Walgreen Co. v. Goode
2012 Ark. App. 196
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Walgreen appeals Goode's workers’ compensation award for a gradual-onset thoracic injury arising August 11, 2006, while Goode sought related treatments, TTD, a 5% PPI, and attorney fees.
- ALJ credited Goode with compensable gradual-onset thoracic injury and surgeries by Dr. Chiu; rejected preexisting degenerative-disease theories; lumbar claims denied.
- Goode underwent thoracic surgeries after conservative treatment failed, with Dr. Chiu opining work-related thoracic herniations and annular tear; other doctors attributed pain to preexisting degenerative changes.
- ALJ awarded medical benefits for thoracic injury, TTD from Nov 14, 2007 to July 21, 2008, a 5% PPI, attorney fees, and set-off for short-term or group health benefits; Commission affirmed.
- Walgreen challenges causation, reasonableness of surgical treatment, duration of TTD, and impairment rating; the court reviews for substantial evidence supporting Commission findings.
- Court affirms the Commission, holding substantial evidence supports compensable thoracic injury, reasonable surgical treatment, appropriate TTD, and five-percent impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the thoracic injury compensable and gradual-onset? | Goode proved major-cause work-related thoracic injury. | Goode's thoracic issues largely preexist degenerative changes; not causally linked to work. | Yes; compensable gradual-onset thoracic injury established. |
| Were the thoracic surgeries reasonable and necessary? | Chiu’s procedures were necessary for the thoracic injury. | Other physicians favored conservative care; surgeries were questionable. | Yes; surgeries deemed reasonable and necessary. |
| Is Goode entitled to temporary total disability benefits? | Goode could not earn pharmacist wages during healing and there was tandem employment. | Goode was partially able to work; no TTD while working. | Yes; Goode entitled to TTD during healing period notwithstanding intermittent family-work earnings. |
| Is the five-percent permanent-partial impairment supported by major-cause evidence? | Impairment primarily from compensable thoracic injury; major cause shown by Chiu’s findings. | Impairment results from preexisting degenerative disease and procedures were questionable. | Yes; 5% impairment supported as major cause by thoracic surgery and injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 72 Ark.App. 148, 35 S.W.3d 328 (2000) (substantial-evidence standard of review)
- Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark.App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001) (credibility and weight of evidence controlled by Commission)
- Geo Specialty Chem. v. Clingan, 69 Ark.App. 369, 13 S.W.3d 218 (2000) (Commission weighs medical opinion admissibility and probative value)
- Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999) (statutory framework and weighing medical evidence)
- Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d 91 (2008) (credibility and weight in appellate review of expert testimony)
- Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark.App. 162, 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999) (principles on credibility and causation)
- Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark.App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002) (major-cause standard and impairment understanding)
- St. Joseph’s Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Redmond, 2012 Ark.App. 7, 388 S.W.3d 45 (2012) (appellate review of Commission findings)
- Sharp Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t v. Ozark Acres Improvement Dist., 75 Ark.App. 250, 57 S.W.3d 764 (2001) (evidence-weight standards on factual determinations)
- Stevens v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist., 41 Ark.App. 201, 850 S.W.2d 335 (1993) (definition of disability involving other employment)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Westbrook, 77 Ark.App. 167, 72 S.W.3d 889 (2002) (disability definition and tandem employment interpretation)
- Yellow Transp., Inc. v. Bennett, 2009 Ark. App. 424, 2009 WL 1478007 (2009) (major-cause standard in impairment awards)