{ "id": 6065846, "name": "Ronnie ELLIS v. J.D. & BILLY HINES TRUCKING, INC. and Cypress Insurance Company", "name_abbreviation": "Ellis v. J.D. & Billy Hines Trucking, Inc.", "decision_date": "2008-12-10", "docket_number": "CA 08-688", "first_page": "118", "last_page": "121", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "104 Ark. App. 118" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "289 S.W.3d 497" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "97 Ark. App. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141687 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346-47" }, { "page": "155-56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/97/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 Ark. 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 130689 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92-95", "parenthetical": "addressing diagnosis of contusion to internal body part" }, { "page": "321-22", "parenthetical": "addressing diagnosis of contusion to internal body part" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/339/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ark. App. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137501 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "67" }, { "page": "858" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/76/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 S.W.3d 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 6141337, 1257813 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "38, 41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/70/0265-01", "/ark/341/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ark. App. 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141337 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "268, 272-73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/70/0265-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ark. App. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139794 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "182" }, { "page": "648" }, { "page": "182" }, { "page": "648" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/103/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Ark. App. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138568 ], "weight": 14, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143" }, { "page": "150" }, { "page": "142" }, { "page": "150" }, { "page": "144" }, { "page": "152" }, { "page": "141-44" }, { "page": "149-52" }, { "page": "144" }, { "page": "152" }, { "page": "143-45" }, { "page": "151-52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/98/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. App. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142145 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" }, { "page": "739" }, { "page": "336" }, { "page": "739" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/73/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(4)(A)(i)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 503, "char_count": 7860, "ocr_confidence": 0.788, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2091735798655896e-07, "percentile": 0.5955096223756675 }, "sha256": "8a26b342f7bd0a3728ff397892be4f27a08847644be7daec3b5ce4800d0ee8d7", "simhash": "1:f84445f2c7127f1d", "word_count": 1244 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:37:35.435157+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Bird and Baker, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Ronnie ELLIS v. J.D. & BILLY HINES TRUCKING, INC. and Cypress Insurance Company" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "D.P. Marshall, Judge.\nRonnie Ellis was involved in an automobile accident while driving a truck for J.D. & Billy Hines Trucking, Inc. Ellis swerved to avoid an oncoming car; his truck\u2019s brakes locked up; and the truck skidded off the road, landing on its side. Ellis claimed that he injured his neck, left shoulder, and left knee in the accident. His employer accepted the neck injury as compensable, but refused to pay benefits for Ellis\u2019s alleged shoulder and knee injuries. The Commission adopted the administrative law judge\u2019s opinion and found that Ellis failed to prove that he suffered compensable left knee and shoulder injuries. Ellis appeals.\nTo receive benefits for his shoulder and knee injuries, Ellis had to prove these facts: (1) that he suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment; (2) that the injury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence; (3) that the injury caused internal or external physical harm to his body, which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; and (4) that the injury was established by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(4)(A)(i), (D) (Supp. 2007). The Commission found that Ellis failed to prove either a left knee or left shoulder injury because the injuries were not established by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Under our substantial-evidence standard of review, we must affirm if fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could have reached the Commission\u2019s conclusion. Smith v. County Market/Southeast Foods, 73 Ark. App. 333, 336, 44 S.W.3d 737, 739 (2001).\nThe Commission acknowledged two pieces of medical evidence supporting Ellis\u2019s claims: (1) an Emergency Nursing Record from the date of Ellis\u2019s accident with a checkmark beside the words \u201ctenderness/swelling\u201d and \u201cL shoulder\u201d handwritten to the side; and (2) a Texas Workers\u2019 Compensation Work Status Report bearing the date of the accident (a Report which, according to testimony, may have been created several days later), where Ellis\u2019s doctor noted \u201ccontusion L shoulder & L knee.\u201d But the Commission concluded that neither record constituted an objective medical finding.\nWe agree with the Commission that the first record \u2014 noting \u201ctenderness/swelling\u201d \u2014 is ambiguous. We do not know whether the nurse intended to note \u201ctenderness\u201d (a subjective finding), \u201cswelling\u201d (an objective finding), or both. In the absence of evidence explaining the ambiguity, Ellis did not meet his burden of proving that this was an objective medical finding.