{
  "id": 1627301,
  "name": "Luther B. FRANKS v. AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Franks v. Amoco Chemical Co.",
  "decision_date": "1972-09-25",
  "docket_number": "5-6036",
  "first_page": "120",
  "last_page": "122",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 120"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "484 S.W.2d 689"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "471 S.W. 2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633358
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720129
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/249/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 Ark. 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723553
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/249/0769-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 5075,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7256741950487924e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8940610051010696
    },
    "sha256": "24f9f1401535fb7ba3cfdba42cd23729d845946763aa130829fecedfce34eec1",
    "simhash": "1:e719cae6b9ea5bd2",
    "word_count": 842
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Luther B. FRANKS v. AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe appellant claims workmen\u2019s compensation benefits based upon an alleged spinal injury while an employee of the appellee, Amoco Chemical Company. Following a denial of the claim by the referee, the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission found adversely to the appellant. The circuit court affirmed the Commission\u2019s finding. For reversal of that judgment the appellant contends only there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding. We must disagree.\nWe first observe that the burden was upon the appellant to establish his claim for compensation before the Commission and, on appeal, he must demonstrate the proof before that tribunal is so nearly undisputed that fair-minded men could not arrive at its finding. Eubanks v. Wheeling Pipeline, Inc., 249 Ark. 769, 461 S.W. 2d 937 (1971). Also, the trial court and this court, upon appeal, give the evidence adduced its strongest probative force to support the Commission\u2019s finding which, like that of a jury, will be upheld if there is any substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s action. Mayner v. Flyer Garment Co., 249 Ark. 384, 459 S.W. 2d 413 (1970), Bentley v. Henderson, 251 Ark. 203, 471 S.W. 2d 548 (1971).\nThe appellant, 64 years of age, testified that on or about August 20, 1969, he felt a sharp pain in his neck when he lifted a 90 lb. pipe on his job. He did not report the injury and about a week later he sought medical attention from Dr. Farmer. This doctor made a diagnosis of emphysema and hospitalized appellant. By agreement, appellant introduced into evidence his various medical reports. A report by Dr. Farmer dated December, 1969, and a report and bill dated January, 1970, reflect that the appellant\u2019s alleged accidental injury occurred on November 3, 1969, or about two months after the date relied upon by appellant. In a supplemental report dated March, 1970, Dr. Farmer recited that when he first saw appellant in August that he failed to get a history of the claimed injury although appellant complained of pain and numbness in his right arm with about one month\u2019s duration. He treated him on several occasions for what he \u201cfelt to be a neuritis.\u201d Dr. Callaway\u2019s report reflects that he saw appellant on September 30, 1969, or about a month after the alleged injury, and that appellant reported that he \u201cwas hit from behind about four months ago and received two \u2018licks\u2019 on his neck and shoulder, right.\u201d He complained of pain in his neck and right shoulder and numbness in his right hand. X-rays showed \u201cadvanced osteoarthritic changes in the cervical spine.\u201d A history of emphysema was, also, given. He diagnosed appellant\u2019s condition as a cervical disk disease. In December Dr. Calla-way wrote that originally he did not get the history that appellant was \u201churt on the job\u201d and he was not being carried \u201cas a compensation case.\u201d In February, 1970, Dr. Callaway wrote that the appellant now states his back symptoms (reported to Dr. Callaway in September) were only four weeks instead of four months\u2019 duration and appellant claims he suffered the alleged industrial accident the latter part of October, 1969.\nWhen Dr. Ruff saw appellant on November 7, 1969, appellant reported a history of injuring his back when he lifted a heavy pipe on the job in late August or the first of September. Dr. Ruff testified that appellant suffered from a typical cervical disk syndrome with pressure on the neck nerves. According to him, the injury could result from a severe strain or overexertion and that appellant\u2019s work through the years contributed to his condition and was a major factor in his present condition.\nThe evidence is undisputed that appellant was an 11-year employee who knew that accident reports were available and it was expected of all employees to make known an injury to the foreman and a report be filed. He had filled out some of these accident reports previously, including an injury to his finger on September 17, which was about three weeks after the presently alleged injury. He never reported to his employer that he had suffered his present injury until he filed his formal claim on November 14, 1969, which was a few days after first advising his foreman he was unable to work. He says that it was only then he realized the seriousness of his back condition. During the interim, he had missed only seven days work.\nAppellant contends that the inconsistencies of the medical reports submitted by him were the fault of his doctors. The burden was upon appellant to demonstrate to the Commission the verity of this assertion and establish his claim\u2019for compensation. It was the Commission\u2019s responsibility, as fact finders, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies of the evidence as well as evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. We cannot say that the Commission\u2019s finding is unsupported by any substantial evidence.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McKay, Chandler if Choate, for appellant.",
      "Shackleford if Shackleford, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Luther B. FRANKS v. AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY et al\n5-6036\n484 S.W. 2d 689\nOpinion delivered September 25, 1972\nMcKay, Chandler if Choate, for appellant.\nShackleford if Shackleford, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0120-01",
  "first_page_order": 144,
  "last_page_order": 146
}