Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Moseley Auto Sales & Service v. Vines
Citations: 254 Ark. 885; 497 S.W.2d 19; 1973 Ark. LEXIS 1611Docket: 73-53
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; July 9, 1973; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The Workmen’s Compensation case involves James Vines and addresses whether his back injury and a subsequent operation in 1970 resulted from his employment or from an incident involving a lawn mower after his employment ended. The Commission initially found that the injury did not arise in the course of employment, a decision later reversed by the circuit court. The employer, Moseley Auto Sales, and its insurer, Tri-State Insurance Company, appealed, questioning whether substantial evidence supported the Commission's findings. Vines had a history of back injuries, receiving a 10% permanent partial disability rating in 1966 and another 10% after a lumbar disc operation in 1968. He began working for Moseley Auto Sales in fall 1969, performing various tasks as a mechanic and in the body shop. On December 29, 1969, he injured himself falling on a pickup truck's running board, leading to a brief period of Workmen’s Compensation benefits. He returned to work on January 12, 1970, until his termination on February 20, 1970, citing a lack of work. Vines did not seek medical attention between January and March 16, 1970, when he eventually consulted Dr. G. F. Wynne. Following that visit, Dr. James Callaway performed a laminectomy to remove the 4th lumbar disc. Vines asserted that he felt well before the December injury and experienced worsening pain afterward, which he attributed to his work. Dr. Callaway noted that the source of Vines’ pain persisted from the December incident, based on Vines’ account, but did not confirm a specific incident involving a lawn mower. Dr. Wynne later testified that Vines claimed the injury stemmed from pulling a lawn mower, which he indicated could have caused the disc issues. Testimony from Mr. Moseley suggested that Vines did not report any back pain upon returning to work, maintaining that his condition had not changed post-injury. After remand for further testimony, there appeared to be a shift in Mr. Moseley's position regarding Vines’ condition. Testimony indicated that after the December 29th injury, Mr. Moseley advised Mr. Vines against heavy lifting. Although Mr. Moseley provided a brace for Vines between the layoff and March 16th, this evidence was absent in the initial hearing, despite testimonies from both the appellee and his wife. The primary consideration is not the preponderance of evidence but whether substantial evidence supports the Commission's findings. Additional corroborating evidence exists but the case ultimately hinges on credibility assessments. The Commission chose to believe Dr. Wynne, leading to a conclusion that substantial evidence supports its findings. The appellee claimed that Mr. Derby, the local insurance representative, instructed him to seek medical attention; however, Derby denied recalling such an instruction and stated he lacked authority to give it, as he was not a general agent. The decision was reversed and remanded, with Harris, C.J. not participating and Jones, J. dissenting.