark. App. 682 (Ark. App. 2013) (credibility/weight of medical evidence in WC decisions)
- Pyle v. Woodfield, Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 251 (Ark. App. 2009) (credibility and resolution of conflicting medical testimony)
- Hamilton v. Gregory Trucking, 90 Ark. App. 248 (Ark. App. 2005) (fact-finder credibility and medical-evidence evaluation)
- Vangilder v. Anchor Packaging, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 240 (Ark. App. 2011) (standard of review for reasonable/necessary medical treatment)
- Stutzman v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 99 Ark. App. 19 (Ark. App. 2007) (sufficiency of medical-evidence to support WC award)
- Oak Grove Lumber Co. v. Highfill, 62 Ark. App. 42 (Ark. App. 1998) (commission's authority to evaluate medical opinion and probative force)
- Murphy v. Forsgren, Inc., 99 Ark. App. 223 (Ark. App. 2007) (standard of review for substantial evidence)
- Hargis Transp. v. Chesser, 87 Ark. App. 301 (Ark. App. 2004) (credibility determinations and weight of medical testimony)