Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 70 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS document Date: 2021-06-30 10:26:53 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 DIVISION I No. CV-19-530
TEMPWORKS MANAGEMENT Opinion Delivered: February 5, 2020 SERVICES, INC., AND AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
V. [NO. G703512]
GARY JAYNES APPELLEE AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Appellants, Tempworks Management Services, Inc., and Amtrust North America,
appeal the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (Commission’s) decision to
award appellee, Gary Jaynes, an 11 percent impairment rating to his body as a whole and 10
percent in wage-loss disability. Appellants argue that substantial evidence does not support
the Commission’s decision. For the following reasons, we affirm.
At the time of the hearing, Jaynes was fifty-five years old. He graduated from high
school in 1981, and two years later became an electrician. He has worked as a master
electrician since 1997. On March 8, 2017, he was injured while working in a muddy ditch
on the Weyerhauser property in Dierks, Arkansas. Appellants accepted Jaynes’s back and leg
injuries as compensable, and he was seen by several different doctors. Their testimony as to
the severity of Jaynes’s injuries varied. On October 31, 2018, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Jaynes had
failed to prove entitlement to permanent anatomical impairment, wage-loss disability, or
permanent total-disability benefits. The decision was appealed to the Commission, which
reversed the ALJ and awarded Jaynes an 11 percent impairment rating to his body as a whole
and 10 percent in wage-loss disability. The Commission’s opinion is the subject of this
appeal.
The sole issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s
decision. Specifically, appellants argue that the Commission’s findings that Jaynes was
entitled to a permanent-impairment rating and wage-loss disability benefits are not
supported by substantial evidence.
This court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the Commission’s findings and affirms if supported by substantial evidence. Pyle v.
Woodfield, Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 251, 306 S.W.3d 455. Substantial evidence is that which a
reasonable mind might find as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. We defer to the
Commission on issues involving credibility and the weight of evidence. Target Corp. v.
Bumgarner, 2015 Ark. App. 112, 455 S.W.3d 378. It is the Commission’s duty to weigh
medical evidence and resolve, as a question of fact, any conflicting evidence; however, the
Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness.
Pyle, supra.
On review of workers’-compensation cases, the question is not whether the
evidence would have supported findings contrary to the ones made by the Commission;
rather, it is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision even
2 though we might have reached a different conclusion if we sat as the trier of fact. Burris v.
L & B Moving Storage, 83 Ark. App. 290, 123 S.W.3d 123 (2003). Credibility questions and
the weight to be given to witness testimony are within the Commission’s exclusive
province. Pack v. Little Rock Convention Ctr., 2013 Ark. 186, 427 S.W.3d 586. It is also
within the Commission’s province to weigh all the medical evidence and to determine what
is most credible. Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). We
have long held that the Commission’s decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how
it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward
Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark. App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171.
Appellants first contend that the finding that Jaynes was entitled to an 11 percent
impairment rating to his body as a whole is not supported by substantial evidence. Any
determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment must be supported by
objective and measurable findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B) (Repl. 2012). The
Commission has adopted the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of
Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993) to be used in the assessment of an anatomical
impairment. Avaya v. Bryant, 82 Ark. App. 273, 105 S.W.3d 811 (2003); see Ark. Code
Ann. § 11-9-522(g)(1)(A) (Repl. 2012).
Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii),
(a) Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.
(b) If any compensable injury combines with a preexisting disease or condition or the natural process of aging to cause or prolong disability or a need for treatment, permanent benefits shall be payable for the resultant condition only if the compensable injury is the major cause of the permanent disability or need for treatment.
3 Again, we have long held that it is within the Commission’s province to reconcile
conflicting evidence, including medical evidence. Boykin v. Crockett Adjustment Ins., 2013
Ark. App. 157. The Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence, and the
resolution of conflicting evidence is a question of fact for the Commission. See Ark. Human
Dev. Ctr. v. Courtney, 99 Ark. App. 87, 257 S.W.3d 554 (2007). It is well settled that the
Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions and the authority to
determine its medical soundness and probative force. Id.
A compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by
objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). “Objective findings” are those
findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. §
11-9-102(16)(A)(i); see also Excelsior Hotel v. Squires, 83 Ark. App. 26, 115 S.W.3d 823
(2003). When determining physical or anatomical impairment, complaints of pain may not
be considered by the physician or any other medical provider, the ALJ, the Workers’
Compensation Commission, or the courts. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(ii). Any
determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by
objective and measurable physical or mental findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B).
While it is true that the legislature has required medical evidence supported by objective
findings to establish a compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is required
to establish each and every element of compensability. Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58
Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997). All that is required is that the medical evidence be
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 70 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS document Date: 2021-06-30 10:26:53 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 DIVISION I No. CV-19-530
TEMPWORKS MANAGEMENT Opinion Delivered: February 5, 2020 SERVICES, INC., AND AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
V. [NO. G703512]
GARY JAYNES APPELLEE AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Appellants, Tempworks Management Services, Inc., and Amtrust North America,
appeal the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (Commission’s) decision to
award appellee, Gary Jaynes, an 11 percent impairment rating to his body as a whole and 10
percent in wage-loss disability. Appellants argue that substantial evidence does not support
the Commission’s decision. For the following reasons, we affirm.
At the time of the hearing, Jaynes was fifty-five years old. He graduated from high
school in 1981, and two years later became an electrician. He has worked as a master
electrician since 1997. On March 8, 2017, he was injured while working in a muddy ditch
on the Weyerhauser property in Dierks, Arkansas. Appellants accepted Jaynes’s back and leg
injuries as compensable, and he was seen by several different doctors. Their testimony as to
the severity of Jaynes’s injuries varied. On October 31, 2018, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Jaynes had
failed to prove entitlement to permanent anatomical impairment, wage-loss disability, or
permanent total-disability benefits. The decision was appealed to the Commission, which
reversed the ALJ and awarded Jaynes an 11 percent impairment rating to his body as a whole
and 10 percent in wage-loss disability. The Commission’s opinion is the subject of this
appeal.
The sole issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s
decision. Specifically, appellants argue that the Commission’s findings that Jaynes was
entitled to a permanent-impairment rating and wage-loss disability benefits are not
supported by substantial evidence.
This court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the Commission’s findings and affirms if supported by substantial evidence. Pyle v.
Woodfield, Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 251, 306 S.W.3d 455. Substantial evidence is that which a
reasonable mind might find as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. We defer to the
Commission on issues involving credibility and the weight of evidence. Target Corp. v.
Bumgarner, 2015 Ark. App. 112, 455 S.W.3d 378. It is the Commission’s duty to weigh
medical evidence and resolve, as a question of fact, any conflicting evidence; however, the
Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness.
Pyle, supra.
On review of workers’-compensation cases, the question is not whether the
evidence would have supported findings contrary to the ones made by the Commission;
rather, it is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision even
2 though we might have reached a different conclusion if we sat as the trier of fact. Burris v.
L & B Moving Storage, 83 Ark. App. 290, 123 S.W.3d 123 (2003). Credibility questions and
the weight to be given to witness testimony are within the Commission’s exclusive
province. Pack v. Little Rock Convention Ctr., 2013 Ark. 186, 427 S.W.3d 586. It is also
within the Commission’s province to weigh all the medical evidence and to determine what
is most credible. Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). We
have long held that the Commission’s decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how
it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward
Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark. App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171.
Appellants first contend that the finding that Jaynes was entitled to an 11 percent
impairment rating to his body as a whole is not supported by substantial evidence. Any
determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment must be supported by
objective and measurable findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B) (Repl. 2012). The
Commission has adopted the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of
Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993) to be used in the assessment of an anatomical
impairment. Avaya v. Bryant, 82 Ark. App. 273, 105 S.W.3d 811 (2003); see Ark. Code
Ann. § 11-9-522(g)(1)(A) (Repl. 2012).
Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii),
(a) Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.
