Opinion
No. CA12-881
02-13-2013
JAMES KING APPELLANT v. SUPERIOR WHEELS and REGIONS CLAIMS MANAGEMENT APPELLEES
Osborne Law Firm, by: Ken Osborne, for appellant. No response.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [No. G104708]
AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT , Judge
Appellant James King appeals the decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denying his claim for benefits, finding that he failed to meet his burden of proving the compensability of gradual-onset injuries to his neck and back. We affirm.
King worked for appellee Superior Wheels in various departments from 1989 to 2011. He was required to lift wheels—each weighing between fifteen and sixty pounds—throughout the course of his ten-to-twelve-hour shifts.
King worked in the machine-line department "deburring wheels"; in the set-up department working on machinery; in the "rework" department fixing and repairing wheels; and in the material-handling department hanging wheels on a conveyor.
In June 2010, King was seen by Dr. Gary Moffitt for complaints of bilateral hand pain, numbness, and weakness. King was diagnosed with bilateral carpal-tunnel syndrome in July 2010, and subsequently had surgery on each hand. These injuries were accepted as compensable by Superior Wheels. Post surgery, in March 2011, King participated in a functional-capacity evaluation, which indicated that he could return to work restricted to the "light" category. One of the jobs Superior provided to King within his restriction was operating the Zamboni, a floor-scrubbing machine. In April 2011, King reported that he was unable to operate the Zamboni because of significant visual impairment/glaucoma, and he took a leave of absence from Superior Wheels pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act. He did not return to employment at Superior Wheels.
According to King's hearing testimony, over the course of his work at Superior Wheels, he suffered gradual-onset injuries to his neck and back. He claimed that his jobs there required constant lifting of heavy wheels. He testified that his neck and back pain started approximately twelve years ago and that he wore a back brace at work. He stated that he reported his neck and back pain to his supervisor, Paul Campbell, but King could not remember when that was, conceding that it could have been twelve to thirteen years prior. King also admitted that Campbell had not worked for Superior Wheels in several years and that he (King) did not report neck and back pain to the corporate-safety supervisor or to human-resource personnel. Finally, King stated that he did not receive medical treatment for his neck or back between 2003 and 2011.
Marilyn Edmond, a twenty-two-year employee of Superior Wheels, testified that King did complain to her about back pain and that he wore a back brace at work. She added that King did not tell her the cause of his pain.
The first medical record documenting complaints of pain to King's neck and back is dated April 15, 2011. On that date, King was seen by Dr. Moffitt, who had treated King's hands. According to Dr. Moffitt's report, King had been suffering from neck pain for the past year but had no known injury. Dr. Moffitt diagnosed King with osteoarthritis of the neck, stating "I don't see any relationship between the osteoarthritis and his work." MRIs were later performed on King's neck and back and were reviewed by Dr. James Blankenship on June 13, 2011. Dr. Blankenship stated that the MRIs demonstrated degeneration out of the normal course for someone King's age. The doctor concluded that King might be suffering from myofascial-pain syndrome and recommended "a rheumatologic workup," physical therapy, prescription medication for pain, and a referral to Dr. David Cannon for possible injection therapy.
Chris Todd, the corporate-safety manager who had worked for Superior Wheels for twenty-one years, testified that in 2009 he assumed responsibility of the plant where King worked. Todd said that he visited that plant twice a week from 2009-2011, and during one of those visits in June 2010, King approached him complaining about hand pain, stating that the problems had been going on for five to six months. Todd testified that at that time he counseled King about the importance of timely reporting injuries so that they could be treated. Todd added that King's complaints did not include neck or back problems. Todd stated that King received medical treatment for his hands, including surgery, and was returned to work within restrictions. According to Todd, at no time did King report to Todd any neck or back problems, despite his biweekly visits from 2009—2011.
The administrative law judge issued an opinion on April 11, 2012, denying compensability of King's neck and back injuries, finding that he failed to establish that they arose out of and in the course of his employment with Superior Wheels. The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's opinion, and this appeal followed.
