CLAIM NO. E711067
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED MARCH 25, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL HAMBY, Attorney at Law, Greenwood, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE CLARK BREWSTER, Attorney at Law, Bryant, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER[2] The respondent appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed June 10, 1998. The administrative law judge found that the claimant has proven that he sustained a work-related injury in the form of carpal tunnel syndrome while working for the respondent. The administrative law judge found that the respondent should pay temporary total disability and the cost of all medical treatment for the claimant’s bilateral carpal tunnel injury. After reviewing the entire record de novo, we find that the claimant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his carpal tunnel syndrome condition arose out of his employment with the respondent. We thus reverse the decision of the administrative law judge. [3] The claimant, age 42, became employed with AAA U-Rent-It on September 19, 1996. The claimant testified that his various work duties included delivering and unloading construction and homeowners’ equipment. He also washed the machinery and equipment with a pressure washer on a daily basis. The claimant testified that the pressure washer delivered 3,500 pounds of pressure, and that he held the nozzle. The claimant testified that he could not hold the pressure washer in one hand — “I had to switch it back and forth.” In addition, the claimant delivered and set up tents, tables, and chairs. The claimant testified that he began experiencing physical problems in approximately July, 1997:
[4] The claimant presented to Preferred Medical Care, Holt-Krock Clinic, on August 18, 1997, complaining of tightness in his right shoulder, aching in both his arms and hands, and numbness in his hands. The claimant told Dr. Lamar Kyle that he felt numbness in his hands upon bending and flexing his arms at the elbows. Dr. Kyle noted that past diagnoses included hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and anxiety. Dr. Kyle noted some slight edema of the fingers of both hands. On August 22, 1997, Dr. Kyle assessed:My hands started going numb, my arms were hurting up to my elbows, I couldn’t sleep at night, and I had never had that problem before, ever, never been to a doctor, never had any problems of any other job or anything like that.
The claimant testified that he initially did not know the cause of these problems.
1. No evidence of rheumatologic disorder noted.
2. No evidence of circulatory disturbance.
3. Possible peripheral neuropathy.
4. Hypertension not well controlled.
[5] On August 28, 1997, EMG-NCV testing gave Dr. James Barry the impression of severe carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral. The claimant presented to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. James Long, on September 3, 1997:[6] Dr. Long performed a right carpal tunnel release on September 4, 1997. Dr. Long noted “a distinct flattening of the median nerve visible after the transverse carpal ligament had been released.” Dr. Long performed a left carpal tunnel release on September 30, 1997. At surgery, Dr. Long found a slight flattening of the median nerve. On December 9, 1997, Dr. Long reported that, overall, the claimant’s preoperative carpal tunnel symptoms had been fully relieved bilaterally. Dr. Long released the claimant from his care, noting that the claimant had returned to work. [7] The administrative law judge found that the claimant has proven that he sustained a compensable gradual-onset type injury in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved that his injury arose out of and in the course of claimant’s employment, that there are objective medical findings, and that the claimant’s injury is the major cause of his disability or need for treatment. The administrative law judge further found that the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from September 3, 1997 through November 7, 1997. The respondent appeals to the Full Commission. [8] The claimant contends that he sustained a work-related gradual onset of carpal tunnel syndrome. Therefore, the claimant is not required, pursuant to Act 796 of 1993, to establish that his work duties required rapid repetitive motion in order to establish compensability of his alleged injury. Kildow v.Baldwin Piano Organ, 333 Ark. 335, 969 S.W.2d 190 (1998). However, the claimant must satisfy the following statutory requirements: [9] (1) proof by a preponderance of the evidence of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (see, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (5)(A)(ii) (Supp. 1997); Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(E)(ii) (Supp. 1997);see also, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-401(a)(1) (Repl. 1996); [10] (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury caused internal or external physical harm to the body (see, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(A)(ii) (Supp. 1997); [11] (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16), establishing the injury (see, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(D) (Supp. 1997); [12] (4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was the major cause of the disability or need for medical treatment (see, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(E) (ii) (Supp. 1997).This is the initial office visit for this 40 year old male complaining of numbness and tinlging (sic) in both hands. He has symptoms bilaterally and has had for many months. He thinks he may have had it for over a year but it has only gotten severe recently. He has reached a point that his activities are compromised by his hands feeling tight and beefy. He has aching pain at night that wakes him up, requiring him to get up and shake his hands. He has not been using any splints. He has developed numbness in the median distribution. It is more severe on the right than the left but both are about the same. He has never had any injury involving the wrists and hands. He does a lot of heavy lifting at work doing heavy equipment operation and carrying materials.
The patient was seen by Dr. Kyle and was sent for NCV which shows him to have bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.
[13] In the within matter, we note that the claimant’s work was hand-intensive at times, but the record shows that his work duties varied. The claimant occasionally used a high-pressure washer to clean equipment, and he worked with a jackhammer to install tents. He helped set up tables and chairs, sometimes on a high-volume basis, but there were always co-workers to assist. The owner of the company credibly testified that the claimant’s work was “a very interruptive type job, it is nothing set as a consistent basis.” [14] Significantly, although the claimant testified at the hearing that his hand problems began in approximately July of 1997, the initial medical history that the claimant gave to Dr. Long on September 3, 1997, indicates that his hand symptoms had existed for over one year (i.e. since beforeIf the claimant fails to establish any of these requirements, he fails to establish compensability of the claim. We must then deny compensation. Jerry D. Reed v. Con Agra Frozen Foods, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, opinion filed Feb. 2, 1995 (E317744).
the date the claimant even became employed by the respondent). We find that Dr. Long’s report is entitled to significantly greater weight than the claimant’s hearing testimony on the issue as to when the claimant’s hand problems started, and based on the history taken by Dr. Long, we find that the greater weight of the credible evidence establishes that the claimant’s hand problem preexisted his employment with the respondent. [15] Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review, we find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that his carpal tunnel condition arose out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent. We therefore also find that the claimant failed to prove that a work-related injury was the major cause of his disability and need for medical treatment. Accordingly, we reverse the administrative law judge’s finding that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and is entitled to temporary disability and medical benefits. We hereby deny and dismiss this claim. [16] IT IS SO ORDERED. [17] ________________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
________________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[18] Commissioner Humphrey dissents. DISSENTING OPINION
[19] I must respectfully dissent from the determination of the majority that claimant failed to demonstrate that he developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his employment with respondents. In my opinion, claimant has met his burden of proof.