Carolyn Van Meter v. Whirlpool Corporation

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II

CAROLYN VAN METER

APPELLANT

v.

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

APPELLEE

CA00-557

DECEMBER13, 2000

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION E901808

AFFIRMED

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, Judge

Carolyn Van Meter appeals a decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission finding that she failed to prove that she sustained a compensable lower-back injury. On appeal, she argues that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

In attempting to establish that her lower-back complaints were compensable, Van Meter presented proof relating to both gradual-onset and specific-incident theories. Thelatter theory involved a fall at work that Van Meter suffered on July 30, 1998.

At her hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), Van Meter testified that she had worked for Whirlpool for twenty-five years, in a variety of different jobs. For the first thirteen years, she worked on the door line, driving screws with an airgun to attach door panels. Van Meter stated that over time, the air guns were made lighter and easier to use, but estimated that they weighed two-to-three pounds. She was then briefly tasked with counting and keeping loading bins supplied with parts, before accepting a position where her job consisted of putting on labels. The later position required her to stand for prolonged periods of time, but required no bending or stooping. Van Meter then was tasked with driving screws to install the door handles on "top mount" refrigerators, which she claimed was hard on her neck and arms because it involved working overhead. Next she was tasked with installing butter and utility bins, which she described as an extremely fast, repetitive job, but one that did not require heavy lifting. Over the final five to six years at Whirlpool, she served as a floor inspector, which involved "a lot of walking," pushing around boxes and big plastic or wood boxes called "KD's," occasional lifting of parts, pushing cabinets that were on rollers, and frequent bending, stooping, and walking on rollers. The floor inspector job also required that she relieve line workers for bathroom breaks and fill out paperwork.

Van Meter admitted that she began to have problems with her back before her July 1998 fall at work and that she had sought treatment from Dr. Craft approximately five days before the fall. According to Van Meter, her fall occurred when she caught her shoe lace on a nail sticking out from a skid. She fell on her right side, breaking blood vessels and injuringher left shoulder. Van Meter immediately reported the mishap to the company nurse who put ice on the broken blood vessels and wrapped her knee in an ace bandage, and sent her back to work. Van Meter asserted that, at the time, she was taking an anti-inflammatory for her back, which seemed to help. According to Van Meter, for a while, she did not notice any symptoms, but her back gradually began to hurt, steadily worsening until January 9, 1999, when she claimed she could barely walk into work. She claimed that she approached the company health nurse about filing a workers' compensation claim; however, the nurse refused to help her because when she fell, she only complained about broken blood vessels and an injured shoulder. Van Meter stated that she went to Dr. Charles Craft on her own, and he decided that her lower-back complaints were "probably work-related." Dr. Craft took her off work from January 9, 1999, through June 10, 1999, when she returned to work. She claimed that she continues to be treated by several physicians, with medication and acupuncture, and that she suffered from numbness in her legs and pain in her back. Van Meter stated that she consulted with a back surgeon, Dr. Joseph Queeny, who looked at her MRI and stated that he could not help her with back surgery. Van Meter claimed that since the onset of her back problems, she was unable to lift and carry her grandchildren.

Ivin Morse, Van Meter's direct supervisor in July of 1998, testified that some sixty percent of Van Meter's job as floor inspector involved filling out paperwork. She stated that Van Meter was also tasked with randomly testing screws with a torque meter, insuring that the correct parts were available, and making sure that the parts were installed properly. Morse claimed that getting parts was not a regular requirement of the job because that taskwas delegated to parts handlers. He opined that on an average day, Van Meter would only be on her feet for two to three hours.

Included in the medical exhibits was Dr. Craft's progress note, dated July 27, 1998, which predated her alleged July 30, 1998, work-related fall, stating that Van Meter presented with "acute low back and right hip pain with some sciatica-type symptoms into the right leg." Also included was a letter from Dr. Craft, dated May 20, 1999, in which he opined that there is a direct connection between Van Meter's current back problems and her employment, "based on her employment at Whirlpool for the past 20 years doing manual heavy type labor."

Also included in the medical exhibits is a progress note from Dr. Queeny, dated January 22, 1999, which states that Van Meter claimed that her lower-back complaints began about a year before, and "she denies precipitating trauma or precipitating events." The note also states that a review of Van Meter's CT Scan showed "minimal" disc bulging at L4-5 and central disc bulging at L5-S1, but that there was "no objective evidence of nerve root compression." Dr. Queeny ordered an MRI that confirmed a "small central disc protrusion at L5-S1 and moderate bulging of the disc at L3-4 and L4-5," but "no high-grade canal stenosis." In a note dated March 25, 1999, Dr. Queeny states that based on the MRI, he did not think that surgery was indicated, and he released Van Meter to the care of her general practitioner.

