Title: Kuhn v. Majestic

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Ronald KUHN v. MAJESTIC HOTEL

95-700          ___ S.W.2d ___

   Supreme Court of Arkansas
  Opinion delivered March 25,
1996


1.   Workers' compensation --
     standard of review by
     supreme court. -- The
     Arkansas Supreme Court
     reviews a decision of the
     Arkansas Court of Appeals
     under Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
     1-2(f) as though the case
     had been originally filed
     in the supreme court; on
     appeal of a workers'
     compensation case from
     the court of appeals to
     the supreme court, the
     evidence is viewed in the
     light most favorable to
     the Workers' Compensation
     Commission's decision and
     is affirmed if that
     decision is supported by
     substantial evidence;
     substantial evidence
     exists if reasonable
     minds could have reached
     the same conclusion;
     before the Commission's
     decision is reversed, the
     supreme court must be
     convinced that
     fair-minded persons
     considering the same
     facts could not have
     reached the conclusion
     made by the Commission.

2.   Workers' compensation --
     credibility is matter
     exclusively within
     Commission's province. --
     The supreme court defers
     to the Workers'
     Compensation Commission
     regarding the issue of a
     petitioner's credibility
     as a matter exclusively
     within the Commission's
     province.

3.   Workers' compensation --
     "course of employment"
     defined. -- The term
     "course of employment,"
     as applied to
     compensation for
     injuries, refers to the
     time, place, and
     circumstances under which
     the injury occurs.

4.   Workers' compensation --
     even unexplained or
     idiopathic fall may
     result in compensable
     injuries. -- Regardless
     of whether water was on
     the floor at the time
     petitioner fell, it is
     well-established that
     even an unexplained fall
     or a so-called idiopathic
     fall, which originates
     with a risk that is
     personal to the employee,
     may result in compensable
     injuries.

5.   Workers' compensation --
     no substantial evidence
     that petitioner failed to
     prove causal connection
     between fall and
     subsequent surgery --
     case reversed and
     remanded. -- On the basis
     of the record, the
     supreme court did not
     find substantial evidence
     that petitioner failed to
     prove that there was any
     causal connection between
     his March 1992 fall at
     respondent hotel and his
     May 1992 back surgery;
     one physician's opinion
     that surgery was not
     indicated for
     petitioner's condition
     was not pertinent to the
     causation issue; the
     record contained no
     evidence that
     petitioner's congenital
     back problem or earlier
     back surgery caused the
     May 1992 surgery; the
     record did reveal that
     petitioner was released
     to return to work in
     October 1990 after the
     earlier back surgery and
     that petitioner worked
     thereafter, without
     problem, prior to his
     fall at the hotel; thus,
     the supreme court
     determined that
     fair-minded persons
     considering the same
     facts could not have
     reached the Commission's
     conclusion and reversed
     and remanded the case to
     the Commission for award
     of benefits.


     Petition for Review from
the Arkansas Court of Appeals;
reversed and remanded.
     Donald C. Pullen, for
petitioner.
     Walter A. Murray, for
respondent.

     Donald L. Corbin,
Justice.3-25-96   *ADVREP5*






RONALD KUHN,
                    PETITIONER,

V.

MAJESTIC HOTEL,
                    RESPONDENT,



95-700



PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS




REVERSED AND REMANDED.



                   Donald L. Corbin, Justice.

     Petitioner, Ronald Kuhn, appealed a decision of the Arkansas
Workers' Compensation Commission to the Arkansas Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the Commission's decision by a tie vote.  Kuhn v.
Majestic Hotel, 50 Ark. App. 23, 899 S.W.2d 845 (1995).  We granted
this petition for review of the decision of the court of appeals
pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(f).  We reverse and remand.
     Petitioner contends that he sustained a compensable low-back
injury when he slipped and fell on the job at the Majestic Hotel in
Hot Springs on March 20, 1992, which resulted in back surgery on
May 21, 1992.  The Commission reversed the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge and dismissed petitioner's claim.  The
Commission found that petitioner failed to prove by the
preponderance of the credible evidence that he was injured in the
course and scope of his employment, and that there was any causal
connection between the surgery and the alleged slip and fall.  
     In reviewing this case, we apply the following standard:
     We review a decision of the Arkansas Court of
Appeals under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(f), as though the case
had been originally filed in this court.  On appeal of a
workers' compensation case from the court of appeals to
this court, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the commission's decision and affirm that
decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. 
Substantial evidence exists if reasonable minds could
have reached the same conclusion.  Thus, before we
reverse the commission's decision, we must be convinced
that fair-minded persons considering the same facts could
not have reached the conclusion made by the commission. 

Plante v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 319 Ark. 126, 127-28,