{ "id": 6136621, "name": "Shelton Ray MILBURN v. CONCRETE FABRICATORS, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Milburn v. Concrete Fabricators, Inc.", "decision_date": "1986-05-21", "docket_number": "CA 85-372", "first_page": "23", "last_page": "26", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "18 Ark. App. 23" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "709 S.W.2d 822" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "8 Ark. App. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138911 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/8/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619184 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 Ark. 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1629935 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/252/0460-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 387, "char_count": 5830, "ocr_confidence": 0.886, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.115162856034739e-08, "percentile": 0.5065206504317433 }, "sha256": "a1e28d44fbbbe166fa8ab8e573cd3da867808a499465eb5714b8ec727b47176f", "simhash": "1:b9db68c187b259ae", "word_count": 995 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:44.845649+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cooper and Cloninger, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Shelton Ray MILBURN v. CONCRETE FABRICATORS, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge.\nThe appellant, Shelton Mil-burn, appeals a decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission limiting his recovery to a scheduled injury.\nAppellant\u2019s right thigh bone was badly broken in a 1981 compensable injury. His medical bills, temporary total disability, and a 30% permanent partial disability rating to the lower extremity have been paid. Additional benefits are claimed for disability to the body as a whole alleged to have been caused by an injury to appellant\u2019s hip resulting from his leg injury. The administrative law judge held appellant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained a hip injury and, therefore, he was limited to the scheduled injury benefits. The full Commission affirmed and adopted the law judge\u2019s opinion.\nAppellant argues on appeal that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding that he did not sustain an injury that should have been apportioned to the body as a whole. We agree.\nThe November 14, 1981, hospital admission summary of appellant\u2019s treating physician, Dr. Joe Crow, stated that appellant had an injury to his right hip. On January 24,1984, Dr. Crow reported that appellant had a \u201c15 degree lack of extension and flexes normally in the involved hip.\u201d In a letter dated March 21, 1984, Dr. Crow stated:\nMr. Milburn has an excellently healed fracture of the right femur which was treated with open reduction and internal fixation on November 13,1981. Presently he has decreased rotation in the right hip and fifteen degree extension lack and normal flexion in that hip. . . . I previously rated him at thirty percent partial impairment to the lower extremity and using the Guides To Evaluation of Permanent Impairment of the American Medical Association this would translate to twelve percent permanent partial impairment of the whole man.\nThe claimant was referred by the insurance carrier to Dr. R. Barry Sorrells of the Little Rock Orthopedic Clinic, and in a letter dated March 14, 1984, Dr. Sorrells said:\nAt the time I saw the patient his only symptomatic complaint was some pain in the right lateral hip area and some weakness in the right hip area, both noted after long standing or a full day\u2019s work.\nOn further examination this man has some tenderness over the metallic fixation device just below the greater trochanter of the right hip. He also has rather marked atrophy and weakening of the right gluteus maximus. He has a good range of motion at the hip except he lacks 20 \u00b0 internal rotation.\nThe appellee argues that the doctors\u2019 use of the word \u201chip\u201d in the above record and reports is only a general physical description of the area of appellant\u2019s injury. Appellee also points to a letter from Dr. Sorrells, dated June 10,1984, in which the doctor states that appellant\u2019s \u201chip joint was really not involved in any way.\u201d However, this letter was written to explain some statements made by Dr. Sorrells when he testified by deposition taken on June 4, 1984.\nIn the deposition, the doctor testified that when he examined appellant \u201chis only complaint was pain in his right hip area\u201d and \u201csome weakness in his right hip.\u201d The doctor also said he found \u201csome tenderness just below the greater trochanter of the right hip, which is the area that you can find when you feel your hip bone.\u201d He noted \u201csome wasting of the musculature about this area,\u201d and testified that appellant\u2019s principle disability was \u201cin his hip area, which is a portion of the lower extremity.\u201d He also admitted that doctors \u2014 particularly orthopedic surgeons \u2014 consider a hip problem to be a part of the extremity and not a part of the trunk or main body.\nThe appellant testified that he has a pin in his leg going up to the ball joint and that all the hurting is in his hip. He said the right hip is three-fourths to one inch smaller than the other side, that his hip bothers him all the time, and that he can no longer do the physical work he could do before his injury.\nWe believe the evidence is conclusive that appellant sustained a hip injury attributable to his broken leg. Although a scheduled injury cannot be apportioned to the body as a whole absent total disability, Anchor Construction Co. v. Rice, 252 Ark. 460, 479 S.W.2d 573 (1972), the Arkansas Supreme Court held in Clark v. Shiloh Tank & Erection Co., 259 Ark. 521, 534 S.W.2d 240 (1976), that a claimant who had received a scheduled injury could receive additional compensation for an injury which was found to be attributable to the scheduled injury.\nIn Taylor v. Pfeiffer Plumbing & Heating Co., 8 Ark. App. 144, 648 S.W.2d 526 (1983), we reversed a finding that a claimant\u2019s shoulder injury was a scheduled injury and held that it was an unscheduled injury which should have been apportioned to the body as a whole. We also said this was primarily a question of law and even if the effects of the shoulder injury extended into the claimant\u2019s arm, this would not make the injury a scheduled one.\nArkansas Statutes Annotated Section 81-1313(c)(3) (Repl. 1976), provides scheduled injury payments for a \u201cleg amputated at the knee, or between the knee and the hip.\u201d It is clear that the appellant\u2019s problem is not between the hip and the knee. While medically speaking, a hip may be considered a part of the leg, from a legal point of view, a hip injury is an injury to the body as a whole under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Law.\nThe decision of the Commission is reversed and this matter is remanded for a determination of appellant\u2019s disability from the injury to his hip.\nCooper and Cloninger, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kenneth E. Buckner, P.A., for appellant.", "Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Barry E. Coplin, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Shelton Ray MILBURN v. CONCRETE FABRICATORS, INC.\nCA 85-372\n709 S.W.2d 822\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered May 21, 1986\nKenneth E. Buckner, P.A., for appellant.\nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Barry E. Coplin, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0023-01", "first_page_order": 43, "last_page_order": 46 }