Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett
This text of 2013 Ark. App. 480 (Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 480
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-13-59
ARKANSAS METHODIST MEDICAL Opinion Delivered September 11, 2013 CENTER and RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION V. [NO. G108093]
AFFIRMED DON-ANDRE BLANSETT APPELLEE
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Arkansas Methodist Medical Center Memorial Hospital and its insurer, Risk
Management Resources, appeal the November 30, 2012 decision of the Arkansas Workers’
Compensation Commission awarding appellee Don-Andre Blansett additional medical
treatment and temporary total-disability benefits for a compensable injury to his neck. Mr.
Blansett, who had previously undergone neck surgery and lower-back surgery, sustained the
injury on June 7, 2011, while working for the hospital as an EMT and loading an obese
woman onto a stretcher. In rendering its decision, the Commission specifically found that the
medical treatment controverted by appellants was causally related to Mr. Blansett’s
compensable injury rather than a preexisting condition in his neck or cervical spine.
Appellants contend on appeal that the Commission’s determination is not supported by
substantial evidence because Mr. Blansett’s latest neck problems were related to preexisting
problems rather than his compensable work injury. Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 480
Here, the Commission exercised its duty to make determinations of credibility, to
weigh the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in medical testimony and evidence. Martin
Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d 91 (2008). Because the sole issue
before us concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commission’s findings, and
because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the decision, we affirm by
memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63
(1985).
Affirmed.
PITTMAN and WYNNE, JJ., agree.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Guy Alton Wade and Travis J. Fowler, for appellants.
Brazil, Adlong & Mickel, PLC, by: Thomas W. Mickel, for appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 Ark. App. 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ark-methodist-med-ctr-v-blansett-arkctapp-2013.