{ "id": 6138056, "name": "CARROLL GENERAL HOSPITAL v. Bobby GREEN", "name_abbreviation": "Carroll General Hospital v. Green", "decision_date": "1996-06-19", "docket_number": "CA 95-1032", "first_page": "102", "last_page": "107", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ark. App. 102" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "923 S.W.2d 878" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "52 Ark. App. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137601 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/52/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ark. App. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140738 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/30/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ark. App. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139410 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/42/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ark. App. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6135992 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/44/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Ark. App. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138675 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/9/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1700056 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "2" }, { "page": "2" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/230/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 467, "char_count": 9138, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.429337514814826e-07, "percentile": 0.8790564623651803 }, "sha256": "ce20e924ae694680faf0d115eb16d11fb02be51c30813d484f57757a93d191ab", "simhash": "1:2530646b7bb42a6b", "word_count": 1468 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:29.533878+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Neal and Stroud, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "CARROLL GENERAL HOSPITAL v. Bobby GREEN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge.\nCarroll General Hospital appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission which found that the compensation benefits payable to appellee as a result of a hernia operation were not limited to twenty-six weeks as provided in the \u201chernia statute,\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-9-523(b)(l) (Repl. 1996), and which found that appellee was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits. Appellant argues that the Commission\u2019s failure to apply the limitation in \u00a7 11-9-523 is erroneous as a matter of law and that the award of additional benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. We find no error and affirm.\nAppellee suffered a compensable bilateral inguinal hernia, which was surgically repaired by Dr. W. K. Flake on June 30, 1992. Dr. Flake released appellee to return to work without restriction on August 25, 1992. After working for five months, appellee began to have pain in his right groin. Dr. Flake stated that appellee\u2019s discomfort was due to a nerve that became entrapped during appellee\u2019s hernia surgery. When conservative measures did not relieve appellant\u2019s problems, Dr. Flake referred him to Dr. C. R. Magness. Appellant was also evaluated by Dr. E. Stahl. Dr. Stahl referred appellant to Dr. John F. Eidt at UAMS. Appellee was seen by other doctors who agreed with Dr. Flake\u2019s conclusions. On August 13, 1993, Dr. Eidt surgically repaired the entrapped nerve. Appellee then sought additional temporary total disability from August 20, 1993.\nCompensation for hernia injuries may not exceed a period of twenty-six weeks. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-9-523(b)(l) (Repl. 1996). Appellant argues that the statute is applicable because appellee\u2019s entrapped nerve is related to his hernia and that there is no statutory provision for additional benefits for disability resulting from a hernia surgery. The Commission, in finding that the hernia statute was not applicable, stated that appellee\u2019s disability resulted from the hernia surgery and was \u201cseparate and distinct from the hernia.\u201d It held that a disability resulting from \u201ccomplications which are a consequence of the occurrence of the hernia but which are separate and distinct from the hernia itself\u201d are not limited to a twenty-six week period as provided in \u00a7 ll-9-523(b)(l).\nThe Arkansas Supreme Court has held that a severe or \u201cslow to heal\u201d hernia does not entitle a claimant to compensation benefits beyond the twenty-six week limitation, Jobe v. Capitol Products Corp., 230 Ark. 1, 320 S.W.2d 634 (1959). However, if the hernia results in \u201ccomplications,\u201d compensation beyond the twenty-six week limitation may be received. In Jobe, the court quoted the Commission, which held: \u201cBy \u2018complications\u2019 we mean infection, or damage to bodily organs or structures separated (sic) and distinct from the hernia itself...\u201d Id., 230 Ark. at 2.\nAppellant urges us to reverse the Commission\u2019s decision based on our ruling in Tibbs v. Dixie Bearings, Inc., 9 Ark. App. 150, 654 S.W.2d 588 (1983). There, the claimant required an additional surgery to remove silk sutures used in the surgery to repair his hernia. Because of the claimant\u2019s allergic reaction to the sutures which caused stitch infections, his hernia injury was slow to heal. We held that Tibbs was indistinguishable from Jobe and limited compensation to the twenty-six week period as provided in the hernia statute. We did so based in part on the medical evidence which did not reveal that the claimant\u2019s failure to heal prompdy, because of complications from the hernia surgery, caused him to suffer \u201cany greater disability than any other person sustaining a severe hernia injury,\u201d and that the claimant failed to prove any disability \u201cseparate and distinct from the hernia itself.