{
  "id": 6136865,
  "name": "Tommy IRONS, Employer, and ROCKWOOD INSURANCE COMPANY v. Kenneth MINTON, Employee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Irons v. Minton",
  "decision_date": "1983-11-23",
  "docket_number": "CA 83-200",
  "first_page": "38",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ark. App. 38"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "661 S.W.2d 408"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756255
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756067
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0740-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 699",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616820
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0699-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 5394,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.837,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17485498189276671
    },
    "sha256": "457d8f317345cf54b48e4a242c348a95756c9d23f345f8cc2ffdcaeabdc8fb97",
    "simhash": "1:e548689f3186978e",
    "word_count": 808
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:08.069200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cracraft and Cooper, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Tommy IRONS, Employer, and ROCKWOOD INSURANCE COMPANY v. Kenneth MINTON, Employee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nIn this Workers\u2019 Compensation case, appellants\u2019 arguments for reversal center around whether they controverted appellee\u2019s claim. The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge\u2019s decision that appellants, commencing October 15, 1981, controverted appellee\u2019s claim for temporary total disability benefits, but it reversed that part of the law judge\u2019s finding that the controversion had ceased upon appellant\u2019s reinstatement of benefits. We affirm the Commission\u2019s holdings on both points.\nFirst, appellants contend there is no substantial evidence to support controversion. Our review of the record reveals just the opposite. In reviewing the evidence, we are guided by the principle announced in Aluminum Company of America v. Henning, 260 Ark. 699, 543 S.W.2d 480 (1976), that the determination whether a claim was controverted is a question of fact for the Commission. See also Hamrick v. Colson Company, 271 Ark. 740, 610 S.W.2d 281 (1981). The Commission\u2019s decision on controversion will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence. Aluminum Company of America v. Henning, supra. Here, appellee sustained an injury on January 9, 1980, and accepting the injury as compensable, appellants promptly paid appellee temporary total disability benefits. Dr. Dubose Murray initially treated appellee\u2019s injury, finding he suffered from a compression fracture of his dorsal spine. Because Murray failed to communicate with appellants, they referred appel-lee to Dr. Richard Logue. After examining appellee on October 10, 1980, Logue concluded appellee had recovered from his injury and that, with a vigorous exercise program, he could return to work in four to six weeks.\nDissatisfied with Dr. Logue\u2019s evaluation, appellee saw other physicians, one of whom was Dr. Dale Kincheloe. Dr. Kincheloe first saw appellee on June 8,1981, but it is unclear when appellants first learned that Kincheloe was treating appellee. Nonetheless, appellants admittedly paid Kinche-loe\u2019s bills for his treatment of appellee, and they conceded that they received a short letter dated October 1, 1981, from Kincheloe, reflecting that he had seen appellee since June 8, 1981, and that appellee would be unable to work for three months. Prior to receiving Kincheloe\u2019s October 1 letter, appellants had terminated appellee\u2019s benefits on July 10, 1981, because on that date appellee declined to keep an appointment for a second evaluation by Dr. Logue. On October 15, 1981, appellee filed his claim, alleging his benefits had been controverted.\nAppellants argue that they did not consider Dr. Kinche-loe\u2019s letter of October 1, 1981, a medical report; therefore they found it unnecessary to reinstate benefits. Admittedly brief, Kincheloe\u2019s letter did place appellants on notice that he was treating appellee and considered him unable to work. Although furnished this information, appellants not only declined to resume benefits to appellee, they also made no further inquiry or investigation into the matter. Even so, they chose, quite anomalously, to pay Kincheloe\u2019s bills for his treatment of appellee\u2019s injury. Based on these facts, the Commission held appellants controverted benefits when they failed to reinstate them before appellee filed his claim. We believe the evidence supports such a holding.\nAppellants\u2019 second contention is couched in terms suggesting that in reaching her decision, the administrative law judge erroneously considered facts which emerged after the December 15, 1981, hearing. Specifically, the law judge initially determined that the controversion of benefits ended on December 15, because it was at the hearing that the appellants voluntarily reinstated benefits. However, appel-lee did not receive these accumulated benefits until January 7, 1982, because appellants purportedly did not mail them until January 4, 1982. Based upon these events that transpired after December 15, the law judge, without a hearing or formal submission of evidence, extended the period of controversion to January 4,1982. Appellants argue they were prejudiced by the law judge\u2019s supplemental decision to controvert benefits until January 4, and the Commission arbitrarily refused to consider this issue of prejudice on appeal. We disagree.\nThe Commission obviously disagreed with the judge\u2019s findings that controversion ended on January 4, or for that matter December 15. In doing so, it held that all temporary total disability benefits were controverted. Thus, none of the events that occurred after the December 15 hearing in any way influenced the Commission\u2019s decision.\nBecause we review the Commission\u2019s findings and decision, not the law judge\u2019s, we simply fail to see how the appellants were prejudiced under the circumstances of this case. As discussed earlier, the Commission\u2019s finding that appellants controverted benefits is supported by substantial evidence. After making that finding, the Commission\u2019s decision to controvert all temporary total benefits was correct. Cf. Siegrist v. K. C. Penny Co., 271 Ark. 409, 609 S.W.2d 87 (Ark. App. 1980). Accordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nCracraft and Cooper, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter A. Murray, for appellants.",
      "Bud Whetstone, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Tommy IRONS, Employer, and ROCKWOOD INSURANCE COMPANY v. Kenneth MINTON, Employee\nCA 83-200\n661 S.W.2d 408\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered November 23, 1983\nWalter A. Murray, for appellants.\nBud Whetstone, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0038-01",
  "first_page_order": 60,
  "last_page_order": 63
}