{"id":"alj-G006442-2024-05-08","awcc_number":"G006442","decision_date":"2024-05-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Eric Mikles","employer_name":null,"title":"MIKLES VS. LOGAN COUNTYAWCC# G006442May 8, 2024","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MIKLES_ERIC_G006442_20240508.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MIKLES_ERIC_G006442_20240508.pdf","text_length":7954,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO.  G006442 \n \nERIC MIKLES, Employee                                                                               CLAIMANT \n \nLOGAN COUNTY, Employer                                                                   RESPONDENT                             \n \nASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES WCT, Carrier                    RESPONDENT                                                                                \n \n \n OPINION FILED MAY 8, 2024 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Fort Smith, \nSebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MICHAEL E. RYBURN, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On April 15, 2024, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Fort Smith, \nArkansas.    A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on January  31, 2024, and  a  pre-\nhearing order was filed on February 21, 2024.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been \nmarked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n 2.   The prior Opinion of August 5, 2016 is final. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.    Respondents’ right to have claimant seen by a physician of their choosing \npursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-511(c). \n\nMikles – G006442 \n 2 \n The claimant is not agreeable to undergoing an independent medical evaluation \nby Dr. Roman. \n The respondents contend they are entitled to have claimant seen by Dr. Roman \nfor an independent medical evaluation pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-511(c). \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear \nthe testimony of the witnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of \nfact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted \non  January 31, 2024 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed February 21, 2024 are \nhereby accepted as fact. \n 2.  An in-person medical examination by Dr. Roman of the claimant is reasonable \nand necessary pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-511(a). \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant  is  a  53-year-old  man  who  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  left \nshoulder  and  neck  in  July  2010.    Claimant  underwent  surgery  by  Dr.  Harp  on  his  left \nshoulder on November 11, 2010, but he has not undergone any surgery on his neck.  In \nan Opinion filed by the Full Commission on June 18, 2012, it was determined that claimant \nsuffered  a  4%  permanent  anatomical  impairment  for  his  compensable  neck  injury  and \nthat he did not sustain any permanent anatomical impairment for his left shoulder.  It was \nalso determined that claimant suffered wage loss disability in an amount equal to 15% to \n\nMikles – G006442 \n \n3 \n \nthe body as a whole. \n Since that time, claimant has primarily continued to receive medical treatment from \nDr. Cannon for pain management.  Claimant is currently being prescribed Hydrocodone, \nHysinga, and Lyrica.  Due to his continued opiate regimen, respondent had claimant’s \nmedical records reviewed by Dr. Carlos Roman who authored a report dated November \n8, 2023, in which he opined that claimant’s opiate regimen should be addressed based \non his belief that claimant is over-medicated.  Since that report, claimant has continued \nto treatment with Dr. Cannon with refills of his pain medication.   \n Respondent has requested that claimant undergo an in-person examination by Dr. \nRoman and claimant has not agreed to such an evaluation.  As a result, respondent has \nfiled  this  claim  contending  that  it  is  entitled  to  have  claimant  evaluated  by  Dr.  Roman \npursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-511(c). \n \nADJUDICATION \n Respondent  has  requested  that  claimant  undergo  an  evaluation  by  Dr.  Roman \npursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-511(c).  That subsection states: \n  Such physician as the employee, employer, or insurance \n  carrier may select and pay for may participate in the \n  examination if the employee, employer, or insurance \n  carrier so requests. \n \n \n In response, claimant contends that §11-9-511(c) does not create an independent \nstand-alone right to have an IME performed by a physician of respondent’s own choosing.  \nInstead,   claimant   contends   that   subsection   (c)   does   not   become   relevant   until \nsubsections (a) and (b) have been complied with. \n\nMikles – G006442 \n \n4 \n \n Subsection (a) of §11-9-511 states: \n  An injured employee claiming to be entitled to compen- \n  sation shall submit to such physical examination and \n  treatment by another qualified physician, designated  \n  or approved by the Workers’ Compensation Commission, \n  as the Commission may require from time to time if \n  reasonable and necessary.”  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n In  this  case,  respondent  has  requested  that  claimant  undergo  an  in-person \nevaluation by Dr. Carlos Roman.  Regardless of whether A.C.A. §11-9-511(c) creates an \nindependent   stand-alone   right,   I   note   that   subsection   (a) allows the  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission to approve a physical examination if the Commission feels \nthat an examination is reasonable and necessary. \n I find that an examination by Dr. Roman in this case is reasonable and necessary.  \nClaimant suffered a compensable injury to his left shoulder and neck in July 2010 and \nunderwent  surgery  on  his  left  shoulder. Claimant  has  not  undergone  any  surgical \nprocedure on his neck.  Since that time, claimant has undergone extensive treatment in \nthe form of opiate medication.  While Dr. Roman authored a report indicating that it was \nhis belief that claimant was overmedicated, Dr. Roman based that opinion solely upon his \nreview  of  the  medical  records  and  did  not  have  the  benefit  of  actually  examining  the \nclaimant.  Respondent is now requesting such an examination.  I find that this examination \nis reasonable and necessary. \n In  reaching  this  decision,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  only  issue  before  the \nCommission  at  this  time  is  whether  claimant  should  undergo  an  in-person  physical \nexamination   by   Dr.   Roman.      Whether   claimant   should   continue   receiving   the \nrecommended pain medication from Dr. Cannon or undergo treatment by Dr.  Roman to \n\nMikles – G006442 \n \n5 \n \ntaper his use of pain medication is not currently before the Commission.    \n Given the fact that claimant has only been assigned a 4% permanent anatomical \nimpairment rating for an injury that occurred some 14 years ago and continues to receive \nprescriptions  of  opiate  medications,  it  does  not  seem  unreasonable  to  have  claimant \nundergo an in-person evaluation by Dr. Roman. \n Accordingly,   for   the   foregoing   reasons,   I   find   that   an   in-person   physical \nexamination of claimant by Dr. Roman is reasonable and necessary and approve of this \nexamination pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-511(a).   \n \nORDER \n Pursuant  to  A.C.A.  §11-9-511(a),  claimant  is  to  undergo  an  in-person  physical \nexamination  by  Dr.  Roman.    This  examination  will  be  paid  for  by  the  respondent  and \nclaimant will be provided mileage for his travel to the evaluation. \n Respondents  are  responsible  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $376.45. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n     ________________________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G006442 ERIC MIKLES, Employee CLAIMANT LOGAN COUNTY, Employer RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES WCT, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 8, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas....","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:54:06.013Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G006442-2024-05-08","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MIKLES_ERIC_G006442_20240508.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}