Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner

17 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. Pam Transp., Inc.

    529 S.W.3d 678 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Nevertheless, Johnson is required to prove a causal connection between his injuries and the June 15, 2014 incident. Walโ€“Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner , 337 Ark. 443, 447, 990 S.W.2d 522, 524โ€“25 (1999). In many cases, the principal evidence of causation for a claimant's injury consists of the claimant's own testimony.

  2. Rippe v. Delbert Hooten Logging

    CA06-1277 (Ark. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2007)

    2007); Crawford v. Single Source Transp. Fidelity Cas. Ins. Co., 87 Ark. App. 216, 189 S.W.3d 507 (2004). Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient, Crawford, supra, and are only necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). In the case before us, appellant relies primarily on Dr. Vann Smith's diagnosis of organic brain injury, which was based on neuropsychological testing performed on August 6, 2004. He also relies on his own testimony of his numerous symptoms, as well as the testimony of his long-time friends that he has suffered from numerous mental and cognitive problems since he was injured in 2004.

  3. Rippe v. Delbert Hooten Logging

    100 Ark. App. 227 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 17 times
    In Rippe v. Delbert Hooten Logging, 100 Ark. App. 227, 266 S.W.3d 217 (2007), and Parson v. Arkansas Methodist Hospital, 103 Ark. App. 178, 287 S.W.3d 645 (2008), we held that results of neuropsychological testing and a claimant's own testimony regarding his or her symptoms were not adequate to establish an organic brain injury by objective findings.

    2007); Crawford v. Single Source Transp. Fidelity Cas. Ins. Co., 87 Ark. App. 216, 189 S.W.3d 507 (2004). Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient, Crawford, supra, and are only necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 1522 (1999). In the case before us, appellant relies primarily on Dr. Vann Smith's diagnosis of organic brain injury, which was based on neuropsychological testing performed on August 6, 2004. He also relies on his own testimony of his numerous symptoms, as well as the testimony of his long-time friends that he has suffered from numerous mental and cognitive problems since he was injured in 2004.

  4. Wise v. Norwood-Lynda McDougald, Inc.

    2007 AWCC 43 (Ark. Work Comp. 2007)

    The burden of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence, and the resultant condition is compensable only if the alleged compensable injury is the major cause of the disability or need for treatment. Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11 โ€” 9 โ€” 102(4)(E)(ii) I further note that a claimant is not required to establish the causal connection between a work โ€” related incident and an injury by either expert medical opinion or by objective medical evidence. See Wal โ€” Mart Stores, Inc. v. Vanwagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). In the present instance the claimant had worked as a log truck driver for seventeen years and had only worked for the respondents for a year and a half.

  5. KOBA v. WINDSOR REPUBLIC

    2006 AWCC 4 (Ark. Work Comp. 2006)

    It is unclear why the deposition of Dr. Garlapati was discussed and given minimal weight in the majority opinion, since medical evidence is not required to prove causation. Wal-Mart v.VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). However, from a review of Dr. Garlapati's deposition, it is clear that he believed that Claimant's need for medical treatment was related to the May 13, 2004 incident.

  6. 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.

  7. Cooper v. Textron

    2005 AWCC 31 (Ark. Work Comp. 2005)

    Sanyo Mfg. Corp., Supra. 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.

  8. Hales v. L H Logging

    2004 AWCC 31 (Ark. Work Comp. 2004)

    Objective medical evidence while necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury, is not essential to establish a causal relationship between the injury and the work related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). Except in the most obvious cases, the existence of a causal relationship may require the assistance of expert medical evidence.

  9. Long v. L J Mechanical

    2003 AWCC 179 (Ark. Work Comp. 2003)

    The courts have held that the objective medical findings requirement of A.C.A. ยง 11-9-102(4)(D) does not apply to the causation element of compensability. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999); Stephens Truck Linesv. Millican, 58 Ark.App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997). There is ample evidence of objective medical findings of injury to the claimant's right knee, including a torn medial meniscus observed and repaired by Dr. Mulhollan during his February 13, 2003 arthroscopy, and a torn posterior cruciate ligament revealed on a January 28, 2003 MRI.

  10. Payne v. McExpress, Inc.

    2003 AWCC 171 (Ark. Work Comp. 2003)

    Even if it is conceded solely for purpose of argument that Dr. Dube's opinion as to causation is not to be credited, case law establishes that the causation element of compensability need not be established by medical opinion. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999); Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark.App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997). Therefore, even if Dr. Dube's opinion as to causation is deemed not to be credible (a conclusion I do not believe to be proper), such a conclusion would not in any way operate to defeat claimant's claim.