{ "id": 6138863, "name": "Quay BEESON v. LANDCOAST and Cigna", "name_abbreviation": "Beeson v. Landcoast", "decision_date": "1993-09-29", "docket_number": "CA 92-1259", "first_page": "132", "last_page": "141", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 Ark. App. 132" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "862 S.W.2d 846" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "7 Ark. App. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136996 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/7/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ark. App. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140065 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/28/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ark. App. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137407 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/36/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ark. App. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6661438 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/22/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721325 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/255/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ark. App. 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139774 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/7/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ark. App. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139225 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142" }, { "page": "535" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/14/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 Ark. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1612059 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/218/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 Ark. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1724177 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/241/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "771 S.W.2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 6138271 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/28/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ark. App. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "231 Ark. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697030 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" }, { "page": "491" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "584 S.W.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "266 Ark. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718564 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "330" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/266/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ark. App. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6648249 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/35/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 Ark. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1884268 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/302/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ark. App. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6661438 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/22/0196-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 782, "char_count": 17984, "ocr_confidence": 0.914, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5417770536174467e-07, "percentile": 0.6730095075041055 }, "sha256": "e15aa1675318f88fe7c4f173d67cdbfad5dffd94adb719cb92bf9d3d77eb54ec", "simhash": "1:7298ea8d5ba4b39f", "word_count": 2927 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:44.592852+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mayfield and Rogers, JJ., dissent.", "Rogers, J., joins in this dissent." ], "parties": [ "Quay BEESON v. LANDCOAST and Cigna" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John B. Robbins, Judge.\nThe appellant, Quay Beeson, suffered an acute myocardial infarction while working at his job for appellee, Landcoast. The Administrative Law Judge found that his heart attack was compensable. Landcoast appealed to the full Commission, which reversed the Administrative Law Judge. It held that Beeson failed to prove that his heart attack was causally related to his employment. Beeson appeals, contending that the Commission\u2019s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.\nAt the time of his heart attack, Beeson was 65 years old and had a family history of heart disease. He had worked for Landcoast for approximately seven years as an insulator. On the morning of his heart attack, Beeson began his work day at 7:00 a.m. For the first couple of hours that morning, he carried boxes of insulation from a warehouse to the job site, a distance of about a quarter of a mile. An electric hoist lifted the boxes to the third floor of the building where Beeson unloaded them. After unloading for about thirty minutes, Beeson began to experience symptoms of a heart attack and was taken to a hospital. He was diagnosed with coronary artery disease caused by arteriosclerosis, which resulted in the myocardial infarction.\nThe issue presented on this appeal is whether there is any substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s holding that Beeson\u2019s heart attack was not causally related to his employment with Landcoast.\nIn reaching its decision, the Commission considered the opinions of four physicians, Dr. Abdul Waheed, Dr. James Hurley, Dr. Thomas Pullig and Dr. James Doherty. Three of these doctors opined that Beeson\u2019s heart attack was precipitated by his work, while the fourth doctor was of the opinion that it was not.