CLAIM NO. E014019
CATHY WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. ST. VINCENT INFIRMARY, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 28, 1994
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by JAMES L. TRIPCONY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by JOHN W. FINK, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission on appeal by claimant from an opinion filed herein by an Administrative Law Judge on May 4, 1994.
[3] After carefully conducting a de novo review of the entire record, we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that any incidence which might have occurred in February of 1991 resulted in an injury to her right wrist which is supported by objective and measurable findings. Thus, we find that claimant is not entitled to medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits related to a wrist injury. We reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge finding that respondent is liable for replacement cost of claimant’s dentures which were lost by the hospital staff. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[4] Claimant sustained a compensable back injury on July 12, 1990. The healing period for the back injury ended on December 5, 1991. Claimant was assigned a 10% permanent anatomical impairment rating to the body as a whole. Respondent has accepted and paid all benefits to which claimant is entitled. Claimant presently contends that during February of 1991, she sustained an injury to her right wrist which is rested to her compensable back injury. Furthermore, she contends she is entitled to the replacement of a set of dentures which was lost while she was in the hospital for her back surgery. Respondent contends that claimant’s right wrist injury is not a compensable consequence of her initial back injury. She did not sustain any wrist injury which is support by objective medical findings. Additionally, respondent contends the claimant is not entitled to compensation for her dentures which were lost by the hospital staff. A hearing was held and an Administrative Law Judge found that claimant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained a right wrist injury which is supported by objective findings or that it is causally related to her work-related injury. Additionally, the Administrative Law Judge found that respondent is liable for replacement cost of the dentures. It is from this decision that claimant has appealed and respondent has cross-appealed.
[5] A review of the evidence indicates that there is insufficient objective medical evidence to establish that claimant suffered a right wrist injury. Claimant first sought medical treatment for an alleged right wrist injury at St. Vincent’s Medical Center emergency room five days after the alleged incident occurred. Claimant testified that the doctor in the emergency room “didn’t x-ray it, or anything; he just looked at it and told me to hit it with a Bible, and it would go down.” Claimant apparently brought her wrist to the attention of Dr. Ron Williams in March of 1991. At that time, Dr. Williams took x-rays which were normal. Additionally, on September 5, 1991, claimant had an MRI of the right wrist. At that time, only osteoarthritic changes were found in the wrist. Nerve conduction studies were performed in February 1991 which were normal. Dr. Williams testified that the only way to tell whether the arthritis in claimant’s right wrist was caused by a fall would be for a radiologist to testify. There was no testimony offered as such. Additionally, no one witnessed the alleged slip and fall. Therefore, we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained an injury to her right wrist which is a compensable consequence of her back injury or an injury that is supported by objective and measurable findings. Therefore, we affirm this portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
[6] Claimant also contends that respondent should pay for her lost dentures. The hospital staff lost claimant’s dentures. Claimant had her dentures out on her sheets in her bed while she was in the hospital. As she was being served coffee, the coffee was spilled on her sheets. A hospital employee grabbed the sheets to keep the coffee from burning claimant and took the dirty sheets out of the room. Apparently, the hospital staff lost or threw away claimant’s dentures. We do not find that this is a compensable loss. As a general rule, in absence of a statute, an injury to a prosthetic devise is not compensable. Clark, Broadman, Callahan Modern Workers’ Compensation, § 108.12. If an injury to a prosthetic devise is not compensable, it follows that accidental loss of such a device also should not be compensable.
[7] To hold respondent responsible for claimant’s dentures would be to set a dangerous precedent. What if during her hospitalization claimant had parked her car in the parking deck and it was stolen. Should respondent be responsible under workers’ compensation? What if, while claimant was in the hospital, the water pipes in her home burst? Should respondent be responsible for the damage? Claimant’s recourse for the loss of dentures is in civil court. Therefore, we reverse this portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
[8] Thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
[9] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner
[10] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
