CLAIM NO. E616386
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JUNE 24, 1998
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE WILLIAM FRYE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE GAIL MATTHEWS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER[2] The respondents appeal an opinion and order filed by the administrative law judge on September 24, 1997. In that opinion and order, the administrative law judge found that the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome injuries as a result of her employment duties. After conducting a de novo review of the entire record, we find that the decision of the administrative law judge must be reversed. [3] Since the claimant asserts that she sustained a work-related gradual onset carpal tunnel syndrome injury that occurred after July 1, 1993, the claimant is not required under the provisions of Act 796 of 1993 to establish that her work duties involve rapid repetitive motion as an element of her claim. See Kildow v.Baldwin Piano Organ, 3 ___, Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (Opinion filed May 21, 1998). However, the claimant must still establish that her carpal tunnel syndrome injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, that a work-related injury is the major cause of the claimant’s disability or need for medical treatment, and the claimant must establish the compensable injury with objective medical findings. See Id. [4] In the present case, we find that the claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that her carpal tunnel syndrome arose out of and in the course of her employment with respondents, and we therefore find that the claimant failed to establish that a work-related injury was the major cause of her disability and need for medical treatment. In this regard, the record indicates that the claimant began work for the respondent Pulaski County Child Support on October 11, 1995, as a legal clerk. In June of 1996 the claimant was promoted to a position as a legal secretary. At the hearing, the claimant testified that after one month of working as a legal secretary, she began experiencing pain and numbness in her right hand. Claimant was initially seen by Dr. Mary Sain who referred the claimant to the Pain Center where the claimant came under the care of Dr. Reginald Rutherford. However, contrary to the claimant’s hearing testimony that her symptoms began approximately one month after she began working as a legal secretary in June of 1996, Dr. Rutherford’s February 6, 1996, letter submitted into the record indicates that he took a history from the claimant on that date of having a one year history of bilateral hand pain and numbness at that time. Moreover, Dr. Rutherford’s history of a one year history of bilateral hand pain and numbness in February of 1996 is highly significant on the issue as to whether or not the claimant sustained her injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with respondents, since at that time, the claimant had only been employed by the respondent for a period of approximatelyfour months. On the basis of the history which the claimant provided Dr. Rutherford, indicating that her bilateral hand pain and numbness preceded her employment with respondents by approximately eight months, we find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained her injury arising out of and during the course of her employment, and we therefore find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a work-related injury or the respondent is the major cause of the disability and need for medical treatment that she experienced beginning in February of 1996. [5] In reaching our decision, we note that the record contains an April 29, 1997, letter from Dr. Barnett (the claimant’s subsequent treating physician for her carpal tunnel syndrome) addressed to the claimant’s attorney indicating that Dr. Barnett felt that the claimant’s work duties, of repetitive filing, and specifically typing and writing, are the major cause of the claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome. However, we also note that Dr. Barnett has conceded that his medical opinion relies on the history which he was provided by the claimant and in light of Dr. Rutherford’s February 6, 1996, letter indicating that the claimant’s bilateral symptoms preexisted her work with respondents by a period of approximately eight months, we find that Dr. Barnett’s 1997 opinion is based on an inaccurate history which he was provided by the claimant. On that basis, we find that Dr. Barnett’s opinion in this case is entitled to essentially no weight. [6] Therefore, after conducting a de novo review of the entire record, and for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that her carpal tunnel syndrome injury arose out of and during the course of her employment with the respondents, and we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that a work-related injury was the major cause of her disability and need for medical treatment for her carpal tunnel syndrome problem. Therefore, we find that the decision of the administrative law judge must be, and hereby is, reversed. [7] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[8] Commissioner Humphrey dissents. [9] DISSENTING OPINION[10] I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding that claimant failed to prove that her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome arose out of and in the course of her employment with respondent, and that her employment was not the major cause of her disability or need for treatment. [11] Claimant was hired in October of 1995 by respondent employer as a legal clerk, and was promoted to the position of legal secretary in June of 1996. She stated that until she began working for respondent employer, she had never experienced problems with her wrists. She testified that her difficulties began after working as a legal clerk for one month. [12] In concluding that claimant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is unrelated to her work with respondent employer, the majority assigns great weight to a report prepared by Dr. Rutherford dated February 6, 1996. In his report, Dr. Rutherford stated that claimant provided a one-year history of bilateral hand symptoms. The majority points out that in February of 1995, claimant had not yet initiated her employment with respondent. Interestingly, the fact that claimant was unemployed for a ten month period prior to her employment with respondent is omitted. However, the majority does point out that claimant’s hearing testimony with respect to the origin of her symptoms contradicts Dr. Rutherford’s report. Nevertheless, her testimony is disregarded. Then, the majority finds that the opinion of Dr. Barnett is “entitled to essentially no weight” because “it is based on an inaccurate history which he was provided by the claimant.” I would point out that both medical reports rely on a patient history. However, no explanation is offered for finding that the patient history Dr. Rutherford recorded is accurate while the history claimant provided Dr. Barnett is not. In the absence of any basis for its credibility determination with respect to Drs. Rutherford and Barnett, I find it to be arbitrary. [13] It is my view that the opinion of Dr. Barnett is entitled to great weight. The history claimant recited to Dr. Barnett is consistent with her hearing testimony. As previously stated, it is not insignificant that claimant was unemployed when Dr. Rutherford reported that claimant’s symptoms initially manifested themselves. Dr. Barnett on more than one occasion has attributed claimant’s injury to her work. His comments are as follows:
[14] Claimant’s prior work experience apparently included little or no typing, and she began to develop symptoms after approximately a month on the job. Based on Dr. Barnett’s comments, and in the absence of any competing causes of claimant’s injury, I find that her work activity was the major cause of her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. [15] Based on the foregoing, I respectfully dissent. [16] PAT WEST HUMPHREY, CommissionerWe talked about carpal tunnel syndrome and indeed the fact that I believe this is aggravated by her work activity and is most likely related significantly to this. (Office Note of December 9, 1996).
First, I would state that activities, such as repetitive filing and specifically typing and writing are consistent with the development of carpal tunnel syndrome in my opinion. I also would state that in this patient’s case, as she relates her history, that I feel to a degree of medical certainty that this is the large part of her problem and the main contributing factor to the development of her carpal tunnel syndrome. (Letter of April 29, 1997, to claimant’s attorney.)