{
  "id": 6141897,
  "name": "UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MEDICAL SCIENCES CENTER, et al v. Matthews Lou RALEIGH",
  "name_abbreviation": "University of Arkansas Medical Sciences Center v. Raleigh",
  "decision_date": "1985-04-10",
  "docket_number": "CA 84-426",
  "first_page": "277",
  "last_page": "280",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ark. App. 277"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "688 S.W.2d 303"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "587 P.2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10451979
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/587/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ark. App. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136904
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/1/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 402,
    "char_count": 6418,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.855,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28384956034116277
    },
    "sha256": "1c8a7da11ba95d6350aa3cecfb62108b395220a80fabba4404d573e9c46a4d68",
    "simhash": "1:c38904b92d629f6a",
    "word_count": 1010
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:39.423771+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cooper and Cloninger, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MEDICAL SCIENCES CENTER, et al v. Matthews Lou RALEIGH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nThe appellant appeals from a unanimous decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission finding appellee\u2019s claim compensable and awarding her disability and medical benefits. We affirm.\nThe appellee, Matthews Raleigh, was employed as a staff LPN in the cardiac unit of appellant hospital. On December 15, 1983, the appellee injured her arm when she fell during the lunch break at a seminar she was attending at the Holiday Inn in Little Rock. Appellant\u2019s only point on appeal is that substantial evidence does not support the Commission\u2019s finding that appellee\u2019s injury arose out of and during the course of her employment.\nThe evidence showed that appellee attended the seminar on \u201cAdvances in Cardiac Care\u201d on her own time and that she paid her own tuition. Appellant\u2019s witnesses testified that appellee was not required, requested, urged or encouraged to attend the seminar. Witnesses for both parties testified that the appellant hospital keeps a book on its premises in which the nurses record their hours of continuing education and in-service training. The record-keeping procedure is required by both the Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals and the State Health Department. Appellant\u2019s witness testified that even though the book is kept, continuing education is not required for employees to maintain their positions or to get raises or promotions.\nAppellee, on the other hand, testified that they \u201chave to have continuing education\u201d and have \u201cto report the continuing education hours to the employer.\u201d She described the requirement that employees write all in-service training in the book kept on the floor where she works. Appellee testified that she did not know whether she would be disciplined for not meeting continuing education requirements but that \u201cmy thoughts are I would . . . because I am required to tell them how many hours.\u201d\nAppellee also testified that, with her supervisor\u2019s approval, she traded shifts with another employee to be able to attend the seminar. She testified about specifics that she learned in the seminar and described how the training would help her in her job. She said that it was her understanding that she had to have so many continuing education hours each year and that she thought it would help her to keep her job, although it was not her understanding that she would lose her job if she did not attend.\nCarol Wolfe, the head nurse of the cardiac unit, testified that she did not encourage anyone to attend the seminar and that appellee did not request official leave to attend. She denied giving permission for or having knowledge of appellee\u2019s trading shifts with another employee.\nAnn Harris, acting director of nurses, testified that she did not encourage or require the appellee to attend the seminar and that neither appellee nor any of the others who attended was representing the appellant Medical Center at the seminar. She testified that her understanding was that appellee was attending on her own, non-work time.\nIn finding the appellee\u2019s claim compensable, the Commisison noted that a key factor in its decision was the appellant\u2019s maintenance of a log book for employees to record their attendance at professional seminars, workshops and other continuing education events. The Commission pointed out that not only was a log book kept but that new employees were given log sheets to be filled out and inserted in the book when they commenced employment.\nBoth parties have cited Professor Larson to support their respective positions that the appellee\u2019s injury either did or did not arise out of and during the course of employment. Larson says that when an employee is injured while undertaking educational or training programs, \u201c[c]om-pensability turns on whether claimant\u2019s contract of employment contemplated attendance as an incident of his work. . . . Employment connection may be supplied by varying degrees of employer encouragement or direction. . . . It is . . . sufficient if attendance, although not compulsory, is \u2018definitely urged,\u2019 or \u2018expected,\u2019 but not if it is merely \u2018encouraged\u2019.\u201d 1A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen\u2019s Compensation, \u00a7 27.31 (1979). Relying on the foregoing rule in Larson, both parties presented testimony to establish whether appellant did or did not urge or expect its employees to participate in continuing education programs. Neither party has cited an Arkansas case dealing with this issue, and we are aware of none.\nOf course, the determination whether appellant\u2019s injury arose out of and in the course of employment is not ours to make in the first instance. We review the evidence to determine only if substantial evidence supports the Commission\u2019s decision, giving deference to their judgment in matters of credibility. Jones v. Scheduled Skyways, Inc., 1 Ark. App. 44, 612 S.W.2d 333 (1981). Whether the appellant hospital \u201curged\u201d or \u201cexpected\u201d or whether it merely \u201cencouraged\u201d its employees to attend seminars, workshops and courses was a question of fact for the Commission. The appellant\u2019s primary arguments on appeal involve credibility issues. Appellant asks us to weigh the testimonies of appellant\u2019s witnesses against the testimony of the appellee which \u201cstood alone.\u201d We are unwilling to do that.\nThe primary case upon which the appellant relies, Loggins v. Wetumka General Hospital, 587 P.2d 455 (Okla. 1978), did involve a similar issue, but turned upon the court\u2019s standard of review of workers\u2019 compensation cases. The Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that it does not weigh evidence to determine the preponderance, but examines the record only to ascertain whether the order is supported by any competent evidence. The court affirmed the Industrial Board\u2019s finding that the claim was not compensable. We, too, must adhere to our well-settled standard of review when considering factual determinations made by the Commission. Because substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Commission\u2019s decision that appellee\u2019s injury occurred during the course of her employment, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nCooper and Cloninger, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Diane Graham, Public Employee Claims Division, Arkansas Insurance Department, for appellant.",
      "James F. Swindoll, P.A., by: H. L. \u201cBuddy\u201d Slate, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MEDICAL SCIENCES CENTER, et al v. Matthews Lou RALEIGH\nCA 84-426\n688 S.W.2d 303\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered April 10, 1985\nE. Diane Graham, Public Employee Claims Division, Arkansas Insurance Department, for appellant.\nJames F. Swindoll, P.A., by: H. L. \u201cBuddy\u201d Slate, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0277-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 308
}