*1 453 have showed the wound the victim had received. We consistently admissibility question held that. the photographs largely lies within the discretion of the trial ruling appeal court, its will not bedisturbed on absent showing photo- Here, clear graph of abuse of discretion. the first testimony
corroborated the of the witness who found body, photograph the Criminologist and the second aided the Chief testimony.
for the State Crime Lab in his stipulation fact that there was a as to the cause of death did photograph make second inadmissible. v. Rodgers 293, Furthermore, State, Ark. 261 419 547 S.W.2d were, photographs both relevant to the nature and extent say the wounds. We cannot that the trial court abused its admitting photographs. discretion in the two objections pursuant We have examined all to Rule 11 (f), Supreme Court, Ann., Rules of the Vol. 3A (Repl. 1977) and find no error. See Earl v. State, 272 98(1981). 611 S.W.2d
Affirmed. Ray SCOTT, Executive
Minnie WILLIAMS Department Director, et al Arkansas of Human Services Supreme of Arkansas Court February Opinion delivered *2 Arkansas, Pecquet, Legal Services of Northeast Janet for appellant. Parham, Carolyn Arkansas Department Human Services, for appellees. George This cases arises under Smith, Rose Justice.
the Medicaid Program, created by federal law but admin- istered part state. The free program provides medical assistance for indigent who persons are disabled within this definition of disability: or “Physical mental impairment which prevents individual from doing isor has lasted work . . . and substantially gainful Medical Services months.” to last for at least 12 expected Manual, in the record. as quoted (1) (c), Williams, for medical Minnie
The appellant, was approved Her application under program. benefits April, for review came up but when her case in May, for benefits. She to be ineligible was found Review Medical but the hearing, an administrative given Team, worker, again social doctor and a of a consisting was affirmed That decision her to be ineligible. found (1) (c). under Rule comes to us court. The appeal circuit can be facts of the various pertinent The significance *3 that the principles if we first outline better appreciated the Administrative review of the case. Under our govern if it can be reversed decision Procedure Act an administrative or is arbitrary, evidence is not substantial supported by abuse of discretion. or characterized capricious, stress the fact At the outset we 1976). Ann. (h) (Repl. is not a truly proceeding that this administrative particular one; is, burden on the Department there is no adversary the claim of Human Services to investigate Instead, as in the instance much rebutting proof. introduce kind, is on of some the burden of a license person seeking satisfaction of the to her to the eligibility the applicant prove v. Ark. Butane Wholesale Gray’s administrative See agency. 69, Bd., Ark. 639 Petroleum Gas 463 S.W.2d Liquefied 250 (1971). is free believe
An like a agency, jury, administrative Service v. Seismograph witness. Meyer or disbelieve 168, the (1945). give Ark. We 189 Corp., 209 S.W.2d 794 the admin- its force to strongest probative support Co., Ark. v. Amoco Chemical istrative decision. Franks 253 120, To establish an absence 484 689 evidence to the decision substantial before the administrative demonstrate that the proof must fair-minded men so tribunal was nearly undisputed Ibid. the Finally, question could not reach its conclusion. a contrary have testimony supported not whether would that was made. finding but whether it finding supports Co., Campbell Athletic Mining & 773, Smelting 449 (1949). 223 S.W.2d facts, viewed most to the favorably are appellee, claimant, 60,
these: The now never married and age has depended members upon of her for family She can support. little, read and write a but is functionally illiterate. The only work she has done outside the home was agricultural field labor. Some years discontinued that work ago March, take her 1979, care of mother. In her mother had a stroke and eventually became blind and an invalid. The November, claimant cared for her mother until her death in Since then she has lived with her A brother. social worker reported August, that the claimant “takes care her bed, personal needs. She is not chair or house bound. has charge the homemaker chores. She [She] spends days doing housework and visits her neigh- is friendly and cooperative.” Upon bors.....[She] nonexpert proof we think a fair-minded could person reach the conclusion that the claimant is not physically disabled.
Nor can it be said that the expert proof is conclusive. In April, when Medicaid, the claimant first for her physician, Dr. filled in Ashley, a form with information that is more favorable to the claimant than else in anything the record. He wrote that she had migraine (headaches), *4 arthritis, goiter, generalized otitis (inflammation of the ear), reactions, anxiety and other perhaps ailments not made clear record. In his comments Dr. referred Ashley to the claimant as totally illiterate and concluded that she was disabled, and unemployed, In unemployable. May, 1980, the Medical Review Team found the claimant eligible for benefits. Their report ended by a requiring re-examina- tion in May, 1981. 9,1981,
On April another doctor filled in the same form with information less favorable to a finding disability. This time the Medical Review Team found the claimant on ineligible, May 1. Dr. Ashley then submitted a new evaluation in which May he “This lady said: is unemployed unemployable. In Ashley’s [Dr. italics.] has no yrs. mother, work experience except for her caring who died on is now Nov. . . . Her brother ‘kicking her out’ in favor of a he October 5 girl marry.” wants to On there was a at which the claimant testified but hearing offered no other evidence to her claim. The Medical Team Review found her to be for benefits. again ineligible find it We that fair-minded impossible say persons could not conclude that the claimant failed to establish her entitlement to medical Dr. assistance. evi- Ashley, quite dently advocate for his did not limit his patient, opinion work, to the claimant’s physical for he stressed disability Medicaid, illiteracy and lack of work experience. however, is not available for the and unem- unemployed it is for the ployable; and the aged disabled. Dr. physically did Ashley not attempt one or more of pinpoint any his patient’s ailments that were The Medical actually disabling. Team, matters, Review selected for their expertise such ailments, did not consider the claimant’s several ifmost all of which had afflicted her for to be many years, conflict, disabling. With the evidence in we cannot say that the Team acted without substantial evidence or arbitrarily and capriciously.
