{ "id": 6661275, "name": "ELK ROOFING COMPANY, et al. v. Donald PINSON", "name_abbreviation": "Elk Roofing Co. v. Pinson", "decision_date": "1987-10-14", "docket_number": "CA 87-60", "first_page": "191", "last_page": "196", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "22 Ark. App. 191" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "737 S.W.2d 661" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "241 Ark. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1724159 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/241/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ark. App. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140679 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/15/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 Ark. 1036", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726119 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/255/1036-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619060 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 S.W.2d 321", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 6136996 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/7/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ark. App. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ark. App. 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138664 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/4/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ark. App. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138011 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/6/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ark. App. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137284 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/4/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 Ark. 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1872671 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/291/0624-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 461, "char_count": 7757, "ocr_confidence": 0.888, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1577880326461153e-07, "percentile": 0.5833502262100995 }, "sha256": "5c060d4e3a34cd62824e59d50ed947d96bc2c3ee3094dfee9b8c4fe03cc74425", "simhash": "1:a51eb62e61d604fc", "word_count": 1247 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:37.186670+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cracraft and Mayfield, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "ELK ROOFING COMPANY, et al. v. Donald PINSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nElk Roofing Company appeals from a decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission awarding Donald Pinson additional medical and temporary total disability benefits for a medical complication, which the Commission found was causally related to an earlier, admittedly compen-sable injury. We affirm the decision of the Commission.\nIn 1976, while employed as a truck driver for Elk Roofing, Pinson sustained a compensable injury when he was struck on the left leg with a two-by-four. As a result of the injury Pinson developed thrombophlebitis in the leg. Pinson subsequently developed pulmonary emboli, and surgery was required. Elk Roofing paid medical and temporary total disability benefits.\nIn 197 8 Pinson was laid off at Elk Roofing, and in October of that year, he developed another pulmonary embolus while working as a truck driver for Cherokee Carpet Mills. Both Elk Roofing and Cherokee Carpet controverted the claim. The Commission found that Pinson\u2019s 1978 condition was a recurrence, as opposed to an aggravation or new injury, and held that Elk Roofing was therefore responsible. Pinson was awarded permanent disability benefits based on a 40% permanent partial disability rating. We affirmed the Commission\u2019s decision in an unpublished opinion.\nIn 1984, while working as a short haul truck driver for Great Lakes Chemical Company, Pinson developed deep, non-healing ulcers on his left leg. He sought additional medical and temporary total disability benefits from Elk Roofing, which controverted the claim, contending that Pinson\u2019s leg ulcers were not causally connected to the 1976 injury. The Commission held that the requisite causal connection was established and that Elk Roofing had liability.\nElk Roofing now contends that the Commission\u2019s award of additional temporary total disability benefits was error as a matter of law, since the Commission had held that Pinson\u2019s healing period for the 1976 injury ended in 1978. In support of this argument Elk Roofing cites Arkansas Secretary of State v. Guffey, 291 Ark. 624, 727 S.W.2d 826 (1987). The actual holding in Guffey was that there is no authority in our Workers\u2019 Compensation Act providing for awards of \u201ccurrent total disability\u201d benefits, a concept which both the Commission and this court had applied in the past. See, e.g., City of Humphrey v. Woodward, 4 Ark. App. 64, 628 S.W.2d 574 (1982). The court in Guffey also said:\nTo the extent that McNeely has been interpreted as holding that temporary benefits, regardless of how they are denominated, may be paid after the end of the healing period, that interpretation is erroneous.