CLAIM NO. E307559
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JULY 25, 1994
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by ROBERT BLATT, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by CONSTANCE CLARK, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, 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 October 29, 1993 in which she found that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained a work-related injury on or about April 23, 1993.
(1989); and Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 663 (1987). [6] A review of the credible evidence indicates that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury. Rather, a review of the evidence shows that claimant, who had a history of back problems, went to the hospital of her choice to receive treatment when her back acted up. From there, she was referred to her family physician who told her to have her medical expenses paid for through workers’ compensation because Medicaid would not cover the treatment. Claimant had worked for respondent on the “pick table” which requires minimal exertion. On or about April 23, 1993, claimant was moved to the “assembly line” which processed spinach. In this position, claimant had to exert effort by pushing spinach into a filler. Claimant testified that she injured her back and shoulder performing this activity. However, a review of the evidence does not support claimant’s contention. [7] Claimant testified that she asked Ms. Moore, her supervisor, if she could be returned to the “pick table” because her back was killing her. Ms. Moore testified that claimant never stated that her back was hurting her due to her position on the assembly line. Claimant further stated that she told Ms. Moore that she needed time off because she was going to the doctor to get her shoulder checked. Ms. Moore stated that claimant never told her that her shoulder hurt because of the assembly line position. Ms. Moore testified that claimant did not like working on the assembly line and liked her pick table job. However, Ms. Moore stated that claimant never asked to go back to the pick table due to back difficulties. [8] The medical records from Sparks Hospital, claimant’s place of choice, also do not support claimant’s contention. Although claimant maintains that she told the nurse at Sparks that she hurt herself at work, the records do not indicate such. Rather, the records indicate that claimant was complaining of chest and back pain. Also, the records reflect that claimant testified that she had a history of back problems. Furthermore, no one from Sparks called to verify claimant’s contention which is the usual procedure with the hospitals in the area that are treating workers’ compensation claims. The note from the emergency room dated April 25, 1993 merely indicates that the claimant was seen in the emergency room that date. There is no indication that claimant’s visit was due to a work-related injury. [9] Furthermore, a review of the evidence indicates that claimant was eventually seen by Dr. Darden, her primary treating physician. It appears that it was Dr. Darden who urged claimant to seek workers’ compensation noting that Medicaid would not pay for her prescription. This is documented in an April 30, 1993 report from Dr. Darden. Obviously, until Dr. Darden suggested that claimant turn this matter into workers’ compensation, claimant was not of the opinion her condition was a work-related injury. [10] A preponderance of the credible evidence does not support claimant’s contention. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. [11] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner
[12] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.