CLAIM NO. E505865
VIRGINIA VOYLES, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. LEGAL IMPRESSIONS, INC., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JULY 13, 1998
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE WILLIAM FRYE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1]
ORDER [2] This matter comes before the Full Commission on the claimant’s Motion for Reconsideration of an opinion and order filed May 13, 1998. In that opinion and order, the Full Commission found that the claimant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the major cause of her disability or need for medical treatment was her job related activity. After duly considering the claimant’s motion, the response of the respondents, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that we must deny the claimant’s motion. [3] In her motion, claimant incorrectly states that the Full Commission found that she failed to prove her work activity was “rapid” and “repetitive.” Claimant asks the Commission to reconsider its opinion in light of Lilly Kildow v. Baldwin PianoOrgan, 333 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (May 21, 1998). In Kildow, the Arkansas Supreme Court found that Ark. Code Ann. §
11-9-102(5)(A)(ii) (Supp. 1997) explicitly provides that carpal tunnel syndrome falls within the definition of rapid repetitive motion. The Court thus held that it is unnecessary to prove rapid repetitive motion when there is a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. [4] We find that the claimant’s reliance on Kildow in her motion is misplaced. In the within matter, the Full Commission found that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the major cause requirement of Arkansas Code Annotated §
11-9-102(5)(E)(ii). The Commission did not make a specific finding regarding rapid repetitive motion. Hence, the Court’s holding in Kildow does not affect the Commission’s decision regarding major cause. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the claimant’s Motion for Reconsideration
must be, and by means of this order is, denied. [5] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[6] Commissioner Humphrey concurs.