{
  "id": 6139947,
  "name": "Janice ROBERTS v. LEO LEVI HOSPITAL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Leo Levi Hospital",
  "decision_date": "1983-05-04",
  "docket_number": "CA 82-498",
  "first_page": "184",
  "last_page": "187",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 Ark. App. 184"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "649 S.W.2d 402"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1737984
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0080-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1737995
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "729"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ark. App. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136904
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/1/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 418,
    "char_count": 6228,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.2288683053416184e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8675760633148882
    },
    "sha256": "1dfb9b82f622a0d86646e1de28adb1314db6736dd7ca40e93586cad3bd1d66e8",
    "simhash": "1:c34f5a086d302ac9",
    "word_count": 1018
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:48.973709+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Janice ROBERTS v. LEO LEVI HOSPITAL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nIn this Workers\u2019 Compensation case, the Commission found that the appellant failed to prove she sustained a compensable injury. Appellant\u2019s primary issue on appeal is that there is not substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding.\nAppellant contends that she was injured on December 22, 1981, at the Levi Hospital where she worked as a nurses\u2019 aide. She testified that she experienced a tingling sensation in both legs when she was assisting a bed patient. Later the same day, appellant said that she bent over to pick up paper from the floor and \u201csomething popped.\u201d She related that she believed \u201cit was her total knee but couldn\u2019t confine the pain or where it come from.\u201d Appellant subsequently called her husband, and he, in turn, called an ambulance to take her to the Ouachita Memorial Hospital. She spent a night at the hospital, and the next day she went home to stay in bed.\nAppellant was unable to see her orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Chakales, until January 4, 1982. He hospitalized her from January 7, 1982, to February 15, 1982. She received physical therapy, cortisone shots and finally disc surgery. She said that the surgery alleviated the numbness in her legs and she experienced no further problems with her knee.\nOn June 18,1982, the Administrative Law Judge found that appellant had suffered a compensable injury to her lower back which was in the nature of an aggravation to a pre-existing condition. On October 20, 1982, the Commission reversed the Judge\u2019s decision, finding that the appellant failed to prove her claim by credible evidence. In so finding, the Commission stated that there were numerous inconsistencies in appellant\u2019s testimony, and that her doctor\u2019s opinion, largely based on facts related to him by the appellant, lacked sufficient independent knowledge upon which to corroborate appellant\u2019s claim.\nIn our review, we note the rule that the Commission\u2019s duty is to make a finding in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence and not on whether there is any substantial evidence to support the findings of the Administrative Law Judge. Jones v. Scheduled Skyways, Inc., 1 Ark. App. 44, 612 S.W.2d 333 (1981). In view of this rule, the findings of the Administrative Law Judge.regarding credir bility issues are not binding upon the Commission. See Arkansas Coal Co. v. Steele, 237 Ark. 727, 729, 375 S.W.2d 673 (1964); and Moss v. El Dorado Drilling Co., 237 Ark. 80, 371 S.W.2d 528 (1963). Additionally, in a workers\u2019 compensation case, this Court must view and interpret the evidenc\u00e9, and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrqm, ip the light most favorable to the findings pf the Commission and give the testimony its strongest probative force in favor of the action of the Commission, whether it favored the claimant or the employer. Jones v. Scheduled Skyways, supra.\nFrom our study of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s decision, especially when viewed in light of the conflicting testimonies given by the appellant and other witnesses. In fact, appellant\u2019s own testimony was inconsistent in her narration of her back inj ury and what caused it. For example, at various times, the appellant gave different versions of how the injury occurred; in each version, however; she recounted how she sustained an injury to her leg or knee, not to her back. Two nurses, who were on duty on December 22, testified respectively that appellant complained that she hqd \u201churt her knee\u201d and that. her \u201cleg was not feeling adequate and she was having discomfort.\u201d Appellant\u2019s coinplaint concerning her leg not. feeling adequate was apparently made two hours before the incidents she indicated caused her injury.\nWe also find that the medical evidence fails to clearly establish the origin of appellant\u2019s injury. For instance, Dr. Harold Chakales originally treated an injury to her right knee in 1977 and 1978; After totally replacing the knee, Chakales released her in January, 1979 \u2014 at the same time, he diagnosed her as having degenerative disease of the lumber spine. Later, .in May, 1979, he saw her for an acute lumbar strain for which she was treated and discharged. Appellant\u2019s next visit, to Chakales on January 4, 1982, involved the injury in issue here. Chakales opined that if what appellant related to him was true, the history she gave would be consistent with causing an acute ruptured disc of the lumbar spine. However, he testified further that he could not say with any certainty that her knee problems contributed to her back injury because she has had back trouble periodically in the past.\nIn viewing Chakales\u2019 testimony in light of the other evidence, the Commission obviously deduced that the history appellant gave the doctor was in variance with other versions given by her on other occasions. Accordingly, it was justified in giving little weight to that part of the doctor\u2019s opinion which in any way attempted to suggest how appellant\u2019s injury may have occurred. Considering the testimony in toto, the Commission could have reasonably inferred that any problem that she experienced on December 22, 1981, was to her knee which (as indicated by Chakales) could not with any certainty be related to her back injury. The Commission had the right to disbelieve the appellant and resolve against her the contradictory evidence as well as the inconsistencies in her own testimony.\nIn conclusion, we note appellant\u2019s argument that the Commission erred in failing to set out the basis for its reversal of the Administrative Law Judge\u2019s decision. We dismiss appellant\u2019s argument simply by noting that the Commission did state its reason for holding as it did, viz., that appellant\u2019s own testimony was inconsistent and failed to independently corroborate the medical and other evidence to prove her injury claim. The Commission found her evidence was not credible, and we are in no position to hold otherwise.\nWe affirm.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lane, Muse, Arman & Pullen, by: Donald C. Pullen, for appellant.",
      "Friday, Eldredge ir Clark, by: Donald H. Bacon, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Janice ROBERTS v. LEO LEVI HOSPITAL\nCA 82-498\n649 S.W.2d 402\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 4, 1983\n[Rehearing denied May 25, 1983.]\nLane, Muse, Arman & Pullen, by: Donald C. Pullen, for appellant.\nFriday, Eldredge ir Clark, by: Donald H. Bacon, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0184-01",
  "first_page_order": 206,
  "last_page_order": 209
}