 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Childress v. Eagle Paper12/7/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Jerry Childress appeals an April 27, 2005, decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission that denied his claim for neck and back injuries. His sole point on appeal is that the Commission's denial of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. We hold that the Commission's decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of the claim; therefore, the decision is affirmed.
At a hearing conducted before the administrative law judge on February 17, 2004, Childress contended that he sustained compensable injuries to his neck and back on December 5, 2002. Eagle Paper Company contended that his injury arose from pre-existing degenerative conditions and did not arise in the course and scope of his employment. The evidence at the hearing included medical records; testimony by Childress, his girlfriend, and manager Scott Robinson; and statements of co-workers James Beasley and Ralph May.
In an opinion of May 17, 2004, the law judge found that Childress had not proven that he had sustained a compensable injury under our workers' compensation law. The law judge's opinion included the following findings:
Significantly, the emergency room report does not indicate that the claimant described the occurrence of any injury in the manner that he now contends occurred. Moreover, the emergency room report indicates that the claimant described a gradual onset of problems. In this regard I note that the record contains a number of inconsistencies. For example, the claimant testified that he told Mr. Beasley on the day that the alleged incident occurred that he had experienced a pop in his neck or back. However, the written statement from Mr. Beasley that were submitted into the record by the claimant simply indicates that the claimant verbally advised Mr. Beasley that he had hurt his back the following day. Notably, according to the time frame established by Mr. Beasley's statement, the claimant's statements to him occurred after he became aware at the emergency room of the potential severity of his condition. I also note that the medical records indicate that the claimant has a history of relatively heavy alcohol usage. Accordingly, after considering the evidence submitted into the record, and after observing the demeanor of the claimant during his testimony at the hearing ... I find that the claimant's credibility is diminished and that the weight given to his testimony and statements is likewise diminished.
The law judge concluded that Childress's statements in the emergency room regarding the history of his condition were not consistent with the history of injury that he alleged after he became aware of the severity and nature of his condition.
Childress appealed the law judge's opinion to the Workers' Compensation Commission. In an opinion issued on April 27, 2005, the Commission adopted and affirmed the law judge's opinion. Childress now appeals the Commission's opinion. He argues that his testimony was not contradicted by other witnesses, that the Commission overlooked or misinterpreted evidence before it, and that the Commission did not consider objective medical objective evidence that supports a conclusion that his injuries were sustained at a specific date and time rather than from a degenerative process.
In order to prove the compensability of a specific-incident injury, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, that the injury caused internal or external physical harm to the body resulting in the need for treatment, and that the injury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by a time and place of occurrence
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|