CLAIM NO. E201957
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED OCTOBER 25, 1994
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by ZACHARY TAYLOR, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by JOSEPH E. KILPATRICK and MARIAN T. HOPKINS, Attorneys at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on May 11, 1993 finding that claimant has proven by the preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained a work-related injury on January 19, 1992 and that she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 19, 1992 through July 5, 1992.
(1970). In determining whether the claimant has sustained her burden of proof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party. A.C.A. § 11-9-704 (c)(4), Wade v. Mr. CCavenaugh’s, 298 Ark. 363, 768 S.W.2d 521 (1989), and Fowlerv. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 663 (1987). [6] Claimant is a 21 year old high school graduate with one year of college. She has been employed by respondent for approximately two years and eleven months at the time of the alleged accident. Also, at the time of the alleged slip and fall claimant was approximately six months pregnant with her second child. Prior to this incident she had been suspended without pay being accused of improper/dishonest conduct involving a sale of donuts to her brother. A hearing was held and claimant was exonerated in the wrong doing and received her back pay. [7] Claimant maintains on January 19, 1992 she slipped and fell at work. No one saw claimant fall. The primary evidence that a slip and fall occurred is claimant’s self-serving uncorroborated testimony. In our opinion, claimant’s testimony does not merit much weight. Claimant’s description of the incident is implausible. Claimant maintains she went into a freezer and pushed out a cake rack that is approximately six feet tall. She testified that she was pushing the rack forward and fell backwards.
Additionally, claimant maintained she had her hands on the side of the rack but was not holding onto the rack as she pushed. There also appears to be some discrepancy as towhere claimant was when she fell. Claimant maintained she was a little ways out of the freezer whereas other witnesses maintained claimant was approximately ten to fifteen feet away from the freezer. Claimant’s credibility is further diminished by the abundance of testimony offered that she was dissatisfied with her employment. Ms. Martha Moltz, claimant’s co-employee, testified claimant was dissatisfied with her work. Ms. Monica Brown also testified it was her impression that claimant was not happy with her employment position. Claimant also testified she was angry at respondent for suspending her for marking down prices for donuts. Claimant’s credibility is further diminished with the testimony of Ms. Monica Brown. Ms. Monica Brown is claimant’s sister-in-law and not an employee of respondent. Ms. Brown testified on at least two occasions she and claimant had a conversation about claimant’s plan to slip and fall at respondent’s. In our opinion, the preponderance of the credible evidence indicates that claimant engaged in intentional conduct to create a workers’ compensation injury. Therefore, we reverse the determination of the Administrative Law Judge. [8] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner GARY R. SHELTON, Special Commissioner