{
  "id": 6136163,
  "name": "TACO BELL, et al. v. Teryl FINLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taco Bell v. Finley",
  "decision_date": "1992-03-25",
  "docket_number": "CA 91-216",
  "first_page": "11",
  "last_page": "13",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ark. App. 11"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "826 S.W.2d 313"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-514",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 3644,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.862,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1816729311897296e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5887661790320594
    },
    "sha256": "9e19bfbb949f6371d26b3e76b85043eb7efdd3da8ca376ec3490ca44052b8eb1",
    "simhash": "1:94f181d71cb9b234",
    "word_count": 574
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:25.403717+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TACO BELL, et al. v. Teryl FINLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nThe claimant in this workers\u2019 compensation case, Teryl Finley, suffered an admittedly compen-sable injury on December 10, 1988, when she slipped and fell in the restaurant of her employer, Taco Bell. Finley slipped on a piece of cardboard and fell backwards, striking her head on the concrete floor. She was paid temporary total disability through December 31, 1988.\nFinley was seen by both Dr. Robert White and Dr. Robert Abraham. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that Finley was entitled to 8 % permanent partial disability and that Taco Bell was responsible for the payment of Dr. Abraham\u2019s services. The Commission made the same findings and Taco Bell appeals. We affirm.\nAppellant\u2019s argument that the award of permanent partial disability is not supported by substantial evidence is based on Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-9-704(c) (Supp. 1991) which provides, in part, \u201cAny determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical or mental findings.\u201d The question for decision is whether the Commission\u2019s determination of physical impairment in the case at bar is supported by \u201cobjective physical findings\u201d. In support of its argument, appellant emphasizes a number of facts: Dr. White expressed his opinion that Finley would have no permanent disability; a CT scan showed no abnormality in the lumbar spine; various office examinations by Dr. Abraham showed no limitation of the range of motion in the claimant\u2019s low back; and a private investigator retained by the appellant testified that he saw Finley run up and down the steps to her apartment.\nIn the case at bar, Dr. Abraham\u2019s assessment of Finley\u2019s permanent disability was based on an American Medical Association publication, \u201cGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment\u201d, and on range of motion tests observed during his examination of the claimant. The tests included the measurement of flexion, extension, and lateral flexion. The word \u201cobjective\u201d means \u201cbased on observable phenomena\u201d. The American Heritage Dictionary 857 (2d College ed. 1982). That dictionary also gives a specific medical definition: \u201cIndicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person afflicted.\u201d Under either definition, in our view, observations made by a doctor as a result of range of motion tests qualify as \u201cobjective physical findings\u201d.\nIt is reasonably clear that in making its determination of physical impairment, the Commission also considered the claimant\u2019s testimony about her symptoms, including pain, and the effect of activity on those symptoms. Such consideration in the determination of permanent disability is not prohibited by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 1 l-9-704(c), so long as the record contains \u201cobjective and measurable\u201d findings to support the Commission\u2019s ultimate determination.\nAppellant also contends that the Commission erred in not holding that Dr. Abraham\u2019s treatment was unauthorized. However, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-514 (1987) provides that the change of physician rules do not apply when the employee is not furnished a copy of the notice concerning change of physician. Here the Commission found that the A-29 form was not received by the claimant until after she had begun treatment with Dr. Abraham, and this finding is supported by substantial evidence.\nFor the reasons stated the decision of the Commission is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter A. Murray, for appellant.",
      "Cheryl K. Maples, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TACO BELL, et al. v. Teryl FINLEY\nCA 91-216\n826 S.W.2d 313\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered March 25, 1992\nWalter A. Murray, for appellant.\nCheryl K. Maples, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0011-01",
  "first_page_order": 35,
  "last_page_order": 37
}