*1 clear intent with its regard legislature’s expression law, we are not the initial lack of attorney’s-lien persuaded controversion forecloses the assertion of a lien. consistent this
We reverse and remand for with proceedings opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Stroud, Neal, C.J., J., agree. B.
Leon CRAWFORD TRANSPORTATION; SINGLE SOURCE & Insurance Fidelity Casualty Company CA 03-1325
Court of of Arkansas Appeals
Divisions II and III 30, 2004 delivered Opinion June *2 P.A., Graham, Graham, P. P. for by: Joseph Joseph appellant. P.A., Ross, Munson, Moore, Rowlett& Melissa Huckabay, by: appellees. The Workers’ Judge. Compensation
Terry Crabtree, Commission reversed the decision of Administrative Crawford, Law and found that the Leon suffered a Judge appellant, to his knee on 2002. noncompensable idiopathic injury February On claimsthat substantialevidence does not appeal, appellant support *3 Commission’s denial of benefits. We reverse and remand. the
In
decisions from Workers’
reviewing
Compen
Commission,
sation
court views the evidence and all
appellate
reasonable inferences deducible
therefrom in
most favor
light
able to the Commission’s
and we affirm if the decision is
findings,
Inc.,
Haworth,
substantial evidence.
v.
Carman
74 Ark.
supported by
55,
(2002);
Dr.
74 Ark.
47 S.W.3d
PepperBottling
App.
263
We will not reverse the Commission’s
(2001).
decision unless
we are convinced that fair-minded
with the same facts
persons
before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by
474,
Commission. White v.
339 Ark.
Georgia-PacificCorp.,
S.W.3d 98
that it is the
readily
function
acknowledge
of the Commission to determine the
of witnesses and
credibility
to be
their
Stores,
Wal-Mart
weight
given
Inc.
testimony.
Stotts,
428,
ing appellant On 13, 2002, drove a load of cement for February to appellant appellee destination, Louisiana. at the Kickapoo, Upon arriving appellant out of his down two and onto an oil stepped steep steps, field. hisAs foot reached the ground, appellant’s “gave” result, buckled. As a fell and to feel appellant began door, in his knee. testified that “I and pain Appellant opened there are and two then the I hold of the grabbed wheel, and I out on the last and left steering put my the time of me.” At with and it gave way foot on the just ground, old: almost sixty years his injury, appellant and to engage After got up proceeded falling, appellant this, to the cement. In order accomplish to release truck’s air lines air lines and the truck while maneuvering held onto returned to and appellee’s finished hose. process Appellant his return continued to hurt on knee swelled and plant. Appellant’s that his knee home drove to his hoping Ultimately, appellant trip. work, but at the went to The next would recover. day, appellant notified with his knee still hurting, end of the day home, went and sent appellee injury. Appellant appellee for medical him to Southern Clinic car company transport clinic, was taken After his examination at the attention. Hamlin, an and referred to Dr. Frank off work for three weeks in Texarkana. orthopedic physician fall, to Dr. Hamlin one week after
Appellant presented Hamlin noted in his medical and Dr. report: with chief pain I first saw on 2-20-02 [appellant] complaint truck of his left knee. He had an out of his swelling episode getting did, 2-13-02, at which time his knee buckled on him. As it knee. He immediately did have a flexion to his said twisting, walk. His knee became swollen almost hardly after he could and it him to . He said severely.. caused immediately limp previous that, he had been some soreness over the medial side of his having *4 knee when he would use his clutch in his track. He repeatedly He he has never had drives a 18 wheeler. said evidently large any knee acute like this before. When I saw him he said his episodes him, it I he as swollen as was When saw said nearly initially. Mobic his him by family x-rayed on some placed physician. the first I saw him and he did have some day degenerative changes that, than with some medial Other joint space narrowing. x-rays . a were not remarkable. . MRI was orderedand did show tear of themedialmeniscusand medicalcollateral horn posterior possible ligament of strain. added.) (Emphasis 14, 2002, March Dr. Hamlin admitted to St.
On appellant Michael Health and a Care Center surgery orthroscopic medial reflects a meniscectomy. report partial operative internal of the left knee and diagnosis derangement preoperative of the left knee. The osteoarthritis postoperative diagnosis possible 220 a tear of the horn of the medial meniscus of the
reported posterior left knee and osteoarthritis of the femoral notch and intracondylar of the medial femoral condyle. Following orthroscopic proce- dure, underwent in his left knee. Dr. Hamlin injections appellant 4, released to work on 2002. appellant May below, At the hearing appellant sought temporary-total benefits in addition medical benefits for his disability specific- incident knee We note that did not claim benefits injury. appellant caused a from use clutch on by gradual-onset injury repeated cement truck. After from appellee’s hearing testimony appellant and one of found that appellee’s employees, appellant ALJ suffered an fall and awarded him unexplained compensable benefits well as as medical benefits. The temporary-total disability Commission reversed the and found that suffered a ALJ fall. We with noncompensable idiopathic agree appellant’s argu- ment that his was neither or injury but rather that he sustained a specific-incident injury. claimant,
As the
had the burden of
proving
a
of the evidence.
