Pete Eldridge v. Pace Industries, LLC; Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund; And Sentry Casualty Company

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 245
Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document DIVISION III
2023.06.23 11:00:44 -05'00' No. CV-20-516
2023.001.20174
Opinion Delivered: May 19, 2021
PETE ELDRIDGE
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
V. COMMISSION
[NO. G607350]
PACE INDUSTRIES, LLC; DEATH
AND PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY TRUST FUND; AND
SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY
APPELLEES AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

This appeal follows the June 18, 2020 decision of the Arkansas Workers’

Compensation Commission affirming and adopting the November 4, 2019 opinion of the

administrative law judge (ALJ). The Commission found that appellant Pete Eldridge was

entitled to medical treatment, but he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence

that he was entitled to an anatomical impairment rating greater than 37 percent and that he

had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his attorney was entitled to

additional attorney’s fees. The Commission had previously filed an opinion in the case on

November 14, 2017, that awarded temporary total-disability benefits and fees for legal

services in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-715(a) (Repl. 2012).

On appeal, Eldridge argues that the Commission erred by finding that he was not entitled

to a 50 percent impairment rating for his compensable injury and that he was not entitled

to additional attorney’s fees on the rating because it “flowed directly from prior litigation
on controverted medical treatment.” Because substantial evidence supports the

Commission’s decision, we affirm.

Eldridge worked for appellee Pace Industries, LLC (Pace), as a quality-control auditor

in the mining and metal-die-casting industry. Eldridge sustained a compensable left-knee

injury on July 26, 2016, for which Pace initially provided medical treatment and temporary

total-disability benefits. After a hearing on March 14, 2017, the ALJ filed an opinion on

June 12 that (1) ordered Pace to pay for related medical treatment after the November 14,

2016 change-of-physician order was granted; (2) ordered temporary total-disability benefits

be paid for a period certain; and (3) awarded the maximum statutory allowance for attorney’s

fees on the benefits awarded. Eldridge appealed to the Commission, which affirmed the

ALJ’s decision as modified. The Commission found that Eldridge was entitled to additional

temporary total-disability benefits for some of the time periods in question, but not all.

Because Eldridge was awarded additional benefits, Eldridge’s attorney was awarded an

additional fee. Neither side appealed the Commission’s decision to our court.

After a period of additional medical treatment, Eldridge underwent evaluation for

the purpose of determining his anatomical-impairment rating. He obtained a rating of 50

percent that included a pain component; Pace then sought an independent medical

evaluation (IME) to obtain a rating that did not include subjective complaints of pain in the

rating and accepted the assessed 37 percent anatomical-impairment rating to the left lower

extremity and awarded Eldridge the proper benefits associated with the 37 percent rating.

This claim came again before the ALJ on August 6, 2019, and the testimony

regarding Eldridge’s entitlement to additional medical treatment, entitlement to an

2
impairment rating greater than 37 percent, and entitlement to an attorney’s fee was heard.

Conflicting medical opinions as to the proper anatomical-impairment rating were presented

during the hearing. Eldridge’s preferred anatomical-impairment rating was proposed as 50

percent to the left lower extremity, and a subsequent independent rating found Eldridge to

have a 37 percent anatomical-impairment rating to the left lower extremity.

In a November 4, 2019 opinion, the ALJ awarded Eldridge the requested additional

medical treatment but found that Eldridge was entitled to only a 37 percent anatomical-

impairment rating; accordingly, no award of attorney’s fees was granted. Eldridge then filed

an appeal to the Commission, which entered an order affirming and adopting the decision

of the ALJ on June 18, 2020. This timely appeal followed.

The standard of review in workers’-compensation cases is well settled. On appeal,

this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission’s decision and

affirms the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff v.

Hopkins, 2018 Ark. App. 578, 561 S.W.3d 781. Substantial evidence exists if reasonable

minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion. Id. The issue is not whether the appellate

court might have reached a different result from the Commission but whether reasonable

minds could reach the result found by the Commission; if so, the appellate court must affirm.

