Saline Cnty. Judge v. Crouch

2013 Ark. App. 589
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 23, 2013
DocketCV-13-527
StatusPublished

This text of 2013 Ark. App. 589 (Saline Cnty. Judge v. Crouch) 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
Saline Cnty. Judge v. Crouch, 2013 Ark. App. 589 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 589

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-13-527

SALINE COUNTY JUDGE and AAC Opinion Delivered October 23, 2013 RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION V. COMMISSION [NO. G110162]

THOMAS CROUCH APPELLEE AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

The Saline County Judge and AAC Risk Management Services appeal the Arkansas

Workers’ Compensation Commission’s order finding that Thomas Crouch suffered a

compensable injury and was entitled to additional medical treatment. Specifically, the

Commission ruled that Crouch, who had previously undergone back surgery, sustained a

compensable injury, while working for the Sardis Volunteer Fire Department, after he and

other firefighters lifted a small wall to put out a fire. At one point during his treatment for

the compensable injury, Crouch reported feeling a “pull” in his back after bending over to

pick up his son. The Commission determined that the physical therapist’s notes indicating

“decrease lumbar lordosis” constituted the necessary objective medical findings for a

compensable injury. The Commission also found that Crouch’s bending over to pick up his

son was not unreasonable conduct under the circumstances. Appellants argue that the

Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence given the lack of objective Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 589

findings and the presence of an independent intervening injury.

The Commission exercised its duty to make determinations of credibility, weigh the

evidence, and resolve any conflicting medical testimony and other evidence. Ark. Methodist

Med. Ctr. v. Blansett, 2013 Ark. App. 480. Because the Commission’s opinion adequately

explains its decision, and that decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm by

memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63

(1985).

Affirmed.

GRUBER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

Michael E. Ryburn, for appellants.

The McNeely Law Firm, PLLC, by: Steven R. McNeely, for appellee.

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

Related

In Re Memorandum Opinions
700 S.W.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ark. App. 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saline-cnty-judge-v-crouch-arkctapp-2013.