Court Opinion

ID: 9621287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:56:03.835918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:01.871888
License: Public Domain

Sam Bird, Judge, dissenting. The majority recites the well-settled standards of review for workers’ compensation cases, but its decision in the present case ignores those standards. I do not see how we can remand this case without simply ignoring the Commission’s credibility determinations and holding that no reasonable mind could reach the Commission’s conclusions. When appellant reached his destination at a Louisiana oil field pad, he opened the door of the truck, he took two steps down, he put his left foot on the ground, and his knee gave way. He testified that the last step was “fairly high” off the ground and that the ground upon which he was stepping was very unlevel. He said that he did not know if he stepped out onto anything on the ground, that he did not hit his knee on anything or step on anything, did not feel a pop, and that he did not twist his knee. He acknowledged that he filled out a report (Form AR-N) stating that when he climbed down and his foot touched the ground, his knee gave in, causing pain and swelling. Appellant testified that before February 13 he had been having trouble with his knee; he had been using over-the-counter medicines for pain and liniment when his knee swelled. He said that he had been having trouble with the clutch on his truck that he had been driving for five or six years, and that the clutch kept his knee irritated. Vicky Daingerfield, an employee for Single Source who handled the company’s payroll, billing, and workers’ compensation claims, testified that when Crawford reported his injury, he said that he climbed out of his truck and that his knee gave out when his left foot hit the ground. Daingerfield said that Crawford’s report did not mention that his knee hit anything, did not mention that he tripped, and did not mention that he twisted or popped his knee. Daingerfield testified that she was familiar with the looks of the cement trucks and that their bottom step is a pretty good distance off the ground. She said that she went on one trip and that it was very hard for her to get into the truck, and that she required assistance. Appellant apparently abandons any assertion of a relationship between his injury and the difficult clutch in an attempt to bring his claim within ERC Contr. Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63, 977 S.W.2d 212 (1998). That leaves only the question of whether appellant’s injury arose out of his employment or whether the injury was idiopathic. In reversing the ALJ’s finding that the claim was compensable, the Commission found that appellant’s injury was idiopathic, noting: (1) That the evidence was undisputed that appellant’s knee simply gave way when he stepped onto the ground; (2) That there was inconsistency between appellant’s “somewhat vague” hearing testimony about an uneven grade where he stepped out on the ground, and the lack of a contemporaneous report that any condition on the ground caused his knee to give way. (3) That appellant testified that he had experienced pain and swelling in the knee prior to the incident in question; (4) That medical reports indicated that appellant had significant osteoarthritis in his knee; (5) That Dr. Hamlin’s surgical report indicated that the tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus was a “large degenerative tear”; (6) That there was a “lack of any credible evidence indicating that the claimant’s job duties caused or contributed to his fall when his knee gave way.” The Commission concluded: (1) Absent any persuasive evidence of some affirmative employment contribution to offset the prima facie showing of a personal origin in the claimant’s knee giving way, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the claimant experienced an idiopathic fall, and not an unexplained or work-related fall. (2) Because of insufficient credible evidence to establish that appellant’s work either contributed to a risk of fall or increased the effect of the fall, the record fails to establish that appellee is responsible for appellant’s idiopathic fall. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission, I do not see how we can say that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion. The Commission found appellant’s testimony not to be credible; therefore, we are required to accept the Commission’s conclusion that claimant’s injury had nothing to do with the condition of the ground where he stepped out of his truck. That leaves only the question of whether appellant experienced an “unexplained” or an idiopathic injury. The Commission found that the explanation for the injury was that appellant had a pre-existing problem with his knee, and that his knee just gave way when he stepped on the ground. Therefore, I believe that the Commission’s conclusion displays a substantial basis for the denial of this claim. Unlike ERC, supra, where the claimant fell some twelve or fifteen feet, here there is no evidence of how high the last step on appellant’s truck was from the ground. We only know that the steps on Single Sources’ cement trucks are “a pretty good distance” from the ground and are high enough that a female employee once needed assistance in getting into one of them. We do not know the meaning of “a pretty good distance” to the female employee, and we do not know whether the truck she needed assistance getting into was the truck from which Garrett was exiting when his knee gave way. Unless we are going to say that the unknown height of the last step on all Single Source’s cement trucks is unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law, I do not see how we can reverse the Commission in this case. Furthermore, the question before us is not whether the evidence would have supported findings contrary to those of the Workers’ Compensation Commission; rather, the decision of the Commission must be affirmed if reasonable minds might have reached the same conclusion. Caffey v. Sanyo Mf'g Corp., 85 Ark. App. 342, 154 S.W.3d 274 (2004). The majority, stating its own belief that employment conditions contributed to appellant’s injury, points to no evidence supporting its narration that appellant had to negotiate two “steep” steps to descend “to an oil field.” Nor does evidence recited by the majority support its assertion that appellant’s testimony “fully informs us as to the circumstances surrounding his fall.” In my view, the majority in this case, acting as fact finder and presenting a version of events unsupported by the evidence, ignores our role as the reviewing court. I respectfully dissent.