HALEY v. SUPERIOR MOTOR EXCHANGE, 1996 AWCC 39

CLAIM NO. E402087

PHILLIP L. HALEY, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. SUPERIOR MOTOR EXCHANGE, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT ST. PAUL FIRE MARINE INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 9, 1996

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE HAL DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE DIANE GRAHAM, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, 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 August 15, 1994. In that opinion and order, the administrative law judge found that the claimant sustained a compensable injury. After conducting a de novo review of the entire record, we find that the claimant failed to satisfy the requirements necessary to establish the compensability of his carpal tunnel syndrome.

[3] The claimant was employed by the respondent employer to do valve jobs on motors that were being rebuilt. According to his testimony, his left hand began hurting on February 7, 1994, after he had been at work for about two hours. In addition, he noticed a problem with his right hand two to three days later. He was at home at the time attempting to lift a coffee cup. The claimant also testified that he had been experiencing problems with weakness in his hands for a period of time prior to February 7, 1994. [4] He was first treated by Dr. R. A. Dotson, an osteopath. After examining the claimant, Dr. Dotson suspected carpal tunnel syndrome, and his diagnosis was confirmed by electrodiagnostic testing. Consequently, Dr. Dotson referred the claimant to Dr. Cole Goodman, a plastic surgeon. Dr. Goodman concurred in the diagnosis of Dr. Dotson, and he recommended surgery. However, surgery has not been performed due to the respondents’ controversion of this claim. [5] Since the claimant contends that he sustained an injury after July 1, 1993, this claim is controlled by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law as amended by Act 796 of 1993. Consequently, to establish the compensability of the claim, the claimant must satisfy the requirements for establishing one of the five categories of compensable injuries recognized by the amended law, including the requirements common to all categories of injuries. See, Jerry D. Reed v. Con Agra Frozen Foods, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, opinion filed Feb. 2, 1995 (Claim No. E317744). In the present claim, the claimant does not contend that his injury was caused by a specific incident and identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Instead, he contends that he sustained an injury as a result of repetitive motion. Consequently, the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102 (5)(A)(ii)(a) (Cumm. Supp. 1993) are controlling, and the following must be satisfied:

(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) (Cumm. Supp. 1993); Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (5)(E)(ii) (Cumm. Supp. 1993); see also, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-401 (a)(1) (Cumm. Supp. 1993));
(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) (Cumm. Supp. 1993));
(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) (Cumm. Supp. 1993));
(4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was caused by rapid repetitive motion (see, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (5)(A) (ii)(a) (Cumm. Supp. 1993));
(5) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was the major cause of the disability or need for treatment (see, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (5)(E)(ii) (Cumm. Supp. 1993)).

[6] If the employee fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any of the requirements for establishing the compensability of the injury alleged, he fails to establish the compensability of the claim, and compensation must be denied.Reed, supra. [7] In the present claim, we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was caused by rapid repetitive motion. This Commission addressed this requirement in Richard Throckmorton v. J J Metals, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Aug. 14, 1995 (Claim No. E405318) In Throckmorton, we noted that the Act does not establish any guidelines with regard to the extent of motion necessary to satisfy the requirement of “rapid motion” or with regard to the nature of the motion necessary to satisfy the requirement of “repetitive motion.” However, we noted that the term “rapid” is commonly used to refer to that which is marked by a notably high rate of motion, activity, succession, or occurrence, requiring notably little time, and without delay or hesitation. See, Webster’s Third New Unabridged InternationalDictionary, (1986). We also noted that the term “repetitive” is commonly used to the act of doing the exact same thing again and again. Id. Thus, we found that the requirement that the condition be caused by rapid repetitive motion requires proof that the claimant’s employment duties involved, at least in part, a notably high rate of activity involving the exact, or almost exactly, the same movement again and again over extended periods of time. We also noted in Throckmorton that the determination of whether a certain employment duty satisfies the statutory requirement for rapid repetitive motion is a fact question which must be decided based on the evidence presented in each case. Furthermore, we pointed out that the statute does not require proof that the employee’s duties involved rapid repetitive motion for the entire duration of employee’s shift or that he engaged in such activities every day. However, we noted that the evidence must show a causal relationship between the disabling condition and employment related activity satisfying the statutory requirement of rapid repetitive motion. [8] In the present claim, the claimant described his employment activities as follows:

