|
|
| |
| Sat, Aug. 30, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court rules for Wal-Mart employee in benefits case Thursday, Mar 13, 2008 Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A Wal-Mart employee, who suffered headaches after accidentally breathing cleaning chemicals through an office ventilation system, met her burden of proof and is entitled to additional medical treatment, the state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. The decision reversed a ruling by the Arkansas Workers' Compensation denying benefits. In June 2005, Karen Bohannon was working at a Wal-Mart office building in Bentonville when she and other employees noticed a chemical smell coming from an overhead air-conditioner vent. She later became lightheaded, was unable to speak coherently and fainted, according to the court record. Bohannon and a co-worker were taken to a Bentonville hospital where they were treated and released. It was later determined that the chemical smell came from cleaning solution maintenance workers had been spraying on evaporator coils of the building's air condition unit. The smell traveled through the air vents because the workers did not turn off the air conditioners before spraying the coils. After the incident, Bohannon began suffering headaches and a variety of medications prescribed by doctors failed to relieve the pain. On July 5, 2005, Bohannon was taken to the emergency room from work because she was having trouble talking. Doctors could not find anything wrong with her, but one doctor suggested the headaches could be from exposure to the cleaning solution. She continued to have headaches and sought help from a variety of doctors. In March 2006, she filed a claim seeking additional medical treatment based on multiple recommendations by her doctors. After a hearing, an administrative law judge agreed with Bohannon. Wal-Mart appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission, which reversed the administrative law judge's decision. The commission said Bohannon failed to prove the additional medical treatment doctors recommended was necessary and related to her inhaling the chemical solution. She appealed and the Court of Appeals upheld her argument. "The sole issue before this court is whether the commission erred in determining that additional medical treatment, including but not limited to (a doctor's) recommendations, was not necessary," the court ruled Wednesday. "We hold that the commission erred." The court said testimony provided by an expert witness the commission based its ruling on was based on erroneous assumptions and factual errors. |
