Pilgrims Pride Corp. v. Caldarera

PILGRIMS PRIDE CORPORATION v. JoAnn CALDARERA

CA 95-883                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                  Court of Appeals of Arkansas
                           Division II
                 Opinion delivered June 12, 1996


1.   Workers' compensation -- challenge to sufficiency of evidence
     -- factors on review. -- A challenge to the Workers'
     Compensation Commission's findings constitutes a challenge to
     the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding; in
     determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the
     Commission's factual findings, the appellate court reviews the
     evidence in the light most favorable to those findings and
     must affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support
     them; the Commissionþs findings will be reversed only when the
     appellate court is convinced that fair-minded people with the
     same facts before them could not have arrived at the
     conclusion reached by the Commission.

2.   Workers' compensation -- Commission to draw inferences when
     testimony open to interpretation -- Commission determines
     weight and credibility of evidence. -- It is the function of
     the Commission to draw inferences when testimony is open to
     more than one interpretation, and when it does, its findings
     have the force and effect of a jury verdict; determinations of
     the weight and credibility of the evidence are exclusively
     within the province of the Commission. 

3.   Workers' compensation -- entitlement to benefits -- test for
     course of employment. -- A claimant seeking benefits must
     prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury arose
     out of and in the course of the 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; the test for the course of employment requires that
     the injury occur within the time and space boundaries of the
     employment, while the employee is carrying out the employer's
     purpose or advancing the employer's interests directly or
     indirectly.

4.   Workers' compensation -- appellee's actions in employer's best
     interest -- Commission's finding supported by substantial
     evidence. -- Where appellee testified that she was hurrying to
     the catwalk to see if she could separate her son and his co-
     worker and stated that she probably would have made efforts to
     stop the fight even if her son had not been involved,
     reasonable minds could have reached the Commission's
     conclusion that appellee's actions were not personal and that
     she was acting in her employer's best interest when she
     approached the catwalk and hit her knee; substantial evidence
     supported the Commission's finding that appellee sustained a
     compensable injury.   


     Appeal from Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;
affirmed.
     The Trammell Law Firm, by:  Robert D. Trammell, for appellant.
     The Whetstone Law Firm, P.A., by:  Gary Davis, for appellee.

     John F. Stroud, Jr., Judge.
 
  
     
*ADVREP*CA5*
                           DIVISION II









PILGRIMS PRIDE CORPORATION
                     APPELLANT

V.


JOANN CALDARERA
                      APPELLEE



CA 95-883

                                                    June 12, 1996


APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION        
[NO. E-213669]




AFFIRMED





                   John F. Stroud, Jr., Judge.



     On June 23, 1992, JoAnn Caldarera suffered a knee injury in the poultry
processing plant where she worked.  She received initial medical treatment through the
company physician, but eventually surgery was required.  The employer, Pilgrims Pride,
contested her claim for workers' compensation benefits.  The administrative law judge
found the claim compensable and found that she was entitled to temporary total disability
benefits from September 1 through November 9, 1992, as well as reasonably necessary
medical expenses related to the injury.  After conducting a de novo review, the Workers'
Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the law judge.  Pilgrims
Pride now appeals, contending that the Commission erred in finding that Ms. Caldarera
was injured during the course of her employment.  We affirm.  
     A challenge to the Commissionþs findings constitutes a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence to sustain the finding.  City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987).  In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the
Commissionþs factual findings, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to
those findings, and we must affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support them. 
Id.  We may reverse the Commissionþs findings only when we are convinced that fair-
minded people with the same facts before them could not have arrived at the conclusion
reached by the Commission.  Id.  It is the function of the Commission to draw inferences
when testimony is open to more than one interpretation, and when it does, its findings
have the force and effect of a jury verdict.  Clark v. Peabody Testing Serv., 265 Ark.
489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979).  Determinations of the weight and credibility of the
evidence are exclusively within the province of the Commission.  George W. Jackson
Mental Health Ctr. v. Lambie, 49 Ark. App. 139, 898 S.W.2d 479 (1995).  
     Both the claimant and her son testified at the hearing before the administrative
law judge.  Their testimony reveals that, immediately before the injury, the claimant was
working at her station on the lower floor of the plant, and her son was working on a
suspended catwalk above the floor.  He was working alone on the chicken wing
machine, which usually was operated by more than one employee.  When he could not
keep up with the machine, chicken wings began "flying everywhere," and he "hollered
for help."  The wings hit workers below, including a female co-worker who accused him
of throwing them at her.  The two exchanged heated words.  He said, "You bitch, get up
here and help me."  She ran up onto the catwalk, swinging her arms, and began hitting
him.  He put a hand in front of his glasses as her blows approached his face.  A crowd
gathered to watch, but neither security nor supervisory personnel came, and no one tried
to stop the altercation.
     The claimant testified that she was doing her job at the chicken thigh machine on
the main floor when this action took place on the catwalk.  She saw her son's face
redden just before he "reared his fist back like he was going to get her."  The claimant
screamed, "Don't hit her!"  She stated that she left her machine and hurried to the
catwalk to see if she could separate them.  Her knee injury occurred when she slipped
in her wet shoes on a metal step of the catwalk.  
     A claimant seeking benefits must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment.  Deffenbaugh Indus. v
Angus, 313 Ark. 100, 852 S.W.2d 804 (1993).  "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.  Id.  The
test for the course of employment requires that the injury occur within the time and
space boundaries of the employment, while the employee is carrying out the employer's
purpose or advancing the employer's interests directly or indirectly.  Id. (citations
omitted) (emphasis added).  
     Appellant challenges the finding of compensability, relying upon San Antonio
Shoes v. Beaty, 28 Ark. App. 201, 771 S.W.2d 802 (1989), for the proposition that
injuries are not compensable when a workplace assault arises out of purely personal
reasons.  Appellant contends that appellee left her station to pursue an endeavor that
was strictly personal and that appellee's actions were not in furtherance of her
responsibilities to her employer.  
     The Commission found that the decision of the administrative law judge was
supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence and correctly applied the law. 
Its opinion included the following conclusions:
          While Ms. Caldareraþs movement toward the fight area was
          not strictly þin furtherance of her employer's business,þ she
          was certainly acting in the employer's best interest in trying
          to stop a fight in which far more grave injuries might have
          been incurred. . . .  

     Here appellee testified that she was hurrying to the catwalk to see if she could
separate her son and his co-worker, and she stated that she probably would have made
efforts to stop the fight even if her son had not been involved.  We believe that
reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion that appellee's actions were
not personal and that she was acting in her employer's best interest when she
approached the catwalk and hit her knee.  We therefore hold that substantial evidence
supports the Commissionþs finding that appellee sustained a compensable injury.   
     Affirmed.  
     Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., agree.