Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. v. Keys
2012 Ark. App. 559
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Keys sustained a compensable back injury from lifting a bicycle on October 19, 2006.
- Initial doctor restricted lifting to 20 lbs and limited bending, with prolonged standing and sitting caps.
- Wal-Mart briefly accommodated but she returned to duties beyond restrictions; healing period ended August 27, 2007.
- In August 2007 Keys was offered a Wal-Mart greeter position but performed tasks exceeding her restrictions.
- September 2007 Wal-Mart allegedly offered a door-greeter position; Keys testified the offer was not credible or permanent.
- Keys later changed treating physicians to Dr. Chakales (2009) and then to Dr. Hawk (2011), with differing treatment outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wal-Mart’s offer was a bona fide offer within limitations | Keys argues offer was not genuine or permanent; bait-and-switch. | Wal‑Mart asserts no permanent bona fide offer existed under statute. | The Commission’s finding of no bona fide offer is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether 25% wage-loss disability is supported | Keys contends age, education, and limited skills justify wage loss beyond impairment. | Wal‑Mart argues evidence does not support wage-loss beyond impairment. | Substantial evidence supports the 25% wage-loss disability award. |
| Whether change of physician to Dr. Hawk was properly allowed | Keys needed continued treatment; Dr. Chakales’s health deteriorated, necessitating a change. | Treatment by Dr. Hawk without proper authorization was improper unless justified by circumstances. | There is substantial evidence supporting the change of physician to Dr. Hawk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark.App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001) (substantial evidence review standard in workers’ compensation appeals)
- Sivixay v. Danaher Tool Grp., 2009 Ark. App. 786 (2009) (credibility and weight of witness testimony within Commission’s province)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Connell, 340 Ark. 475, 10 S.W.3d 882 (2000) (disability determination and wage-loss framework)
- Logan Cnty. v. McDonald, 90 Ark.App. 409, 206 S.W.3d 258 (2005) (consideration of age, education, and experience in wage-loss)
- Henson v. Gen. Elec., 99 Ark.App. 129, 257 S.W.3d 908 (2007) (fact-intensive wage-loss factors and post-injury considerations)
- Hope Brick Works v. Welch, 33 Ark.App. 103, 802 S.W.2d 476 (1991) (substantial evidence standard of review in wage-loss awards)