Meadors Lumber Co. v. Wysong

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellants contend that there is no substantial evidence to support the Workmen’s Compensation Commission’s finding, and the circuit court’s affirmance, that a hemorrhoidectomy was necessitated by the appellee’s on-the-job injury. Appellants argue that the appellee was restored to his pre-injury condition by an incision and drainage of the thrombosed hemorrhoid and, therefore, the expense of the elective hemorrhoidectomy and additional benefits are not compensable.

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1311 (Repl. 1976) provides in pertinent part that “[t]he employer shall promptly provide…