{ "id": 6142656, "name": "UNION MEDICAL CENTER et al v. Barbara J. BRUMLEY", "name_abbreviation": "Union Medical Center v. Brumley", "decision_date": "1982-04-14", "docket_number": "CA 81-434", "first_page": "370", "last_page": "373", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "4 Ark. App. 370" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "631 S.W.2d 618" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "270 Ark. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1709199 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/270/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ark. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1738010 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0142-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 372, "char_count": 5924, "ocr_confidence": 0.848, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.682524327565526e-08, "percentile": 0.452849374616049 }, "sha256": "f9dd607a654a35b25f07cf2f8b78fe253fda1661fb2056564dfe827c1940e775", "simhash": "1:063dac89711c0c1d", "word_count": 990 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:09.143623+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "UNION MEDICAL CENTER et al v. Barbara J. BRUMLEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nThis Workers\u2019 Compensation case involves an employer\u2019s liability for the expense of a doctor who was consulted by the claimant after her healing period had ended.\nThe claimlant was working as a nurse\u2019s aid at Union Medical Center on August 11, 1979, when she fell with a patient. She complained of back pain and was seen initially by Dr. George Warren and Dr. Carlton Newsome, her family doctors. When she continued to have problems, she asked a nurse at the hospital for the name of an orthopedic surgeon and Dr. Mac Smith was recommended. The claimant saw Dr. Smith and his associate, Dr. E. R. Hartman, from August 20, 1979, until sometime in January, 1980. Dr. Smith examined the claimant on October 23, 1979, and found her able to return to work at that time. In April, 1980, the claimant contacted the Public Employee Claims Division and it made an appointment for the claimant to be evaluated by Dr. Jerry Thomas. None of the doctors seen by the claimant indicated there was any evidence of permanent disability.\nAt the suggestion of her attorney, and without consulting respondents, she was examined by Dr. Jay M. Lipke on July 1, 1980. He diagnosed the claimant had an acute herniated nucleus pulposus. Dr. Lipke did not recommend hospitalization and surgery but instead elected to treat the claimant with conservative treatment.\nThe claimant requested that the treatment by Dr. Lipke be paid by the respondents, and the respondents, in turn, challenged her right to a change of physicians under the provisions of Workers\u2019 Compensation Rule 21 (1979), which provides as follows:\nThe employer and/or insurance carrier has the right and duty in the first instance to provide prompt medical care to injured employees through physicians and hospitals of the respondents\u2019 choice. A claimant, subsequently, may obtain a change in treating physicians to a physician of the claimant\u2019s choice, the costs of such treatment to be borne by the employer or the employer\u2019s insurance carrier, provided (1) the claimant\u2019s healing period shall not have ended; (2) the claimant is not seeking to change physicians from one of his own choice, previously selected by the claimant; (3) the physician to whom claimant wishes to change is qualified in the particular field of medicine needed for claimant\u2019s particular difficulties; (4) the claimant files with the Commission a petition for a change in physicians, gives the name of the physician to whom he wishes to change and asserts that the physician to whom he wishes to change is competent to treat his particular ailment; (5) no unresolved issue exists over whether claimant is legally entitled to medical care at the expense of respondents.\n* * *\n[Emphasis supplied.]\nOn the foregoing facts, the Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant\u2019s healing period had ended on October 23, 1979, and that temporary disability benefits had been paid by the respondents. He also found the claimant was entitled to a change of physician to Dr. J. M. Lipke with such treatment to be at the expense of the respondents. In making such a finding of entitlement, the Administrative Law Judge relied on the case of Caldwell v. Vestal, 237 Ark. 142, 371 S.W. 2d 836 (1963). The Full Commission affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. However, Caldwell is distinguishable from the instant case, and the reliance on that case by the Administrative Law Judge and the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission is misplaced.\nThe obvious difference between Caldwell and the instant case is that Caldwell did not involve a finding that the claimant there had reached the end of his healing period. Rule 21, as it read in 1979 and as it applies to the facts in this case, clearly provides that a claimant is entitled to a change in physicians only where the healing period has not ended.\nHere, there is substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding, that claimant\u2019s healing period had ended. This being so, the right to a change of physicians is eliminated under the clear language of Rule 21. Bradford v. Timex Corporation, 270 Ark. 184, 604 S.W. 2d 572 (Ark. App. 1980). A review of the evidence in this cause reflects a report by Dr. Smith that he examined the claimant on October 23, 1979, that she was doing well and was able to return to work. Dr. Thomas, also an orthopedic surgeon, reported that there were no objective findings warranting further diagnostic studies. Altogether, the claimant was seen by three orthopedists and two family practitioners over a ten month period without a finding of incapacity. The following conclusions concerning the healing period were made by the Administrative Law Judge and approved by the Full Commission:\nNone of the orthopedists who have examined or treated the claimant have stated that she is unable to work because of the injury since she was released by Dr. Smith on October 23, 1979. After observing the claimant\u2019s demeanor as a witness, I was persuaded that she had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence ( that her pain symptomatology was sufficient to prevent her from returning to work.\nThe finding of fact that claimant\u2019s healing period ended negates and precludes a finding that the claimant was entitled to a change of physicians. Since there is substantial evidence to support the finding that the claimant\u2019s healing period ended October 23, 1979, the Commission was in error when it determined she was entitled to a change of physicians at the expense of the respondents after that date.\nReversed.\nThese portions of Rule 21 were repealed effective March 1, 1982, in view of the enactment of Act 290 of 1981, codified as Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1311.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "David B. Simmons, for appellants.", "Brown, Compton ir Prewett, Ltd., by: Floyd M. Thomas, Jr., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "UNION MEDICAL CENTER et al v. Barbara J. BRUMLEY\nCA 81-434\n631 S.W. 2d 618\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 14, 1982\nDavid B. Simmons, for appellants.\nBrown, Compton ir Prewett, Ltd., by: Floyd M. Thomas, Jr., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0370-01", "first_page_order": 390, "last_page_order": 393 }