In an evidentiary deposition taken on July 30, 1999, Dr. Craft testified that he began treating Van Meter for "low back and hip discomfort" in the Spring of 1997. He stated thatshe presented on July 27, 1998, complaining of pain in her lower back, right hip, and right leg; however, his notes did not reflect, nor could he remember, any specific injury that she blamed for the pain. At the time, he ordered x-rays, which were normal, prescribed anti-inflammatory medication, and ordered a CT Scan. He noted that her pain was "chronic" at that point, meaning that it had lasted for at least six months to a year. Dr. Craft stated that Van Meter did not mention her fall at work until December 23, 1998, when she presented for an unrelated complaint. He noted Dr. Queeny's findings that Van Meter's condition was a soft-tissue problem and stated that he continued to manage her condition medically with anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy.

Regarding his May 20, 1999, letter, Dr. Craft testified that he based his conclusions that she was performing heavy, manual labor on his impression that she was tasked with some lifting, pulling, and pushing object that weighed twenty to fifty pounds or more. However, he admitted that he did not recall Van Meter informing him about the amount of time she spent doing paperwork sitting at a computer and that it would have an effect on his opinion depending on how many years or months she was in that job and what percentage of her work was involved in sedentary tasks. Dr. Craft further stated that "age is the single most significant factor in disc degeneration;" however, other causes like smoking and picking up children could also contribute. He opined that her work at Whirlpool likely accounted for between thirty-five and fifty percent of her back problems, however, he denied being able to state these percentages with any type of mathematical certainty.

The ALJ found that Van Meter failed to prove that she suffered a compensable backinjury either as the result of a specific incident or cumulative employment-related trauma. The opinion stated that although Dr. Craft's December 23, 1998, report states that her fall at work "aggravated her pre-existing and ongoing lower back difficulties," that opinion was not supported by the other evidence presented. Specifically, there was no evidence of a "close temporal relationship" between this incident and any increase or change in Van Meter's lower-back symptomology in that, while she was treated for her complaints prior to the fall, she did not seek any further medical treatment for these conditions until almost four months afterward. Furthermore, the opinion states that Van Meter's own testimony fails to show a contemporaneous onset or worsening of her symptoms as a result of the fall, because she claimed that the symptoms did not arise until at least a week or two after the incident. The ALJ acknowledged that Van Meter established that she was a longtime employee of Whirlpool and that she had objectively demonstrated degenerative abnormalities involving her lower lumbar spine, however, he found that these abnormalities are commonly attributed to the "general wear and tear of day-to-day life and are usually associated with the aging process itself." Noting that the primary evidence that Van Meter presented concerning the causal connection between her condition and her employment was her own belief and the opinion of Dr. Craft, the ALJ stated that the latter was based on the assumption that Van Meter had consistently engaged in twenty years of "manual heavy type labor," and the greater weight of the evidence showed was not an accurate assumption. The ALJ found that for at least the last five years, Van Meter did not perform on any prolonged or consistent basis activities that could be considered "manual heavy type labor" or"repetitive motion type work." He found no evidence of continuous repetitive bending, twisting, or stooping; continuous repetitive or heavy lifting; or prolonged awkward postures, standing, or sitting. The full Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On appeal, Van Meter only pursues the gradual-onset theory of compensability. She argues that the Commission's opinion is not supported by substantial evidence in that all the evidence that was submitted supports a conclusion that is the opposite of the Commission's and ALJ's findings. Van Meter contends that she proved that her job involved repetitive activities with frequent bending and stooping. Furthermore, she asserts that the Commission improperly dismissed Dr. Craft's opinion, because there is no medical evidence to dispute his conclusions. This argument is without merit.

When the Commission denies a claim because of the claimant's failure to meet his or her burden of proof, the substantial evidence standard of review requires that the appellate court affirm the Commission's decision if its opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Johnson v. Riceland Foods, 47 Ark. App. 71, 884 S.W.2d 626 (1994). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Aeroquip, Inc. v. Tilley, 59 Ark. App. 163, 954 S.W.2d 305 (1997). The issue on appeal is not whether this court might have reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission's conclusion, this court must affirm the Commission's decision. Id.

We find that reasonable minds could agree that the work activities that Van Meter described do not involve the type of heavy lifting or repetitive stress that could form the basis for concluding that her lower-back complaints constitute a gradual-onset back injury. Furthermore, regarding Van Meter's contention that the Commission impermissibly disregarded Dr. Craft's opinion, it is so well settled as to be axiomatic that it is the exclusive function of the Workers' Compensation Commission to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, Williams v. Prostaff Temporaries, 64 Ark. App. 128, 979 S.W.2d 911 (1998), and once the Commission has made its decision on issues of credibility, we are bound by that decision. Express Human Resources III v. Terry, 61 Ark. App. 258, 968 S.W.2d 630 (1998). Here the Commission simply found that Dr. Craft's opinion was based on an erroneous factual predicate, i.e., that Van Meter had performed "heavy manual type labor" for more than twenty years. We hold that this constitutes a substantial basis for the Commission to give Dr. Craft's opinion little weight.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Griffen, JJ., agree.