v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, Respondents
____________________________
Trial Division
CA 45-95
[1] Where findings of
fact are substantially supported by the record, and where those facts directly
support the presumption that a worker’s injury has occurred as a result of
employment, a conclusion by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission that the
presumption has been overcome is plain error.
[2] Conclusions of law must follow from
the facts which are developed at trial or before the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission. It is for this reason that
appellate courts review findings of fact for clear error but conclusions of law
de novo.
Before
KRUSE, Chief Justice, BETHAM, Associate Judge, and SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate
Judge.
Counsel: For
Petitioner, Marshall Ashley, Esq.
For
Respondents, Henry W. Kappel, Assistant Attorney
General, William Kabeisman,
Assistant Attorney General
For
Real Party in Interest, Roy J.D. Hall, Jr., Esq.[29ASR2d185]
Order
Denying Motion for Reconsideration:
I. INTRODUCTION
VCS
Samoa Packing Co. ("Samoa Packing"), the real party in interest in
this workermen's compensation case, has moved for
reconsideration of our earlier review of the decision of the Workmen's
Compensation Commission ("WCC").
Samoa Packing claims that we erred by improperly applying the
presumption of A.S.C.A. § 32.0642(1), that we failed to review the record
in light of the WCC's ultimate decision, and that we
gave the improper remedy. For the
reasons listed below, we deny the motion.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Application of the Presumption
Samoa Packing claims, first, that we misapplied the
presumption contained in A.S.C.A. § 32.0642(1). Whatever arguments Samoa Packing would like
to make about the correct application of presumptions in general, it cannot
dispute that this court has repeatedly held with regard to this particular
presumption that "[o]nce a claimant has shown
the existence of an illness and an employment relationship, a presumption
arises that the claim lies within the coverage of the workmen's compensation
laws. The presumption operates to shift
to the employer the burden of proving by substantial evidence that the injury
was not caused by the employment." Star-Kist Samoa, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 7
A.S.R.2d 149, 151 (Trial Div. 1988) (citations omitted). We examined the evidence and found that not
only was there a lack of substantial evidence to overcome the presumption, but
that much of the evidence, including the WCC's
own findings of fact, was in direct conflict with its conclusions.
In the present case, the WCC made findings of fact
which directly supported the presumption:
it found that Harris' illness arose during her employment, see Findings
Fact, Concls. & Order, WCC No. 29-91, at 2, 4
(Workmen's Compensation Comm'n Mar. 24, 1995)
[hereinafter Findings], that the floor where Harris worked was always wet, see
id. at 3, and that her shoes were sometimes wet
from fish juices and water, see id. at 3. Where there was equivocal evidence in the
record, the WCC explicitly credited the evidence in Harris' favor. See Order on Petition for Review at
5-7 [hereinafter Order].
The other considerations which Samoa Packing
presented in its Motion for Review were either irrelevant or had no basis in
evidence whatsoever. For instance, the
fact that Harris stated her reason for resigning was "to [29ASR2d186] take
care of her sick husband," has no bearing on when she contracted her
illness. See id. at 4. As another
example, Samoa Packing's contention that Harris
should have developed a rash on her hands has no support in the record, either
factual or by expert testimony. See
id. at 7.
[1] Despite the findings of the
WCC--all working to support the presumption, not overcome it--it
concluded that the presumption had been rebutted and that Harris' illness did
not fall under the coverage of the workmen's compensation laws. Where the findings of fact are substantially
supported by the record, and where those facts directly support the
presumption, a conclusion that the presumption has been overcome is plain
error. Despite our earlier holding about
the effect of the presumption in Star-Kist, all of Samoa Packing's arguments about the proper application of the
presumption in this case are all for naught, because the WCC's
findings of fact support the presumption instead of contradicting it.
B. Review of The Record
Samoa Packing next contends that we erred by
considering only the findings of the WCC, rather than the entire record. This was not the case, however. We can only overturn a finding of fact by the
WCC if we find that it was not supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Star-Kist,
7 A.S.R.2d at 151; Continental Insurance
As a preliminary matter in conducting our earlier
inquiry, we reviewed the WCC's findings of fact,
finding that they were all supported by substantial evidence. See Order at 4. Where the findings were disputed, we discussed
them, see Order at 4-7, but in no instance did we find that any of the WCC's findings was not supported by substantial evidence
based upon the entirety of the record.
Only after reviewing the findings of fact based upon the entire record,
did we turn to our discussion of the WCC's
conclusions of law as supported by those findings.
In other words, we reviewed the entire record, in
the first instance, to see if there was substantial evidence to support the
commission's findings. Having found that these findings were supported by the record as a
whole, we need not later return to the entire record to now determine if the
commission's conclusion is supported, completely ignoring their findings. To do so would be to convert ourselves, as an
appellate panel, into finders of fact--a role which is clearly
inappropriate. Cf., e.g., Suapilimai v. Faleafine, 9
A.S.R.2d 16 (App. Div. 1988).[29ASR2d187]
The WCC's findings were
not "meager and ommissive," as Samoa
Packing submits. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Recons. at 8. On the
contrary, they were substantial and complete enough to support a determination
of Ms. Harris claim--unfortunately, the conclusion they support was not the
conclusion reached by the WCC. This is
clear error, and we reversed the WCC based upon this.
C. Improper
Remedy
Finally, Samoa Packing contends that we applied the
improper remedy. Having found the WCC's findings of fact supported, but not its conclusions
of law, Samoa Packing contends that we should remand the case to allow the WCC
to supplement (or change) its findings.
In our view, this is not the way the law works.
[2] Conclusions of law must follow from the
facts which are developed at trial or before a commission. To allow the finder of fact to sculpt facts
which fit its ultimate legal conclusion is to allow the commission to pre-judge
its cases. It is for this very reason
that appellate courts review findings of fact for clear error but conclusions
of law de novo. See, e.g., Anderson v. Vaivao, 21
A.S.R.2d 95 (App. Div. 1992). The
WCC made all the findings of fact that were necessary to reach the proper legal
conclusion and nothing can be gained by remand.
III. CONCLUSION
The
Motion for Reconsideration must be denied.
It
is so ordered.