\nWe disagree, however, with the Commission\u2019s conclusion about the second piece of medical evidence \u2014 the \u201ccontusion\u201d diagnosis by Ellis\u2019s doctor. The Commission decided that the \u201cdiagnosis of contusions in the knee and shoulder, without more, do not satisfy in this case the requirement of an objective finding\u201d and that a contusion \u201ccan itself be based either on objective findings or subjective complaints.\u201d The Commission relied on Rodriguez v. M. McDaniel Co., 98 Ark. App. 138, 252 S.W.3d 146 (2007), in reaching its conclusion.\nIn Rodriguez, the claimant was twice diagnosed with a hip contusion. First, in the emergency room on the date of her injury, Rodriguez was diagnosed with a \u201chip contusion on the right.\u201d 98 Ark. App. at 143, 252 S.W.3d at 150. Three weeks later, Dr. Timothy Yawn evaluated Rodriguez and also diagnosed a contusion. Dr. Yawn later testified that \u201chis diagnosis of a contusion did not necessarily mean that he had viewed a disturbance in the skin and tissue.\u201d 98 Ark. App. at 142, 252 S.W.3d at 150. Dr. Yawn also testified about the emergency-room contusion note. He said that \u201cthe notation in the record most likely referred to tenderness and not to visible darkening or bruising.\u201d 98 Ark. App. at 144, 252 S.W.3d at 152. Various tests failed to reveal any internal injury. 98 Ark. App. at 141-44, 252 S.W.3d at 149-52. In Rodriguez, the Commission thus had to weigh conflicting medical evidence about a contusion. As this court acknowledged, \u201cthe Commission chose to believe the testimony of Dr. Yawn,\u201d 98 Ark. App. at 144, 252 S.W.3d at 152, and not the emergency-room record. We therefore affirmed the Commission\u2019s finding that Rodriguez failed to prove objective medical findings. 98 Ark. App. at 143-45, 252 S.W.3d at 151-52.\nThis case is different. Here we have a contusion diagnosis with no conflicting testimony about the nature of the contusion.\nIn their brief, the appellees quote a medical dictionary that defines a \u201ccontusion\u201d as an injury to tissues without breakage of skin: a bruise. Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary op Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health 375 (6th ed. 1997). The appellees\u2019 definition echoes those in other medical reference books. E.g., The Sloane-Dorland Annotated Medical-Legal Dictionary 165 (1987); Stedman\u2019s Medical Dictionary 390 (26th ed. 1995); Taber\u2019s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 479 (20th ed. 2005). It is substantially the same as the standard definition of a contusion. 3 Oxford English Dictionary 857 (2nd ed. 1998). Our cases, moreover, use the words \u201ccontusion\u201d and \u201cbruise\u201d interchangeably. Parson v. Arkansas Methodist Hospital, 103 Ark. App. 178, 182, 287 S.W.3d 645, 648 (2008). For example, this court has specifically referred to a doctor\u2019s diagnosis of a shoulder contusion as a bruise. Stephenson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 70 Ark. App. 265, 268, 272-73, 19 S.W.3d 36, 38, 41 (2000). And we have held that a contusion is an objective medical finding. Parson, 103 Ark. App. at 182, 287 S.W.3d at 648; Bryant v. Staffmark, Inc., 76 Ark. App. 64, 67, 61 S.W.3d 856, 858 (2001). We must follow our precedent in this case.\nThe parties do not discuss contusions to internal organs, which may raise external-visibility issues. Compare Meister v. Safety Kleen, 339 Ark. 91, 92-95, 3 S.W.3d 320, 321-22 (1999) (addressing diagnosis of contusion to internal body part); see also Attorney\u2019s Illustrated Medical Dictionary C74 (West Publishing Company 1997) (defining contusions of the heart, brain, and spinal cord). And we do not address that type of contusion. This case is about Dr. Nix\u2019s unequivocal diagnosis of contusions to Ellis\u2019s left shoulder and left knee. We are convinced that reasonable persons with the same facts before them could not have arrived at the Commission\u2019s conclusion about Ellis\u2019s contusions. Smith, 73 Ark. App. at 336, 44 S.W.3d at 739. We therefore reverse and remand for the Commission to re-examine its decision about the compensability of Ellis\u2019s shoulder and knee injuries in light of our conclusion that Ellis satisfied the statute\u2019s objective-findings requirement. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-9-102(4)(D).\nOn remand, the Commission should consider all relevant medical evidence, including the spasms noticed by Ellis\u2019s chiropractor and the \u201csoft-tissue swelling\u201d noted in an emergency-room record. Ellis did not emphasize it, and neither the ALJ nor the Commission addressed this other medical evidence. At the hearing, Ellis\u2019s attorney directed the ALJ\u2019s attention to \u201ctwo primary references\u201d \u2014 the Emergency Nursing Record and the Texas Workers\u2019 Compensation Work Status Report. Though it is the province of the Commission to weigh conflicting medical evidence, it may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence. Coleman v. Pro Transportation, Inc., 97 Ark. App. 338, 346-47, 249 S.W.3d 149, 155-56 (2007). We make no comment on the effect of this evidence; we merely direct that the Commission consider it when it revisits compensability.\nReversed and remanded.\nBird and Baker, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "D.P. Marshall, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Moore & Giles, LLP, by: Greg Giles, for appellant.", "Michael E. Ryburn, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ronnie ELLIS v. J.D. & BILLY HINES TRUCKING, INC. and Cypress Insurance Company\nCA 08-688\n289 S.W.3d 497\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 10, 2008\nMoore & Giles, LLP, by: Greg Giles, for appellant.\nMichael E. Ryburn, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0118-01", "first_page_order": 144, "last_page_order": 147 }