{ "id": 1627497, "name": "DURA CRAFT BOATS, Inc. v. George A. DAUGHERTY", "name_abbreviation": "Dura Craft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty", "decision_date": "1972-10-23", "docket_number": "5-6039", "first_page": "340", "last_page": "343", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "253 Ark. 340" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "485 S.W.2d 739" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "250 Ark. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1636816 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/250/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 854", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485093 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0854-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 Ark. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1600767 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/247/0125-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 268, "char_count": 3724, "ocr_confidence": 0.848, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0454058969163313e-07, "percentile": 0.5519441480951206 }, "sha256": "04b4491f6f6694c073c816828315c624bc831ef57f7711638b907cc51542f3cc", "simhash": "1:9189978a5da33a5e", "word_count": 623 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DURA CRAFT BOATS, Inc. v. George A. DAUGHERTY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe appellee suffered an injury to his right hand when he was working as a riveter for the appellant. The Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission, in affirming a referee\u2019s opinion, found that the appellee had sustained a 10% permanent partial disability to the right hand and awarded benefits for that degree of disability. The circuit Court, on appellate review, reversed the action of the Commission and in doing so found that appellee was entitled to compensation for a permant partial disability of 10% to the body as a whole rather than 10% to the right hand. A judgment was accordingly rendered.\nWe agree with the appellant that the extent of the claimant\u2019s injury or disability is primarily a question of fact for the Commission to determine. It is beyond the power of an appellate court to make a finding of fact as to the extent of a claimant\u2019s injuries. This is solely within the province of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission as fact finders and the only power of an appellate court is to remand the case for further proceedings. Dura Craft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty, 247 Ark. 125, 444 S.W. 2d 562 (1969), Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 206 Ark. 854, 177 S.W. 2d 920 (1944). Therefore, the remaining' issue before us as an appellate court is to determine if there is any substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s findings. This is the extent of our inquiry on appeal and if substantial evidence exists, we must affirm the Commission. St. Michael Hospital v. Wright, 250 Ark. 539, 465 S. W. 2d 904 (1971).\nAppellee\u2019s medical witness testified that he was of the opinion that appellee\u2019s disability was 5% to 10% to the body as a whole; however, on cross-examination, as abstracted, he testified: \u201cI felt that he had some permanent weakness in his right hand which was limited to his right hand; some sensory change specifically hypalgesia, which means diminished depreciation of pain; and hypesthesia, which means decreased depreciation of touch in the distribution of the radial nerve on the right hand. **** This was all confined to the right hand.\u201d Appellant\u2019s medical witness, as abstracted, stated that \u201cI did not find any physical reason that would prevent this man from carrying on his normal work activities. **** From my examination I found nothing that was of objective character of any physical or neurological impairment of the man\u2019s right hand or right upper extremity beyond the man\u2019s own willful control. There was nothing in my examination to indicate that this man could not perform work duties that he was otherwise capable of performing.\u201d Also, the claimant told him that \u201che was getting along quite well on this new job.\u201d Evidence was adduced that sometime following claimant\u2019s injury he was employed in pest control work at approximately a 50% higher salary and doing work which required him to crawl under houses, use a sprayer, and perform- carpentry. It appears that appellee was deceased at the time of the hearing on his claim.\nWhen we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding of the Commission, as we must do on appellate review, we must agree with appellant there is substantial evidence to support the Commission in its finding of fact. On appeal, the issue is not whether the testimony would have supported a contrary finding but whether it supports the finding the Commission made. It follows that the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to reinstate the award of the Commission.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Riddick Riffel, for appellant.", "Clifton Bond, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DURA CRAFT BOATS, Inc. v. George A. DAUGHERTY\n5-6039\n485 S.W. 2d 739\nOpinion delivered October 23, 1972\nRiddick Riffel, for appellant.\nClifton Bond, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0340-01", "first_page_order": 378, "last_page_order": 381 }