\nEven before Guffey, however, the rule was that temporary disability benefits cannot be awarded after the healing period has ended. Moro, Inc. v. Davis, 6 Ark. App. 92, 638 S.W.2d 694 (1982); Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Parker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 (1982). The validity of this rule is not in question \u2014 the issue is its applicability to the facts of this case.\nHere Pinson suffered a blow to the leg, which resulted in thrombophlebitis and then pulmonary emboli. His healing period for these conditions ended, and he received an award of permanent partial disability. He now suffers from leg ulcers, which the Commission found to be a complication causally related to Pinson\u2019s original 1976 injury. Obviously, Pinson is now in a new \u201chealing period.\u201d A claimant\u2019s healing period ends when the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and if nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that condition. Mad Butcher, Inc., supra. In the present case the evidence is that treatment of the leg ulcers would significantly improve Pinson\u2019s condition. Dr. Moore said in a 1984 report, \u201che will undergo extensive wide excision of the ulcer in the involved area of the leg with split thickness skin grafting and may require hospitalization for a considerable length of time for healing to occur.\u201d\nIf Pinson had suffered an entirely new injury, totally unrelated to his original leg injury, the fact that his healing period for the earlier injury had ended certainly would not prohibit an award of temporary disability benefits in connection with the new injury. It makes no more sense to hold Pinson is barred from receiving temporary benefits here.\nIn Bearden Lumber Co. v. Bond, 1 Ark. App. 65, 71, 644 S.W.2d 321, 324 (1983), we said:\nWe conclude that in all of our cases in which a second period of medical complications follows an acknowledged compensable injury we have applied the test set forth in Williams \u2014 that where the second complication is found to be a natural and probable result of the first injury, the employer remains liable. (Emphasis added.)\nWe see no reason to hold that this liability does not include liability for additional temporary benefits, when the claimant undergoes a second, distinct healing period.\nIn Burks, Inc. v. Blanchard, 259 Ark. 76, 531 S.W.2d 465 (1976), the supreme court approved an award of additional compensation to a claimant whose recurring symptoms were causally related to his original injury, despite the fact that he had already received an award of permanent disability and therefore his original healing period had presumably ended. In Home Ins. Co. v. Logan, 255 Ark. 1036, 505 S.W.2d 25 (1974), thesupreme court implied that recurring symptoms may give rise to a subsequent healing period, after the original one has ended.\nGuffey\u2019s prohibition against an award of temporary disability after the healing period ends clearly contemplates a single healing period. There is no indication that the claimant in Guffey underwent a second healing period because of a subsequent medical complication. Indeed, the opinion in Guffey states that the only question for decision was whether the claimant was entitled to \u201ccurrent total disability\u201d and apparently there was no issue about disability during a healing period.\nElk Roofing also argues that the Commission\u2019s finding of a causal connection between the leg ulcers and the 1976 injury is not supported by substantial evidence. In making that determination on appeal we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission. Snow v. Alcoa, 15 Ark. App. 205, 691 S.W.2d 194 (1985). On this issue Elk Roofing points to medical testimony indicating that Pinson had \u201cfully recovered from illnesses arising from the episode of thrombophlebitis in 1976\u201d before the leg ulcers developed, and to other testimony indicating that Pinson\u2019s truck driving activities after he left Elk Roofing may have aggravated his condition. The Commission, however, relied on other medical evidence. Dr. Moore said, \u201cit is my opinion that his present problem [the ulcers] dates back to that initial injury. . . .\u201d Dr. Weedman said, \u201cMr. Pinson has chronic stasis ulcers of his left leg, which is a direct result of venous insufficiency, resulting from the thrombophlebitis that he developed in May, 1976.\u201d We hold that the Commission\u2019s finding of fact on the issue of causal connection is supported by substantial evidence.\nAffirmed.\nCracraft and Mayfield, JJ., agree.\nThrombophlebitis is the inflammation of a vein with the secondary formation of blood clots.\nThese are blood clots which developed in the blood vessels of the leg and then detached and migrated to the arteries going to the lungs.\nMcNeely v. Clem Mill & Gin, 241 Ark. 498, 409 S.W.2d 502 (1966), was the case from which we mistakenly derived the concept of \u201ccurrent total disability.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Chester C. Lowe, Jr., for appellant.", "Compton, Prewett, Thomas & Hickey, P.A., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ELK ROOFING COMPANY, et al. v. Donald PINSON\nCA 87-60\n737 S.W.2d 661\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered October 14, 1987\nChester C. Lowe, Jr., for appellant.\nCompton, Prewett, Thomas & Hickey, P.A., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0191-01", "first_page_order": 213, "last_page_order": 218 }