Wayne Smith Trucking, Inc. v. McWilliams
2011 Ark. App. 414
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- McWilliams sustained an admittedly compensable head injury April 13, 2008 from a broken strap, resulting in a forehead laceration requiring nineteen stitches and a scar.
- The parties stipulated to compensability and that medical expenses were paid; healing period ended by September 14, 2009; disfigurement benefits paid; dispute centered on permanent-disability benefits.
- McWilliams testified to persistent headaches and sensory changes near the scar, with treatment by Dr. Rutherford and Carbatrol; an MRI later suggested incidental lipoma unrelated to the injury, but the doctor opined headaches were related to trigeminal nerve injury.
- A 2008 CT showed left frontal focal injury but no acute intracranial abnormality; subsequent notes indicated ongoing pain and sensory loss attributed to the scalp laceration.
- The ALJ awarded a six-percent whole-body impairment based on a trigeminal-nerve injury and reduced from a fourteen-percent rating, relying on objective findings and Singleton line of authority.
- The Commission affirmed; appellants sought remand for Dr. Thomas’s July 2010 letter (MRI recommendation) but the Commission denied remand for lack of diligence, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission abused discretion in denying remand for new medical evidence | McWilliams | Appellants | No abuse of discretion; not diligent to obtain new evidence timely. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports a permanent-impairment rating | McWilliams | Appellants | Yes; the record supports a six-percent impairment based on objective scar and trigeminal-nerve injury, with credibility and medical testimony properly weighed by the Commission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59 (2006) (objective findings not required for every element; may rely on medical evidence supplemented by objective findings)
- Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff (Singleton II), 102 Ark. App. 305 (2008) (AMA Guides rating method not necessarily explicit; Commission may adopt reasonable method)
- Hargis Transport v. Chesser, 87 Ark. App. 301 (2004) (remand discretion requires diligence and relevance of new evidence)
- Bio-Tech Pharmacal, Inc. v. Blouin, 2010 Ark. App. 714 (2010) (standard for substantial evidence review in workers' compensation cases)
- Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc. v. Ealey, 2009 Ark. App. 680 (2009) (medical evidence need not be solely objective, but must be supported by objective findings)
- Main v. Metals, 2010 Ark. App. 585 (2010) (permanent impairment determination may rely on AMA Guides; major cause standard)
- Dillard’s v. Johnson, 2010 Ark. App. 138 (2010) (objective findings required to support impairment determinations)
- LVL, Inc. v. Ragsdale, 2011 Ark. App. 144 (2011) (commission may interpret medical evidence and draw inferences)