William T. Coffren v. Manpower, Inc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

WILLIAM T. COFFREN,

APPELLANT

V.

MANPOWER, INC.,

APPELLEE

CA00-601

FEBRUARY 21, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION,

NO. E802514

AFFIRMED

William T. Coffren brings this appeal from a finding by the Workers' Compensation Commission that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the medical conditions that he experienced, resulting in chiropractic treatment, hospitalization, and surgery, were causally related to a compensable injury that he experienced while working for appellee, Manpower, Inc. The Commission also found that the chiropractic treatment and the medical treatment received by Coffren was not reasonably necessary for the treatment of his compensable injury. Because substantial evidence exists to support the Commission's findings of fact, we affirm.

Coffren was employed by Manpower, a temporary employment agency, which placed him in a job at the International Paper plant as a general laborer, with a primary job of feeding stacks of cardboard into a machine. When he picked up a stack of cardboard on

February 19, 1998, he felt a sharp pain in his back that shot through his leg. Manpower sent him to an orthopedic surgeon, who treated him until March 1998. Coffren was then referred to Dr. Safman, whose care he remained under until April 28. He was released to return to full-duty work with Manpower on May 1. Manpower accepted this back injury as compensable and paid Coffren temporary total disability benefits and his medical costs. He testified that he was first assigned to light duty "to see if I could tolerate it," and then worked full duty until August 17, never missing any work. He continued to complain of consistent pain.

Coffren said that he experienced severe pain on July 14 while trying to put on his jeans, and that he sought treatment from Dr. Notto, a chiropractic physician, who had treated his fiancée. However, Coffren testified that he did not notify Manpower that he was seeking treatment from Dr. Notto. On August 17, Coffren again experienced severe pain and was taken by ambulance to St. Mary's Regional Medical Center, where he underwent surgery three days later for a massive herniation of one of his discs. He testified that upon arriving at the hospital he told the social worker that he had experienced a job-related injury in February. However, Coffren did not notify Manpower or International Paper of his surgery and his stay at the hospital. Coffren was eventually released to return to work on September 25. He contends that there were no incidents between May 1 and July 14 that precipitated the occurrence of his pain on July 14 or August 17, and that the only event that could have caused his pain was the incident in February.

On cross-examination, he admitted that when he filled out a patient information sheetfor Dr. Notto, he stated that his symptoms began on "6/98," and that he remembered having heat exhaustion symptoms four to five weeks prior to July 14. He also admitted that he experienced heat exhaustion while working for International Paper and that he had gone home early because of it.

Medical records dated March 6, 1998, were introduced into evidence. They indicated "[f]indings that are suspicious for a disc protrusion at L-5, S-1 on the left," but did not indicate any form of herniation. In addition, Dr. Safman's notes never indicated that Coffren had experienced a herniation, and only discussed conservative treatment and the date that he could return to full-duty work. Also, medical records from St. Mary's Regional Medical Center, dated August 17, stated that Coffren had experienced episodes of heat exhaustion and a muscle spasm with acute back pain. He again related the same story on August 18 to Dr. Rusty Allison, his physician while at the hospital. Also, in a letter dated September 21, 1998, Dr. Allison again stated that Coffren had told him that he had experienced heat exhaustion while at work six to nine weeks before coming to the emergency room and that the episode caused him to have severe muscle spasms.

The Commission found that Coffren had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an on-the-job injury, and therefore it denied him benefits. Because the Workers' Compensation Commission adequately explains its decision and findings of fact, we issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to In Re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), and we affirm.

Affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Vaught, J., agree.