Opinion
CLAIM NO. E706130
OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2000.
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by JIM KING, Attorney at Law, Pocahontas, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes on for review before the Commission on remand from the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
In Steveson v. Frolic Footwear, 70 Ark. App. 383 ___ S.W.2d ___ (2000), the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's finding that claimant's de Quervain's tenosynovitis was not compensable for lack of objective medical findings, but reversed the finding that claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her carpal tunnel syndrome was the major cause of her disability or need for treatment. The Court stated the following:
The Commission erred in finding that appellant's carpal tunnel syndrome was not the major cause of her need for treatment. The carpal tunnel injury was not only the major cause, but the only cause of appellant's need for treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. (Original emphasis).
Additionally, the Court remanded this matter "to the Commission to determine whether appellant's carpal tunnel syndrome arose out of and in the course of her employment with the appellee."
After our de novo review of the entire record, we find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that her carpal tunnel syndrome arose out of and in the course of her employment with the employer. More specifically, we find that claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to her employment.
Claimant began working for the employer in January 1996. In January or early February 1997, claimant was transferred to a new position involving the "woodpecker beater" machine. This machine "used a hot glue gun to glue the insole to" shoes. Claimant was required to pull the welting, if it would not fit the insole. Claimant testified that she completed approximately one shoe per minute and was required to pull the welting anywhere from ten to twenty times each shoe. Her highest daily production was five cases of shoes with 36 pairs of shoes in each case.
After about two weeks of operating this machine, claimant began to experience pain and cramping in her right hand. Her symptoms continued to worsen and she eventually sought medical treatment.
Claimant was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and this diagnosis was substantiated by electrodiagnostic studies. As noted above, claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome was the major cause of her need for treatment.
Dr. Larry E. Mahon offered the only opinion in the record assessing the causation issue. In a report dated August 1, 1997, Dr. Mahon stated that "[i]t would appear, providing her history as reliable, that the job on which she was placed in March, 1997, involving a great deal of pulling on shoe material to stretch it, was the cause of onset of her present difficulty."
Based on claimant's credible testimony concerning the hand-intensive nature of her job duties and Dr. Mahon's opinion concerning causation, we find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that her carpal tunnel syndrome was causally related to her employment with this employer.
Accordingly, we find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitle to benefits for her carpal tunnel syndrome. All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and with interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge. For prevailing on this appeal before the Commission, claimant's attorney is hereby awarded an additional attorney's fee in the amount of $250.00.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
_______________________________ PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
Commissioner Wilson dissents.