CLAIM NO. E517085
WILLIAM BOATMAN, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. CRAIN CONSTRUCTION CO., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and WAUSAU INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED APRIL 30, 1997
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE KENNETH E. BUCKNER, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL P. VANDERFORD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] The claimant alleged that he developed a blood clot in his left shoulder as a result of a job-related activity. The administrative law judge found that the claim was compensable and the respondents have appealed that decision. For the reasons below, we find that the administrative law judge’s decision must be reversed.
[3] The claimant in this case was employed as a construction worker by the respondents. The claimant testified that at the time of his alleged injury, he had been employed with this company for approximately ten years. The claimant testified that during October of 1995, a knot developed underneath his right arm. It was later determined that the knot was caused by a swollen lymph node. The knot continued to swell and eventually he began to suffer significant pain when moving his arm. By early November of 1995, his arm had begun to swell and become increasingly painful. In repeated visits to an emergency room, the claimant was treated with antibiotics and released. In the emergency room visit on November 12, 1995, it was determined that the claimant was in fact suffering from a blood clot (deep vein thrombosis) in his right shoulder. The claimant was admitted to the hospital and treatment was initiated for this condition. The course of treatment was successful and the claimant’s condition eventually resolved. The claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Kim Garner, opined that the claimant was released to return to work as of November 29, 1995.
[4] In her deposition, Dr. Garner stated that the most common cause of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is a traumatic blow or similar injury. Dr. Garner also mentioned that a DVT is commonly caused by surgeries, and prolonged periods of inactivity. Dr. Garner further stated in her deposition that the claimant’s job related activities immediately preceding the development of the DVT could have caused microtraumas in the blood vessels flowing through the claimant’s shoulder. These microtraumas could, in her opinion, eventually have resulted in the development of the claimant’s DVT.
[5] The claimant admitted during the hearing that he had not received any traumatic blow or similar injuries in the time preceding the onset of his symptoms. Also, he had not undergone surgery or in any other way damaged any part of his circulatory system. However, the claimant did testify that in the days preceding the development of the knot under his arm, he had been working with a jackhammer and a pick ax. Dr. Garner opined that the claimant’s use of these implements could have caused the microtraumas referred to above which could have then resulted in the development of the claimant’s DVT. However, it is significant to note that the claimant testified that he had been performing similar job related functions for most of his employment with the respondents. However, this was the first time the claimant had suffered any of these symptoms or problems.
[6] Our review of the record does not reveal any basis for finding that the claimant’s condition is compensable. While the claimant was suffering from a circulatory problem in his shoulder and arm, he did not develop any persuasive evidence showing that his employment did in fact cause this condition. In her deposition, Dr. Garner stated that she was of the opinion that the most likely cause of the claimant’s condition was his use of the pick and the jackhammer. However, she did admit that this conclusion was based upon her belief that those types of heavy activities could eventually result in a DVT, and that the claimant’s condition developed shortly after he had performed these activities through his employment. On the other hand, Dr. Garner also admitted that there are many other causes of DVT’s and on occasion those causes cannot be determined. The doctor also stated that there was evidence to the effect that the swollen lymph nodes experienced by the claimant under his arm could have caused the blockage in the vein that resulted in the blood clot. We find that the doctor’s opinion is not stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Her opinion is little more than speculation based upon the fact that there was no other identifiable cause of the claimant’s condition.
[7] Even if Dr. Garner’s opinion is considered, the most that can be drawn from her conclusions is that it ispossible that the claimant’s condition was caused by his employment. However, the burden is on the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury did arise out of the course of his employment. A showing that employment related activities could have caused an injury is simply not sufficient to meet the claimant’s burden of proof. We find that the claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his condition was caused by an employment related activity. For that reason, this claim is denied and dismissed.
[8] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[9] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
