This appeal concerns the denial of a workers’ compensation claim for additional wage-loss disability benefits or permanent and total disability, over and above an earlier award of twenty-percent wage-loss disability. In a decision rendered by the Commission on January 15, 2005, it denied appellant John O’Hara’s claim on two grounds: (1) the claim was barred by res judicata, and (2) even if the claim was not barred by res judicata, appellant failed to document “objective change in claimant’s physical condition,” to support his claim for additional wage-loss benefits. We reverse and remand for the Commission to reconsider its decision because it made errors of law.
This is not the first appeal in this case. Appellant John O’Hara suffered from a compensable work-related hernia on March 13, 1993, which was accepted by his employer, appellee J. Christy Construction Company. This case is controlled by the statutes and case law in effect prior to the workers’ compensation law enacted in 1993. After appellant underwent surgery and convalescence, he suffered a compensable complication, that being neuropathy due to femoral nerve impingement. The impingement caused his right leg to have a burning, prickling sensation. Another surgery was performed to release the nerve, which improved his condition but did not eradicate the symptoms. His healing period ended in July 1994, whereupon he was given a twenty-percent permanent partial impairment rating to the body. All related benefits were accepted and paid by the employer up to this point. In 1996, appellant filed a claim for additional benefits in wage loss or permanent total disability, at which point the appellee controverted the claim.
The testimony taken at the hearing in March 1997 included appellant explaining his high school education and noting his disability in reading, his work history in the Air Force and then in construction, and his present physical condition. Appellant was forty-nine years old at that time. He testified that he could not work because his nerve injury prevented him from walking, standing, or exerting himself for any extended period of time. Nevertheless, appellant continued to work his cattle and farm acreage as best he could with constant pain and side effects from his medications. Video surveillance of appellant during that time showed that appellant smoked cigarettes, drove a truck, and walked with a limp. Appellee put on evidence of possible jobs that appellant could do, outside his ability and training. Appellant admitted that he had not sought any other employment because he *145did not think he was capable of a full day’s work. After reviewing the medical records and the other testimony and evidence, the administrative law judge issued an opinion in July 1997 that appellant was entitled to thirty-percent wage loss. Appellee appealed, and the Commission concluded that appellant was poorly motivated to return to work and somewhat exaggerating his symptoms, but also that he suffered a significant complication from his work injury that affected his earning capacity. It noted his inability to return to heavy manual labor, his age, limited education, and work experience. The Commission concluded in an opinion issued in February 1998 that appellant was entitled to twenty-percent wage loss over his twenty-percent impairment rating, a forty-percent total rating. On appeal, our court affirmed the Commission’s decision in an unpublished opinion, O’Hara v.J. Christy Constr. Co., CA98-599 (March 3, 1999).
Appellant filed another claim for additional wage loss or disability, which was the subject of a hearing in April 2003, six years after the last hearing. Appellant testified that his leg pain is worse than it was back in 1997, that he now wears a brace on his right leg because he suffered from a club foot, that he could not raise or lower his big toe, that he had continued falling spells, and that this was a progression of his nerve neuropathy. These worsened complications necessitated that he now use a TENS unit to ease the pain down his leg into his foot, and that he take more medication for pain and sleep. Appellant stated that he is less able to walk, that he is tired and weak all the time, and that he had sold cattle and timber because he could not do the family farm work as he had before. He rated his pain in 1997 as a six, whereas it was now between a seven and eight. At the time of this hearing, appellant was fifty-five years old. The administrative law judge found appellant to be entitled to an additional thirty-percent wage loss. Appellee appealed, and the Commission reversed in a January 13, 2005 opinion, which is the opinion we consider in the present appeal.
The Commission found in a two-to-one vote that appellant’s claim for permanent and total disability from this work injury was barred by res judicata; and further that even if res judicata did not bar the claim, there were no objective diagnostic studies to show a change in his physical condition since being released from care. The Commission specifically recognized that it was applying pre-1993 Act law to his claim. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, arguing that this more recent claim was not barred by res *146judicata if his physical condition changed; that he was not required to show change by “objective” findings; that even so, he showed objective findings of change; and that even if he had not, he fell within the odd-lot doctrine. Appellant asks that the case be remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal standards. We agree that the Commission erred by declaring his additional claim barred by res judicata and further that the Commission erred as a matter of law when it required objective findings to support a change in physical condition relative to his wage-loss claim. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a reconsideration of appellant’s claim applying the correct law.
