Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Macsteel v. Hindmarsh

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II

October 16, 2019

Gerdau MACSTEEL and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Appellants
v.
Jason HINDMARSH, Appellee

Page 54

          APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. G504197]

         Dover Dixon Horne PLLC, Little Rock, by: Joseph H. Purvis and Monte D. Estes, for appellants.

         Medlock and Gramlich, LLP, Fort Smith, by: M. Jered Medlock, for appellee.

          OPINION

         PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

          Appellant Gerdau Macsteel ("Macsteel") appeals the decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) that determined appellee Jason Hindmarsh proved his entitlement to additional medical treatment and awarded him temporary-total disability (TTD) benefits. Macsteel argues that the Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Page 55

          I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Hindmarsh sustained an admittedly compensable lower-back injury in April 2015 while doing physical inventory for Macsteel. Hindmarsh received conservative treatment for his injury without positive results. He underwent a lumbar MRI scan in August 2015 and a similar MRI in November. Both scans indicated no disc bulges or protrusions and showed "no definite lumbar spine abnormality." Hindmarsh continued to experience lower-back pain and eventually saw Dr. Kyle Mangels.[1] Dr. Mangels ordered another MRI, which was "read as being unremarkable" by Dr. Matthew Powers. Dr. Mangels also described the MRI findings as "basically negative." Nevertheless, because of Hindmarsh’s complaints of unexplained pain, Dr. Mangels thought a discogram was warranted.[2]

         Dr. Andrew Revelis performed the discogram of Hindmarsh’s lumbar spine. He reported that the L4-5 disc had a normal retention of contrast within the nucleus of the disc, indicating a "normal nonpainful disc." Regarding the L5-S1 disc, however, Dr. Revelis opined that the disc was "unable to achieve a maximum pressure," which indicated "annular degeneration ... with extravasation[3] of contrast into the outer third of the annulus and the left periannular space." Hindmarsh also reported concordant pain when the disc was injected that was consistent with the pain he usually experienced. Dr. Revelis’s impressions were that L4-5 was a normal, nonpainful disc, but L5-S1 was a "painful, concordant degenerated disc." Dr. Revelis then sent Hindmarsh to Dr. Powers for a postdiscogram CT scan. Dr. Powers’s report of the CT scan showed no abnormalities, however, and his review of the L5-S1 discogram found "an intranuclear injection of contrast material without evidence of posterior annular tear."

         After the discogram and CT scan, Hindmarsh followed up with Dr. Mangels. Dr. Mangels reviewed the films, including the postdiscogram CT, and opined that Hindmarsh had disc disease at the L5-S1 level. He advised Hindmarsh about surgical options, including a posterior lumbar fusion, and Hindmarsh expressed a desire to consider surgery. Macsteel denied the requested surgical treatment, and Hindmarsh filed his workers’-compensation claim seeking approval for the requested treatment as well as TTD benefits.

          Hindmarsh’s claim proceeded to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), who found that Hindmarsh had proved his entitlement to additional medical treatment in the form of the surgery recommended by Dr. Mangels. The ALJ also found that Hindmarsh had demonstrated his entitlement to TTD benefits from November 15, 2017 through a date to be determined. The Commission affirmed and adopted this decision in a 2-1 opinion. Macsteel timely appealed.

          II. Standard of Review

          Normally, we review only the decision of the Commission, not that of the ALJ. Queen v. Nortel Networks, Inc.,2012 Ark.App. 188, at 3, 2012 WL 639540. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.