Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner

11 Citing cases

  1. Pafford Medical Billing Services v. Smith

    2011 Ark. App. 180 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Affirming Commission's conclusion that a car accident was not an independent intervening cause

    These findings during the surgical procedure are objective findings that were not under Smith's voluntary control. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Van Wagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). Dr. Thompson further stated that it was his medical opinion that her injury was " greater than 51% caused by her initial injury at work and failed conservative treatment necessitating surgical repair."

  2. Richardson v. Maxim

    188 N.C. App. 337 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 6 times

    We believe that the weight of authority supports a determination that breast implants satisfy the statutory requirement as a compensable prosthetic device that functions as part of the body. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-2(6) (2001) ; see, e.g.,Wal-MartStores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999) (finding that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that the employee suffered a compensable injury to her right breast implant in the course of her employment); In re Smith, 177 Or.App. 504, 34 P.3d 696 (2001) (affirming an order of the Workers' Compensation Board that concluded that the employee had suffered a compensable injury when an on-the-job accident caused one of her saline breast implants to collapse); see alsoCowen v. Wal-Mart, 93 P.3d 420, 424 (Alaska 2004) (injury to the employee's breast implant was presumptively compensable).           Following her motor vehicle accident on 16 May 2001, plaintiff noted that her right breast was smaller than it had been prior to the accident.

  3. Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare

    No. COA06-875 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2007)

    We believe that the weight of authority supports a determination that breast implants satisfy the statutory requirement as a compensable prosthetic device that functions as part of the body. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2001); see, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 990 S.W.2d 522 (Ark. 1999) (finding that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that the employee suffered a compensable injury to her right breast implant in the course of her employment); In re Smith, 34 P.3d 696 (Or.Ct.App. 2001) (affirming an order of the Workers' Compensation Board that concluded that the employee had suffered a compensable injury when an on-the-job accident caused one of her saline breast implants to collapse); see also Cowen v. Wal-Mart, 93 P.3d 420, 424 (Alaska 2004) (injury to the employee's breast implant was presumptively compensable). Following her motor vehicle accident on 16 May 2001, plaintiff noted that her right breast was smaller than it had been prior to the accident.

  4. Richardson v. Maxim Healthcare

    652 S.E.2d 3 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)

    We believe that the weight of authority supports a determination that breast implants satisfy the statutory requirement as a compensable prosthetic device that functions as part of the body. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2001); see, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 990 S.W.2d 522 (Ark. 1999) (finding that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that the employee suffered a compensable injury to her right breast implant in the course of her employment); In re Smith, 34 P.3d 696 (Or.Ct.App. 2001) (affirming an order of the Workers' Compensation Board that concluded that the employee had suffered a compensable injury when an on-the-job accident caused one of her saline breast implants to collapse); see also Cowen v. Wal-Mart, 93 P.3d 420, 424 (Alaska 2004) (injury to the employee's breast implant was presumptively compensable). Following her motor vehicle accident on 16 May 2001, plaintiff noted that her right breast was smaller than it had been prior to the accident.

  5. Foreman v. Brokerage

    2009 AWCC 115 (Ark. Work Comp. 2009)

    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-MartStores, 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.

  6. Jordan v. Home Depot, Inc.

    2007 AWCC 70 (Ark. Work Comp. 2007)

    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. Horticare Landscape Mgt. V. McDonald, 80 Ark. App. 45, 89 S.W.3d 375 (2002); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999); Wal-Mart Stores v. Leach, 74 Ark. App. 231, 48 S.W.3d 540 (2001). Moreover, objective medical evidence is not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury where objective medical evidence established the injury's existence, and a preponderance of other non-medical evidence establishes a causal relation to a work-related incident.

  7. Johnson, v. City of Little Rock

    2006 AWCC 176 (Ark. Work Comp. 2006)

    After reviewing the medical records, I must reject the view of the Majority. While no physician specifically relates the findings of the MRI to the claimant's compensable injury, such proof is not required.See, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W. 2d 522 (1999). Additionally, while the Majority would assert the claimant's condition was pre-existing, the medical records after the MRI suggest the claimant's degeneration was new.

  8. Smith v. Cooper Tire Rubber Co.

    2005 AWCC 227 (Ark. Work Comp. 2005)

    It has long been recognized that a causal relationship may be established between an employment-related incident and a subsequent physical injury upon a showing that the injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of time following the incident, is logically attributable to the incident, and there is no other reasonable explanation for the injury. Hall v.Pittman Construction Co., 235 Ark. 104, 357 S.W.2d 263(1962). While medical evidence is not required to show a causal connection, claimant must show proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). The evidence indicates the claimant sought medical attention on the day the accident occurred and he complained of shoulder pain.

  9. Koonce v. Cedarville Waterworks

    2005 AWCC 66 (Ark. Work Comp. 2005)

    In addition, objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, but it is not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and the job. Wal-Mart v. Leach,supra; Wal-Mart Stores v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). After conducting a denovo review of the evidence, we find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable gradual onset injury to his back while working for respondent in April 2000. Specifically, we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent.

  10. Preacher v. Cave City Nursing Home Inc.

    2004 AWCC 14 (Ark. Work Comp. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    A. There's no way to know based on just the objective findings, no. Medical evidence is not ordinarily required to prove causation,Wal-Mart v. Van Wagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999), but if a medical opinion is offered on causation, the opinion must be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. This medical opinion must do more than state that the causal relationship between the work and the injury is a possibility.