Opinion ID: 2158885
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Existence of Compensable Injury.

Text: The employer challenges the commissioner's finding that Craddock sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. Keystone focuses on the following discussion by the deputy: The greater weight of evidence supports the conclusion that the claimant has established an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The claimant had no record of back problems before the incident lifting the resident. She testified she felt immediate pain. Although her coworker does not corroborate the claimant's testimony that claimant complained immediately, such does not necessitate a finding that the claimant is not credible. The treating physicians have never questioned the claimant's history of this injury. Keystone first claims the finding that Craddock `had no record of back problems before the incident' is in error because Craddock's medical records indicate that Craddock previously had undergone back x-rays in 1992. The evidence to which Keystone refers is an April 8, 1998 radiology report prepared in connection with x-rays taken after Craddock's March 1998 injury. This report states, Comparison made to study of 11/27/92. The employer introduced no records from 1992, so the reason the prior x-rays were taken was not shown. We do not think the mere taking of x-rays six years earlier mandates a finding that the claimant had prior back problems. Craddock testified that while she probably had general aches and pains in her back prior to her 1998 injury, she had not had any previous back problems or symptoms, nor had she been treated for her back. The deputy, who assessed the witness's credibility, could have believed that Craddock's failure to recall the 1992 x-rays merely confirmed that whatever prompted the taking of those x-rays was so inconsequential or transient that it did not rise to the level of a back problem. We do not think Craddock's testimony was so incredible that it could not be deemed sufficient by a neutral, detached, and reasonable person, to establish the absence of prior back problems of any significance to the present dispute. See generally Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)( f )(1) (defining substantial evidence). The employer's second complaint concerns the agency's failure to make any mention [of] or consider the fact that Craddock's medical records contradict Craddock's story that she was in a great deal of pain immediately after the alleged lifting incident. We first note the agency is not required to mention each item of evidence in its decision and explain why it found the evidence persuasive or not persuasive. See Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 274 (Iowa 1995) (stating the law does not require the commissioner to discuss each and every fact in the record and explain why or why not he has rejected it). Therefore, there is no basis for reversal simply because the agency did not detail and discuss the conflicting evidence in its decision. It is apparent from the agency's findings that it believed the claimant had experienced pain immediately after the lifting incident. To the extent the employer claims there is not substantial evidence to support the agency's finding that Craddock felt immediate pain, we reject such a contention. In the employee accident report completed by Craddock on March 31, 1998, she stated that she felt pain in her hip and down her right leg at the time of the incident. Taylor's notes from the claimant's first examination on the same day state Craddock's back didn't really hurt until about yesterday. Keystone contrasts these complaints with the claimant's testimony in her deposition and at the hearing that her back hurt from the time of the injury up to the time she saw Taylor. These more recent statements are not necessarily inconsistent with the history Craddock gave to Taylor. It is possible to interpret Craddock's statement that her back didn't really hurt until about yesterday to mean that Craddock's back hurt earlier, but did not really hurt, in other words, hurt badly, until the day before. This interpretation is reasonable because Taylor's notes also state that Craddock reported that she had been taking over-the-counter medications, but they had not helped. Even if there are inconsistencies between the medical records and Craddock's testimony with respect to the degree of pain, the medical records and the claimant's subsequent testimony both support the agency's finding that Craddock sustained some degree of pain at the time of the lifting incident. Therefore, we find no basis to reverse the commissioner's decision that Craddock sustained a compensable injury on March 26, 1998.