Adams v. Georgia Pacific, LLC

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 558
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-14-455
Opinion Delivered October 22, 2014
JAYME ADAMS APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
V. [NO. G103942]
GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, AND
INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA/ESIS, INC. AFFIRMED
APPELLEES
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Jayme Adams appeals the decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation
Commission (the Commission) that found that she did not prove entitlement to
temporary-total disability (TTD) after 3 April 2013. On appeal, she argues that she is still
in her healing period and is entitled to TTD benefits offset by unemployment benefits.
We affirm the Commission.
Adams, an employee of Georgia Pacific, LLC, injured her left shoulder while lifting
wet wood on 22 April 2011. Georgia Pacific disputed her workers’ compensation claim,
arguing that Adams’s claim related to a preexisting condition and that Adams had not
aggravated that preexisting condition. The Commission ultimately found that (1) Adams
had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a temporary aggravation
1
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 558
of a preexisting shoulder condition that constituted a compensable shoulder injury, and (2)
Adams had proved her entitlement to reasonably necessary medical treatment and TTD
benefits, beginning 11 May 2011 and continuing until a date yet to be determined.
Georgia Pacific did not appeal that decision.
Another hearing was held before the ALJ in July 2013 to revisit the issues of
entitlement to additional medical treatment and TTD benefits. Georgia Pacific claimed
that there had been a change of circumstances because (1) Adams had applied for
uneployment benefits in September 2012 and April 2013 and begun taking classes at Delta
Community College in January 2013, and (2) Adams’s medical treatment had been
expanded to treat her neck, left elbow, and carpal tunnel syndrome, which related back to
Adams’s preexisting condition and not her compensable shoulder injury.
Regarding additional medical treatment, the ALJ found that the issue of causation
was previously litigated and that Georgia Pacific was barred by the doctrine of res judicata
from raising the issue again. The ALJ also found that “[t]he fact that claimant has
represented that she is able to work in order to obtain unemployment benefits or has gone
back to further her education is not a vaild basis for the termination of her temporary total
disability benefits which were ordered to be paid since she remains within her healing
period.” Georgia Pacific appealed to the Commission, which reversed the ALJ’s finding
on TTD benefits. The Commission explained:
As we have noted, the claimant filed a claim for unemployment
benefits beginning October 28, 2011. Beginning November 1, 2011, the
claimaint signed several Applications for Unemployment Insurance Benefits
indicating that there were no “disabilities” which limited the claimant from
performing her “normal work duties.” The claimant also consistently
reported beginning November 1, 2011 that she could immediately begin
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 558
full-time work. Dr. Tucker noted in October 2012, “We are going to
continue her off of work . . . I expect MMI in a minimum of 12-14
weeks.” The claimant subsequently informed the Department of Workforce
Services on January 14, 2013 that she had enrolled in Delta Community
College in Monroe, Louisiana. The claimant also stated, “I can work every
day, any time of day. I want to work. I’m not working right now, but I’m
looking for work and would go to work as soon as someone calls me.
Eventually, I want a job in the medical field, but right now, I would take
just about anything.”
The respondents continued to pay temporary total disability benefits
until April 3, 2013. The claimant contends on appeal that she is entitled to
continued temporary total disability benefits until she completes physical
therapy, and until Dr. Tucker finds that the claimant has reached maximum
medical improvement. Nevertheless, whether or not the claimant continues
within a healing period for her April 22, 2011 compensable injury, the Full
Commission finds that the claimant has not proven that she was totally
incapacitated from earning wages after April 3, 2013, the date the
respondents stopped paying temporary total disability benefits.
The Commission also noted Adams’s admission that she could drive, perform
household chores, participate in vacations out of state, and attend activities such as dance
recitals and athletic events. In support, the Commission cited Allen Canning Co. v.
Woodruff, 92 Ark. App. 237, 212 S.W.3d 25 (2005), a case in which this court affirmed the
Commission’s denial of continued TTD benefits based in part on an employee’s filing for
unemployment compensation benefits. Adams has now timely appealed the Commission’s
decision.
To receive temporary total-disability benefits, a claimant has the burden of proof to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that she was within a healing period
and (2) that she was totally incapacitated from earning wages. Hickman v. Kellogg, Brown &
Root, 372 Ark. 501, 277 S.W.3d 591 (2008). Where the Commission denies benefits
because the claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof, the substantial-evidence
standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission’s decision displays a substantial
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 558
basis for the denial of relief. Neal v. Sparks Reg’l Med. Ctr., 104 Ark. App. 97, 289 S.W.3d
163 (2008).
Adams argues that she is still within her healing period, and until she receives all
medical treatment deemed reasonable and necessary by her physician, she is entitled to
receive unemployment benefits and TTD. She cites King v. Peopleworks, 97 Ark. App.
105, 244 S.W.3d 729 (2006), in which this court reversed the Commission’s finding that
King was not entitled to TTD compensation once he began receiving unemployment
benefits. We disagreed that King was not entitled to TTD “merely” because he began
receiving unemployment benefits and remanded for factual determinations of whether
King remained within his healing period and suffered a total incapacity to earn wages after
his receipt of unemployment compensation began.
While Adams argues on appeal that she is still within her healing period, she fails to
challenge the Commission’s finding that she was not totally incapacitated from earning
wages after 3 April 2013. The case relied upon by Adams, King, is distinguishable. There,
the Commission made no findings on the claimant’s healing period or total incapacity to
earn wages; but here, the Commission made a specific finding that Adams “has not proven
that she was totally incapacitated from earning wages after April 3, 2013.” We hold that
this case is akin to Allen Canning and that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s
finding that Adams was no longer entitled to TTD benefits.
Affirmed.
WALMSLEY and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
Thomas Law Firm, by: F. Mattison Thomas, III, for appellant.
Coplin & Hardy, PLLC, by: Betty J. Hardy, for appellees.
4