Summary
affirming an award of worker's compensation benefits covering a subsequent hemorrhoidectomy to an employee who aggravated a pre-existing hemorrhoid condition while lifting a bail of wire
Summary of this case from Sinclair Trucking v. BaileyOpinion
No. 77-226
Opinion delivered November 14, 1977
1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — SURGICAL SERVICES PROVIDED — WHEN APPLICABLE TO HEMORRHOIDECTOMY. — Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1311 (Repl. 1976) provides that the 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, and this applies to a hemorrhoidectomy where there is ample substantial evidence that the operation was reasonably necessary for the proper treatment of the employee's condition which was aggravated by his strenuous work on the job. 2. APPEAL ERROR — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES — AFFIRMANCE ON ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. — On appeal from a finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, the Supreme Court views the evidence, although contradicted, in the light most favorable to the appellee and if there is any substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings, its decision must be affirmed. 3. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — VERIFIED MEDICAL REPORTS — WEIGHT ACCORDED WITHIN PROVINCE OF COMMISSION. — Appellant's contention that a physician's letter report addressed to appellee's attorney should have been given no weight is without merit since Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1323(c) (Repl. 1976) provides that "verified medical reports may be admitted into evidence and accorded such weight as is warranted from all the evidence;" and the weight to be accorded the report was within the province of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. 4. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES — FEES FOR LEGAL SERVICES — AWARD ON APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT. — Under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1332 (Repl. 1976), the Supreme Court may award an attorney for a claimant who prevails on appeal a fee up to 8250 for legal services on appeal.
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court, John G. Holland, Judge; affirmed.
Hardin, Jesson Dawson, for appellants.
Jones, Gilbreath Jones, by: Robert L. Jones, III, for appellee.
Appellants contend that there is no substantial evidence to support the Workmen's Compensation Commission's finding, and the circuit court's affirmance, that a hemorrhoidectomy was necessitated by the appellee's 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.
Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1311 (Repl. 1976) provides in pertinent part that "[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." Here the Commission made a factual determination that the hemorrhoidectomy was a reasonably necessary treatment of appellee's 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's findings, its decision must be affirmed. Stephens Stephens v. Logan, 260 Ark. 78, 538 S.W.2d 516 (1976).
Here 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 anesthetized, opened, drained, and removed the blood clot from the appellee's thrombosed hemorrhoid. He recommended a definitive hemorrhoidectomy after the initial relief of appellee's severe pain. It was his opinion that "based 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." Further, the reason for the recommendation of the operation was "obvious" since "[h]e had already had one incised and drained, and here was another one." 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 "[b]ecause thrombosed hemorrhoids is an indication of a hemorrhoidectomy, because they occur and reoccur and keep reoccurring. They can completely circumpass the entire anal canal, and then you have a complete necrotic, gangrenous stinking, painful area that is incompatible with normal breathing." 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 "he's 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."
We hold there is ample substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that the hemorrhoidectomy was reasonably necessary for proper treatment of appellee's condition.
Appellants also assert that the physician's letter report addressed to appellee's attorney should have been given no weight by the Commission. We disagree. Ark. Stat. Ann. 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' opinions and diagnoses. Williams v. Ark. Nursing Home, 255 Ark. 880, 503 S.W.2d 474 (1974).
As provided by Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1332 (Repl. 1976), appellee's attorney, as requested, is awarded $250 for his Services on appeal.
Affirmed.
We agree: HARRIS, C.J., and ROY and HICKMAN, JJ.