With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". nonetheless continued to suffer additional deterioration of his hearing in the higher frequencies. The Commission determined that because there were no medical opinions in the record to indicate that Rollon’s need fpr hearing aids developed more than two years prior to the date he filed his claim for benefits or that the additional loss of high-frequency hearing that developed within the two years prior to the claim being filed was not the reason he needed hearing aids, ALCOA had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Rollon’s claim for hearing aids was barred by the statute of limitations. We hold that this was an improper shifting of the burden of proof from the employee to the employer. In Petit Jean Air Serv. v. Wilson, 251 Ark. 871, 475 S.W.2d 531 41 (1955) (<HOLDING>); and Howard v. AP&L Co., 20 Ark. App. 98, 724

A: holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence
B: holding that in determining whether an accident arose out of employment the issue is whether the employees employment brought him in contact with the risk that in fact caused his injuries
C: holding that because the carrier contested the compensability of the claim and took the position that there was no evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course and scope of hernandezs employment there was no conclusion on the merits
D: holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment
D.