\nDr. Waheed, a cardiologist, premised his opinion that Beeson\u2019s employment precipitated his heart attack, at least in part, on his misunderstanding that the heart attack occurred while Beeson was climbing stairs at work. Dr. Hurley, a cardiologist, admitted that he did not know where Beeson was when his pain began, but was of the opinion that if his pain began when he was at work then his job caused it.\nDr. Pullig did not state the activities which he understood Beeson was performing on his job at the time of the heart attack, but opined that his employment precipitated the attack. He based this conclusion on his general statement that \u201cit is established that physical exertion can precipitate a heart attack.\u201d\nDr. Doherty, a professor of medicine and pharmacology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Science and Director of Cardiovascular Research at the V. A. Medical Center, reviewed Beeson\u2019s medical records and a transcript of his deposition. His report notes that Beeson\u2019s arteriosclerosis took many years to develop and that Beeson had a family history of heart disease. It was his opinion that there was no relationship between Beeson\u2019s heart disease and his work, except in a temporal sense, in that he was on his job when he experienced his first symptoms.\nA heart attack is compensable only if there is a causal connection between the heart attack and one\u2019s employment; and when it is established that the employee was putting forth unusual exertion at the time of the heart attack it is ordinarily held that the requirement of causal connection has been met. Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 663 (1987). Absent \u201cunusual exertion\u201d the applicable test is whether the required exertion producing the injury is too great for the employee undertaking the work, whatever the degree of exertion or the condition of his health, provided the exertion is either the sole or contributing cause of the injury. Fowler, supra.\nWhen reviewing a decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission on appeal, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission\u2019s findings and affirm if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Shaw v. Commercial Refrigeration, 36 Ark. App. 76, 818 S.W.2d 589 (1991). In making our review we recognize that the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence as it does any other evidence, and if the evidence is conflicting, the resolution of the conflict is a question of fact for the Commission. Mack v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 28 Ark. App. 229, 771 S.W.2d 794 (1989). On appeal to this court, 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\u2019s conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Bearden Lumber Co. v. Boyd, 7 Ark. App. 65, 644 S.W.2d 321 (1983).\nWe may well have decided this case differently if our standard of review was to weigh the evidence and determine where the preponderance of the evidence lay. However, this is not our function. Although three medical experts were of the opinion that Beeson\u2019s employment precipitated his heart attack, it is obvious that the Commission found Dr. Doherty\u2019s opinion to be more credible. We hold that Dr. Doherty\u2019s report constitutes substantial evidence in support of the Commission\u2019s decision. Consequently, we must affirm the Commission\u2019s holding that Beeson\u2019s myocardial infarction was not casually related to his employment.\nAffirmed.\nMayfield and Rogers, JJ., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "John B. Robbins, Judge." }, { "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge,\ndissenting. I do not believe that the decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission in this case is supported by substantial evidence; therefore, I cannot agree to affirm it. The majority opinion of this court states that \u201cwe may have well decided this case differently if our standard of review was to weigh the evidence and determine where the preponderance of the evidence lay.\u201d That, of course, is not our standard of review but \u2014 as the majority also recognizes \u2014 our standard requires that we reverse a decision of the Commission if 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, 786 S.W.2d 830 (1990); Lockeby v. Massey Pulpwood, Inc., 35 Ark. App. 108, 812 S.W.2d 700 (1991). And in Pickens-Band Construction Co. v. Case, 266 Ark. 323, 584 S.W.2d 21 (1979), the Arkansas Supreme Court said that \u201cany\u201d evidence is not substantial evidence. 266 Ark. at 330, 584 S.W.2d 25.\nThe law, at the time involved in this case, regarding the compensability of heart attacks which occurred on the job is also recognized in the majority opinion by the quotation from Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 663 (1987), that states the applicable test \u201cis whether the required exertion producing the injury is too great for the employee undertaking the work.\u201d To put that quote in proper perspective, in Reynolds Metal Company v. Robbins, 231 Ark. 158, 328 S.W.2d 489 (1959), relied upon in Fowler, the Arkansas Supreme Court explained:\nThe question therefore before this Court, is whether there was substantial evidence to show that Robbins\u2019 condition was aggravated by the work performed, as heretofore set out; or stated differently, whether his death occurred sooner than would have otherwise occurred if the work had not been performed.