## Facts

- William Thomaston worked for Superior Industries from October 1995 until his termination on August 25, 1998.
- His work involved moving molten metal from a furnace to casting machines.
- On July 12, 1996, he sustained a compensable shoulder injury; a company physician diagnosed a shoulder strain and imposed work restrictions.
- Thomaston performed light-duty, one-arm work for a period, returned to regular duty, and later experienced worsening symptoms.
- He received benefits based on a five-percent permanent impairment rating to the shoulder.
- After he was terminated, Thomaston sought temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from August 25, 1998 through January 14, 1999, when he underwent shoulder surgery.
- Superior Industries denied liability, asserting it had light-duty work available and that Thomaston was terminated for misconduct rather than inability to perform work.
- Medical evidence included restrictions to one-arm duty and an opinion that the work injury was the major cause of the need for treatment and that Thomaston was unable to work because of the injury.
- The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded TTD for the claimed period and found Superior had controverted entitlement to the January 1999 surgery.

## Issues

1. Whether Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-526 (denying benefits when a claimant refuses suitable employment) barred TTD where the claimant was terminated for alleged misconduct rather than refusing offered work.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s award of TTD from August 25, 1998 through January 14, 1999.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Superior controverted Thomaston’s entitlement to the January 1999 shoulder surgery.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission in all respects.
- The court held § 11-9-526 did not apply because Thomaston did not refuse suitable employment; he accepted work and was later terminated by the employer.
- The court held substantial evidence supported that Thomaston remained in his healing period and was totally incapacitated from earning wages during the awarded TTD period.
- The court held the Commission did not err in finding Superior controverted entitlement to the January 1999 surgery.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation statutes must be strictly construed as written.
- Under § 11-9-526, TTD may be denied when a claimant refuses employment suitable to the claimant’s capacity; termination by the employer is not a statutory “refusal.”
- TTD requires proof that the claimant is within the healing period and totally incapacitated from earning wages.
- On appeal, Commission findings are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence—evidence a reasonable person might accept as adequate—and are reversed only if fair-minded persons could not reach the same conclusion on the record.
- An employer’s denial of liability for medical treatment may support a finding that medical benefits were controverted.

## Conclusion

The court upheld TTD and controversion findings because strict statutory construction limited the “refusal of suitable employment” bar to actual refusals, and substantial evidence showed Thomaston remained in his healing period, could not earn wages due to the compensable injury, and that the employer denied liability for the surgery.


Superior Indus. v. Thomaston, 72 Ark. App. 7, 32 S.W.3d 52 (2000)