Was Corrections Worker who Lost Eye Permanently Disabled?

What Do You Think?

Newport, AR (WorkersCompensation.com) -- No matter how severe or upsetting an injury may be, a claimant in Arkansas seeking permanent disability still has to demonstrate that she can no longer work because of the injury.

In an illustrative case, an employee for a prison fell and injured her eye at work. Eventually, surgeons removed the eye and installed a prosthetic. The employee received workers’ compensation benefits.

One of the issues holding the employee back from obtaining a new job was the emotional impact of the injury; she felt that the eye with the prosthetic drooped, and she wore sunglasses to cover it up. 

The claimant also said she didn’t feel safe driving except for a mile or two in her town, togo to WalMart or church. She maintained that she suffered from a loss of balance, that she relied on family to cook and drive her on trips that exceeded one or two miles. 

"[N]o employer would hire a 58-year-old lady with zero computer skills, who cannot drive and is a daily fall risk,” she said.

Her doctor concluded that the claimant had a 32% anatomical impairment. The physician concluded that she had only "a mild limitation of daily social and interpersonal functioning” as a result of the injury. 

The claimant had a high school education and was trained as a secretary. Rehabilitation Services identified at least 15 potential job openings for the claimant near her home. She reportedly did not pursue any of those openings. She said  she was unqualified for them. 

The workers’ compensation commission found that she was not permanently disabled, and the claimant appealed.

"Permanent total disability" is defined as the "inability, because of compensable injury or occupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages in the same or other employment." Attendant factors relevant to whether a claimant is unable to earn any meaningful wages include: medical evidence; age; education; experience; and other circumstances reasonably related to a claimant's earning power. 

Was claimant permanently disabled?

A. No. She could still read and could still drive in her town, where the potential jobs were located.

B. Yes. She was too self-conscious to go to work because of the disfigurement, and, physically, it was too hard for her to drive.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Murphy v. Arkansas Dep’t of Corrections, No. CV-23-40 (Ark. Ct. App. 10/09/24), which held that the claimant was not permanently disabled.

Since she was injured, the court noted, the claimant had not attempted to return to work. This was despite the list of jobs in her hometown. The evidence, however, indicated she was capable of working in some capacity. She was, at minimum, capable of using a computer. She was also capable of reading, despite her injury. In addition, the doctor assigned her only a 32 percent impairment rating. Finally, she acknolwdeged that she was capable of driving within her town.

The court noted that the commission cited the claimant’s lack of credibility, stating: “The claimant's demonstrated lack of interest in returning to work is an impediment to a full assessment of the claimant's contention that she is permanently and totally disabled.”

The commission's order was detailed and specific regarding its reasons for not finding that the claimant was permanently disabled, the court stated. It affirmed the commission’s decision.

Share This Article: