{
  "id": 1675902,
  "name": "MEADORS LUMBER COMPANY and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Joseph WYSONG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meadors Lumber Co. v. Wysong",
  "decision_date": "1977-11-14",
  "docket_number": "77-226",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 425"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "557 S.W.2d 395"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "255 Ark. 880",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725124
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/255/0880-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 78",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616778
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0078-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 4318,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.927,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1329240581850794e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5763903609824357
    },
    "sha256": "cb66938531b854257bb8adc992559743596f7e73c339dd05b6461617e5704b77",
    "simhash": "1:eb3bca63d36a5285",
    "word_count": 658
  },
  "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 Roy and Hickman, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MEADORS LUMBER COMPANY and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Joseph WYSONG"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellants contend that there is no substantial evidence to support the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission\u2019s finding, and the circuit court\u2019s affirmance, that a hemorrhoidectomy was necessitated by the appellee\u2019s on-the-job injury. Appellants argue that the appellee was restored to his pre-injury condition by an incision and drainage of the thrombosed hemorrhoid and, therefore, the expense of the elective hemorrhoidectomy and additional benefits are not compensable.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1311 (Repl. 1976) provides in pertinent part that \u201c[t]he employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical, surgical, hospital, and nursing services ... as may be reasonably necessary for the treatment of the injury received by the employee.\u201d Here the Commission made a factual determination that the hemorrhoidectomy was a reasonably necessary treatment of appellee\u2019s on-the-job aggravation of his pre-existing condition. On appeal from that finding, we view the evidence, although contradicted, in the light most favorable to the appellee, and if there is any substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s findings, its decision must be affirmed. Stephens & Stephens v. Logan, 260 Ark. 78, 538 S.W. 2d 516 (1976).\nHere the appellee testified that he had experienced no problems with his hemorrhoid condition since and incision and drainage two years previously. His wife corroborated this testimony. The present physician testified by deposition that he anesthesized, opened, drained, and removed the blood clot from the appellee\u2019s thrombosed hemorrhoid. He recommended a definitive hemorrhoidectomy after the initial relief of appellee\u2019s severe pain. It was his opinion that \u201cbased on my examination and the history of the patient, the straining while lifting a load of heavy wire on a truck at work by Joseph Wysong aggravated his previous condition of hemorrhoids which necessitated a hemorrhoidectomy.\u201d Further, the reason for the recommendation of the operation was \u201cobvious\u201d since \u201c[h]e had already had one incised and drained, and here was another one.\u201d Although the appellee could have been back to work within a week had he not undergone the hemorrhoidectomy, the physician stated that appellee needed the operation more than the average person \u201c[b]ecause thrombosed hemorrhoids is an indication of a hemorrhoidectomy, because they occur and reoccur and keep reoccurring. They can completely circutnpass the entire anal canal, and then you have a complete necrotic, gangrenous, stinking, painful area that is \u00a1incompatible with normal breathing.\u201d He stated that he did not believe it fair to say the appellee was no more in need of a hemorrhoidectomy after the second attack than he was after the first attack because \u201che\u2019s had two previous attacks of this incision and draining of thrombosed hemorrhoid, and this indicates a considerable amount of anal-rectal disease, and that indicates hemorrhoidectomy. Period.\u201d\nWe hold there is ample substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding that the hemorrhoidectomy was reasonably necessary for proper treatment of appellee\u2019s condition.\nAppellants also assert that the physician\u2019s letter report addressed to appellee\u2019s attorney should have been given no weight by the Commission. We disagree. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1323 (c) provides that verified medical reports, as here, may be admitted into evidence and accorded such weight by the Commission as is warranted from all the evidence. Further, the letter report was admitted without objection. Suffice it to say that the weight to be accorded the report was within the province of the Commission and we cannot invade the province of the Commission as a factfinder with respect to the acceptance of physicians\u2019 opinions and diagnoses. Williams v. Ark. Nursing Home, 255 Ark. 880, 503 S.W. 2d 474 (1974).\nAs provided by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1332 (Repl. 1976), appellee\u2019s attorney, as requested, is awarded $250 for his services on appeal.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and Roy and Hickman, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hardin, Jesson & Dawson, for appellants.",
      "Jones, Gilbreath & Jones, by: Robert L. Jones, III, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MEADORS LUMBER COMPANY and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Joseph WYSONG\n77-226\n557 S.W. 2d 395\nOpinion delivered November 14, 1977\n(Division II)\nHardin, Jesson & Dawson, for appellants.\nJones, Gilbreath & Jones, by: Robert L. Jones, III, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 461,
  "last_page_order": 464
}