 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Purdy v. Little Rock School District9/7/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant Leslie Purdy challenges the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying her claim for benefits. On appeal, she argues that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
Leslie Purdy is employed in the Little Rock School District as a chemistry teacher at Hall High School. On December 2, 2002, while retrieving a make-up test from her metal file cabinet, the cabinet toppled over and fell on her. Two students had to remove the cabinet from appellant's person, and an ambulance was called.
Appellant received treatment at St. Vincent Hospital. Her chief complaint included pain to her left leg; also noted were pain to her left knee and a past history of "Back prob - / Lumbar Disc." The x-ray of her pelvis and lateral left hip showed no fractures. Appellant was treated for a contusion and given a return-to-work slip allowing her to be off work for one week. Appellant returned to work within a couple of days due to concern for her students being left with a substitute for that length of time.
Thereafter, appellant testified that she began experiencing pain not only in her left leg but also in her right leg. Prior to her injury, appellant treated with Drs. Ault, Moore, and Ward for low back pain caused by significant weight gain and a rock climbing incident in 1998. The successful loss of over ninety pounds on the Atkins diet alleviated some of appellant's back pain; however, the accident at work, appellant claims, exacerbated her pain. Therefore, appellant sought benefits. The administrative law judge awarded appellant benefits; nevertheless, based upon its de novo review, the Commission reversed that decision, determining that appellant had failed to meet her burden of proof in establishing a compensable injury. It is from this decision that appellant now brings this appeal.
When an appeal is taken from the denial of a claim by the Workers' Compensation Commission, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires that we affirm the decision if the Commission's opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. McDonald v. Batesville Poultry Equip., ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Apr. 13, 2005). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings, and we affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Riddell Flying Serv. v. Callahan, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Apr. 6, 2005). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. McDonald v. Batesville Poultry Equip., supra. Although the appellate court defers to the Commission on issues involving the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, the Commission may not disregard testimony and is not so insulated as to render appellate review meaningless. See id.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102(4)(D) (Supp. 2003) requires that a compensable injury be established by objective findings. In order to prove a compensable injury, a claimant must prove, among other things, a causal relationship between the injury and the employment. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stotts, 74 Ark. App. 428, 49 S.W.3d 667 (2001). A claimant must also meet the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11-9-102(4)(A)(a):
(1) that the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of the employment; (2) that the injury was caused by a specific incident; (3) that the injury is identifiable by time and place of occurrence; (4) that the injury caused int
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|