Gerber Products v. McDonald

• Decision Date: 19 June 1985
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: Gerber Products v. McDonald, 691 S.W.2d 879, 15 Ark.App. 226 (Ark. App. 1985)
• Parties: GERBER PRODUCTS and Associated Indemnity Corporation, Appellants, v. Dortha McDONALD, Appellee. 85-55.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 879

691 S.W.2d 879

15 Ark.App. 226

GERBER PRODUCTS and Associated Indemnity Corporation, Appellants, v. Dortha McDONALD, Appellee.

No. CA 85-55.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division I.

June 19, 1985.

Wayne Harris and Gary Udouj, Fort Smith, for appellants.

John L. Burnett, Little Rock, for appellee.

CORBIN, Judge.

Appellants, Gerber Products, et al, appeal a decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission finding appellee, Dortha McDonald, permanently and totally disabled as a result of a spider or other insect bite on her ankle at her place of employment which aggravated or accelerated a preexisting chronic circulatory or venous condition of her lower leg. We affirm.

In appellants' first point for reversal it is alleged that there is no substantial evidence to support a finding that the insect bite was an injury which arose out of and in the course of appellee's employment. The record reflects appellee adduced evidence indicating that she felt a sting on her leg while working in appellant Gerber Products' food processing plant on the squash line. Appellee's co-workers testified that they saw the red bump on her ankle and remembered appellee complaining of the bite and accompanying pain. It was uncontradicted that insects, snakes, frogs, birds and other varmints were observed in appellant Gerber Products' workplace. Dr. Carl Williams, appellee's treating physician, testified that appellee's subsequent symptoms were not inconsistent with a spider bite.

It is well settled that in order for appellee's disability to be compensable, she must prove that the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. "Arising out of the employment" refers to the origin or cause of the accident while the phrase "in the course of the employment" refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the injury occurred. J. & G. Cabinets v. Hennington, 269 Ark. 789, 600 S.W.2d 916 (Ark.App.1980). There must be a causal connection between the accident and a risk which is reasonably incident to the employment. Southland Corp. v. Hester, 253 Ark. 959, 490 S.W.2d 132 (1973). There must be affirmative proof of a distinctive employment risk as the cause of the injury. The connection with the employment cannot be supplied by speculation. Bagwell v. Falcon Jet Corp., 8 Ark.App. 192, 649 S.W.2d 841 (1983). It is not, however, essential that the causal relationship between the accident and disability be established by medical evidence. Crain Burton Ford Co. v. Rogers, 12 Ark.App. 246, 674 S.W.2d 944 (1984). The Commission should follow a liberal approach in determining whether the accident in fact grew out of and occurred in the course of the employment. Bunny Bread v. Shipman, 267 Ark. 926, 591 S.W.2d 692 (App.1979). It is the duty of the Commission to draw all legitimate inferences possible in favor of the claimant and to give the claimant the benefit of doubt. Owens v. Nat'l Health Laboratories Inc., 8 Ark.App. 92, 648 S.W.2d 829 (1983). We believe the record in the case at bar contains substantial evidence to prove that appellee's injury had a connection with her employment.

Clearly, an insect bite occurring on a vegetable processing line involves a risk distinctly associated with that employment. It involves little imagination to visualize the presence of all types of insects in raw vegetables freshly harvested and brought to appellant Gerber Products' food processing plant. The evidence in the instant case established that an insect...