The Commission first erred in declaring this claim for additional benefits, particularly permanent and total disability, barred by res judicata. Res judicata can and does apply to workers’ compensation cases if the merits of the issue have already been subject to a full and fair hearing. See Beliew v. Stuttgart Rice Mill, 64 Ark. App. 334, 987 S.W.2d 281 (1998); Perry v. Leisure Lodges, 19 Ark. App. 143, 718 S.W.2d 114 (1986). See also Castleberry v. Elite Lamp Co., 69 Ark. App. 359, 13 S.W.3d 211 (2000); Harvest Foods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996); Tuberville v. International Paper Co., 18 Ark. App. 210, 711 S.W.2d 840 (1986). Res judicata bars relitigation of that determination unless there is evidence of change following the previous order. See Cariker v. Ozark Opportunities, 65 Ark. App. 60, 987 S.W.2d 736 (1999); Tuberville v. International Paper Co., supra. Certainly, res judicata could apply where conditions have not changed. However, the adjudication that was res judicata in the case at bar was that appellant’s condition as of March 1997 entitled him to no more and no less than twenty percent wage-loss disability benefits. See Tuberville, supra. The Commission erred when it stated that appellant’s claim for increased permanent disability benefits in 2003 was barred by res judicata, because his claim was based upon changes in his condition post-1997.
More importantly, the Commission proceeded to then analyze the claim, despite its having concluded that the claim was barred. Although the Commission initially articulated that appellant had not shown a change in physical condition, the Commission’s discussion of the issue clearly demonstrates that the Commission imposed on appellant the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there was “objective” evidence of physical change. It distinguished Tuberville, supra, because *147in that case there was “documented” increased physical impairment. The Commission erred because had appellant proved entitlement to an additional impairment rating, then certainly objective evidence of such a change would have been necessary. See Ark. Code Ann. § ll-9-704(c)(l) (Supp. 1991). This is so because a permanent impairment is usually a medically recognized condition or injury. The Commission opinions that it cited to as authority for the proposition for requiring objective diagnostic testing related to permanent physical impairments. This is inapplicable when the issue is wage-loss disability.
Former awards may be modified by the Commission in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-713(a) (2) upon a “change in physical condition.” See Southern Wooden Box Company v. Smith, 5 Ark. App. 15, 631 S.W.2d 620 (1982). The statute itself does not require “objective” proof of such change, and more to the point, wage-loss disability takes into account a myriad of factors, including age and the effects of aging, which can impose a physical change. See Tuberville, supra.
This is made more apparent because the legislature specifically overruled Tuberville by enacting in 1993 section 11 — 9— 713(e), which provides that:
Aging and the effects of aging on a compensable injury are not to be considered in determining whether there has been a change in physical condition. Nor shall aging or the effects of aging on a compensable injury be considered in determining permanent disability pursuant to this section or any other section in this chapter. The purpose and intent of this section is to annul any and all case law inconsistent herewith, including International Paper Co. v. Tuberville, 302 Ark. 22, 786 S.W.2d 830 (1990).
Before this change in the law, aging and the effects of aging were valid considerations in the determination of whether there had been a change in physical condition. We remand to the Commission for it to reconsider whether appellant demonstrated a change in physical condition that would support his claim for additional wage-loss disability, specifically including consideration of the fact that he aged six years between his claims and the effects of that aging. We also direct the Commission to consider, if appellant does not qualify for additional wage-loss disability under the proper analysis, whether appellant falls within the odd-lot doctrine, because it failed to render *148findings on that issue. Until the General Assembly abolished the odd-lot doctrine by Act 796 of 1993, Arkansas had long recognized that one need not be utterly and abjectly helpless to be deemed totally disabled. Rather, our decisions hold that the odd-lot doctrine refers to employees who are able to work only a small amount; the fact that they can work some does not preclude them from being considered totally disabled if their overall job prospects are negligible. See M.M. Cohn v. Haile, 267 Ark. 734, 589 S.W.2d 600 (Ark. App.1979). When the overall evidence places a worker prima facie within the odd-lot category, the employer bears the burden of proving the existence of suitable work that is regularly and continuously available to the worker. See Walker Logging v. Paschal, 36 Ark. App. 247, 821 S.W.2d 786 (1992). See also M.M. Cohn, supra. Because of appellant’s total and permanent disability claim, appellee was on notice that the odd-lot doctrine was at issue. Walker Logging v. Paschal, supra. See also Patterson v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health, 70 Ark. App. 182, 15 S.W.3d 701 (2000); Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark. App. 162, 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999); Moser v. Arkansas Lime Co., 40 Ark. App. 108, 842 S.W.2d 456 (1992).
The Commission’s decision is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Glover, Neal, Vaught, Baker, and Roaf, JJ., agree.
Bird, Griffen, and Crabtree, JJ., dissent.