{ "id": 6140593, "name": "Henry PRICE v. LITTLE ROCK PACKAGING COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Price v. Little Rock Packaging Co.", "decision_date": "1993-06-30", "docket_number": "CA 92-1294", "first_page": "238", "last_page": "241", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "42 Ark. App. 238" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "856 S.W.2d 317" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "240 Ark. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1727388 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "269" }, { "page": "269-271" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/240/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-523", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "661 S.W.2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 6136734, 6136615 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0034-01", "/ark-app/10/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. App. 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136615 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 Ark. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1884268 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/302/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ark. App. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6646872 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/35/0032-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 391, "char_count": 6213, "ocr_confidence": 0.906, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.9178204402182067e-07, "percentile": 0.8462900732822647 }, "sha256": "b2d143fbee9d6f4d2f3e947b6bdebae77d9a25e91454a0586f3d25174d289bde", "simhash": "1:c2ea5385057d013c", "word_count": 1038 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:37:01.057819+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Henry PRICE v. LITTLE ROCK PACKAGING COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John B. Robbins, Judge.\nAppellant Henry J. Price appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission which found that appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable hernia on April 26, 1990. Because we agree with appellant\u2019s contention that the Commission\u2019s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse and remand to the Commission for an award of benefits.\nIn February of 1990, appellant tripped and fell at work, but reported no injury from this fall. Appellant testified that on April 26, 1990, when he was lifting loads of paper, he felt an \u201cawful pain\u201d in his side, in the groin area. He said he told a co-worker, then went to report to his supervisor, Allen Timms, and the personnel director, Shirley Johnson. Ms. Johnson filled out a report and made an appointment for appellant at the hospital the next day. At the time he reported his injury, appellant attributed the pain to his fall in February. After seeing a physician, appellant underwent surgery for hernia repair, and was off work from April 27, 1990, through July 24, 1990. Appellant sought temporary total disability benefits and medical and related expenses.\nThe Commission found that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable hernia while working for respondent in April of 1990. The Commission further stated that appellant failed to report to his employer or his physician an incident occurring on April 26, 1990.\nThe findings of the Commission must be upheld unless there is no substantial evidence to support them. Arkansas Department of Correction v. Glover, 35 Ark. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (1991). We do not reverse a decision of the Commission unless we are convinced that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them could not have reached the conclusion arrived at by the Commission. International Paper Co. v. Tuberville, 302 Ark. 22, 27, 786 S.W.2d 830 (1990); see also Silvicraft, Inc. v. Lambert, 10 Ark. App. 28, 661 S.W.2d 403 (1983).\nThe requirements for establishing compensability of a hernia are set forth at Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-523 (1987):\n(a) In all cases of claims for hernia, it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the commission:\n(1) That the occurrence of the hernia immediately followed as the result of sudden effort, severe strain, or the application of force directly to the abdominal wall;\n(2) That there was sever pain in the hernial region;\n(3) That the pain caused the employee to cease work immediately;\n(4) That notice of the occurrence was given to the employer within forty-eight (48) hours thereafter;\n(5) That the physical distress following the occurrence of the hernia was such as to require the attendance of a licensed physician within seventy-two (72) hours after the occurrence.\nBecause appellant first attributed his pain to his fall in February, that date was listed as the date of injury when the report was filled out. Appellant also did not complain to his physician of any injury occurring on April 26, 1990. However, even though appellant attributed his pain to the fall in February, his treating physician testified that he would say \u201cwith a high degree of medical certainty\u201d that appellant\u2019s hernia occurred on the day in April when appellant had the right groin pain, and not two months earlier.\nIn Siders v. Southern Mattress Company, 240 Ark. 267, 398 S.W.2d 901 (1966), the Commission\u2019s opinion denying benefits stated:\nClaimant did mention to his employer that his stomach was hurting, but according to the employer, claimant did not give any history of hurting himself on the job. Claimant went to Dr. Wenger that same day and Dr. Wenger\u2019s testimony is that T have no record of any history of any specific injury . . . .\u2019 Claimant\u2019s failure to tell his employer of an on-the-job accident plus his failure to tell Dr. Wenger of any specific incident raises a serious question as to whether claimant in fact suffered an injury as alleged.\n240 Ark. at 269. In reversing the denial of benefits, the supreme court said:\nThe commission imposed a heavier burden on appellant than the law calls for. Just as the Act does not require an immediate diagnosis, it also does not require that the claimant insist that the doctor\u2019s history contain the gory details of the occurrence .... Appellant has established a prima facie case. From all the circumstances, there is no question but that the employer had timely and proper notice of the occurrence that caused the hernia. There is not substantial evidence to the contrary. Appellant is not required to give notice that he has a hernia \u2014 he is not a doctor \u2014 the statute merely requires that appellant give notice of the occurrence which resulted in a hernia.\n240 Ark. at 269-271.\nAllen Timms, appellant\u2019s supervisor, testified that appellant came to him on April 26, 1990, and stated that he was \u201churting pretty bad,\u201d and that appellant said he had been \u201ccutting back there on the knife and as he was bending over and straightening up and all and he got to hurting pretty bad, and didn\u2019t think he ' could continue to run it.\u201d Shirley Jones, personnel director for appellee, said that when appellant came to her to make his report, \u201che had said that his pain was quite bad, and he was holding his stomach.\u201d\nAppellant notified his employer of the occurrence resulting in a hernia when he told Allen Timms that he \u201cgot to hurting pretty bad\u201d while bending and straightening over the knife. The employer had timely and proper notice of the occurrence that caused the hernia. We do not think that fair-minded persons with the same facts before them, could have concluded that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable hernia on April 26, 1990. We reverse and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and Remanded.\nCooper and Mayfield, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "John B. Robbins, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellant.", "Laser, Sharp, Mayes, Wilson, Bufford & Watts, P.A., by: Brian Allen Brown, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Henry PRICE v. LITTLE ROCK PACKAGING COMPANY\nCA 92-1294\n856 S.W.2d 317\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered June 30, 1993\nWright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellant.\nLaser, Sharp, Mayes, Wilson, Bufford & Watts, P.A., by: Brian Allen Brown, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0238-01", "first_page_order": 262, "last_page_order": 265 }