FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO.
& Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellant.
Bodenhamer, for appellees.
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge.
Seth Hansen appeals from a decision of the Arkansas
Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission), which
affirmed and adopted the decision of the administrative law
judge (ALJ) and which found that Hansen had failed to prove
he sustained a compensable injury to his left foot. We
November 2015, Hansen was employed by the City of Siloam
Springs as a firefighter and an emergency medical technician.
In that capacity, he worked in 24-hour shifts, and during his
shift, he was required to stay on premises unless he was
performing a work-related function or errand. As a result,
his employer provided him with sleeping accommodations and
encouraged sleep during the nighttime hours.
was working one of his 24-hour shifts on November 5, 2015. At
approximately 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning, he awoke from a
bad dream in which he believed spiders were crawling on him.
In his sleepy stupor, he jumped from his bed and injured his
foot, suffering a fracture of his left fifth metatarsal. He
ultimately required surgery for his injury.
filed a claim for benefits, but his request was controverted
on the basis that his injury was not work related but rather
was idiopathic in origin. The ALJ agreed, finding that, while
his sleep benefited his employer, his dream about spiders was
idiopathic in nature. It was his dream that caused him to
jump out of bed and injure himself. Thus, because his injury
was idiopathic in nature and because sleeping in the
employer-provided facilities did not increase his risk of
harm, he failed to prove that he had suffered a compensable
injury. Hansen appealed the denial of benefits to the
Commission, which affirmed and adopted the findings of the
ALJ. He now appeals that decision.
Standard of Review
reviewing decisions from the Commission, we view the evidence
and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the Commission's decision and affirm if it is supported
by substantial evidence. Garcia v. Jensen Constr.
Co., 2017 Ark.App. 450, at 3-4, 527 S.W.3d 749, 752.
Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.Id. We
defer to the Commission's findings of credibility and the
resolution of conflicting evidence. Id.
alleges that he suffered a compensable injury. A compensable
injury is an accidental injury causing internal or external
harm that arises out of and in the course of employment.
Garcia, supra. A compensable injury must be
established by medical evidence supported by objective
findings, which are findings that cannot come under the
voluntary control of the patient. Id. As the
claimant, Hansen bears the burden of proving a compensable
injury by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
first claims that the Commission erred in finding that he
suffered a noncompensable idiopathic injury. The Commission
found that the cause of Hansen's injury was his dream
about spiders. Because it was the dream that caused him to
jump from his bed, not any work-related function, the