Opinion
CLAIM NO. E203325
OPINION FILED AUGUST 29, 1994
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by DICK JARBOE, Attorney at Law, Walnut Ridge, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by KAREN HART McKINNEY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on February 28, 1994.
After a de novo review of the entire record herein we find that claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that there was a causal connection between his myocardial infarction and his employment with respondent.
Claimant maintains that on or about February 13, 1992, he sustained a myocardial infarction. He contends that the myocardial infarction is work-related because physical exertion occurring at work aggravated or accelerated his pre-existing artery disease causing the myocardial infarction. Respondent maintains that there is not a causal connection between claimant's myocardial infarction and his employment. A hearing was held and an Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the claimant.
Based upon a review of the entire record, claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that there is a causal relationship between his work at respondent and his myocardial infarction. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
It is well established in Arkansas law that the burden rests upon the claimant in a workers' compensation claim to establish his or her claim for compensation. Bragg v. Evans-St. Claire, Inc., 15 Ark. App. 53, 688 S.W.2d 956 (1955); Voss v. Ward's Pulpwood Yard, 248 Ark. 465, 452 S.W.2d 629 (1970). A claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits must prove that "the injury or death arose out of and in the course of the employment." Ark. Dept. of Correction v. Glover, 35 Ark. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (1991). Furthermore, "there is no presumption that an injury arose out of and in the course of employment." Glover at 35, 812 S.W.2d at 694. Rather, there must be "affirmative proof of distinctive employment risks as the cause of the injury. The connection with the employment cannot be supplied by speculation." Gerber Products v. McDonald's, 15 Ark. App. 226, 691 S.W.2d 879 (1985). For a claimant to establish that a heart attack was a compensable injury, he or she must demonstrate a causal connection between his or her heart attack and his or her employment.Auto Salvage Co. v. Rogers, 232 Ark. 1013, 342 S.W.2d 85 (1961).
A review of the evidence indicates that claimant has several risk factors making him a prime candidate for a heart attack. Claimant has a history of hypertension which was diagnosed approximately ten years ago. He smokes a pack and a half to two packs of cigarettes a day, drinks several alcoholic drinks each evening, and has high blood pressure.
Despite the aforementioned risk factors, claimant contends that his exertion in opening a grain bin door caused his myocardial infarction. However, there is insufficient medical evidence to support this contention.
The deposition of Dr. Hill is a part of the record. Dr. Hill confirms that claimant had several risk factors. In addition to the above referenced, claimant also had elevated cholesterol levels. Dr. Hill is of the opinion that there is no way to know what caused the plaque buildup in claimant's arteries to rupture. He is of the opinion that plaque can rupture at any time and can occur randomly. He further opined that it would be speculation for him to say that there was a relationship between claimant's working and his attack. In fact, Dr. Hill indicates that it is impossible to say that claimant's exertion or any activity at work caused the plaque to break off which ultimately resulted in the heart attack. Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence a causal connection between his employment activities and his myocardial infarction.
Claimant's heart attack did not arise out of his employment. His medical history indicates that he had several factors contributing to his heart disease. Simply because claimant was at work when the pain began is not sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection. One must resort to speculation and conjecture to find a causal connection between claimant's heart attack and his work employment. Therefore, as stated, we reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Commissioner Humphrey dissents.