Award of Disability
Hutson suffered an admitted back injury, with radiculopathy, and benefits were provided. Defendants requested a hearing after Hutson’s doctor placed him at MMI. Hutson asserted he was permanently and totally disabled “because of the effect of his injury on his back and right leg.” At the hearing, Hutson testified that despite appearing at Voc Rehab, he was unable to find work. He also testified that he wanted to open a restaurant, and that he and his family had experience in this area. Based on Hutson’s testimony that he could work, the Hearing Commissioner held that he was not permanently and totally disabled and awarded him 30% to the back. The Full Commission and the Circuit Court affirmed the Hearing Commissioner’s decision.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Hutson first asserted that his testimony regarding being able to open a restaurant was “speculative” and that the Hearing Commissioner should have relied on the expert medical evidence in the record. The Court found that the evidence in the case (including Hutson’s study of culinary arts, his family history of owning a restaurant, and his continued efforts in finding a location and setting a menu) was sufficient to support the Hearing Commissioner’s ruling. Hutson then asserted that his recovery should not be limited to the back. He asserted that, since his back injury affected his right leg, he was entitled to loss of use of the leg as well as loss of use of the back under Section 42-9-30. The Hearing Commissioner’s order was clear that, but for Hutson’s testimony that he could run a restaurant, the Hearing Commissioner would have found him permanently and totally disabled. Therefore, the Court concluded that the law of the case was that the Claimant’s radiculopathy affected his right leg. The Court found that Hutson had established a prima facie case for compensation for his right leg injury; therefore, the matter was remanded to the Commission for further findings of fact regarding Hutson’s alleged right leg injury.