|
|
| |
| Mon, Oct. 13, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court rules for injured Whirlpool worker Thursday, May 15, 2008 Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - The Arkansas Court of Appeals on Wednesday ordered another hearing on a Hackett man's claims that his injury was related to his job at Whirlpool Corp.'s refrigerator plant in Fort Smith. The decision, which reversed a ruling by the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, said the panel erred when it discounted the testimony of Larry D. Roberts' doctor. In 2004, Roberts, who was 54 at the time, was moving 1,900 pounds of batteries in a cart when one of the cart's wheels got stuck in a hole. Roberts tried to dislodge the wheel by pulling and jerking it, and suffered pain to his left shoulder and down his arm. In 2005, after months of pain and several doctor visits, a Dr. Arthur Johnson performed surgery on Roberts' shoulder. Johnson later wrote a letter to Whirlpool's attorney, saying Roberts suffered a cervical disc herniation, which damaged his spinal cord. He said the injury was caused by the accident at work. Whirlpool agreed that Roberts suffered a work-related injury to his shoulder and arm, but maintained the injuries to his neck and cervical spine were not work-related. An administrative law judge in 2006 ruled in Roberts' favor, saying the neck and spine injuries were work-related. However, the Workers' Compensation Commission overturned the law judge's decision and agreed with Whirlpool's doctor, who testified the neck and spine injuries were related to a pre-existing degenerative disc disease that got worse over time. The commission, in its 2007 decision, dismissed Johnson's testimony because it was based on Roberts' medical history, not on his medical records, the appeals court said Wednesday. Roberts appealed, arguing there was not enough evidence to support the commission's decision. In its ruling Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said the commission's rationale for rejecting Johnson's opinion was "fundamentally flawed." No evidence suggested Roberts' medical history was not credible evidence, the court said, adding that while Roberts' doctor had not seen his medical records, initially he eventually was "fully conversant" with them. |
