Hosey v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
2016 Ark. App. 189, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 213, 487 S.W.3d 837 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In workers' compensation cases, the Commission is the exclusive finder of fact with the authority to weigh evidence, assess witness credibility, and accept or reject medical opinions. An appellate court must affirm the Commission's denial of benefits if the decision is supported by a substantial basis.
Facts:
- On October 6, 2011, Jennifer Lea Hosey, a stocker for Wal-Mart, was pulling a pallet jack when it collided with milk crates, causing a sudden stop that jerked her forward and resulted in immediate pain in her right shoulder.
- Hosey had a pre-existing condition, having undergone a right shoulder labral repair surgery by Dr. Pearce in 2008.
- Five days after the 2011 incident, Hosey reported pain in her right shoulder, arm, and the right side of her neck.
- An MRI performed on November 7, 2011, showed her 2008 labral repair was intact, and two examining physicians, Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart, found no new permanent impairment from the 2011 incident.
- Hosey had a documented history of complaining about neck pain and numbness in her hands for years prior to the October 2011 incident, including in 2008 and 2009.
- In May 2013, Hosey underwent an anterior-cervical discectomy and fusion (neck surgery) and a right carpal tunnel release.
- An MRI in September 2013, nearly two years after the incident, revealed a possible small full-thickness rotator cuff tear, which a new physician, Dr. Daniels, believed required surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Jennifer Lea Hosey filed a claim with the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission for injuries to her neck, right shoulder, and for bilateral carpal tunnel.
- Her employer, Wal-Mart, controverted the claims for the neck and carpal tunnel injuries and denied further treatment for the shoulder.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and found the right shoulder injury compensable but denied benefits for the neck injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, and a later-proposed rotator cuff surgery, finding them not causally related to the work incident.
- Hosey, as appellant, appealed the ALJ's decision to the full Workers' Compensation Commission.
- The Commission affirmed and adopted the ALJ's decision as its own.
- Hosey, as appellant, appealed the Commission's final decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, with Wal-Mart as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Workers’ Compensation Commission have a substantial basis to deny benefits for an employee's neck and shoulder injuries by concluding they were not causally related to a specific work incident, despite conflicting medical evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Robert J. Gladwin
Yes. The Commission’s decision to deny benefits is affirmed because it had a substantial basis for its factual findings. The appellate court's role is not to reweigh the evidence but to determine if reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the Commission. The Commission is the exclusive arbiter of witness credibility and the weight given to evidence, including medical opinions. Here, there was substantial evidence supporting the denial: Hosey's description of the incident did not strongly suggest neck trauma; she had a significant history of pre-existing neck and hand symptoms; and the initial medical examinations and MRI after the 2011 incident did not show a rotator cuff tear. The Commission acted within its authority to give greater weight to the opinions of the initial treating physicians (Dr. Pearce and Dr. Stewart) over the opinions of later physicians (Dr. Contreras and Dr. Daniels), especially since one doctor's opinion was based on an inaccurate timeline of events and another was based primarily on the claimant's subjective reports.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the highly deferential standard of review that appellate courts apply to the factual findings of a Workers' Compensation Commission. It demonstrates that the Commission's role as the sole judge of credibility and the weight of evidence is paramount. Even when a claimant presents some medical evidence supporting their claim, the Commission’s decision to deny benefits will be upheld if there is any substantial evidence in the record to support it. This precedent solidifies the Commission's power to resolve conflicts in medical testimony and makes it very difficult for claimants to overturn adverse factual determinations on appeal.