Id. Questions regarding the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their

testimony are within the exclusive province of the Commission. Evans v. Bemis Co., Inc.,

2010 Ark. App. 65, 374 S.W.3d 51. Thus, we are foreclosed from determining the

credibility and weight to be accorded to each witness’s testimony, and we defer to the

3
Commission’s authority to disregard the testimony of any witness, even a claimant, as not

credible. Wilson v. Smurfit Stone Container, 2009 Ark. App. 800, 373 S.W.3d 347.

When there are contradictions in the evidence, it is within the Commission’s

province to reconcile conflicting evidence and determine the facts. Id. Finally, this court

will reverse the Commission’s decision only if it is convinced that fair-minded persons with

the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the

Commission. Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing, 2014 Ark. 93, 431 S.W.3d 858.

On appeal, Eldridge contends that he is entitled to a higher impairment rating and

that the Commission erred in its June 18, 2020 opinion by not awarding him attorney’s

fees. Having reviewed the record before us, we are not persuaded by either argument.

Eldridge maintains that he is entitled to an impairment rating of 50 percent, which

was calculated with the inclusion of subjective complaints of pain, rather than the 37 percent

rating calculated without the inclusion of complaints of pain. The functional capacity

evaluation (“FCE”) conducted on January 3, 2019, indicated Eldridge was capable of

performing his preinjury job duties conditioned upon several lifting and climbing

restrictions. The evaluation of Joel Sebag that accompanied the FCE mentions complaints

of pain with increased weight-bearing activities, single-leg standing and squatting/kneeling.

The handwritten notes clearly assign a point value for the subjective factor of pain, and

Eldridge does not dispute the fact that his subjective complaints of pain are a part of the

rating.

Stuart Jones, PT, DPT, and Rick Byrd, MEd, CETT, CSCA, CSE, of Functional

Testing Centers of Mountain Home conducted an impairment evaluation summary on May

4
21, 2019. Jones’s determination was that Eldridge was entitled to a 37 percent impairment

rating, specifically noting the exclusion of complaints of pain in the assessment in accordance

with Arkansas law.

Our workers’-compensation law provides that “[a]ny determination of the existence

or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical or

mental findings.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B) (Repl. 2012). “Objective findings”

are defined as “those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the

patient.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i) (Supp. 2019). Further, the statutes provide

that “[w]hen determining physical or anatomical impairment, neither a physician, any other

medical provider, an administrative law judge, the Workers’ Compensation Commission,

nor the courts may consider complaints of pain.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(ii)(a).

Also, “[f]or the purpose of making physical or anatomical impairment ratings to the spine,

straight-leg-raising tests or range-of-motion tests shall not be considered objective findings.”

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(ii)(b).

While medical evidence of the injury and impairment must be supported by

objective findings, there is no requirement that medical testimony be based solely or

expressly on objective findings. Singleton, supra. We are mindful that this court has previously

held that when there are objective findings, it is improper for the Commission to reject an

impairment rating for the reason that it was based in part on subjective findings. Id. Here,

however, the Commission was confronted with two opposing medical opinions and

concluded that the ALJ’s decision was correct in assessing a 37 percent anatomical-

impairment rating to the left lower extremity based on Jones’s rating, which utilized “Table

5
64 of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent

Impairment, Fourth Edition.” It is within the Commission’s province to reconcile

conflicting evidence, including the medical evidence. Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Assoc., Inc.,

2009 Ark. App. 531, 337 S.W.3d 531. In finding that Eldridge was entitled to a 37 percent

rating, the Commission considered the conflicting medical evidence and gave less weight to

Sebag’s opinion.

