{ "id": 1715548, "name": "McClelland BYRUM, Employee v. HUGHES BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer; ARKANSAS FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Byrum v. Hughes Bros. Construction Co.", "decision_date": "1980-02-27", "docket_number": "CA 79-285", "first_page": "723", "last_page": "726", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "268 Ark. 723" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "595 S.W.2d 699" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "251 Ark. 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1633277 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/251/0674-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 Ark. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1734328 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/238/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 Ark. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1624166 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/254/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619184 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 Ark. 741", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725190 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/214/0741-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 381, "char_count": 4939, "ocr_confidence": 0.898, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.0646535763281952 }, "sha256": "5292ef1c0216f894e592a9d30725a6afdf270283cfef5b39558b8a8b2c02d5b9", "simhash": "1:245ba86844a7e6bd", "word_count": 797 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "McClelland BYRUM, Employee v. HUGHES BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer; ARKANSAS FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Howard, Jr., Judge.\nWe are to decide whether the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission committed reversible error in finding that appellant\u2019s total disability ended February 28, 1978.\nIt is settled law that an appellate court will affirm the Commission where there is substantial evidence to support its findings. Stout Construction Co. v. Wells, 214 Ark. 741, 217 S.W. 2d 841 (1949); Clark v. Shiloh Tank and Erection Company et al, 259 Ark. 521, 534 S.W. 2d 240 (1976). Moreover, in evaluating the evidence, the appellate court will interpret it in the light most favorable to the Commission\u2019s findings. Superior Improvement Co. v. Hignight, 254 Ark. 328, 493 S.W. 2d 424 (1973). On disputed questions of fact, the appellate court will not set aside the Commission\u2019s findings even though the evidence would support a different result, where it is plain that reasonable minds would reach the conclusion reached by the Commission. McCollum v. Rogers, 238 Ark. 499, 382 S.W. 2d 892 (1964); Oaklawn Farms v. Payne, 251 Ark. 674, 474 S.W. 2d 408 (1971).\nAppellant, who had been previously employed as a farm laborer for twenty years, began working for Hughes Brothers Construction Company on August 1, 1977, as a laborer. His duties consisted, among other things, of setting up forms for concrete floors, pouring and finishing concrete.\nOn October 20, 1977, appellant developed a rash over his hands, arms, neck, scalp, and the trunk of his body. This rash caused appellant great discomfort and he purportedly itched constantly. As a consequence, appellant took a week off from his job. On December 19, 1977, appellant stopped work entirely.\nOn December 20, 1977, appellant consulted Dr. Spencer D. Albright who characterized appellant\u2019s condition as \u201cinflammatory dermatitis.\u201d Appellant was given a prescription for medication. Appellant failed to return for a follow-up, as suggested by his doctor, and was not seen again by Dr. Albright until February 14, 1978. However, appellant consulted approximately four other doctors, including Dr. John Darrell Ginger, who stated that it was his impression that appellant had \u201cinflammation of the hair follicle\u201d on his face and neck. In a medical report dated February 29, 1978, adressed to Dr. Robert H. McCollum, who referred appellant to him, Dr. Ginger stated \u201cHe is to return to see me in ten days and I also recommended that the patient could return to work.\u201d\nTwo of appellant\u2019s lay witnesses, Bobby Waits and Leo Orsborn, testified that since appellant developed his skin condition, appellant has performed odd jobs for them; that appellant had hauled hay to be stored in a barn and had constructed a concrete foundation for a septic tank; that following the completion of the septic tank job, appellant developed a rash over his body.\nAppellant testified that Dr. Ginger had instructed him to quit drinking alcoholic beverages; and that alcoholic beverages might be a factor in his dermatitis.\nDarrell Hughes, an in-law of appellant, testified that appellant told him that Dr. Ginger had said that appellant\u2019s condition was \u201cprobably caused from my drinking whiskey\u201d; and that appellant concluded \u201cI\u2019ve been drinking for forty (40) years and I am not gonna give it up now.\u201d\nDarrell Hughes also testified that between August, 1977, and December, 1977, appellant made improvements to his personal dwelling which consisted of the installation of rock necessitating the use of cement.\nAppellant admitted that he had performed odd jobs over the past two years since his departure from the construction job with Hughes Brothers Construction Company, including concrete work for Bobby Waits.\nVorelda Byrum, mother of appellant, testified:\nQ. Now, Ms. Byrum, are you aware of any instance or period of time, back before Mac went to work for the Hughes Brothers, that he had this same condition?\nA. No, he\u2019s never had this before. Like this.\nQ. Has he ever had anything similar to it?\nA. He\u2019s never been broke out with anything; only about fourteen (14) or fifteen (15) years ago he was broke out with tomato rash when he was picking tomatoes. When he quit picking tomatoes, it dried up.\nIt is clear from the medical reports that appellant is allergic to chrome and cobalt which are ingredients in cement and other construction materials; and that appellant was advised that he could return to work on February 28, 1978.\nWe are persuaded that the Commission\u2019s holding is supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Howard, Jr., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kent L. Tharel, for appellant.", "Davis, Bassett, Cox & Wright, by: W W. Bassett, Jr., for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "McClelland BYRUM, Employee v. HUGHES BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer; ARKANSAS FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier\nCA 79-285\n595 S.W. 2d 699\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 27, 1980\nPetition for review denied March 24, 1980\nPetition for rehearing denied March 26, 1980\nReleased for publication March 26, 1980\nKent L. Tharel, for appellant.\nDavis, Bassett, Cox & Wright, by: W W. Bassett, Jr., for appellees." }, "file_name": "0723-01", "first_page_order": 759, "last_page_order": 762 }