\n231 Ark. at 162, 328 S.W.2d at 491. In the instant case the administrative law judge found:\nI conclude from the testimony, that although the claimant was not climbing stairs at the time he first experienced chest pains, he was engaged in the heavy manual labor of unloading the boxes of insulation material from the hoist. I therefore find that the claimant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the physical exertion of his employment was a precipitating factor in the myocardial infarction and is therefore a compensable injury.\nThe full Commission did not agree with the law judge and in an opinion, with one member dissenting, held as follows:\nIn support of his contention that a causal relationship exists between his employment and his myocardial infarction, the claimant relies upon the opinions of three physicians. The first is Dr. Abdul Waheed, a cardiologist who testified that the claimant\u2019s employment precipitated his heart attack because the heart attack occurred while claimant was climbing stairs at work. According to claimant\u2019s testimony, this is not a correct history. Claimant was not climbing stairs at the time of his myocardial infarction. Therefore, Dr. Waheed\u2019s opinion is based upon an incorrect history.\nClaimant also relies upon the opinion of Dr. James Hurley, who opined that a causal connection exists even though he admitted that he had no idea where the claimant was when this pain started. However, Dr. Hurley opined that if the claimant\u2019s pain started when he was at work then it was obvious that his job caused the heart attack. The fact that an individual is at work when a heart attack occurs is not sufficient, in and of itself, to prove a causal connection.\nFinally, claimant relies upon the opinion of Dr. Thomas Pullig who opined that it is established that physical exertion can precipitate a heart attack; therefore, he opined that claimant\u2019s employment precipitated his heart attack. Significantly, Dr. Pullig does not state what activities he believes the claimant was performing on the date in question to support his opinion that claimant\u2019s employment precipitated his heart attack.\nIt appears that the opinions of these physicians are based upon the fact that the claimant was at work at the time that his heart attack occurred as evidence that causal connection exists. We find that the opinion of Dr. James Dogherty, [sic] a cardiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, is entitled to greater weight. Dr. Dogherty [sic] noted that the claimant suffered from arteriosclerosis which took many years to develop. Although the claimant was engaged in some activity at the time of the myocardial infarction, Dr. Daugherty [sic] opined that the relationship was merely coincidental and that the claimant\u2019s employment did not precipitate or contribute to the heart attack.\nAt this point, I want to point out the medical evidence as it exists in the record.\nA medical record from Magnolia Hospital dated October 12,1989, shows that appellant was admitted at 11:46 a.m. with an acute myocardial infarction, anterior, and was discharged to transfer to St. Michael Hospital in Texarkana by helicopter at 5:53 p.m.\nThe first St. Michael Hospital record shows that appellant was admitted on October 12, 1989, with chest pain which first occurred about 11:00 a.m. while he was \u201cclimbing the stairs.\u201d The family history oh this admission report shows appellant as a non-smoker (even though 20 years ago he did smoke for a short period of time), non-drinker, with heart disease in the family. A cardiac catheterization performed on October 16 showed appellant had 99 % proximal right coronary lesion but it was felt he could be adequately maintained with medication. However, after appellant had three separate episodes of pain requiring Morphine Sulfate for relief during the weekend, a coronary (balloon) angioplasty was performed on October 24, 1989. Appellant was discharged on October 26, 1989.\nOn November 4,1989, appellant again presented himself to the Magnolia Hospital emergency room with chest pain which felt like his previous attack but not as severe and a history of indigestion all day. Appellant was transferred to St. Michael by ambulance, placed on Coumadin, and discharged.\nA letter dated January 3,1990, from Dr. Abdul Waheed, a Texarkana cardiologist who treated appellant at St. Michael, states:\nAs to the cause of his heart attack, it is clear the heart attacks are caused by atherosclerosis of the arteries, and since this occurred while climbing up the stairs at work, certainly the physical exertion of this precipitated the heart attack.\nDr. James M. Hurley, who performed the angioplasty on appellant, wrote on December 18,1990, that the only information he had about appellant\u2019s heart attack came from Dr. Waheed\u2019s report which said appellant\u2019s chest pain began while he was climbing stairs at work. He stated:\nIf the man\u2019s pain started at his workplace, then the job caused it. Obviously, the job itself did not cause atheroscle-rotic disease but the stress of the job did precipitate the myocardial infarction.\nDr. Thomas A. Pullig, appellant\u2019s general physician in Magnolia, wrote on December 18, 1990:\nIt is well established that the cause of heart attack is coronary artery disease caused by arteriosclerosis. It is also well established that physical exertion beyond a certain point can precipitate heart attack which is caused by coronary artery disease. It is therefore my opinion that the physical exertion that Mr. Beeson was performing on the day of his heart attack was a definite precipitating factor for his acute myocardial infarction.