St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman

25 Citing cases

  1. TempWorks Mgmt. Servs. v. Jaynes

    2023 Ark. App. 147 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023)

    In a previous appeal involving the change-of-physician rules and Form AR-N, we noted that "to preserve an issue for appellate review in a workers' compensation case, it is a party's responsibility to present the issue to the Commission and obtain a ruling." St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark.App. 475, at 6, 422 S.W.3d 171, 175. The employer had admitted a copy of the signed AR-N form; but it made no argument about the change-of-physician rules.

  2. Watson v. Highland Pellets, LLC

    2022 Ark. App. 132 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 10 times

    Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). We have long held that the Commission's decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark.App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171.

  3. N. Hills Surgery Ctr. v. Otis

    2021 Ark. App. 468 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    To preserve an issue for appellate review in a workers'-compensation case, it is a party's responsibility to present the issue to the Commission and obtain a ruling. See Ark. Dep't of Parks & Tourism v. Price, 2016 Ark.App. 109, 483 S.W.3d 320; St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark.App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171; Goodwin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 72 Ark.App. 302, 37 S.W.3d 644 (2001). In Price, this court declined to address the appellant's argument concerning the change-of-physician rules when the record did not show that the issue was raised or ruled on.

  4. Ark. Dep't of Parks & Tourism & Pub. Emp. Claims Div. v. Price

    2016 Ark. App. 109 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 9 times
    In Price, this court declined to address the appellant's argument concerning the change-of-physician rules when the record did not show that the issue was raised or ruled on.

    ” The Commission made no finding on whether appellants were responsible for paying for Dr. Bailey's treatment under the change-of-physician provisions in section 11–9–514.In St. Edward Mercy Medical Center v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark. App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171, this court declined to reverse and remand for further findings on the issue of whether the claimant had complied with the change-of-physician rules when the record did not reflect that the issue had been properly raised below. We noted that the issues to be litigated in that case did not mention the issue, and neither did the appellants' contentions.

  5. Howell v. Arkadehia Human Dev. Ctr.

    2023 Ark. App. 441 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023)

    We have long held that the Commission's decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark.App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171.

  6. Brannigan v. Univ. of Ark.

    2022 Ark. App. 313 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    While there is no indication appellant was denied anti-inflammatory medication, he did not make this argument below, and it is not preserved for our review. Clark v. Mickey's Special Affs., Inc., 2015 Ark.App. 326 (citing St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark.App. 475, at 6, 422 S.W.3d 171, 175 ("In order to preserve an issue for appellate review in a workers' compensation case, it is a party's responsibility to present the issue to the Commission and obtain a ruling.")). Brannigan's injury on February 1, 2017, was accepted as compensable.

  7. Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise

    2021 Ark. App. 459 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    We have long held that the Commission's decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark.App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171. In weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness.

  8. Moore v. Bestway Rent to Own

    2021 Ark. App. 41 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)

    We cannot reach the merits of Moore's waiver argument because it is not preserved for our review. In order to preserve an issue for appellate review in a workers’-compensation case, it is a party's responsibility to present the issue to the Commission and obtain a ruling. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman , 2012 Ark. App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171. Because Moore failed to apprise the Commission of any argument pertaining to Waters's waiver of immunity or obtain any ruling on the argument, we cannot consider it on appeal.

  9. Craighead Cnty. v. Tipton

    2020 Ark. App. 416 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    We have long held that the Commission's decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman, 2012 Ark. App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171. We turn now to appellants' arguments.

  10. U.S. Truck, Inc. v. Webster

    2020 Ark. App. 226 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    We have long held that the Commission’s decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Chrisman , 2012 Ark. App. 475, 422 S.W.3d 171. In weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness.