Wesner's Grill v. Carpenter
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 378
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA09-1221
WESNER’S GRILL and COLUMBIA
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
APPELLANTS
V.
KENNETH CARPENTER
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered MAY
5, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[NO. F704533]
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission found that appellee, Kenneth
Carpenter, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered compensable injuries
both on December 29, 2006, and on January 15, 2007, when he was exposed to a chemical
cleanser used at his place of employment, Wesner’s Grill. Appellants contend that substantial
evidence did not support the Commission’s finding, because there was no proof of a causal
relationship between appellee’s injuries and the chemical exposures. We affirm the
Commission’s decision.
According to the Commission’s opinion, appellee credibly testified that on December
29, 2006, he was working in the dishwashing area of the restaurant while another employee
was cleaning a plastic garbage tub by using a spray bottle of E-Z Kleen, a grill cleaner. A fan
used to dry dishes blew E-Z Kleen vapor onto appellee. Appellee testified that the exposure
caused his eyes and skin to burn. Appellee further testified that on January 15, 2007, the same
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 378
person was cleaning the grills with E-Z Kleen. As spray water was being used to rinse the
grills, appellee was again exposed to E-Z Kleen and immediately felt persistent burning of his
skin and eyes, and he coughed up blood. He also noted that the t-shirt he was wearing had
holes burned into it.
The Commission further noted that the medical records showed that appellee was seen
by his family physician on January 23, 2007, eight days after the second exposure, and was
diagnosed as having a cough, congestion, difficulty breathing, fatigue, laryngitis, dermatitis,
rash, and stomatitis. The Commission characterized the rash, dermatitis, and stomatitis as
objective findings. Appellee related his symptoms to his workplace exposure to E-Z Kleen.
At a return visit on February 19, 2007, appellee’s family physician noted appellee had a red
and irritated throat. A visit to the dentist on February 26, 2007, revealed severe tissue
irritation of appellee’s lips, cheek, tongue, and throat. The dentist noted that the tissues
appeared to be severely chemically burned, with tissue sloughing present. On July 19, 2007,
the family physician wrote that “in review of records, I do believe the time course and
symptoms may represent a chemical induced presentation or reaction.” The Commission
found that appellee’s exposures on December 29, 2006, and January 15, 2007, resulted in
compensable injuries.
Appellants argue that appellee failed to prove a causal or temporal relationship between
the alleged exposures and his complaints. In support of their argument, appellants generally
assert that there was an absence of objective findings near in time to appellee’s exposures to
-2-
CA09-1221
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 378
E-Z Kleen. Further, appellants assert that appellee’s testimony was not credible.
A compensable injury is defined as “[a]n accidental injury causing internal or external
physical harm to the body . . . arising out of and in the course of employment and which
requires medical services or results in disability or death,” and “[a]n injury is ‘accidental’ only
if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.” Ark.
Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2009). A compensable injury must be established by
medical evidence supported by objective findings, which are findings that cannot come under
the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) and 16(a)(i) (Supp.
2009). In reviewing Commission decisions, 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. King v. Peopleworks, 97 Ark. App.
105, 244 S.W.3d 729 (2006). It is the Commission’s function to weigh the medical evidence
and assess the credibility and weight to be afforded to any testimony. Id.
As the Commission found, appellee testified that he was exposed to E-Z Kleen.
Following his exposure, appellee suffered from various symptoms, which he attributed to the
exposure. Appellee was seen by a physician eight days after the second exposure, and the
physician made objective findings. In finding causation, the Commission credited appellee’s
testimony and the physician’s medical records. This was a factual determination for the
Commission to make after weighing and interpreting the evidence and deciding matters of
credibility, and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision.
-3-
CA09-1221
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 378
Affirmed.
PITTMAN and BAKER, JJ., agree.
-4-
CA09-1221
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.