Opinion ID: 1624713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Finding of Accident

Text: Mid-America argues that the commission's finding of accident is not supported by the evidence. We defer to the fact findings of the commission when supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. [1] The claimant testified as follows: Q Did anything unusual occur while cleaning that truck on September 13, 1984? A I fell out of the truck. Q Could you describe how your fall out of the truck occurred? A I was standing in the door on the passenger side, inside the cab, getting ready to step out. I remember starting to put my right foot down onto the step, but to the best of my knowledge my foot never touched that step; and I just fell out. This testimony is sufficient to support the finding of accident. See Kloppenburg v. Queen Size Shoes, Inc., 704 S.W.2d 234, (Mo. banc 1986), casting substantial doubt on the concept of idiopathic fall, as discussed in Matthews v. Roadway Express, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 768 (Mo.App.1983), when an employee falls and sustains injury while working. See also, Wolfgeher v. Wagner Cartage Service, Inc., 646 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. banc 1983). The possibility of a non-accidental fall is for the commission to weigh. Likewise the circumstance that the employee may have given a less complete version of the incident when questioned by an investigator is for the commission to weigh. Because the claimant's own testimony supports the commission's finding of accident, we need not consider the admissibility of her description of the incident to her physician as set out in a medical report received in evidence.