Ark.
compensable
by preponderance
Code Ann.
11-9-102(4)(E)(I)
A
2002).
(Repl.
compensable
§
is one
out of and in the course of
Ark.
arising
employment.
Code Ann.
11-9-102(4)(A)(I)
Arkansas
2002).
Code
(Repl.
§
Annotated section 11-9-102(4) (D)
that a
provides
compensable
must be established
medical evidence
by
supported by
are
objective
Objective
those
which
findings.
findings
findings
cannot come
under
control of the
Ark.
voluntary
patient.
Inc.,
Code Ann.
Haworth,
Carman v.
11-9-102(16);
74 Ark. App.
§
55,
The Commission found that suffered a non We hold that this compensable is not idiopathic injury. finding substantial evidence. An is one supported by idiopathic injury nature, whose cause is in to the individual. See personal peculiar Hotel, 21, Kuhn v. 324 Ark. 918 S.W.2d Majestic Little (1996); Pack, 82, Rock Convention & VisitorsBur. v. 60 Ark. App. Fixtures, S.W.2d 415 Moorev. (1997); Store Darling App. *5 sustained due an (1987). to Injuries unexplained cause are different from where the cause is injuries idiopathic. Robertson, ERC ContractorYard& Sales 977 S.W.2d at an injury a claimant suffers Where & Visitors Little Rock Convention work, it is generally compensable. is not related to Bur., an employ- Because supra. conditions related ment, unless it is generally compensable condi- the risk. Id. contribute to Employment the employment for by, contribute to the risk or aggravate tions can which increases in a position example, placing fall, near such as on a machinery effect of height, dangerous corners, vehicle. Id. or in a moving sharp
Here, conditions we believe that employment it to be a and thus cannot consider contributed to his injury In the course of his injury. employ- noncompensable idiopathic ment, to Louisiana. In cement truck drove appellant appellee’s of the to enter or exit the driver’s order for compartment appellant who he had to two Dangerfield, negotiate steep steps. Vicky testified that is in its employed by accounting department, appellee It is the “bottom is a distance off good very pretty and I hard for me to into the truck. I went one get trip, incident, the time to exit assistance.” At attempted to an field. As made the truck oil by descending below, his knee and as a his final stride to the result, “gave,” he twisted it and suffered injury. suffered was
We cannot say injury appellant simply it to exit his in nature as was caused while personal attempted result, vehicle from an elevated As a employer’s position. appel- his accident. lant’s conditions contributed to Fur- thermore, we cannot say appellant’s injury unexplainable as his informs us as to the circumstances surround- testimony fully his fall. ing reverse the decision of the and re Commission
mand it to determine the extent of the suffered by fall, therefrom, as a result of his any disability resulting and the which he is entitled. amount compensation
Reversed and remanded.
Hart, Griffen, Roaf, JJ., agree.
Vaught, concurs. J.,
Bird, dissents. J.,
Larry D. Vaught, I concur in the Judge, concurring. case, and remand this but write decision to reverse sepa- *6 because I believe that the Commission found that the rately correctly However, was in nature. I believe the Commission idiopathic concluded that work did not contribute to a erroneously appellant’s risk of fall or increase the effect of the fall. The was not because the appellant’s and the medical evidence indicated that he
testimony suffered from osteoarthritis and the tear horn of the medial posterior degenerative Therefore, meniscus was a tear.” there is “large substantial evidence that the was personal However, and in ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. idiopathic.
Robertson, 335 Ark. court (1998), supreme held that a claimant who suffered an fall was nonetheless entitled to where the contributed to compensation in a injury by increased placing employee position effect of the fall. In ERC claimant was on scaffold dangerous twelve to fifteen feet above the in the ing case at bar the ground; was from a truck that was described descending as step and a female “pretty high” to have assistance when out of the vehicle. getting While the increase in effect is not as dangerous pronounced ERC, in this case as in the difference is and not of only degree substance. I would hold that the Commission’s conclusion that there is no credible evidence that work either contributed to the risk of fall or increased the effect of the fall is not substantial evidence. supported by the well- Judge, dissenting. recites majority
Sam Bird, settled cases, standards of review for workers’ compensation but its decision in the case those standards. I do not see present ignores how we can remand this case without the Commis- simply ignoring sion’s determinations and that no credibility reasonable mind holding could reach the Commission’s conclusions.
