In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter and Chapter 32.05, it is presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that:
(1) the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter or Chapter 32.05;
(2) sufficient notice of such claim has been given;
(3) the injury was not occasioned soley by the intoxication of the injured employee;
(4) the injury was not occasioned soley by the willful intention of the injured employee to injure or kill himself or another.History: 1967, PL 10-15.
There being evidence demonstrating a cause for the accident other than employee’s intoxication, plaintiffs failed to overcome presumption intoxication was not the sole cause of the accident AIU-South Pacific Ins. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission ASR (1979).
The presumption codified in 24 A.S.C.A. 452 (32.0642) operated to shift the burden of proof on the issue of causation to appellant, and required appellant to meet that burden by substantial evidence. Hartford Fire- Insurance Company v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission of American Samoa and Vi Tuaua, ASR (1980).
Workmen’s compensation claimant’s proof of existence of injury and of employment relationship raises presumption that claim falls within coverage of workmen’s compensation laws and shifts to employer the burden of proving by substantial evidence that employment did not cause the injury. A.S.C.A. § 32.0642. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 7 A.S.R.2d 149 (1988).
Court will not disturb Workmen’s Compensation Commission decision if record contains evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that the injury and death were work-related and it does not appear that the commission arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded substantial evidence to the contrary. A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0642, 32.0652. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 7 A.S.R.2d 149 (1988).