Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hapney v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 2, 1999No. CA 98-678Published

1DissentWendell L. Griffen, Judge

Although I agree that points two and three of the appeal should be affirmed, I disagree with the majority opinion regarding point one. That point maintains that the Workers’ Compensation Commission erred when it held that the gradual-onset provision of Ark. Code Ann. § ll-9-102(5)(A)(ii)(b) does not render com-pensable an injury to the cervical spine because such an injury is not a “back injury” within the meaning of the statute. I would reverse the Commission on this point because the seven cervical vertebrae are part of the vertebral column known as the spine.

Appellant has been diagnosed as…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty PlasticsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1997
  2. Taylor v. Pfeiffer Plumbing & Heating Co.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1983
  3. Stallings Bros. Feed Mill v. StovallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API