(b) If any compensable injury combines with a preexisting disease or condition or the natural process of aging to cause or prolong disability or a need for treatment, permanent benefits shall be payable for the resultant condition only if the compensable injury is the major cause of the permanent disability or need for treatment.
3 Again, we have long held that it is within the Commission’s province to reconcile
conflicting evidence, including medical evidence. Boykin v. Crockett Adjustment Ins., 2013
Ark. App. 157. The Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence, and the
resolution of conflicting evidence is a question of fact for the Commission. See Ark. Human
Dev. Ctr. v. Courtney, 99 Ark. App. 87, 257 S.W.3d 554 (2007). It is well settled that the
Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions and the authority to
determine its medical soundness and probative force. Id.
A compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by
objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). “Objective findings” are those
findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. §
11-9-102(16)(A)(i); see also Excelsior Hotel v. Squires, 83 Ark. App. 26, 115 S.W.3d 823
(2003). When determining physical or anatomical impairment, complaints of pain may not
be considered by the physician or any other medical provider, the ALJ, the Workers’
Compensation Commission, or the courts. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(ii). Any
determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by
objective and measurable physical or mental findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B).
While it is true that the legislature has required medical evidence supported by objective
findings to establish a compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is required
to establish each and every element of compensability. Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58
Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997). All that is required is that the medical evidence be
supported by objective medical findings. Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244
S.W.3d 709 (2006).
4 Such is the case here. The Commission’s decision is supported by objective medical
findings––most notably those of a neurologist, Dr. Miles Johnson. Other doctors declared
that Jaynes had not sustained any permanent anatomical impairment. However, in its
opinion, the Commission clearly states that it found Dr. Johnson’s conclusions to be
supported by the record and that his conclusions were entitled to more evidentiary weight
than the opinions of various other doctors. Here, the Commission considered all the
evidence and testimony presented and gave that evidence and testimony the weight and
credibility it deemed it was entitled. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commission’s decision, we hold that the Commission’s award of an 11 percent whole-body
impairment is supported by substantial evidence.
Appellants also contend that the Commission’s finding of 10 percent wage-loss
disability is not supported by substantial evidence. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated
section 11-9-522(b)(1), when a claimant has an impairment rating to the body as a whole,
the Commission has the authority to increase the disability rating on the basis of wage-loss
factors. Redd v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 2014 Ark. App. 575, 446 S.W.3d 643. The
wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has affected the claimant’s
ability to earn a livelihood. Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 89 Ark. App. 228, 201 S.W.3d 449
(2005).
The Commission must determine disability after a consideration of medical evidence
and other factors affecting wage loss, such as the claimant’s age, education, and work
experience. Redd, supra. Motivation, postinjury income, credibility, demeanor, and a
5 multitude of other factors are matters to be considered in claims for wage-loss disability
benefits in excess of permanent-physical impairment. Id.
In the instant case, the Commission considered Jaynes’s age, his limited education,
his lack of transferable skills, and his work history over the past twenty years; it also
considered Jaynes’s motivation as well as other factors. In its decision, the Commission cited
Redd, supra, and Emerson Electric v. Gaston, 75 Ark. App. 232, 58 S.W.3d 848 (2001), and
subsequently concluded that Jaynes was entitled to ten percent wage-loss disability. The
Commission’s findings are based on the appropriate wage-loss factors, and its opinion
adequately discusses the rationale that underlies that finding.
In sum, appellants are requesting that we reweigh the evidence and credibility
findings made by the Commission; however, we will not do so as it is the Commission’s
duty to make credibility determinations and to weigh the evidence. Considering the fact-
intensive nature of this inquiry in which the specific facts of this claimant’s age, abilities,
education, physical and mental limitations, motivation, demeanor, and any other factors
deemed relevant are to be considered, we hold that reasonable minds could conclude that
Jaynes was entitled to 10 percent wage-loss disability. Thus, we affirm on this point.
Because the Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Affirmed.
MURPHY, J., agrees.
GRUBER, C.J., concurs.
Frye Law Firm, P.A., by: William C. Frye, for appellants.
Gary Davis, for appellee.