{
  "id": 6142526,
  "name": "WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Claims Management, Inc. v. Cynthia DAVIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "2007-05-02",
  "docket_number": "CA 06-1109",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "425",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 Ark. App. 422"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "256 S.W.3d 517"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. App. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139290
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "165"
        },
        {
          "page": "908"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/74/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 Ark. 296",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        210148
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "303"
        },
        {
          "page": "765"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/344/0296-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(16)",
          "parenthetical": "B"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4539,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.768,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17496792284028914
    },
    "sha256": "36c3611a50557d19f9c3520d92483d37b573b9f6fcbd88e5de90614fde491f0f",
    "simhash": "1:acd2b49544cef2df",
    "word_count": 720
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:49.949226+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Griffen and Baker, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Claims Management, Inc. v. Cynthia DAVIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Josephine Linker Hart, Judge.\nAppellants argue that substantial evidence does not support the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission\u2019s finding that appellee, Cynthia Davis, sustained a compensable injury while working for appellant Wal-Mart. Specifically, appellants contend that appellee\u2019s physician failed to state his conclusion regarding causation within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. We affirm.\nAppellee testified that on February 25, 2005, she fell from a ladder while at work. She continued to work, but approximately a week later, began to experience pain in her arm, shoulder, and neck. She, however, did not associate her injury \u2014 herniated discs at C5-6 and at C6-7 \u2014 with her job-related accident until May 27, 2005, when she was seen by a neurosurgeon, Dr. Anthony Capocelli. In a letter, Dr. Capocelli wrote as follows:\n[Appellee] has been a patient under my care since 5/27/2005 at which time we had seen her for chronic neck pain and radicular symptomatology that she suffered after an apparent fall while at work. Apparently within a one month period after the fall the patient developed early significant radicular symptomatology though apparently the main onset was mostly about a week or so after the initial injury. However, subsequent work-up did indeed reveal the patient had a significant disc herniation and by her report there are no other traumatic injuries between the time of her fall from a ladder and the onset of symptomatology. It is believed that the jail brought about the injury to the neck.\nHistorically the patient has some history of low back and thoracic spasms and myofascial syndrome but no history of cervical disease and no radicular symptomatology in the right arm. To that end it is my belief that based on the available history and objective findings that this patient had.a work injury suffered when she fell from a ladder.\n(Emphasis added.)\nThe administrative law judge (ALJ) found that appellee proved that she sustained a compensable injury to her cervical spine and right upper extremity when she fell off the ladder at work. In awarding benefits, the ALJ noted, \u201cDr. Capocelli has opined that based on [appellee\u2019s] report of her fall that her injuries are a result of this event.\u201d The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ\u2019s opinion.\nAppellants assert on appeal that the only evidence presented to support a causal relationship between appellee\u2019s injury and her employment was the letter written by Dr. Capocelli. Appellants argue that Dr. Capocelli\u2019s opinion does not establish causation because his opinion was not stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, nor with any qualification of his degree of certainty.\nWe are mindful of our statutory requirement that \u201c[mjedical opinions addressing compensability and permanent impairment must be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(16) (B) (Supp. 2005). The Arkansas Supreme Court, however, \u201chas never required that a doctor be absolute in an opinion or that the magic words \u2018within a reasonable degree of medical certainty\u2019 even be used by the doctor,\u201d but rather, \u201chas simply held that the medical opinion be more than speculation.\u201d Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296, 303, 40 S.W.3d 760, 765 (2001). The court observed that \u201cifthe doctor renders an opinion about causation with language that goes beyond possibilities and establishes that work was the reasonable cause of the injury, this should pass muster.\u201d Id.\nIn Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001), the employer argued that a physician failed to state his medical opinion regarding permanent impairment within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. We held that the doctor\u2019s opinion \u201cmet this requirement in that he was not equivocal in his assessment of permanent impairment in the form of herniations.\u201d Id. at 165, 47 S.W.3d at 908. Here, Dr. Capocelli concluded, without equivocation, that appellee suffered a work injury when she fell from a ladder. Analogously to Polk County, because Dr. Capocelli\u2019s opinion regarding causation was unequivocal, we conclude that his opinion was stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.\nAffirmed.\nGriffen and Baker, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Josephine Linker Hart, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bassett Law Firm, LLP, by: Dale W. Brown, for appellants.",
      "Walker, Shock, Cox, Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Claims Management, Inc. v. Cynthia DAVIS\nCA 06-1109\n256 S.W.3d 517\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 2, 2007\nBassett Law Firm, LLP, by: Dale W. Brown, for appellants.\nWalker, Shock, Cox, Harp, PLLC, by: Eddie H. Walker, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 452,
  "last_page_order": 455
}