ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CA 00-559

April 25, 2001

MARTY L. JUSTICE AN APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

APPELLANT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

E811391

VS.

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AFFIRMED

APPELLEE

Marty Justice injured her lower back during a dance maneuver in October of 1995 while employed as a dance instructor at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School. She began treatment with Dr. Cynthia Almond, her primary care physician, and Dr. Almond referred her to Dr. Edward Saer, an orthopedist. In February 1997 appellant changed her primary care physician to Dr. Richard Calhoun because Dr. Almond was no longer on the list of physicians when appellant's employer obtained a new insurance carrier. Appellant's claim for additional benefits in September 1998 was denied. Thelaw judge found that appellant had failed to petition the Commis sion for the change of physician pursuant to Act 796 so that Dr. Calhoun was not an authorized physician on the date of his first treatment, September 16, 1997. The law judge also found that, because appellant's claim for additional benefits was filed more than one year from the date of the last payment of compensa tion, her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Commission affirmed and adopted the law judge's findings.

Appellant argues that her change of physician was made at the direction of and with the consent of the appellee so that she was not required to petition the Commission for the change. Appellant also argues that appellee had constructive knowledge of the medical treatment by Dr. Calhoun which tolled the statute of limitations. We affirm the Commission's decision.

When reviewing decisions from the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and affirm if supported by substantial evidence. Welch's Laundry & Cleaners v. Clark, 38 Ark. App. 223, 832 S.W.2d 283 (1992). A decision by the Commission should not be reversed unless it is clear that fair-minded persons could not have reached the same conclusions if presented with the same facts. Silvicraft, Inc. v. Lambert, 10 Ark. App. 28, 661 S.W.2d 403 (1983).

Appellant's first argument is that she did not need to comply with the change of physician rules because she was "told" by her employer to change physicians from Dr. Almond to Dr. Calhoun. The opinion of the law judge, which was adopted by the Commission, recited:

In October or November 1996, claimant states that she was notified by her employer that a new health carrier, United Healthcare, had been selected, and upon viewing the medi cal directory, she noted that Dr. Cynthia Almond was not included. She then selected Dr. Richard Calhoun from the medical directory list as her primary treating physician, and states that she assumed that this was both for workers' compensation purposes and her other personal health problems. She also assumed that since the workers' compensation carrier had corresponded with the former healthcare carrier and her employer, that all were in agreement on the change of physician.

The Commission noted that appellant testified that she had received and signed "Form N" which explains the change of physician rules. On the facts presented we are persuaded that reasonable minds could conclude that Ms. Justice was not directed by her employer to change primary care physicians for workers' compensa tion purposes.

Appellant's final argument is that the Commission erred in not holding that the statute of limitations was tolled because the employer had "constructive knowledge" of the care provided by Dr. Calhoun. On this point, appellant relies on Plante v. TysonFoods, Inc., 319 Ark. 126, 890 S.W.2d 253 (1994). Plante is distinguishable. It is clear that in Plante the supreme court concluded that the employer had reason to know the medical services for the claimant's compensable injury would be furnished. In the case at bar the claimant had been referred from Dr. Almond, her original primary care physician, to Dr. Saer, an orthopaedic surgeon. The Commission could reasonably conclude that the appellee had no reason to know that Dr. Calhoun was treating the appellant for her compensable injury.

For the reasons stated, the decision of the Commission is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Hart and Crabtree, JJ., agree.