\u201d Id., 9 Ark. App. at 153.\nWe find Tibbs, supra, distinguishable from the case now before us. Unlike the claimants in Jobe and Tibbs, appellee\u2019s disability arose from a condition \u201cseparate and distinct\u201d from the hernia injury itself, an entrapped nerve, and his failure to heal promptly was not related to the hernia but to damage to a \u201cbodily structure\u201d separate and distinct from the hernia. Jobe, 230 Ark. at 2.\nAppellant also argues that our holding in Tibbs be interpreted as stating that the hernia statute precludes additional compensation for disability resulting from complications from a hernia surgery and is applicable to the case before us. However, in Tibbs, complications from the claimant\u2019s hernia surgery caused his hernia injury to not heal promptly. Here, the medical evidence was that the entrapped nerve, not the hernia, caused appellee to be unable to work. Moreover, the Commission found that appellee\u2019s disability resulted from the nerve entrapment and not from the hernia. Therefore, we affirm the Commission\u2019s finding that compensation for appellee\u2019s disability is not limited by the hernia statute.\nFurther, the Commission found that appellee\u2019s disability was from the hernia surgery and not from the hernia. Dr. David Bauer and Dr. Flake related appellee\u2019s condition to the surgery. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the fight most favorable to the Commission\u2019s findings and will affirm if the Commission\u2019s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Wright v. ABC Air, Inc., 44 Ark. App. 5, 864 S.W.2d 871 (1993). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The issue is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission\u2019s conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Cagle Fabricating & Steel, Inc. v. Patterson, 42 Ark. App. 168, 856 S.W.2d 30 (1993). The Commission\u2019s findings on this issue are supported by substantial evidence.\nSecondly, appellant argues that appellee\u2019s healing period, following the second surgery on August 23, 1993, ended before September 22, 1993, because Dr. Stahl stated that all objective testing was normal. The Commission found that the healing period ended on November 23, 1993, and awarded additional temporary total disability benefits from August 21, 1993, through November 23, 1993.\nAppellant also argues that there is no evidence that appellee was unable to work subsequent to August 20, 1993, other than his own testimony, and thus he is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits subsequent to August 20, 1993.\nTemporary total disability is that period within the healing period in which an employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. J.A. Riggs Tractor Co. v. Etzhorn, 30 Ark. App. 200, 785 S.W.2d 51 (1990). Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 11-9-102(13) (Supp. 1995) defines \u201chealing period\u201d as that period for healing of an injury resulting from an accident. The healing period continues until the employee is as far restored as the permanent character of his injury will permit, and if the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and if nothing in the way of treatment will improve that condition, the healing period has ended. Harvest Foods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996). The determination of when the healing period has ended is a factual determination for the Commission which is affirmed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Id.\nDr. Bauer\u2019s August 18, 1993, report said that appellee\u2019s entrapped nerve prevented appellee from working. On August 23, 1993, appellee had a second surgery for the entrapped nerve. Appellee testified that he has not worked anywhere since his August 23, 1993, surgery, has not been released to return to work, and did not think that he was able to perform his previous job with appellant. Appellee said that his right leg is weak and that he is unable to lift any weight or walk a significant distance. Although he helps his wife with some housework, he has to stop and rest.\nAppellee continued to receive physical therapy and to be followed by Dr. Stahl after the second surgery. Dr. Stahl\u2019s September 22, 1993, report said that appellee was healing well and all objective testing was normal. Dr. Eidt\u2019s November 24, 1993, report stated that appellee continued to complain of pain in the right groin which affected his ability to walk and that appellee stated that he was unable to work. The Commission found, based on Dr. Eidt\u2019s report and appellee\u2019s testimony at the hearing, that the healing period ended on November 23, 1993. We cannot conclude that that finding is not supported by substantial evidence or that the Commission erred in awarding additional temporary total disability benefits.\nAffirmed.\nNeal and Stroud, JJ., agree.\nThe definition remained the same when the Workers\u2019 Compensation law was amended in 1993.", "type": "majority", "author": "John Mauzy Pittman, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bassett Law Firm, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellant.", "Adams & Evans, by: Donald J. Adams, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CARROLL GENERAL HOSPITAL v. Bobby GREEN\nCA 95-1032\n923 S.W.2d 878\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered June 19, 1996\nBassett Law Firm, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellant.\nAdams & Evans, by: Donald J. Adams, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0102-01", "first_page_order": 128, "last_page_order": 133 }