{
  "id": 6141333,
  "name": "Diana VAUGHN v. APS SERVICES, LLC; Hartford Insurance Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vaughn v. APS Services, LLC",
  "decision_date": "2007-06-20",
  "docket_number": "CA 07-35",
  "first_page": "267",
  "last_page": "269",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 Ark. App. 267"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "259 S.W.3d 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "342 Ark. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1342441
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/342/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(12)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 Ark. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1174871
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/272/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4265,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39388802204298395
    },
    "sha256": "bd69080f0f01f6b096988f5d640837756618d9ddcd6ca66f490dedc6e08f0df4",
    "simhash": "1:cc4b040e097843e7",
    "word_count": 681
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:21.655097+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Griffen and Glover, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Diana VAUGHN v. APS SERVICES, LLC; Hartford Insurance Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Josphine Linker Hart, Judge.\nAppellant, Diana Vaughan, argues that substantial evidence does not support the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission\u2019s decision that she reached the end of her healing period no later than June 15, 2005, and was not entitled to temporary total disability compensation after that date. Because the Commission expressly relied on erroneous factual findings in reaching its decision, we must reverse and remand for the Commission to fully examine the relevant evidence presented in this case.\nIn order to be entitled to temporary total disability compensation, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she remains in her healing period and suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Ark. State Highway & Transp. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981). Our statutes define \u201chealing period\u201d as \u201cthat period for healing of an injury resulting from an accident.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(12) (Supp. 2005). Before the Commission was the question of whether appellant remained in her healing period from an admittedly compensable injury she sustained on September 17, 1997, involving her neck, right shoulder, and right arm. The Commission, in a unanimous decision signed by Chairman O\u00edan W. Reeves, Commissioner Shelby W. Turner, and Commissioner Karen H. McKinney, concluded that appellant reached the end of her healing period no later than June 15, 2005. In support of its decision, the Commission quoted in full and then relied on a medical record of the same date. As argued by appellant, we hold that the Commission erred in relying on this medical record in making its decision, as the medical record is not appellant\u2019s medical record.\nThe medical record, signed by Dr. William E. Ackerman, is accompanied by a letter from appellant\u2019s attorney to appellees\u2019 attorney, stating that \u201c[ejnclosed is anote on another of my client\u2019s (identity obliterated to preserve confidentiality).\u201d According to the letter, the medical record was sent to show that Dr. Ackerman, who also had treated appellant but who had left Arkansas, had intended to refer all of his patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) to a Dr. Amad. The letter indicated that appellant, who we note also had been assessed by Dr. Ackerman as having RSD, \u201csimply fell through the cracks.\u201d The accompanying medical record is that of a patient whose complaint was pain in the left ankle \u2014 not, as in this case, an injury to the right upper extremity. The medical record indicates that a CAT scan was taken of the patient\u2019s ankle; that another physician had placed the patient at maximum medical improvement; that the patient\u2019s RSD was stable; and that Dr. Ackerman recommended that the patient see a Dr. Amad, an expert in RSD, for medication refills.\nCiting language from the medical record, the Commission concluded that \u201cthe preponderance of the evidence shows that [appellant] continued within her healing period from May 5, 2005, until June 15, 2005, at which point Dr. Ackerman pronounced her RSD condition had stabilized.\u201d It found that appellant \u201creached the end of her healing period no later than June 15, 2005.\u201d\nAppellee argues that even if the irrelevant medical record is not considered, the Commission\u2019s opinion was supported by substantial evidence. But as in Tuckerv. Roberts-McNutt, Inc., 342 Ark. 511, 29 S.W.3d 706 (2000), the error is not that substantial evidence was not presented or considered. Rather, as in Tucker, the Commission failed to make a proper de novo review of the record, which resulted in it making erroneous factual findings upon which it expressly relied in reaching its decision, thus leaving this court to speculate concerning what evidence the Commission intended to rely on when making its decision. The Commission\u2019s erroneous factual findings require our reversal of its decision, and we remand this case to the Commission for its full examination of the relevant evidence presented.\nReversed and remanded.\nGriffen and Glover, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Josphine Linker Hart, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth E. Buckner, for appellant.",
      "Kilpatrick, Williams, Smith & Meeks, L.P., by: Gene Williams, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Diana VAUGHN v. APS SERVICES, LLC; Hartford Insurance Co.\nCA 07-35\n259 S.W.3d 470\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 20, 2007\nKenneth E. Buckner, for appellant.\nKilpatrick, Williams, Smith & Meeks, L.P., by: Gene Williams, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0267-01",
  "first_page_order": 303,
  "last_page_order": 305
}