{ "id": 130689, "name": "Ernest MEISTER v. SAFETY KLEEN", "name_abbreviation": "Meister v. Safety Kleen", "decision_date": "1999-11-04", "docket_number": "99-318", "first_page": "91", "last_page": "96", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "339 Ark. 91" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "3 S.W.3d 320" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "337 Ark. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1240965 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/337/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. App. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140936 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "denied lumbar strain diagnosis because there were no positive, objective test results and was assessed only on patient's being unable to bend over more than ninety degrees" }, { "parenthetical": "denied lumbar strain diagnosis because there were no positive, objective test results and was assessed only on patient's being unable to bend over more than ninety degrees" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/57/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. App. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142832 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "denied carpal tunnel syndrome injury as compensable because findings based on patient's description of sensations" }, { "parenthetical": "denied carpal tunnel syndrome injury as compensable because findings based on patient's description of sensations" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/55/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ark. App. 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136275 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/60/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 Ark. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1240990 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/337/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(16)(A)(i) and (ii)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ark. App. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140903 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/65/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 Ark. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1240990 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/337/0094-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 594, "char_count": 10898, "ocr_confidence": 0.791, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3830438012752623e-07, "percentile": 0.6409333131004935 }, "sha256": "411cf2060ae105ad14817881923747c4ee2ed2ef6921b54d8052813af7bd450e", "simhash": "1:fd6ff9475ccb5ad8", "word_count": 1716 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:09.164159+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Imber and Smith, JJ., dissent.", "SMITH, J., joins in this dissent." ], "parties": [ "Ernest MEISTER v. SAFETY KLEEN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TOM Glaze, Justice. comes to us on a\nThis workers\u2019 compensation case comes to us on a petition for review after the Commission, by a 2-1 vote, denied appellant Ernest Meister\u2019s claim, and the court of appeals, in a 3-3 decision, affirmed the Commission\u2019s holding. Meister v. Safety Kleen, 65 Ark. App. 259, 987 S.W.2d 749 (1999). The undisputed facts reflect Meister was driving a truck for appellee Safety Kleen, an oil recovery service company. When he climbed on the back of the truck to remove spilled oil, Meister slipped and fell five to six feet onto concrete, landing on his back and right hip. Meister was immediately taken to the Mediquik Clinic, where he was diagnosed and treated for contusion of the lumbar spine and a lumbar myofascial strain. Meister was later sent to a number of medical specialists who conducted various tests.\nAlthough Safety Kleen initially accepted Meister\u2019s injury as compensable, it subsequently controverted his claim, submitting Meister had failed to establish a compensable injury by objective medical evidence as required under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(16)(A)(i) and (ii) (Supp. 1999). The administrative law judge held a hearing on Meister\u2019s claim and found Meister had established that his back problems were compensable, and he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits. However, in view of the extensive medical treatment by specialists, the judge found that Meister\u2019s condition had improved to the extent possible, and no cause was shown for Meister\u2019s continuing problems other than degenerative changes.\nThe Commission reversed the administrative law judge\u2019s decision to award temporary benefits. In so holding, the Commission stated as follows:\nAlthough claimant was diagnosed with a contusion of the lumbar spine, there are no objective medical findings such as hematomas, bruises, scratches, scrapes, etc., noted in the medical records to substantiate and corroborate this diagnosis. We are not persuaded that a diagnosis of contusion to an internal body part, without objective medical evidence supporting the diagnosis, satisfies the objective medical requirement. Consequently, affording the statute the strict construction which we are mandated to do, we cannot find that [Meister] has proven the compensability of his alleged injury by objective medical evidence. (Emphasis added.)\nIt is well settled that, upon a petition for review, we consider the case as though it were originally filed in this court; in an appeal of a workers\u2019 compensation case from the court of appeals to this court, we view the evidence in a fight most favorable to the Commission\u2019s decision, and we uphold that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion, and we will not reverse the Commission\u2019s decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusion arrived at by the Commission. Id. Finally, the issue on review is not whether we might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission\u2019s conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Id.\nSafety Kleen\u2019s argument on appeal relies largely on the Commission\u2019s reasoning set out above for denying Meister\u2019s claim. It further states that, in Meister\u2019s attempt to prove that his injury is compensable, Meister overlooks the fact that no physician observed a contusion and that the treating physician\u2019s diagnosis of \u201ccontusion of lumbar spine\u201d was based only on Meister\u2019s subjective complaints and description of the fall. Safety Kleen argues that there is \u201cno evidence\u201d that any of Meister\u2019s physicians saw, felt, or otherwise observed through diagnostic testing a contusion or discovered any objective sign of injury. Safety Kleen and the Commission are mistaken in their assertion that no such evidence exists.\nIn its decision, the Commission stated that it did a de novo review of the entire record and found Meister had provided no objective medical evidence to establish an internal contusion. However, the Commission, in examining the record, overlooked an x-ray examination performed on Meister by orthopedist Dr. Claiborne L. Moseley, II, who examined Meister about one month after his fall. In his report, Dr. Moseley, among other things, reported that his examination revealed \u201csome soft tissue swelling about the hip.