{ "id": 1675838, "name": "EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Frank WHITE", "name_abbreviation": "Emerson Electric Co. v. White", "decision_date": "1977-11-07", "docket_number": "77-295", "first_page": "376", "last_page": "379", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "262 Ark. 376" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "557 S.W.2d 189" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "237 Ark. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1738010 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 Ark. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717588 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/256/0054-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 337, "char_count": 4721, "ocr_confidence": 0.907, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.185020004674869e-07, "percentile": 0.5899426955007802 }, "sha256": "c2fa837ec61aecf2245c4e447dc1ad92f6c69522e3cf7e6dc68248c7fe7f2c4c", "simhash": "1:ec35e25ccd12f6dd", "word_count": 763 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "We agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Holt, JJ." ], "parties": [ "EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Frank WHITE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe workmen\u2019s compensation commission (1) approved, retroactively, the claimant White\u2019s request that he be permitted to change physicians and (2) found that White\u2019s total temporary disability had commenced on April 1, 1975. The circuit court upheld the commission. The self-insured employer questions both the commission\u2019s findings.\nOn the first point, the statute provides that the commission may order a change of physicians when, \u201cin its discretion,\u201d such change is deemed \u201cnecessary or desirable.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1311 (Repl. 1976). We have recognized the commission\u2019s discretionary authority to approve such changes retroactively with respect to the employer\u2019s liability for fees and expenses incurred after the change. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown, 256 Ark. 54, 505 S.W. 2d 207 (1974); Caldwell v. Vestal, 237 Ark. 142, 371 S.W. 2d 836 (1963). In Southwestern Bell, as here, the claimant\u2019s petition for a change of physicians had not actually been approved when additional medical expenses were incurred by the claimant. We agreed with the referee\u2019s observation that a claimant cannot be expected merely to wait patiently for relief from his symptoms while the wheels of justice turn.\nHere the claimant, through his attorney, first suggested the need for a change of physicians in August of 1974. A hearing on that request was finally held on September 16, 1975. The administrative law judge\u2019s approval of the requested change, by reason of delays not attributable to him, was not announced until April 1976. In the meantime White had undergone apparently successful surgery, performed by Dr. Lester, the surgeon of White\u2019s own choice, for the fusion of the affected vertebrae in White\u2019s back.\nThe employer argues that reimbursement for the attendant expenses should be denied, because Dr. Feild, a Memphis neurosurgeon who was selected by the employer and treated White for some time, should have been offered the opportunity to perform the operation. The administrative law judge and the commission both rejected that contention.\nWe find no abuse of discretion in the retroactive approval of the change. There is no question about the qualifications of either doctor to perform the operation. There is no question about Dr. Lester\u2019s fees. The claimant had been angered by Dr. Feild, partly because Dr. Feild had released him to go back to full-time work when White, in his own opinion, was still not able to work. As late as August 6, 1975, Dr. Feild wrote to the employer that \u201cmany of [the claimant\u2019s] symptoms and complaints are referable to chronic anxiety and I think much of his pain is.\u201d Yet a myelogram performed by Dr. Lester only 18 days later indicated objectively that the fusion was advisable. White testified at the hearing in September that he had no confidence in Dr. Feild and would not let him do the suggested operation. In the circumstances we cannot say the commission abused its discretion in finding that the change of physicians was, in the language of the statute, \u201cdesirable.\u201d\nOn the second point, however, we find no substantial evidence that White\u2019s total temporary disability goes back quite as far as April 1, 1975 Until that date he had been drawing unemployment compensation benefits, indicating that he was employable. When those benefits were terminated on April 1, White applied to the appellant for reemployment, indicating he himself thought he could work. He was told that he had been fired. His own physician, Dr. Lester, wrote on September 9 that his patient\u2019s earlier total temporary disability had ended long before the myelogram was performed on August 24.\nOn the other hand, the myelogram was unquestionably disabling for some weeks. The administrative law judge apparently first saw White at the hearing on September 16. At that time it was demonstrated that White walked quite slowly and with a waddling movement that is confirmed by the medical proof. We, of course, do not have the great advantage of having seen White as he attempted to move about. We find no testimony indicating any change in his condition between the date of the hearing in September and the date of the surgical operation in the following March. We can therefore sustain the existence of total temporary disability beginning on August 24, 1975, the date of the myelogram, but the proof does not support the commission\u2019s finding of an earlier date.\nWith that modification the judgment is affirmed.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Holt, JJ.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Cathey, Godwin & Hamilton, for appellant.", "Frierson, Walker, Snellgrove & Laser, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Frank WHITE\n77-295\n557 S.W. 2d 189\nOpinion delivered November 7, 1977\n(Division I)\nCathey, Godwin & Hamilton, for appellant.\nFrierson, Walker, Snellgrove & Laser, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0376-01", "first_page_order": 412, "last_page_order": 415 }