Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett

2013 Ark. App. 480
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedSeptember 11, 2013
DocketCV-13-59
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

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.

Bluebook
Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett, 2013 Ark. App. 480 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013).

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

Mullen v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2015 Ark. App. 558 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2015)
Schluterman v. Becko Mach. Works
2015 Ark. App. 482 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2015)
Ace Mech. Inc. v. Holloway
2015 Ark. App. 107 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2015)
Dart v. Second Injury Fund
2013 Ark. App. 578 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2013)
Ark. Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Blansett
2013 Ark. App. 480 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ark. App. 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ark-methodist-med-ctr-v-blansett-arkctapp-2013.