\u201d Moseley\u2019s report is certainly consistent with the history contained in it reflecting Meister had taken a bad fall, landed on his back, and had trouble and pain in his low back, buttock, and hip. The report also corroborates the first doctor\u2019s diagnosis of a contusion, whether Meister\u2019s contusion occurred internally or externally. For example, a spinal injury can result briefly from concussion of the spinal cord due to contusion or hemorrhage. The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy 1464 (16th ed. 1992). Moreover, a contusion is defined as \u201cany injury (usually caused by a blow) in which the skin is not broken\u201d and also as \u201can injury in which the skin is not broken but underlying blood vessels are disrupted, causing a hematoma under the skin.\u201d Stedman\u2019s Medical Dictionary 348 (25th ed. 1990); 1 International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology 634 (1986).\nSubsections ll-9-102(16)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Arkansas Code provide the controlling law here and read as follows:\n(A)(i) \u201cObjective findings\u201d are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.\n(ii) When determining physical or anatomical impairment, neither a physician, any other medical provided, an administrative law judge, the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission, nor the courts may consider complaints of pain; for the purpose of making physical or anatomical impairment ratings to the spine, straight-leg raising tests or range-of-motion tests shall not be considered objective findings.\nUnder the foregoing statutory provisions, Meister had the burden to establish his injury by medical evidence supported by \u201cobjective findings,\u201d which are defined as findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. See University of Ark. Med. Sciences v. Hart, 60 Ark. App. 13, 958 S.W.2d 546 (1997); see also Duke v. Regis Hairstylists, 55 Ark. App. 327, 935 S.W.2d 600 (1996) (denied carpal tunnel syndrome injury as compensable because findings based on patient\u2019s description of sensations); Cox v. CSFI Temp. Employm\u2019t, 57 Ark. App. 310, 944 S.W.2d 856 (1997) (denied lumbar strain diagnosis because there were no positive, objective test results and was assessed only on patient\u2019s being unable to bend over more than ninety degrees).\nUnlike in the Cox decision where the physician\u2019s diagnosis of lumbar strain was reached without the aid of any objective test results, Meister was examined not only by his initial treating physician, but also by other specialists, including Dr. Moseley. In short, Meister had no voluntary control over the x-ray exam which was consistent with and tended to corroborate the first physician\u2019s diagnosis.\nIn conclusion, while the Commission found that the record revealed no objective medical findings of a hematoma or bruise (contusion), Dr. Moseley\u2019s x-ray examination was such an objective finding that existed and could well have been considered as corroborating the contusion that Meister\u2019s treating physician originally diagnosed. Thus, Safety Kleen and the Commission are wrong in stating that there was no evidence that any of Meister\u2019s physicians observed through diagnostic testing a contusion or any objective sign of injury. The Commission\u2019s factual error in this respect requires our reversal of its decision. We remand this case to the Commission for its full examination of the relevant evidence presented in this cause. See Holloway v. Ray White Lumber Co., 337 Ark. 524, 990 S.W.2d 526 (1999).\nReversed and remanded.\nImber and Smith, JJ., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "TOM Glaze, Justice. comes to us on a" }, { "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Jnot reverse the Commission\u2019s\ndissenting. We should not reverse the Commission\u2019s decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the same conclusion as the Commission. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). If reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the Commission, we must affirm. Id. Mr. Meister\u2019s first visit to Mediquik on the day of the accident, was recorded in a narrative report as follows:\nProblem: Pain in low back\nHistory: Fell off back of tanker truck onto concrete\nPhysical Exam: Tender lumbosacral area, no radiation, weakness, paresthesias...\nX-Ray: No [fracture] seen\nAssessment: 1) Contusion of lumbar spine 2) Lumbar myofascial strain\nPlan: Restricted duty, anti-inflammatory med, muscle relaxants\nThe Commission found that the diagnosis of a contusion of the lumbar spine was not supported by objective medical evidence. Reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the Commission and, thus, pursuant to the applicable standard of review, we should affirm.\nThe majority attempts to cure the narrative report\u2019s deficiency in this case by pointing to an x-ray examination performed by Dr. Claiborne Moseley, II, about one month after the accident, which showed \u201csome soft tissue swelling about the hip.\u201d The majority says that this is an objective finding, and that it is consistent with and corroborates the first physician\u2019s diagnosis of a contusion. I certainly agree with the majority that the x-ray examination is an objective finding. However, it neither corroborates nor is it consistent with the initial treating physician\u2019s diagnosis of a contusion of the lumbar spine. After noting the x-ray examination finding of \u201csome soft tissue swelling about the hip,\u201d Dr. Moseley made an assessment or diagnosis of \u201c[e]arly arthritis in both hips, right worse than left, with possible very early avascular necrosis in the right hip.\u201d There is no indication in the record that these conditions in Mr. Meister\u2019s hips had anything to do with an injury to his lumbar spine. In an attempt to prove Mr. Meister\u2019s case for him, the majority not only makes a leap that is not warranted by the record of this case, but it also ignores our well-settled standard of review whereby we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission\u2019s decision, and we affirm that decision if reasonable minds could reach the Commission\u2019s conclusion. Minnesota Mining & Mjg. v. Baker, supra.\nI respectfully dissent.\nSMITH, J., joins in this dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Jnot reverse the Commission\u2019s" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Sherman, for appellant.", "Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, PA., by: Carol Lockard Worley and Julia L. Busjield, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ernest MEISTER v. SAFETY KLEEN\n99-318\n3 S.W.3d 320\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 4, 1999\nMichael J. Sherman, for appellant.\nHuckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, PA., by: Carol Lockard Worley and Julia L. Busjield, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0091-01", "first_page_order": 113, "last_page_order": 118 }