Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; July 6, 1983; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
The Workers’ Compensation case involves a hernia claim from the appellant, who has undergone surgeries for four hernias, with the last two being the focus of litigation. The appellees accepted these last two hernia claims as compensable and provided benefits. The appellant sought permanent disability benefits due to complications from his surgeries, along with vocational rehabilitation and nursing services. Although the Commission acknowledged the appellant’s permanent disability, it restricted his benefits to twenty-six weeks, as stipulated under Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1313 (e) (Repl. 1976), and denied the nursing services request. However, it remanded the case to evaluate the appellant's vocational rehabilitation potential, asserting that his hernia-related disability did not legally bar him from such benefits.
In the appeal, the appellant contended that the Commission's decisions were inconsistent with the law and the evidence. The court upheld the Commission’s limitation of benefits to twenty-six weeks but disagreed with its classification of the appellant as permanently disabled and entitled to vocational rehabilitation. It also found that the denial of nursing services was erroneous. The case details reveal that the appellant sustained a hernia injury on December 29, 1980, returned to work, and suffered another injury shortly thereafter, leading to complications from stitch infections due to an allergy to the sutures used. Although a doctor cleared him for light duty, another advised against any labor involving strain. The appellant, aged fifty-three with a twelfth-grade education, argued that his injury warranted more than the statutory twenty-six weeks of benefits, claiming it should be treated as a "hernia plus," or a permanent partial disability under Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1313 (d). This argument mirrors a previous case (Jobe v. Capitol Products Corp.), where a similar claim was rejected, despite evidence of permanent partial disability.
The Supreme Court rejected Jobe’s claim for permanent partial disability benefits, emphasizing that hernia-related benefits must be determined under Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1313 (e). The court noted that hernia injuries are specifically addressed in many Workmen’s Compensation Acts and that the consistent limitation of benefits in these cases is well established. While the court supports a liberal interpretation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it cannot overlook the explicit provisions of the law. The appellant argued that the statute provides for death benefits related to hernia and surgery, suggesting that permanent partial disability benefits should similarly apply. However, the court clarified that the statute does not include such benefits.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Jobe precludes the award of permanent disability benefits to the appellant, despite claims of distinguishability based on differing recovery from surgery. The court found that medical evidence did not show that the appellant’s healing issues resulted in greater disability than typically experienced by others with severe hernias. Both doctors indicated that the appellant could return to light duty, similar to the claimant in Jobe.
Additionally, Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1313 (e) requires employers to cover necessary medical expenses for hernia treatment but limits compensation benefits to a maximum of twenty-six weeks, not extending until a cure is achieved. Consequently, the court found no meaningful distinction between the cases, affirming that Jobe’s decision precludes the appellant's request for further compensation.
Regarding rehabilitation benefits, the court reinforced that because permanent disability compensation was denied, the appellant is also ineligible for vocational rehabilitation costs under Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1310 (f). Finally, the Commission's denial of the appellant's request for nursing services was upheld, as the services provided were not deemed to fit the statutory definition under Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1311.
Ms. Gilbert provided nursing services to the appellant out of friendship, without expecting payment, and did not take time off from her full-time job or possess specialized nursing training. The Law Judge and Commission failed to evaluate whether these nursing services were reasonably necessary for the appellant’s injury treatment, as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1311. Although Ms. Gilbert’s assistance did not stem from a formal prescription by the treating physician, her services included essential medical tasks, such as changing bandages and cleaning wounds, which the appellant could not perform independently. The Commission’s finding that no specialized training was required does not negate the compensability of the services rendered. The evidence clearly indicates that the appellant required regular medical attention, and there is no evidence contradicting the necessity of these nursing services. Consequently, the decision is reversed and remanded for the Commission to determine compensation for Ms. Gilbert’s nursing services, while it is affirmed that all medical expenses related to the injury will be covered until healing is complete.
