Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Stephenson v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided May 17, 2000No. CA 99-1104Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJohn B. Robbins, Chief Judge

I concur with the majority in reversing the Commission and holding that Ms. Stephenson is entided to temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits for her cervical disc herniation, because I believe there was no substantial evidence that supported the Commission’s denial of these benefits. I cannot agree, however, that there was no substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that the medical treatment Ms. Stephenson received from Drs. Tanner, Bishop, and Williams was unauthorized.

Following her injury at work, Ms. Stephenson’s employer, appellee…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bates v. Frost Logging Co.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1992
  2. Hubley v. Best Western-Governor's InnCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1996
  3. Tahutini v. Tastybird FoodsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API