Benefits for gradual-onset injuries to the neck and back require proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and that the work-related injury was the major cause of the need for medical treatment. Johnson v. Superior Indus., 2009 Ark. App. 483, at 1 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A) and (E) (Supp. 2007)). Additionally, a compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Id. (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Supp. 2007)). Objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury but is not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and a work-related accident. Johnson, 2009 Ark. App. 483, at 1.
On appeal, King seeks reversal of the Commission's decision, arguing that the undisputed evidence was that he worked for Superior Wheels for over twenty-two years performing manual labor; that his neck and back pain started twelve years ago, which he reported to his supervisor; and that he wore a back brace at work. He adds that his coworker confirmed the heavy lifting he performed, that he suffered from back pain, and that he wore a brace. Based on these facts, he contends "common sense dictates" that his neck and back injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. In other words, King argues that the Commission erred in finding against him because substantial evidence supports his claim.
King is correct that there are facts in this case that support his claim. However, the issue for our court is not whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding or whether we might have reached a different result; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, we will affirm. Sanchez v. Pork Grp., Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 570, at 1. The substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission's decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Id. at 1—2. There may be substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision even though we might have reached a different conclusion had we been sitting as the trier of fact or heard the case de novo. Id. at 2. Moreover, this court examines only the evidence that supports the Commission's findings. Ray Baxter, P.A. v. Baxter, 2012 Ark. App. 251, at 9, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (emphasis in original). If the Commission's conclusions are not unreasonable, we must affirm even if a preponderance of the evidence might indicate a contrary result, because it is not the role of the appellate court to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id., ____ S.W.3d at ___. Rather, it is within the exclusive province of the Commission to make such determinations. Id., ___ S.W.3d at ___. Given this standard of review, we must affirm the Commission's decision.
The Commission denied King's claim based on the following findings. He claimed he reported his neck and back problems to his supervisor Campbell but was not sure when—it could have been twelve to thirteen years ago—and Campbell had not worked for Superior Wheels in the last several years. Also, when King sought chiropractic treatment for his back in 2003, he paid for the treatment himself, instead of seeking reimbursement from Superior Wheels. The Commission further found that not only did King fail to report neck and back problems between 2003 and 2011, he also failed to seek medical treatment for those injuries during that time frame. Moreover, while King claimed he reported neck and back pain to Dr. Moffitt while he was treating King's hands, Dr. Moffitt's reports reflect that King did not make any such complaints from June 2010 to April 2011. The Commission found that King's first complaint to Dr. Moffitt occurred after King left his employment with Superior Wheels and that King's reason for leaving his employment was not his neck and back problems but his glaucoma/visual impairment. Finally, the Commission found that King failed to report any neck and back problems to the corporate-safety manager, who visited with King twice a week between 2009 and 2011; that King's coworker did not know the cause of King's back pain; and that Dr. Moffitt stated that he saw no causal relationship between the osteoarthritis in King's neck and his work.
We hold that these findings constitute substantial evidence supporting the Commission's denial of King's claim. While the Commission did not expressly state that it did not believe King's version of events, it effectively made this finding. After weighing the evidence, it relied on the testimony of Todd, who testified that despite having many opportunities to do so from 2009 to 2011, King did not report any neck or back problems or injuries. The Commission also called into question King's testimony that he reported such complaints to Campbell, when King could not remember when he made the reports—admitting that it could have been twelve to thirteen years ago. Finally, the Commission noted that King contended that he suffered from neck and back pain throughout the course of his employment; however, it again challenged this testimony with its finding that King had not sought medical treatment for his neck or back between 2003 and 2011, and he did not report it to Todd. It is the role of the Commission to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, Ray Baxter, P.A., 2012 Ark. App. 251, at 9, ___ S.W.3d at ___. Because these findings constitute substantial evidence supporting the Commission's decision, we affirm.
Affirmed.
GLOVER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Osborne Law Firm, by: Ken Osborne, for appellant.
No response.