Cite as 325 Ark. 163 (1996)
reasonably necessary or that the healing period had ended; the court concluded that fair-minded persons, viewing the same evidence, could not decide otherwise.
- WORKERS' COMPENSATION—DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED—MATTER REMANDED TO COMMISSION.—The supreme court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the matter to the Commission with directions (1) to order payment of continued reasonable and necessary medical treatment, including a functional-capacity assessment, and (2) to determine whether to order payment of additional benefits.
On Petition for Review from the Arkansas Court of Appeals; Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed; remanded to Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission.
Lane, Muse, Arman & Pullen, by: Donald C. Pullen, for appellant.
Anderson & Kilpatrick, by: Randy P. Murphy, for appellees.
ROBERT L. BROWN, Justice. This matter comes to us on review of a decision by the Court of Appeals in which that court was divided by a vote of three to three. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Eng'g, 52 Ark. App. 147, 916 S.W.2d 124 (1996). Because the vote in the Court of Appeals was evenly split, the decision by the Workers' Compensation Commission to deny additional benefits to appellant
Rick Gansky was affirmed. We granted review of the decision of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(f). Gansky now raises two issues to this court on review: (1) the Commission
erred in refusing to find a need for continued medical treatment, and (2) the Commission was in error when it decided the issue of temporary total disability before a functional capacity assessment was completed and Gansky was released from a physician's care. We agree that the Commission erred in its decision, and we reverse that decision and remand.
On October 31, 1992, Rick Gansky suffered a work-related injury while working as a machinist for Hi-Tech Engineering (HiTech). It was stipulated by the parties that Hi-Tech accepted the claim and paid medical and disability benefits from the date of the injury until February 22, 1993, after which time Hi-Tech disputed Gansky's need for continued medical treatment.
On December 13, 1993, a hearing was held before the Administrative Law Judge on the issue of additional medical treat-