\nCounsel for appellees apparently sent a copy of appellant\u2019s medical records to James E. Doherty, M.D., at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Cardiovascular Division. On June 20, 1990, Dr. Doherty wrote a letter expressing his doubt that appellant\u2019s heart attack was related to his occupation. However, from reading that letter it appears that Dr. Doherty reviewed only those records pertaining to appellant\u2019s second hospitalization, November 4 through 9, 1989. He does not mention the October 12, 1989, episode. However, on April 10, 1991, Dr. Doherty wrote another letter in which it is apparent that he had reviewed appellant\u2019s entire heart attack record and appellant\u2019s deposition. He stated:\nAs to my opinion regarding the patient [\u2019]s job and its relation to his heart attack:\nMr. Beeson was at work 10-12-89 when he first experienced symptoms of his myocardial infarction. His disease, coronary atherosclerosis, is many years in developing and has no relationship to his work, except in a temporal fashion \u2014 he was on the job when he experienced his first symptoms.\nHis family history of heart disease is probably more important in this regard.\nBased on the above medical evidence, the Commission found against the appellant\u2019s claim. In his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commission\u2019s finding, appellant points out that the Commission\u2019s opinion notes that Dr. Waheed was not factually correct in stating that appellant\u2019s heart attack occurred while climbing stairs. However, the appellant points out that the record shows that he had climbed seven flights of stairs to the top of the tower when he went to work on the morning of his attack; that after he had looked at this area where the insulation was to be installed, the appellant spent the next two hours making numerous trips between the tower and the warehouse, walking a quarter mile each way, while carrying on his shoulder boxes of insulation weighing from 75 to 150 pounds; and that he had been unloading the heavy boxes of insulation from the hoist on the third floor for about thirty minutes at the time his heart attack began. The appellant argues that the Commission\u2019s opinion minimizes his exertion and maximizes a verbal discrepancy that the law judge readily recognized as unrelated to credibility and to the question of causal relationship between appellant\u2019s work and his heart attack.\nIn support of his argument, appellant relies on Cox v. Nashville Livestock Commission, 28 Ark. App. 139, 771 S.W.2d 786 (1989), where we held that debilitating angina pain constituted a compensable injury. After reviewing numerous cases, we quoted from Dougan v. Booker, 241 Ark. 224, 407 S.W.2d 369 (1966), which quoted from Triebsch v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Co., 218 Ark. 379, 237 S.W.2d 26 (1951), as follows:\nTherefore, to summarize: we have in the case at bar undisputed facts which are similar in essential respects to those which existed in the six cases hereinafter discussed, in each of which compensation was awarded. These facts are: a pre-existing ailment, an increased and overtaxing effort to accomplish the workload under the conditions existing, and a collapsed worker resulting therefrom. These make a case of accidental injury within the purview of the workers\u2019 compensation law. (Emphasis added in Dougan.)\n28 Ark. App. at 143, 771 S.W.2d at 788-89. Appellant argues that each of these three requirements is also present in this case. He had preexisting atherosclerosis, he had worked strenuously, lifting and carrying, and moving heavy boxes of insulation, for over three hours on a warm day, and he collapsed with a heart attack. Appellant quotes C.J. Horner Company v. Stringfellow, 14 Ark. App. 138, 685 S.W.2d 533 (1985), in which the deceased had a desk job and we affirmed the Commission\u2019s holding that the stress of the job brought on the deceased\u2019s heart attack. We said:\nIt is well settled that an award of benefits will be sustained by the Court where a myocardial infarction is shown to have been aggravated or precipitated by the employment. Kempner\u2019s v. Hall, 7 Ark. App. 181, 646 S.W.2d 31 (1983). There is no requirement in Arkansas that in order for a heart attack to be compensable, it must be caused or brought on by some unusual exertion rather than by the employee\u2019s regular work. Hoerner Waldorf Corp. v. Alford, 255 Ark. 431, 500 S.W.2d 758 (1973).\n14 Ark. App. at 142, 685 S.W.2d at 535.\nBecause I agree with the appellant\u2019s argument and because I do not believe fair-minded persons, with the same evidence before them, could reach the decision reached by the Commission in this case, I would reverse and remand for the Commission to award compensation benefits.\nRogers, J., joins in this dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Dowd, Harrelson, Moore & Giles, by: Marshall H. Moore, for appellant.", "Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: James C. Baker, Jr., and T. Wesley Holmes, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Quay BEESON v. LANDCOAST and Cigna\nCA 92-1259\n862 S.W.2d 846\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered September 29, 1993\nDowd, Harrelson, Moore & Giles, by: Marshall H. Moore, for appellant.\nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, by: James C. Baker, Jr., and T. Wesley Holmes, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0132-01", "first_page_order": 154, "last_page_order": 163 }