When reached his destination at a Louisiana oil field he the door of the pad, he took two opened down, his left foot on and his knee put ground, gave way. He testified that the last was off step “fairly high” ground that the which he unlevel. upon He stepping very said that he did not know if he out onto on the anything that he did not hit ground, his on anything did not feel a and that he did anything, not twist his knee. He pop, that he filled out a acknowledged (Form AR-N) report stating his knee his foot touched ground, climbed down and when he in, and swelling. gave causing pain been 13 he had before February testified that Appellant knee; he had been over-the-counter using trouble with having *7 He said when his knee swelled. for and liniment
medicines pain that clutch on his truck with the that had been trouble having he clutch and that the kept for five or six years, he had been driving his irritated. knee who Source an Single
Vicky Daingerfield, and workers’ the compensa- handled payroll, billing, company’s claims, his he that Crawford tion testified when reported injury, that knee out out his truck and his said that he climbed of gave that hit the said Crawford’s when his left foot ground. Daingerfield not his knee hit did mention did not mention that anything, report his did mention that he twisted or that he and popped tripped, knee. the of testified that she was familiar with looks
Daingerfield a the trucks and that their bottom is cement pretty good the that went one and that distance off She said she trip it her to into the and that she was hard for very get assistance. a abandons assertion of
Appellant apparently any relationship his and difficult in an between the clutch attempt bring Robertson, Yard & claim within ERC Contr. Sales the of 212 That leaves whether S.W.2d only question arose of his or whether the out appellant’s In that was the claim reversing finding idiopathic. ALJ’s was the Commission found that appellant’s injury compensable, was noting: idiopathic,
(1) That evidence that undisputed appellant’s gave when he onto simply way stepped ground; there between (2) That “some- inconsistency appellant’s an testimony grade what about uneven where vague” hearing lack out on and the of a ground, contemporaneous condition on the causedhisknee to any giveway. report had (3) That testifiedthat he experienced pain in in the knee incident swelling prior question; had (4) That medical indicated reports signifi- knee; cant osteoarthritisin his That (5) Dr. Hamlin’s indicated that the tear surgical report of horn of the posterior medial meniscus was a “large degenerative tear”; That (6) there was a “lack of credible any evidence indicating that the claimant’s duties caused or contributed fall job to his when his knee gave way.”
The Commission concluded:
(1) Absent persuasive evidence of some em- any affirmative contribution to ployment offset facie prima showing of in claimant’s knee personal origin giving way, preponder- ance evidence establishes that the claimant experienced fall,and not an or work-related fall. Because (2) of insufficient credible evidence to establish that work either contributed to a risk fall or increased the *8 fall, of effect the the record to fails establish that is appellee respon- sible for fall. appellant’s idiopathic the evidence in Viewing the most favorable to the light Commission, I do not see we how can that there is no say substantial evidence to the Commission’s conclusion. The support credible; Commission found not to be there- appellant’s testimony fore, we are to the Commission’s accept conclusion that claimant’s had to do with the of nothing condition the where he out of his truck. ground That leaves the stepped only of whether an question or an appellant experienced “unexplained” The Commission found the injury. that explanation the that had with his pre-existing problem knee, and that his knee when he just way on the gave Therefore, I believe that the ground. Commission’s conclusion a substantial for the displays basis denial of this claim. ERC, Unlike where the fell claimant some twelve supra, feet,
fifteen
here there
nois
evidence of how
the
high
last
on
step
truck was from the
appellant’s
know that
the
only
on
Sources’ cement
trucks
“a
steps
are
Single
dis-
pretty good
the
tance”
from
and are
that a female
high enough
once needed assistance in
into one of them. We
getting
not
do
know the
of “a
meaning
distance”
pretty good
female
and we do not know whether
the truck she
employee,
needed assistance
into was
truck from which Garrett
getting
when his knee
Unless
are
exiting
gave way.
we
to
going
say
all
Source’s
the last
of
Single
that the unknown height
law, I
a matter of
do
as
is unreasonably dangerous
cement
trucks
in
case.
the Commission
this
see
we can reverse
not
how
Furthermore,
is
whether
before us
question
those
to
contrary
have
findings
evidence would
supported
rather,
Commission;
decision
Workers’ Compensation
if
minds
have
must be affirmed
reasonable
might
Commission
conclusion.
v. Sanyo Mf'g Corp.,
reached
same
Caffey
its
own
I dissent. respectfully
Michael CAMPEA STATE of Arkansas CA CR 189 S.W.3d459 03-1033
Court of of Arkansas Appeals
Division III and IV *9 30, 2004 delivered Opinion June