In reversing our decision, the supreme court stated that this physician's opinion was nothing more than a statement of theoretical possibility and therefore lacked the requisite definiteness. We recognize that the supreme court rendered an earlier opinion, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999), which supported our first opinion in this case. Ms. VanWagner suffered an injury to her chest and breast implant, and the Commission found that she had proven a causal connection between her injury and her employment.
The court of appeals based their decision on two recent cases handed down by this court: Frances v. Gaylord Container Corp., 341 Ark. 527, 20 S.W.3d 280 (2000), and Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (2000). Appellant now petitions this court for review, arguing that the evidence at issue here is distinguishable from that in Frances and Crudup. Appellant further argues that Frances and Crudup are in direct conflict with this court's prior decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). We now take the opportunity to harmonize those decisions.
The Commission’s decision, in pertinent part, states:A claimant is not required in every case to establish the causal connection between a work-related incident and an injury with an expert medical opinion. SeeWal-Mart Stores v. VanWagner , 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). The Arkansas courts have long recognized that a causal relationship may be established between an employment related incident and a subsequent physical injury based on evidence that the injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of time following the incident so that the injury is logically attributable to the incident, where there is no other reasonable explanation for the injury.
Here, there was a stipulation that Brown sustained compensable injuries. While appellants challenge the medical evidence in support of causation, it should be mentioned that objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury but not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and a work-related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner , 337 Ark. 443, 447, 990 S.W.2d 522, 524 (1999) (adopting this court’s holding in Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican , 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997) ). Our supreme court stated:
Nevertheless, Johnson is required to prove a causal connection between his injuries and the June 15, 2014 incident. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner , 337 Ark. 443, 447, 990 S.W.2d 522, 524–25 (1999). In many cases, the principal evidence of causation for a claimant's injury consists of the claimant's own testimony.
1999). Objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury but not essential to establish the casual relationship between the injury and work-related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999) . In the present case, Dr. Thrash reported that appellee was " x-rayed and examined," and he diagnosed her with lumbar subluxation.
While objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, it is not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and the work-related accident. Wal-Mart Stores,Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522, 524 (1999);Horticare Landscape Management v. McDonald, 80 Ark. App. 45, 89 S.W.3d 375 (2002). The two concepts — causation and objective findings — must be considered separately.
Moreover, objective medical evidence, while necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, is not necessary to establish a causal relationship between the injury and the work-related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. App. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). The onset of pain does not satisfy our statutory criteria for benefits. Test results that are based upon the patient's description of the sensations produced by various stimuli are clearly under the voluntary control of the patient and therefore, by statutory definition, do not constitute objective findings.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (16)(A)(i) (Supp. 2007). While objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, it is not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and the work-related accident.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522, 524 (1999); Horticare Landscape Management v. McDonald, 80 Ark. App. 45, 89 S.W.3d 375 (2002). The majority finds that the claimant did not present objective evidence of an aggravation injury.
Moreover, objective medical evidence, while necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, is not necessary to establish a causal relationship between the injury and the work-related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. App. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). The onset of pain does not satisfy our statutory criteria for benefits. Test results that are based upon the patient's description of the sensations produced by various stimuli are clearly under the voluntary control of the patient and therefore, by statutory definition, do not constitute objective findings.