46 Ark. App. 188 - Johnson v. General Dynamics’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 54 Ark. App. 344 - Weldon v. Pierce Bros. Construction (1996), 51 Ark. App. 166 - Whaley v. Hardee's (1995)
31 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Glass v. Edens · Wilson & Co. v. Christman · Mine Creek Contractors, Inc. v. Grandstaff · 25 Ark. App. 237 - Wade v. Mr. C. Cavenaugh's · 36 Ark. App. 190 - Gencorp Polymer Products v. Landers
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Permanent impairment, which is usually a medical condition, is any permanent functional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has been reached. Ouachita Marine v. Morrison, 246 Ark. 882 , 440 S.W.2d 216 (1969). An injured employee is entitled to the payment of compensation for the permanent functional or anatomical loss of use of the body as a whole whether his earning capacity is diminished or not. Id. In the case of Wilson & Co. v. Christman, 244 Ark. 132 , 424 S.W.2d 863 (1968), the supreme court stated that the Commission is “not limited, and never has been limited, to medical evidence only in arriving at its decision as to the amount or extent of permanent partial disability suffered by an injured employee as a result of injury.” In fact, it is the duty of the Workers’ Compensation Commission to translate the evidence on all issues before it into findings of fact. Gencorp Polymer Products v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190 , 820 S.W.2d 475 (1991). It has also been said that nothing in our law does or should require precise evidence of the precise amount of disability. Bibler Bros. v. Ingram, 266 Ark. 969 , 587 S.W.2d 841 (1979). It appears that the court in Bibler was referring to anatomical impairment and/or wage loss disability. After reviewing the record it is clear that the Commission denied appellant benefits for permanent, partial, anatomical loss of the use of her body for the sole reason that there was no numerical rating assigned by a physician. Howeve”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.