424 S.W.3d 311
Ark.2012Background
- Pearson, a diabetic employee of Worksource, sustained a toe injury while wearing steel-toe boots on June 8, 2009.
- He alleges the blister/ulcer in the left great toe resulted from boot rubbing during repetitive yard work and fast walking all day.
- Medical records show progression from a diabetic ulcer to osteomyelitis requiring surgery on August 21, 2009, with eventual healing.
- ALJ found a compensable injury either as a specific incident or rapid-repetitive motion; Commission reversed, denying benefits.
- Arkansas Supreme Court reverses, holding the injury was a specific-incident injury identifiable by time/place and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Pearson's toe injury a compensable specific-incident injury? | Injury linked to boot rubbing; identifiable by time/place. | Commission found no identifiable specific incident. | Yes; injury is a specific-incident compensable injury. |
| Can the injury be compensable under rapid-repetitive motion if not a specific incident? | Rapid-repetitive motion could support compensability. | Record lacks clear rapid-repetitive motion evidence. | Unnecessary to resolve; specific-incident finding suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cedar Chemical Co. v. Knight, 273 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2008) (supports identifying injury by time/place even without exact moment)
- Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 58 S.W.3d 369 (Ark. 2001) (injury occurrence must be identifiable, not necessarily exact date)
- Weaver v. Nabors Drilling USA, 253 S.W.3d 30 (Ark. App. 2007) (affirmed denial where no specific incident proven)
- Hapney v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 26 S.W.3d 777 (Ark. 2000) (illustrates uncertainty when claimant cannot pinpoint incident)