Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner

6 Citing cases

  1. Ouachita Cnty. Med. Ctr. v. Murphy

    2012 Ark. App. 135 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Van Wagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). Jeter v. B.R. McGinty Mech., 62 Ark. App. 53, 968 S.W.2d 645 (1998).

  2. Ashcraft v. White River Medical Center

    2011 AWCC 127 (Ark. Work Comp. 2011)

    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, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i) (Repl.

  3. Bass v. Health Management Associates

    2007 AWCC 87 (Ark. Work Comp. 2007)

    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.

  4. Dobbs v. Craighead County Nursing Home

    2005 AWCC 79 (Ark. Work Comp. 2005)

    Mikel v. Engineered SpecialtyPlastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). Medical evidence is not ordinarily required to prove causation, i.e., a connection between an injury and the claimant's employment,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.

  5. 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.

  6. Spellmeyer v. Methodist Nursing Home

    2001 AWCC 272 (Ark. Work Comp. 2001)

    The plethora of possible causes for work-related injuries includes many that can be established by common-sense observation and deduction. . . . To be sure, there will be circumstances where medical evidence will be necessary to establish that a particular injury resulted from a work-related incident but not in every case."Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). In finding that the claimant sustained carpal tunnel syndrome as a compensable consequence of her admittedly compensable wrist fracture, the Administrative Law Judge accepted the expert medical opinion of Dr. Kelley, who diagnosed the claimant's condition and has proposed surgery, and the Administrative Law Judge rejected the expert medical opinion of Dr. Michael Moore.