535 S.W.3d 629
Ark.2018Background
- Askins, a Kroger deli employee, fell at work in March 2012 and suffered a brain injury; she had no memory of the incident.
- Askins claimed she slipped carrying a tray of shrimp or, alternatively, that the fall was unexplained and therefore compensable.
- Kroger asserted the fall was idiopathic—caused by syncope from a preexisting arrhythmic heart condition—and thus not compensable.
- ALJ found Askins fainted due to arrhythmia (she had an ICD implanted in 2011), so the fall was idiopathic; the Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Evidence: coworker and customer recollections suggested she “passed out”; no water/foreign substance reported at the scene; cardiologist testified arrhythmia can cause syncope though ICD did not record an event that day.
- Askins also argued positional-risk and increased-risk doctrines applied; the ALJ rejected both for lack of supporting evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Askins’s on-the-job brain injury was compensable because it was an unexplained fall rather than idiopathic | Askins: fall was unexplained (no witnesses, she lacked memory), so compensable | Kroger: fall resulted from syncope due to preexisting arrhythmic condition (idiopathic) and not work-related | Court: substantial evidence supports finding of idiopathic fall from arrhythmia; not compensable |
| Whether positional-risk or increased-risk doctrines make the idiopathic event compensable | Askins: carrying a pan with both hands or working in deli placed her in riskier position or exposed her to increased risk | Kroger: no evidence employment created a neutral risk or increased susceptibility to syncope; arrhythmia was personal to Askins | Court: doctrines inapplicable; no evidence job increased risk or made risk neutral; affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- VanWagner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 368 Ark. 606 (standard of appellate review and substantial-evidence review)
- Plante v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 319 Ark. 126 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Estridge v. Waste Mgmt., 343 Ark. 276 (Commission’s role in weighing witness credibility and medical conflicts)
- ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63 (definition and treatment of idiopathic falls)
- Deffenbaugh Indus. v. Angus, 313 Ark. 100 (positional-risk doctrine and neutral-risk requirement)
- Jivan v. Economy Inn & Suites, 370 Ark. 414 (increased-risk doctrine)
- Cedar Chemical v. Knight, 372 Ark. 233 (unexplained injuries can be compensable)
- Pearson v. Worksource, 2012 Ark. 406 (precedent on unexplained injuries)
- Pack v. Little Rock Convention Ctr. & Visitors Bureau, 2013 Ark. 186 (substantial-evidence review in workers’ comp context)
- Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Morgan, 2017 Ark. 221 (discussing prohibition on memorandum opinions)