Smith v. O'Reilly Automotive Inc., CLAIM NO. F303464 (AR 4/18/2006)
| Decision Date | 18 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. F303464,CLAIM NO. F303465 |
| Parties | MEGAN SMITH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, CARRIER RESPONDENT. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
This case comes before the Full Commission after being remanded by the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The case originally came before the Commission after the respondent appealed a decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on July 19, 2004, finding the claimant suffered compensable injuries in April and September 2002, awarding her temporary total benefits for the period of October 11, 2002 to May 13, 2004, and awarding her medical expenses related to those injuries. On May 11, 2005, the Commission issued a decision finding that the claimant did not sustain a compensable back injury in April or September of 2002. The Commission further found that the claimant suffered from a pre-existing back injury that was the source of her need for treatment to her back. On February 1, 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case because the Commission had made erroneous findings of fact. The first erroneous finding of fact was that the claimant suffered from a back injury at the age of 16. The second error was that until January of 2003, the claimant failed to tell Dr. Welsh that her symptoms were due to lifting items from her truck bed. The Court of Appeals directed the Commission to rectify these errors and to consider all relevant factual and medical evidence and render a decision.
After a de novo review of the record, we find that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge should be affirmed. In our opinion, the claimant gave credible testimony that in April 2002 she suffered an injury due to lifting a part at work and that she reported the injury immediately. The claimant's manager, Chris Agnew gave testimony that the claimant injured her back in April 2002 and denied having knowledge of the claimant suffering from previous back injuries, giving credence to the claimant's testimony. The claimant also gave credible testimony that she suffered pain in her back in September 2002 as she lifted a part and that she reported that incident immediately. In our opinion, this shows the claimant properly gave notice to the respondents. The claimant was subsequently restricted from returning to work and did not come out of her healing period until May 13, 2004. As such, she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the time period in question. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
The respondents attempt to assert that the claimant had a history of having back problems and that any subsequent diagnoses were due to an alleged pre-existing condition. As noted by the Court of Appeals, there is no medical evidence to support the contention that the claimant had a previous back injury. Furthermore, in our opinion, the respondents erroneously conclude that the claimant did not tell doctors that her condition was caused by lifting items out of the truck. From the time of the claimant's first visit to the doctor on, she consistently indicated that she suffered from pain when lifting items at work. Accordingly, we find her testimony to be credible in showing she sustained compensable injuries.
The claimant began working for the respondent as a delivery specialist in March 2001. The job required her to deliver parts approximately 20 to 25 times per day. She was also required to lift heavy items out of the back of a truck in the course of delivering the parts. The employer's policy included provisions requiring managers to complete documentation and forward to other members of management in order to allow them to submit requests for workers' compensation claims in instances where employees reported work-related injuries.
In April 2002, the claimant lifted a part out of the back of a truck. As she was lifting and turning, she felt pain in her back. She described the pain as, "It felt like a real bad pull and burning sensation in my back." The claimant delivered the part and returned to the employer's work site. Her manager, Chris Agnew, noticed the claimant holding her back. The claimant told Agnew she had injured her back. Agnew agreed to order her a back brace and told her she would have to pass a urine test. Agnew took no further steps to report the claimant's injury. Agnew testified that he assumed the claimant injured her back while working and admitted that failing to report an injury at work would be a policy violation.
The claimant continued to work and treated herself with over-the-counter medications. Her pain did not subside. The claimant first received treatment on August 26, 2002. She was treated by Dr. Welsh. Welsh was located across the street from the employer, so the claimant continued to seek treatment from him and scheduled her appointments during her lunch hour. During the first visit, Welsh noted that the claimant suffered from low back pain beginning at the age of about 16. He further indicated that the pain had, "been going on daily for years." He also indicated that the claimant reported doing a lot of lifting at work and that the pain had become worse within, "the last several weeks." Welsh prescribed Zanaflex, a medication used to treat muscle spasms.
The claimant subsequently began working as a Merchandising Specialist, a position that required her to do schematic changes, stock, and do inventories. It is unclear whether the position required more lifting than the delivery position. However, there is no dispute that the position did require heavy lifting and that, at times, the claimant had to act as a back-up delivery driver.
Don Newton began working as the claimant's supervisor in July 2002. In September 2002, the claimant was making a delivery and lifted a rotor out of the truck. The claimant felt pain in her back. The same day, the claimant told Newton that she injured her back when making the delivery. Newton told the claimant to continue making deliveries, but to have installers lift the parts out of the truck for her.
On September 5, 2002, the claimant underwent an MRI. It revealed narrowing of the disks at levels L3-L4, L4-5, and L5-S1. The claimant continued to receive treatment from Dr. Welsh. On September 10, 2002, Dr. Welsh noted the claimant narrowing in her disc spaces and that she smoked less than half a pack of cigarettes per day. Dr. Welsh advised the claimant that smoking would contribute to the narrowing of disc spaces and advised her to stop smoking.
At some point, the claimant told Newton she did not want to make deliveries, but it is unclear when that conversation occurred. Newton discovered the claimant was on painkillers. He contacted his district manager and was instructed to get a statement regarding the claimant's restrictions. Newton told the claimant that he would need to get a copy of her restrictions as other workers were complaining that she was getting preferential treatment by not being required to make deliveries. The claimant returned with a doctor's statement releasing her from working. The claimant was advised to file a FMLA request. The claimant exhausted available leave but had not yet been released to return to work. As a result, her employment was terminated.
On October 14, 2002, the claimant was treated by Dr. Welsh. The medical records from that day indicate the claimant reported, "her back pain becomes excruciating when she has to lift items out of a truck bed, which unfortunately is required for her job."
On November 19, 2002, the claimant was treated by Dr. Robbins. She complained of pain in her lower back extending to the back of her right leg. Dr. Robbins noted that the claimant said she had been suffering from similar problems since the age of 16, but that she saw military doctors and the treatment decreased her problems. Robbins also noted the claimant said she had been lifting heavy objects and suffered from increasing back problems.
Another MRI was performed on December 12, 2002. It revealed disc bulges at levels L3-4 and L4-5 and noted there was some evidence of degenerative disc disease. On December 16, 2002, Dr. Welsh treated the claimant and noted she had almost quit smoking. The claimant continued to receive treatment and eventually quit smoking, only to later start smoking again.
The claimant remained unemployed after October 10, 2002. She attended school to become a court reporter. At the time of the hearing, the claimant anticipated returning to work as a court reporter on May 13, 2004.
The respondent argues the claimant did not suffer a compensable injury. In supporting this contention, they argue the claimant had a history of back pain and problems, waited to see the doctor, and that her injury was not evidenced by objective findings. In our opinion, these arguments are not persuasive. There is no medical evidence indicating that the claimant suffered from a back injury prior to 2002. Though the claimant had a history of back pain, as noted by the Court of Appeals, there was no medical evidence as to a previous injury. When considered in conjunction with the claimant's testimony that she did not suffer from back pain for an extended period of time before the incident in April of 2002 and her statements to doctors that lifting items from trucks had caused back pain, we find that the claimant has shown she sustained a compensable injury in April 2002 and that her injury in September 2002 was a recurrence of the previous injury from April 2002.
A "compensable injury" is...
To continue reading
Request your trial