Baker Implement Co. v. Fox ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 533
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-14-278
BAKER IMPLEMENT COMPANY, Opinion Delivered October 8, 2014
INC., and UNION INSURANCE OF
PROVIDENCE APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
V. [NO. G210680]
HENRY E. FOX
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
On February 12, 2014, the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
(Commission) found that appellee Henry E. Fox proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that he sustained a compensable injury. On appeal, Baker Implement Company, Inc., and
Union Insurance of Providence contend that there was no substantial evidence that appellee
suffered any compensable injury and that the award of benefits should be reversed. Appellee
contends that appellants ignore Dr. John Campbell’s medical opinion that the injury was
caused by the on-the-job incident; thus, substantial evidence was before the Commission.
The pertinent portion of Dr. Campbell’s testimony is as as follows:
I asked him specifically, and I noted when Mr. Fox first came to see me on his intake
form, he had checked no, to whether he was injured on the job. The patient told me
in hindsight his wife had filled out that form because he was unable to write at that
time. He tells me that at that time he clearly thought this was a work-related injury.
He recalled being hurt on the job approximately on October 23, 2012, working at a
company named Baker Implements. He told me that the mechanism of the injury was
that he was installing a power take-off unit under a tractor and was pulling on some
equipment and bracing the back of his head against a tire, and immediately noticed
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 533
some discomfort in his neck and arms. By the following morning his fingers were
numb and he reported to Dr. Spanos.
....
I told him that my opinion, based on the information the patient had given me, I
thought the major cause of his disc herniation was the incident that he described to me
later that had occurred on October 23.
....
At the time of the surgery, I was not thinking about what had caused the compression
of the cord and fluid edema. I was trying to get the pressure off his cord.
....
It can happen that in many instances someone with a condition or a problem or an
injury is more concerned about the injury rather than how it happened or providing
that information to me.
I feel based on the history of Mr. Fox, of his on-the-job injury, I feel that represents
a major cause of the cervical disc injury that required surgery.
I think it is important to note that, during the time of the surgery, we did find quite
a few disc fragments. And I think that pathologic finding would be consistent with the
injury that he went on to describe to me later on in January.
....
But when I see disc fragments, it would make me more suspicious that there was an
acute change that would cause him to suddenly have neurologic complaints and
findings.
The arguments advanced by appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. This
argument is based entirely on matters of weight and credibility, matters within the sole
province of the Commission. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Warnock, 2013 Ark. App. 518,
429 S.W.3d 348. Because the only substantial question involved in the appeal is the
sufficiency of the evidence, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the
decision, we affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to sections (a) and (b) of our per
curiam In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Anderson, Murphy & Hopkins, L.L.P., by: Randy P. Murphy and Kyle E. Burton, for
appellants.
McDaniel & Wells, P.A., by: Phillip Wells and Robert Wells, for appellee.
2