 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rouner v. Sparks Regional Medical Center11/1/2000
d that appellant filed for and received group health insurance.
Appellant argues that she should not have been required to prove that her job duties included rapid and repetitive motion as she could prove a gradual-onset injury under the back injuries exception. The gradual-onset exception for back injuries is set forth in section 11-9- 102(4)(A)(ii)(b). Under this provision, "compensable injury" means:
(ii) An injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body and arising out of and in the course of employment if it is not caused by a specific incident or is not identifiable by time and place of occurrence, if the injury is:
...
(b) A back injury which is not caused by a specific incident or which is not identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]
In reviewing the above section, the Arkansas Supreme Court stated "we emphasize the obvious . . . [that] section 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(b) provides that a worker sustains a compensable gradual-onset injury if the injury is a back injury; the statute makes no mention of `spine' or `neck.'" Hapney v. Rheem Mfg. Co. 342 Ark. 11, S.W.3d (2000). " ecognized medical definitions have very clearly defined the term `back' as being below the neck or from the neck to the pelvis." Id.
Appellant has an alleged injury to her cervical spine. Hapney states that an injury to the cervical spine is not within the gradual- onset exception for back injuries set out in § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(b). Thus, appellant does not qualify under § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(b). We find that the Commission's decision to deny appellant benefits because she did not prove her job duties required rapid and repetitive motion is supported by substantial evidence.
Affirmed.
Jennings and Roaf, JJ., agree.
|