Lincoln Public Schools v. Secrist

2016 Ark. App. 315, 496 S.W.3d 396, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 330
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedJune 8, 2016
DocketCV-16-2
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 Ark. App. 315 (Lincoln Public Schools v. Secrist) 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
Lincoln Public Schools v. Secrist, 2016 Ark. App. 315, 496 S.W.3d 396, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 330 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

hThe issue in this workers’ compensation appeal is whether the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision that appellee Deanna Secrist successfully proved she suffered a mental injury in the form of depression as a result of her com-pensable back injury is in error. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found Secrist had not proved she suffered a compensable mental injury; the Commission reversed that finding. Appellants Lincoln Public Schools and the Arkansas School Boards Association now appeal, arguing the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is in error as a matter of law. We reverse.

Secrist suffered a compensable back injury in September 2010 while employed by appellant Lincoln Public Schools and was assigned a seven percent anatomical-impairment rating for that injury in May 2011, In April 2012, she underwent an osteotomy of the spine at L5-S1 for a correction of sagittal and coronal plane balance, with a postoperative diagnosis of L5-S1 disk herniation with grade 5 annular tear at L5-S1 with sagittal plane imbalance and extreme lateral disk herniation with bilateral lower extremity pain L5 distribution. Secrist | ¿underwent physical therapy after surgery and reported she was progressing well; however, she began to have pain, and she was referred to Dr. Mary Daut in January 2014 for pain management. Dr. Daut’s assessment of Sec-rist in January 2014 included “[djepressive order, not otherwise classified.” -Rhonda Finley, an APN who had seen and followed Secrist since her surgery, noted in January 2014 she had exhausted all she knew to do regarding Secrist’s complaints of pain and opined that Secrist would benefit from seeing a physiatrist and a pain specialist.

Secrist began treating with Dr. John Childers, a psychologist and licensed professional counselor, in March and April 2014. Secrist did not return to Dr. Child-ers until October 2014. In his notes of October 14, 2014, Dr. Childers wrote the following:

Symptoms of depression
• Crying more
• Want to leave the house and go do things but body doesn’t- allow me
• Wanting to sleep
• Sleeping 1-2 hours due to pain
• Social withdrawal
• Fatigue; low energy
• [Unintelligible] is an effort
• Bad days I don’t get dressed 3-4 days out of 7
• No,suicidal ideation

In a fax to Dr. Regina Thurman, Dr. Childers attached his October 14, 2014 notes, as well as a document entitled “Symposium Checklist 90-R”; he noted Secrist appeared to be experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety and requested coordination from Dr. Thurman in prescribing an antidepressant. Appellants denied Dr. Childers’s treatment on the basis that Secrist’s depression was not a compensable injury. The ALJ denied benefits for [sSecrist’s depression; the Commission reversed the ALJ, finding Secrist had proved her depression was a result of her compensable injury and was therefore compensable.

When reviewing a decision of the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission. Flores v. Wal-Mart Distrib., 2012 Ark. App. 201. If the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence — evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the Commission’s conclusion — this court must affirm. Id. The Commission’s decision is reversed only if the appellate court is convinced that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusion with the same facts before them. Id.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 11 — 9— 113 (Repl.2012) provides the framework under which a mental injury may be deemed compensable for purposes of workers’ compensation law:

(a)(1) A mental injury or illness is not a compensable injury unless it is caused by physical injury to the employee’s body, and shall not be considered an injury arising out of and in the course of employment or compensable unless it is demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence; provided, however, that this physical injury limitation shall not apply to any victim of a crime of violence.
(2) No mental injury or illness under this section shall be compensable unless it is also diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and unless the diagnosis of the condition meets the criteria established in the most current issue of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 1

It is the Commission’s duty to make and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law; the Commission must make findings on all facts that are relevant to the contested issues in order pthat the appellate courts may determine whether the Commission has resolved the issues in conformity with the law. Arkansas Dep’t of Parks & Tourism v. Price, 2016 Ark. App. 109, 483 S.W.3d 320. Workers’ compensation statutes are strictly construed; when a statute is clear, it is given its plain meaning, and legislative intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used. CNA Ins. Co. v. Arkansas Children’s Hosp., 2011 Ark. App. 671, 386 S.W.3d 631. Issues of statutory and rule construction are reviewed de novo, as it is for the appellate courts to decide what a statute means. Id.

It is undisputed Secrist suffered a compensable physical injury to her back, and Dr. Childers, a licensed psychologist, stated in a note to Dr. Regina Thurman on October 23, 2014, that Secrist appeared to be experiencing depression and anxiety. The issue on appeal is whether the diagnosis meets the established criteria for depression in the most current issue of the DSM such that it can be considered to be a compensable consequence of Secrist’s com-pensable back injury. We hold that it does not.

The Commission found Secrist suffered from major depressive disorder. The diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder include:

A. Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.
Note: Do not include symptoms that are clearly attributable to another medical condition.
1. Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either a subjective report (e.g., feels sad, empty, hopeless) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). (Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.)
2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Polk County v. Jones
47 S.W.3d 904 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2001)
Arkansas Department of Parks & Tourism v. Price
2016 Ark. App. 109 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2016)
CNA Insurance Co. v. Arkansas Children's Hospital
386 S.W.3d 631 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2011)
Hope Livestock Auction Co. v. Knighton
992 S.W.2d 826 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 Ark. App. 315, 496 S.W.3d 396, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lincoln-public-schools-v-secrist-arkctapp-2016.