Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Constr

92 Citing cases

  1. Maverick Transportation v. Buzzard

    69 Ark. App. 128 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 39 times
    In Maverick Transp. V. Buzzard, 69 Ark. App. 128, 10 S.W.3d 467 (2000), the Arkansas Court of Appeals discussed the difference between an aggravation and a recurrence as it relates to workers' compensation law.

    A recurrence is not a new injury but merely another period of incapacitation resulting from a previous injury. Atkins Nursing Home v. Gray, 54 Ark. App. 125, 923 S.W.2d 897 (1996). A recurrence exists when the second complication is a natural and probable consequence of a prior injury. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Constr., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). Only where it is found that a second episode has resulted from an independent intervening cause is liability imposed upon the second carrier.

  2. Witherspoon v. Tyson Chicken

    2011 AWCC 92 (Ark. Work Comp. 2011)

    In my opinion, Dr. Sharma lacks credibility. The Commission has a duty to translate the evidence on all the issues before it into findings of fact. Stone v. Dollar GeneralStores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005); Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Const. Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). Moreover, the Commission has the authority to resolve conflicting evidence and this extends to medical testimony.

  3. Kelley v. Marriott

    2011 AWCC 23 (Ark. Work Comp. 2011)

    The Commission has a duty to translate the evidence on all the issues before it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Const. Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). Moreover, the Commission has the authority to resolve conflicting evidence and this extends to medical testimony. Foxx v. American Transp., 54 Ark. App. 115, 924 S.W.2d 814 (1996).

  4. West v. Stuttgart Regional Medical Center

    2009 AWCC 109 (Ark. Work Comp. 2009)

    The Commission has a duty to translate the evidence on all the issues before it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Const. Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). Moreover, the Commission has the authority to resolve conflicting evidence and this extends to medical testimony. Foxx v. American Transp., 54 Ark. App. 115, 924 S.W.2d 814 (1996).

  5. Burkett v. Tiger Mart Inc.

    2009 AWCC 70 (Ark. Work Comp. 2009)

    The Commission has a duty to translate the evidence on all the issues before it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Const. Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). Moreover, the Commission has the authority to resolve conflicting evidence and this extends to medical testimony. Foxx v. American Transp., 54 Ark. App. 115, 924 S.W.2d 814 (1996).

  6. Estrada v. Furr's Cafeterias, Inc.

    1999 AWCC 302 (Ark. Work Comp. 1999)

    Further . . . while medical opinions are admissible and frequently helpful in workers' compensation cases, they are not conclusive.A.G. Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction, 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). The Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict.

  7. Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc.

    341 Ark. 804 (Ark. 2000)   Cited 134 times
    In Crudup, a claimant sought benefits for carpal tunnel injury in his right wrist, alleged to have been caused by his rapid-and-repetitive activities in packing cookware into boxes on an assembly line.

    He argues that the injury is either a recurrence of his 1996 compensable injury, an aggravation of the 1996 injury, or a new gradual onset injury. A recurrence is not a new injury but merely another period of incapacitation resulting from a previous injury. Atkins Nursing Home v. Gray, 54 Ark. App. 125, 923 S.W.2d 897 (1996). A recurrence exists when the second complication is a natural and probable consequence of a prior injury. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Constr., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). The only evidence which Mr. Crudup presented concerning a causal connection between the 1996 ganglion cyst injury and the 1997 carpal tunnel syndrome was his own testimony that the two injuries caused pain in the same area of his wrist and that he had been to see the company nurse and complained about pain in his right wrist several times after the cyst removal surgery in 1996.

  8. King v. Peopleworks

    244 S.W.3d 729 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 10 times

    We do not agree. A recurrence exists when the second complication is a natural and probable consequence of the prior injury; it is not a new injury but merely another period of incapacitation resulting from a previous injury. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Constr., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996); Atkins Nursing Home v. Gary, 54 Ark. App. 125, 923 S.W.2d 897 (1996). An aggravation is a new injury resulting from an independent incident and, being a new injury with an independent cause, must meet the requirements for a compensable injury. Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (2000).

  9. Allen Canning Co. v. Woodruff

    92 Ark. App. 237 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    In Allen Canning Co. v. Woodruff, 92 Ark. App. 237, 212 S.W.3d 25 (2005), this court found substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that the claimant failed to prove that he was totally incapacitated from earning wages after July 18, 2003.

    Rather, appellant argues that it should not be responsible for appellee's injury because it was nothing more than a recurrence of his prior back injuries. [5] A recurrence exists when the second complication is a natural and probable consequence of a prior injury. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Constr., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). In support of its argument, appellant points to appellee's numerous prior back injuries and argues that, contrary to his assertion, appellee had complained of additional back pain after August 19, 2002, because he filed an AR-C form on February 11, 2003, seeking additional medical expenses and benefits from Wal-Mart with regard to a compensable injury he suffered while employed there.

  10. Privett v. Excel Specialty Prod

    76 Ark. App. 527 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 13 times
    In Privett, we explained that the concept of employment services encompasses the performance of incidental activities that are inherently necessary for the performance of the primary activity.

    [2] In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the Commission, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and affirm if they are supported by substantial evidence. Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Constr., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.