Affirmed. Hays,
Purtle dissent. JJ., Purtle, I. I with the Justice, disagree dissenting. John because, in this case over- majority my opinion, of the evidence substantiates the whelming preponderance claim of total All is Minnie Williams disability. asking medicaid as one who is granted This is needy. a funded medically federally program operated the social through services division of the Arkansas Depart- ment of Human is defined both “Disability” Services. federal or mental state and regulations “physical the individual impairment prevents doing any or is substantially gainful work . . . and which has lasted to last for at ...” least months expected *5 on a farm when Minnie Williams was forced to work any was a child and to obtain formal was unable She her adult life as an unskilled farm education. spent laborer and for her mother. years invalid She caring of at the time of She receives no income from age hearing. source, therefore, she is for any ineligible social security benefits. Dr. D. Ashley, a local testified that physician, John in his from a of opinion appellant impair- suffered number ments, headaches, migraine rheumatoid including: goiter, attacks, in joints, arthritis multiple paraxysmal, anxiety osteoarthritis, nervousness, enlarged extreme thyroid, nausea, otitis and guterma, arthritis of the lumbar His spine. testimony was that was to of any type avoid which activity included kneel- walking, standing, stooping, lifting, ing, reaching, and He concluded pushing pulling. that in his by saying opinion she was and totally per- manently disabled. There was another medical report was essentially the same as that Dr. Ashley’s. of medical testimony was not contradicted. It is my that opinion reasonable minds could not find this woman was not disabled. There is totally no known gainful employment, which does not my opinion, involve some of the activities prohibited by the medical in this case.
I would reverse this case order Minnie Williams to be as certified disabled from engaging gainful employment intended regulations herein involved. Hays, Steele illiterate, This Justice, dissenting. sixty- year-old woman for Medicaid under the Medically Program. She claims of Needy to suffer goiter long duration, breath, of shortness dizzy head- spells, migraine aches, chronic ear infection and rheumatoid and lumbar work, arthritis. Her field employment has been limited to doubtless due in part give but she had to illiteracy, up housework, fifteen years about She ago. says she can do some though only and is what sporadically, limited in she is able physically to do. Her gives brother he can help what for food and medication.
Appellant’s claims are disability fully supported several medical Dr. D. reports Ashley Newport. John He considers her condition to be permanent disabling. Whether Dr. Ashley’s is to discounted opinion *6 He say. I cannot for his patient, is an advocate he because disabled, appellant have believed simply may her to be. reported he to prove is on the burden Certainly, the first instance. the to these medical benefits entitlement credible that by independent, she has done where But adverse to decision agency then an medical opinion, Harris substantial evidence. by be supported must 897, 567 Ann. Daniels, Here, of substance I can find 1976). nothing (Repl. § substance of benefits. The sum and the denial supports of claim entitlement of the opposing of Dr. some recognizes consists of a brief form which printed state, on the on to “Based but Ashley’s findings, goes follows:” evidence our decision ( )
1. Eligible Ineligible (x)
2. This fails to meet utterly requirements “evidence” first, in two a one-word respects: peremptory of the law benefits, needed, so fails denial of a claim for medical clearly evidence, meet, even the test substantial approach, or a substantial furnishing which has been defined as evidence in issue can reasonably basis of fact fact merely evidence which by inferred. The test is satisfied no more a a or than creates which amounts suspicion to inconsistent gives equal scintilla or which Evidence, Ed. at inferences. on 3rd vol. 300. Wigmore evidence has been defined as: Substantial of sufficient evidence is evidence that is “Substantial will, and character that it with reasonable force a conclusion certainty precision, compel material the mind one or the other. It must force or induce way a or Ford beyond conjecture.” to pass suspicion Evidence, 4, 549, at vol.
Second, of the Administrative avowed purpose by justice Act the administration improve Procedures review. Where judicial fair procedures, including providing claim benefits (whether workers’ unem- compensation, insurance, ployment or medical aid to the is based on needy) substantial grounds, and is denied with no agency “denied”, explanation except it is any significant review the courts as to fairness is We are destroyed. *7 left in such faith, instances to simply accept, pure unsupported, one-word opinion that the is “in- claimant Thus, our eligible.” obligation to provide meaningful appellate review abdicated in favor of the I agency. dissent. respectfully
Eli v. Mary McFADDEN GRIFFITH
Supreme Court Arkansas delivered Opinion February [Rehearing April denied 1983.] P.A., Kaplan, Brewer, Hollingsworth & by: E. Philip Arndt, Kaplan Karen L. for appellee.