An appellate court affirmed that an appliance repair technician who was injured in a vehicle accident was eligible for workers’ comp benefits, even though they acknowledged there were discrepancies between his story and the other driver’s account of the accident.

Dale Brown began working for Sears Roebuck & Co. in Hoffman Estates, IL as an appliance repair technician. About three months into the job he was involved in a car accident driving a company van from one job to another. He claimed that he was rear-ended by a woman going about 30 mph. She claimed she was at a complete stop and he backed into her car. She gave the police contact information for an alleged witness who could confirm her side of the story. There was little to no damage to her car but around $2,000 worth of damage to the van’s bumper.

A few days after the accident Brown sought care from his family doctor saying that the impact of the accident threw his body forward and hurt his neck. He continued to receive care for a few months and had an MRI on his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, which showed bleeding around the spinal cord. An orthopedic surgeon who conducted an IME said he could not definitively answer whether the trauma of the accident caused his spine issues. Brown sought surgery for his spine and his shoulder which he said was having issues from having his hands on the wheel during the accident.

An administrative law judge found that his cervical spine and left-shoulder injuries were compensable as a result of the accident, but that he failed to meet the burden of proof relating to his lumbar spine injury.

The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed the decision and Sears appealed, arguing there was no substantial evidence to support Mr. Brown’s claim that the other driver was traveling 30 mph at the time of the accident. The commission said that there was no evidence to suggest that either person was lying but the medical evidence supported his version of the accident.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed this. They said the credibility of witnesses is up to the Commission to determine and since they had done so and weighed the evidence, they could not find error in their decision.

Read more here.