In this case, the Commission gave significant weight to May 2019 impairment

evaluation summary conducted by Jones and Byrd. The Commission has the authority to

accept or reject a medical opinion and the authority to determine its probative value. Greene

v. Cockram Concrete Co., 2012 Ark. App. 691. When the Commission weighs medical

evidence and the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of fact for the

Commission. Medic One, LLC v. Colbert, 2011 Ark. App. 555, at 7. Therefore, we hold that

substantial evidence supports the Commission's finding that Eldridge was entitled to the

requested additional medical treatment but that he was only entitled to a 37 percent

anatomical-impairment rating to the left lower extremity.

Eldridge’s second appellate point is that the Commission erred by not awarding him

additional attorney’s fees in its June 18, 2020 opinion. In that opinion, the Commission

specifically noted that “the award of attorney’s fees for temporary-total-disability benefits in

the Commission’s November 14, 2017 opinion shall not be disturbed.” In his brief,

Eldridge admits “[t]he respondents continued to pay benefits to the appellant, including

medical treatment and indemnity.” After receiving the anatomical-impairment rating

assessment of 50 percent from Sebag, Pace continued paying indemnity benefits and sought

6
an independent impairment-rating evaluation. Pace accepted the 37 percent rating from

Stuart Jones and began paying benefits on the basis of that rating.

At no time did Pace controvert Eldridge’s entitlement to an anatomical-impairment

rating or deny that benefits would be paid on the basis of a valid rating. The applicable

statute in this case is Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-715, which provides in relevant

part:

(a)(1)(A) Fees for legal services rendered in respect of a claim shall not be valid
unless approved by the Workers’ Compensation Commission.

(B) Attorney’s fees shall be twenty-five percent (25%) of compensation for
indemnity benefits payable to the injured employee or dependents of a deceased
employee. Attorney’s fees shall not be awarded on medical benefits or services except
as provided in subdivision (a)(4) of this section.

....

(2)(B)(i) In all other cases whenever the Commission finds that a claim has been
controverted, in whole or in part, the commission shall direct that fees for legal
services be paid to the attorney for the claimant as follows: One-half (1/2) by the
employer or carrier in addition to compensation awarded; and one-half (1/2) by the
injured employee or dependents of a deceased employee out of compensation
payable to them.

(ii) The fees shall only be allowed on the amount of compensation for indemnity
benefits controverted and awarded.

(iii) However, the commission shall not find a claim has been controverted if the
claimant or his representative has withheld from the respondent during the period of
time allotted for the respondent to determine its position any medical information in
his possession which substantiates the claim.

(C)(i) Whenever the commission finds a claim has not been controverted but
further finds that bona fide legal services have been rendered in respect to the claim,
then the commission shall direct the payment of the fees by the injured employee or
dependents of a deceased employee out of the compensation awarded.

....

7
(4) Medical providers may voluntarily contract with the attorney for the claimant
to recover disputed bills, and the attorney may charge a reasonable fee to the medical
provider as cost of collection.

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(a)(1)(A) and (B), (a)(2)(B)(i)–(iii), (a)(2)(C)(i), and (a)(4).

A fee is payable from the employer or carrier only if benefits are controverted and

awarded. Burton v. Chartis Claims, Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 47, at 5. Further, the statute makes

clear that an attorney’s fee cannot be obtained on medical benefits unless an appellant’s

counsel contracted with the provider to recover disputed bills. Id.

The record reflects Pace’s acceptance of the 37 percent impairment rating––

demonstrating that Eldridge’s entitlement to permanent disability benefits was not

controverted. Timely voluntary acceptance and payment of an impairment rating lower than

Eldridge’s preferred rating does not constitute controversion under the law, and as such,

Eldridge’s attorney is not entitled to a fee. The Commission’s determination that no

additional attorney’s fees be awarded is supported by substantial evidence as Eldridge is not

entitled to attorney’s fees on uncontroverted benefits. Accordingly, the Commission did not

err in its determination and we affirm.

Affirmed.

HIXSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Steven McNeely DBA Attorney at Law, by: Steven R. McNeely, for appellant.

Ledbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP, by: Laura J. Pearn, for appellees Pace

Industries and Sentry Casualty Company.

8