Opinion
No. CA12-611
04-03-2013
JIMMIE ADAMS APPELLANT v. ST. VINCENT HEALTH SYSTEM APPELLEE
Appellant, pro se. Michael E. Ryburn, for appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [NO. G104560]
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN , Judge
Appellant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that she sustained a compensable injury on October 1, 2010, while employed as a patient-care technician by appellee. After a hearing, the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission found that she failed to sustain her burden of proving that she suffered a compensable injury. Appellant argues that the Commission erred in so finding. We affirm.
The record shows that appellant claimed to have developed a corneal ulcer as the result of having urine splashed on her face while taking care of a patient in the course of her employment. A "compensable injury" is an accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body and which requires medical services or results in disability or death. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012). An injury is "accidental" only if it is caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Id. Appellant was thus required to prove that the corneal ulcer was caused by a work-related incident before she would be entitled to workers' compensation benefits for that condition, and the determination of whether a causal connection exists was a fact question for the Commission to determine. Carter v. Flintrol, 19 Ark. App. 317, 720 S.W.2d 337 (1986).
In reviewing the factual findings of the Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission's findings and affirm if they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Carman v. Haworth, Inc., 74 Ark. App. 55, 45 S.W.3d 408 (2001). We will not reverse the Commission's decision unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sands, 80 Ark. App. 51, 91 S.W.3d 93 (2002). Questions of weight and credibility are within the sole province of the Commission, which is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or of any other witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief. Ozark Health, Inc. v. Works, 2009 Ark. App. 140. Once the Commission has made its decision on issues of credibility, the appellate court is bound by that decision. Id.
From our review, we cannot say that the Commission was compelled to find that appellant's corneal ulcer resulted from or was exacerbated by the work incident that she described. There was evidence that appellant was treated for a non-work-related eye condition related to contact-lens use approximately three weeks before the work-related incident and was prescribed antibiotic drops at that time. A treating physician stated that urine is usually sterile and does not contain bacteria and that, although it was not impossible that the splash incident played a part in causing appellant's corneal ulcer, it was also possible that improper hygiene and care connected with contact-lens use could have been the cause of the ulcer. The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that a medical opinion that an event "could" have or "possibly" caused an injury is insufficient to establish causation. See Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (2000); Frances v. Gaylord Container Corp., 341 Ark. 527, 20 S.W.3d 280 (2000). In light of the medical testimony and the evidence that appellant was being treated with antibiotic eye drops three weeks before the splash incident, we cannot say that reasonable minds could not conclude that appellant failed to prove that the corneal ulcer was caused by the work incident that she described.
Affirmed.
GLOVER and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Appellant, pro se.
Michael E. Ryburn, for appellee.