Q. Okay. Just tell the Judge in detail what your work involved, what did you do from the very beginning to the very end of the valve job?
A. Well, they would bring me a head; they would bring me a bunch of heads, and they would stack them on the floor and I would have to grab the head and throw it up on the bench. This head is approximately this long (indicating), and it has got a bunch of springs on one side of it. You take a hammer and you hit those springs; pop the keepers loose; then you have got a deal that squeezes the spring. You have got to reach over there after you squeeze it and take the little keepers off, which the keeper is about this tall (indicating), about the size of a pencil around. You take them off and put them in a box, then you pull all of the springs off, then you take a hammer and pop all the valves back; you take all those out and put them in a box. Then, when you get everything off of this head, you turn it up; you take a little wire brush on an air drill and you clean everything real good; you take this big, heavy grinder with a brush on it, and you clean the head real good, then you take — there is two magnets struck together and you have got this test powder. You spray this test powder on it this way and then you turn the magnet this way and you dust it this way and that’s to find cracks. If there is any cracks in it, you mark it and you set it back down with all the stuff. If it is not, then you take this head and you take it over to this big machine which is about this long (indicating); you throw it in there and it is called a sandblaster, actually; there is sand going through there and it cleans the head real well, then you have got to turn this head over and over in there to get it real good and clean. You have got to turn it up this way and you have got to blow all the sand back out as much as possible. When you get that done, you take it over to the other bench, blow the sand out of it again. You take a good valve with a good stem on it and you stick it down through each hole where the valves went and you have to wallow that back and forth. If the guide is loose, then you have to repair the guide. If it is real bad, then you have to put a new guide in it. If it is loose, you have got this drill with a speed reducer on it; it has got a handle on it that you hold and you run this drill down through every one of these loose guides. Then you take that — you have a reamer which resizes that knurl. What you are doing with that knurl is tightening the hole up and then you take it and go down through that hole and resize that hole. Sometimes if you get one that is too tight that the drill will kick and bind on you; it will hurt you. It is not a real big drill, but it can hurt, so you do all those; and then when you get that done, take a little wire brush with solvent on it and you wash every one of these holes out real good and you blow it back out and you take new valves and stick down there and check that thing again. Okay; when that is done, you get a pilot and you stick in this hole; you have got a mandrel with a grinding stone on it and you have got an air seat grinder you stick down on here like this and you pull the trigger and you regrind the seat where the valve goes, and then you go and do all those, clean it all back off again. Then, you take all the valves that come to it and you take a wire brush on a big grinder; it turns over here and you have to manually turn these valves and get all that carbon off of them. When you get that all off, it goes over here to the sandblaster and then you sandblast those good and clean, and then you take them and wash them off and put them in this grinding machine and you put it in this valve grinding machine and you reface the valve. You take and you get that refaced, you have all your springs down there in the solvent, you wash all these valves off, then you dry them off and you start sticking them back down in these holes. Then, you have got to take this thing and squeeze the spring again, put those little keepers on there and get them all back on there. When you get that done, you set it over here and then you put it on the surface machine and you surface the head, and that’s what it consists of on a regular V-8 Chevrolet head or it is 75 per cent. Now, your little import heads are a pain because they are real — I mean, the springs are stuck up in little round holes and they are really a pain to get to; there is nothing easy about them; some of them take half a day to do just to put the springs on.

[9] While this description indicates that the claimant’s duties involved hand intensive labor, it also shows that the job did not involve the exact, or almost exactly, the same movement again and again. Instead, the description indicates that over thirty different steps were involved in performing the job, and there is no indication that the different steps involve the same movement again and again for prolonged periods of time. Therefore, we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by rapid repetitive motion. [10] Accordingly, based on our de novo review of the entire record, and for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the claimant failed to satisfy requirements necessary to establish a compensable injury. Therefore, we find that the administrative law judge’s decision must be reversed. This claim is hereby denied and dismissed. [11] IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner

[12] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.

[13] DISSENTING OPINION
[14] I must respectfully dissent from the finding of the majority that claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome is not causally related to his employment.

[15] It appears that the sole reason this claim has been denied is the overly narrow definition of “repetitive” to require “activity involving the exact, or almost exactly, the same movement again and again over extended periods of time.” There is no requirement in the statute that the activity involve the exact movement again and again. In my opinion, the Commission must examine the nature and cause of each particular condition on a case by case basis, rather than applying such a narrow definition to all conditions. [16] Carpal tunnel syndrome “can be precipitated by activities which require repeated flexion, pronation, and supination of the wrist. . . .” Harris, Principles of Internal Medicine 1487 (12th ed. 1991). Additionally, carpal tunnel syndrome may be related to “any activity requiring exertion of the wrist.” Rakel, Textbookof Family Practice, 1483 (4th ed. 1990). [17] Respondent and even the majority acknowledge that the evidence “indicates that the claimant’s duties involved hand intensive labor. . . .” In my opinion, claimant must prove that his employment involved repetitive, hand-intensive activities, not a repetition of the “exact same” activity. Therefore, claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his carpal tunnel syndrome is causally related to the employment. [18] For the foregoing reasons, I dissent. [19] PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner