“"We hold there is substantial evidence this claimant is totally disabled.”
How later courts described this case
- “"We hold there is substantial evidence this claimant is totally disabled.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Marian F. Penix, Judge, dissenting. I do not believe the record reflects substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award. The only medical evidence introduced as to the claimant’s percentage of disability was that of two orthopedists. Dr. Blankenship discharged claimant with a finding she had suffered a permanent partial impairment of 20% to her right upper extremity. Dr. Thomas discharged claimant with a rating of 10% permanent partial.
Certainly Mrs. Haile has suffered a compensable injury which has resulted in a permanent disability of 20% to her upper right extremity. But the compensable injury is not the only factor which prevents Mrs. Haile from returning to the job market. It is understandable a 64 year old woman who has worked in jobs which required long hours on her feet, such as sales clerking, is tired. It is also understandable she would not be motivated at this stage in her life to returning to full time employment. There is no doubt the claimant has restricted use of her right shoulder. But these facts standing alone are insufficient to prove total disability. I don’t believe the purpose of benefits awarded under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law includes the-situation we have here. The Workers’ Compensation Law should not be expanded into another retirement program. The law was enacted to compensate members of the work force who suffer on-the-job injuries. Mrs. Haile suffered an on-the-job injury. The most medical evidence reflects 20% disability. The Commission’s award should be reduced to that amount.
I respectfully dissent.