Case Name: Russell A. WEAVER v. NABORS DRILLING USA and F.A. Richards & Associates, Inc.
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2007-03-14
Citations: 98 Ark. App. 161
Docket Number: CA 06-543
Parties: Russell A. WEAVER v. NABORS DRILLING USA and F.A. Richards & Associates, Inc.
Judges: Pittman, C.J., and Gladwin, Marshall, and Miller, JJ., agree.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 161–167

Head Matter:
Russell A. WEAVER v. NABORS DRILLING USA and F.A. Richards & Associates, Inc.
CA 06-543
253 S.W.3d 30
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Opinion delivered March 14, 2007
Walker, Shock, Cox & Harp, PLLC, by; J. Randolph Shock, for appellant.
Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Moore, P.A., by: Carol Lockard Worley and Jarrod S. Parrish, for appellees.

Opinion:
Larry D. Vaught, Judge.
This workers' compensation case, where the Commission held that Russell Weaver had failed to prove his injury was compensable, presents the issue of the meaning of the term "specific incident" as found in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4). We affirm the decision of the Commission.
Weaver began working for appellee, Nabors Drilling, in December 2004. On either March 3 or 4, 2005, he complained that his hands were "tingling" and "burning" while he was "mixing mud" for his job. At the hearing, he stated that he was "picking up a sack of mud and carrying it a few feet" when he first noticed the sensation in his hands; however, he was unable to define a specific incident that caused his condition. He left work, went home, took a shower, and when he woke up the next morning, his hands were seriously swollen. He believed that he was having a chemical reaction to the mud.
On March 6, 2005, Weaver went to the emergency room for treatment. He complained of "swelling to both hands & feet, rt shoulder/arm pain radiating into neck began 2-4 days ago." There was no mention of a specific workplace accident, but there was a notation that Weaver's symptoms had started at work on March 5, 2005. A cervical-spine series was taken on April 15, 2005, and an MRI on April 26, 2005. The MRI showed mild disc herniation at C5-6 interspace and C6-7 interspace.
Weaver signed a Form AR-C on May 17, 2005, and stated that he had injured his cervical spine while "slipping pipe" and "mixing mud.''Appellee had terminated Weaver on March 7, 2005, because he had not shown up at work.
When reviewing a decision of the 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 we affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Searcy Indus. Laundry Inc. v. Ferren, 82 Ark. App. 69, 110 S.W.3d 306 (2003). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. at 72, 110 S.W.3d at 307. We will not reverse the Commission's decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. Id. In making our review, we recognize that it is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Id. Furthermore, the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of fact for the Commission. Id. We review the opinion of the Commission, not of the Administrative Law Judge. Daniels v. Affiliated Foods Sw., 70 Ark. App. 319, 17 S.W.3d 817 (2000).
A compensable injury is defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4) as an "accidental injury . . . arising out of and in the course of employment. An injury is 'accidental' only if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence." A compensable injury must be supported by objective medical findings not under the voluntary control of the claimant. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4), (16). The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury is compensable. Id. § 11-9-102(4). Thus, the statute sets up the what, where, and when test of compensability.
In Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 346 Ark. 487, 58 S.W.3d 369 (2001), the supreme court discussed the when and where elements of the compensability test. The court held that "identifiable by time and place" meant subject to identification and did not require the claimant to specify the exact time of the occurrence. However, that is not the issue in this case. No one denies that Weaver identified the approximate time and date when he first noticed the symptoms, and no one denies that this notice occurred while he was at work. What the Commission held was missing in Weaver's proof was the specific incident itself. Weaver's testimony varied on this issue. He stated that he first noticed the tingling in his hands when mixing mud; he also stated that his head felt heavy and he just thought he was tired; and he testified that he thought that the symptoms came on gradually over a period of time (although he did not allege gradual onset in his claim). The Commission noted:
The Form AR-C signed by the claimant did not detail a specific incident. We also note the claimant's recorded telephone interview, in which he attributed his symptoms to "repetitious" movements at work. The claimant also told the telephone interviewer that he could not recall "one specific incident" which the claimant thought caused the tingling and burning in his hands.
Weaver's argument is that his job must have caused his cervical injury because there is no other explanation. However, the record indicates that he sustained neck and back injuries after a fall in July 1995. Although his CT scan at the time was normal, this is of interest because it indicates a prior neck injury. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that there is absolutely no indication that a workplace accident caused Weaver's condition. The only notation that even refers to his work is in the medical record, noting that he first started feeling symptoms in his hands while at work. He could have easily injured himself the day before, weeks before, or during his 1995 fall. Finally, the Commission is free to make determinations of credibility. Weaver admitted the 1995 fall, but stated that he did not remember having back and neck pain afterward.
While we may have reached a different conclusion if we tried the facts, we must affirm the Commission's decision if substantial evidence supports it, and in this case it does. Weaver failed to prove his case. He only proved that he had an injury and that he felt pain while at work — he failed to show that a specific incident occurred at work. He asks this court to infer that his injury was caused by his employment — something we are not permitted to do.
Affirmed.
Pittman, C.J., and Gladwin, Marshall, and Miller, JJ., agree.
Hart, Robbins, Glover, and Baker, JJ., dissent.