CLAIM NO. E517843
FRANCIS WOLFORD, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. TOWNSENDS OF ARKANSAS, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED APRIL 23, 1997
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE LORIANE PICKELL, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE RICHARD LUSBY, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] The administrative law judge entered an opinion dated October 22, 1996, denying the claimant’s claim for benefits. The claimant appealed that decision.
[3] The claimant alleged a job-related injury occurring on November 30, 1995. The claimant testified that at the time of the injury, she was employed at the respondents’ poultry processing operation in Batesville, Arkansas. The claimant testified that she was injured as a result of being bumped by a co-employee pushing a cart of chicken meat. The claimant stated that at the time of the bumping incident, she was standing on a small platform approximately two foot by three foot. The claimant described her injury as having occurred when the cart bumped her platform, causing her to momentarily lose her balance. The claimant stated she did not fall, but that while attempting to regain her balance, she felt a pull in her back. The claimant further stated that she did not notify the respondent of her injury until a few days later when she asked them to send her to a doctor. When the respondents refused to provide medical treatment for her, the claimant visited the emergency room at White River Medical Center in Batesville, Arkansas.
[4] The claimant was diagnosed as having a herniated disc at L5-S1. However, after an epidural steroid treatment, the claimant’s symptoms resolved enough so that she was able to return to work. The claimant contends that as a result of the injury described above, she is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical benefits, temporary total disability benefits from December 4, 1995 through February 1996, and attorney’s fees.
[5] The respondents contend that the bumping incident described by the claimant did not occur or, if it did, the claimant’s disc condition was not the result of the incident described by the claimant. In support of that contention, the respondent called as witnesses two co-workers of the claimant who operated the push carts. Both witnesses testified that because of the narrow confines of the area where the claimant worked, they frequently bumped the platforms upon which the claimant and other employees stood. However, these bumps were described as being very minor in nature and not of sufficient force to cause a person to lose their balance or to fall. The respondents also called as a witness, Susan Scott, who testified that she overheard a conversation between the claimant and another employee of the respondents in which the claimant indicated that she was suffering from a long-term back problem that she intended to rely upon of obtain benefits from the employer.
[6] The administrative law judge held that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof regarding the compensability of her injury. Accordingly, he denied and dismissed her claim.
[7] While the bumping incident described by the claimant is certainly plausible, we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that her injury resulted from this incident. In this regard, when the claimant visited the emergency room on December 4, 1995, the emergency room staff noted that her back had been hurting for one month. We also note that the testimony indicates that the claimant had suffered previous back injuries while employed at a nursing home. The claimant also appeared to have given inconsistent statements to her doctors and other persons regarding her condition. The claimant attempted to explain these inconsistencies by stating that she had been misunderstood. In our opinion, the claimant is not a credible witness.
[8] Even if the claimant’s description of the bumping incident is accepted as accurate, we still find that the claimant is not entitled to benefits. The testimony established that the occasional bumps that line workers received from the push carts were very minor in nature. The type of incident alleged by the claimant does not appear to be consistent with the type of injury she suffered. While it is clearly established that the claimant did have a disc herniation, in order to prevail in this claim, she must still establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a causal connection between this disc herniation and her alleged job-related injury. When the claimant’s inconsistent statements regarding the onset of her symptomology are considered, along with the lack of medical evidence connecting the disc herniation and the claimant’s alleged injury is considered, it is obvious that the claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof.
[9] Therefore, after conducting a de novo review of the entire record, and for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained a compensable injury. Consequently, we find that the decision of the administrative law judge must be, and hereby is, affirmed.
[10] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[11] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
