Koster v. Custom Pak & Trissel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 780
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA09-293
Opinion Delivered
CHARLES KOSTER
V.
APPELLANT
CUSTOM PAK & TRISSEL, GRAHAM
& TOOL, INC.
APPELLEES
November 18, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION [F705738]
AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
An administrative law judge determined that Charles Koster sustained a compensable
injury to his left elbow while pulling flash1 on June 6, 2006; that his right upper-extremity
complaints, which required medical treatment and resulted in periods of temporary total
disability, were a compensable consequence of the June 6, 2006 injury; and that Koster was
temporarily totally disabled from March 27, 2007, to a date yet to be determined. The
Commission reversed the ALJ’s decision, finding that Koster did not prove that his right
upper-extremity complaints were a compensable consequence of the injury to his left upper
extremity and that he did not prove he was entitled to additional benefits from appellees.
1
“Flash” is the excess plastic on a molded plastic part.
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 780
Koster now appeals, arguing that the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence. We affirm the decision of the Commission.
At the hearing, Koster testified that he worked at Custom Pak, cutting and pulling flash
from leaf-blower tubes; that in 2006, something began burning in his arm and elbow; and that
he told his supervisor that he had a problem with his left arm and elbow. He was unsure
when his right arm became a problem for him, but he said that he favored his left arm, which
caused him to over-use his right arm.
When reviewing a decision of the Commission, this court views the evidence and all
reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s
findings and affirms the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Finley v. Farm Cat,
Inc., 103 Ark. App. 292, 288 S.W.3d 685 (2008). The issue is not whether we 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, we must affirm. Id. Where the
Commission denies benefits because the claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof, the
substantial-evidence standard of review requires us to affirm if the Commission's decision
displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Parson v. Arkansas Methodist Hosp., 103 Ark.
App. 178, 287 S.W.3d 645 (2008). A substantial basis exists if fair-minded persons could reach
the same conclusion when considering the same facts. Id.
Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their
testimony are within the exclusive province of the Commission. Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight,
372 Ark. 233, 273 S.W.3d 473, (2008). When there are contradictions in the evidence, it is
-2-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 780
within the Commission’s province to reconcile conflicting evidence and to determine the true
facts. Id. The Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any
other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the
testimony that it deems worthy of belief; this court is foreclosed from determining the
credibility and weight to be accorded to each witness’s testimony. Id.
Koster argues that there was a causal connection between his compensable left-elbow
injury and his subsequent right-elbow problems. When the primary injury is shown to have
arisen out of and in the course of the employment, the employer is responsible for every
natural consequence that flows from that injury. McDonald Equip. Co. v. Turner, 26 Ark. App.
264, 766 S.W.2d 936 (1989). The basic test is whether there is a causal connection between
the two episodes. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty Mech., 62 Ark. App. 53, 968 S.W.2d 645 (1998).
The determination of whether the causal connection exists is a question of fact for the
Commission to determine. Carter v. Flintrol, Inc., 19 Ark. App. 317, 720 S.W.2d 337 (1986).
It is not, however, essential that the causal relationship between the accident and disability be
established by medical evidence. Gerber Prods. v. McDonald, 15 Ark. App. 226, 691 S.W.2d
879 (1985). A finding of causation in a workers’ compensation case does not need to be
expressed in terms of a reasonable medical certainty when there is supplemental evidence
supporting the causal connection. Heptinstall v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 84 Ark. App. 215,
137 S.W.3d 421 (2003).
Here, Koster points to the medical evidence regarding his right-elbow problems to
argue that he had proved a causal connection between his compensable left-elbow injury and
-3-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 780
his right-elbow problems. However, Koster had the same problems on his right side since
1995, although he failed to mention them. Furthermore, Koster in no way connected his
right-elbow problems to his compensable injury during the time he was seeking treatment.
During the course of treatment, he did not claim that the problems with his right arm were
work related; in fact, he filed for short-term disability under the Family Medical Leave Act,
indicating that his problems were not work related. None of the doctors Koster saw stated
that the right-elbow problems were work related; in fact, some of the doctors specifically
stated that the problems were not work related, and one doctor stated that the bilateral pain
was of unknown etiology. Given this evidence, we cannot say that the Commission’s denial
of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence.
The only question presented in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence, and the
Commission’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and opinion adequately explain its decision.
Having determined that the Commission’s findings are in fact supported by substantial
evidence, we affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App.
301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and BROWN, JJ., agree.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.