Employee started working for Buchheit Concrete in early 2008 as a concrete laborer. Buchheit Concrete routinely "shared" its employees with employer and other contractors who needed concrete laborers for particular jobs and projects. In March 2008, employee was working intermittently for employer at a job site known as the "North Park site." Employee did not perform any work for Buchheit Concrete at the North Park site, but worked exclusively for employer when working there.
At the hearing before the administrative law judge, employee testified as follows. Employee was moving heavy concrete forms at the North Park site when he hurt his back. While pulling one of the forms, employee felt his back tighten on his right side and felt pain go down his right leg. Employee was working with a coworker named Frank Bruno. Frank Bruno witnessed the injury. Employee went to the foreman and told the foreman his back was hurting. The foreman instructed employee to finish the day, and employee did so. The next morning, employee's back was still painful. Employee explained that all of the workers routinely gathered around the work truck in the morning. At this gathering, employee informed the Buchheit foreman, Gerald Nanney, that his back was still painful. Mark Schlogl, employer's representative at the North Park site, was present and within earshot of this exchange. Because employee's back was hurting, Mr. Nanney allowed employee to ride on the concrete rolling machine as weight. Employee would not normally be allowed to perform this task. Rather, employee would have been shoveling that day if his back were not hurting. Employee was able to ride the machine for only a few hours before he had to ask the machine operator to stop the machine. Employee got off the machine and walked around the job site to where Mr. Nanney was and told him he couldn't do the job with his back pain.
Employee went home early that day because there was no other task employee was able to perform.
Employee testified that March 24, 2008, was the date he was injured at the North Park site. The date employee was injured has been the subject of much confusion in this case. Employee admitted as early as his deposition of March 2, 2009, that he could not be particular with dates and that he did not remember the dates on which the relevant events occurred. Employee's inability to remember the date of injury has resulted in a profusion of conflicting dates of injury in the record: March 24, 2008, May 24, 2008, ${ }^{2} April 30, 2008, { }^{3} March 28, 2008, { }^{4} and March 30, 2008. { }^{5}$ The correct date would appear to be of special importance, as employee admitted that of the conflicting dates of injury, March 24, 2008, is the only day he can say that he was working for employer.
Notably, however, employee's testimony was unequivocal that he was injured on the North Park site. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Frank Bruno. Mr. Bruno's testimony was entered into the record via deposition. Mr. Bruno testified that he saw employee injure himself on the North Park project when employee was moving concrete forms. Mr. Bruno testified that employee grabbed his back and said he thought he pulled something. Mr. Bruno testified that employee came to work the next day and was unable to work because of his hurt back.
Employee's testimony was also corroborated by the testimony of Gerald Nanney. Mr. Nanney testified at the hearing before the administrative law judge. Mr. Nanney confirmed that employee told him he was injured lifting forms while working at the North Park site. Mr. Nanney confirmed that Mark Schlogl was within earshot when employee told everyone that he hurt his back and would need to perform a light duty task, and that Mr. Schlogl was also present when employee asked to stop the concrete rolling machine. Mr. Nanney was also able to identify the relevant dates by referring to a logbook that he carried on the jobsite to record employees' hours. Mr. Nanney confirmed that March 25, 2008, was the date that employee went home after only working a few hours.
The evidence thus far is corroborative of employee's testimony that he injured his back on March 24, 2008, while working for employer at the North Park job site, and the next day told everyone-including employer's representative-what had happened. The only contradictory testimony comes from Mark Schlogl. Mr. Schlogl testified at the hearing before the administrative law judge. Mr. Schlogl denied that employee ever told him he was injured at the North Park site. Mr. Schlogl also denied overhearing employee tell anyone else about the injury. Mr. Schlogl acknowledged that he knew employee had been injured at some point: "I remember asking somebody at a certain time, you know, and they said that [employee] was hurt." Mr. Schlogl testified that he could not remember when this exchange occurred or who told him employee was
[^0]
[^0]: ${ }^{2}$ This date was listed on employee's original and two subsequent amended claims for compensation filed with the Division of Workers' Compensation.
${ }^{3} This date appears in the records from Concentra Medical Centers.
{ }^{4} This date appears in the records from Petkovich Orthopedic and Spine Care.
{ }^{5}$ This date appears in Dr. Frank Petkovich's report of July 21, 2008.
injured. Mr. Schlogl explained that he asked about employee because, "when you work with the same guys all the time and then you show up one day, if somebody's there, you know, somebody's not there, it's just, you know, hey, where's [employee] at."
We find the testimony of Mr. Nanney credible and more reliable than that of Mr. Schlogl, who could not remember what happened or how he learned of employee's injury. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Schlogl was present and within earshot when employee reported his injury and asked for a light duty task on March 25, 2008. We further find that Mr. Schlogl was present later that morning when employee asked that the job be stopped due to his back pain.
We disagree with the administrative law judge that employee's confusion over the date of injury should result in denial of his claim. Employee's testimony regarding the circumstances of the injury was supported by the firsthand testimony of Mr. Bruno, and was consistent with the history set forth in the treatment records of Concentra Medical Center, Dr. Graham, Dr. Petkovich, and The Work Center. Employee's testimony regarding the work injury also matches the information set forth in the Report of Injury filed with the Division of Workers' Compensation (Division), and insurer's form entitled "Employee's Report of Injury." Doubtless, employee is a poor historian with regard to dates, but Mr. Nanney was able to remedy this defect in employee's evidence by providing credible and convincing testimony that March 24, 2008, was the date of injury.
In sum, we find the hearing testimony of employee and Mr. Nanney, and the deposition testimony of Mr. Bruno, to be credible. We find that employee was working for employer moving concrete forms at the North Park site on March 24, 2008. We find that employee felt his back tighten on his right side and felt pain go down his right leg when he pulled one of the forms. We find that employee came to work the next day and informed everyone at the morning gathering that he hurt his back the day before and needed a light duty task. We find that Mr. Schlogl, a supervisory employee with employer, was present at this gathering and that he heard employee and was aware that employee claimed to have been injured working for employer on March 24, 2008.