 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences v. Mize2/6/2002
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
The appellants, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) and Public Employee Claims Division, appeal from an order of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that found the appellee, Kathie Mize, sustained a compensable injury on January 29, 1998. On appeal, appellants argue that the Commission erred in finding appellee's injury compensable as appellee did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury arose out of and in the course of employment. We find no error and affirm.
Appellee is employed by appellant, UAMS, as a clinical manager and staff nurse, who has responsibilities for pre-operation and recovery-room patients. On January 28, 1998, claimant left a patient to walk over to a computer to check on laboratory data. As she was walking down the hallway, another nurse called her name. Appellee turned to respond, her right foot moved, but her left foot remained planted. Her left knee popped and hyper-extended. Appellee is not sure why her left foot remained planted as she attempted to turn around. Appellee was diagnosed with a medial meniscus tear in her left knee. This damage to her knee was secondary to the traumatic incident at work. Appellee underwent surgery on February 6, 1998, for her medial meniscal tear. After recovery from surgery, appellee received a fifteen-percent impairment rating.
Appellants controverted appellee's claim for benefits for the injury and contended that the injury was not shown to be work-related, but was idiopathic in nature; i.e. it arose out of an internal condition personal to appellee. On November 18, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an opinion denying appellee's claim. The Commission, by opinion dated May 12, 2000, remanded the case to the ALJ for further review. On September 26, 2000, the ALJ issued an opinion again finding that appellee had failed to prove a compensable injury. On May 17, 2001, the Commission entered an order reversing the ALJ and finding that appellee had met her burden of proving a work-related injury. From that order, appellants bring this appeal.
When reviewing a decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Clark v. Peabody Testing Serv., 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Crossett Sch. Dist. v. Fulton, 65 Ark. App. 63, 984 S.W.2d 833 (1999). The issue is not whether this court might have reached a different result from the Commission. Malone v. Texarkana Pub. Schs., 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998). If reasonable minds could reach the result found by the Commission, we must affirm the decision. Bradley v. Alumax, 50 Ark. App. 13, 899 S.W.2d 850 (1995).
Appellants argue that there was insufficient evidence to prove that appellee's injuries were compensable. A "compensable injury" is one "arising out of and in the course of employment . . . ." Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2001). "Arising out of the employment" refers to the origin of the accident, while "in the course of employment" refers to the time, place, and circumstances. Little Rock Conv. and Visitors Bureau v. Pack, 60 Ark. App. 82, 959 S.W.2d 415 (1997). Thus, in order to prove a compensable injury appellee must prove, among other things, a causal relationship between the injury and the employment. McMillan v. U.S. Motors, 59 Ark. App. 85, 953 S.W.2d 907 (1997).
Appellants argue that there wa
Page 1 2 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|