{"id":"alj-G305023-2026-01-12","awcc_number":"G305023","decision_date":"2026-01-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"John Boggs","employer_name":"Ark Dept Of Transportation","title":"BOGGS VS. ARK DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION AWCC# G305023 January 12, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["lumbar","back","neck","cervical","thoracic","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BOGGS_JOHN_G305023_20260112.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BOGGS_JOHN_G305023_20260112.pdf","text_length":28839,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. G305023 \n \nJOHN BOGGS, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nARK DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JANUARY 12, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE GREGORY  K.  STEWART in  Fort \nSmith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by CHARLES  MCLEMORE,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On November 3, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort \nSmith,  Arkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on July  16,  2025,  and  a \npre-hearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has \nbeen  marked  Commission's  Exhibit  No.  1  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.  The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of \nthe within claim. \n2. Prior Opinions of Full Commission filed May 13, 2022, and Administrative Law \nJudge Opinion filed July 16, 2024, are final. \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-2- \nThe issues to be litigated at the forthcoming hearing are as follows: \n1. Claimant’s entitlement to additional benefits for wage loss due to a change in \nphysical condition. \n2. Attorney fee. \nThe claimant contends: \n \n“a. The Claimant contends that his condition has materially \nworsened  since  his  March  4,  2024  MMI  date  and  that \nalthough   the   respondents   have   been   apprised   of   that \nmaterial  worsening  and  requested  to  provide  a  job  that \naccommodates  the  claimant’s  worsened  condition,  the \nrespondents have failed to do so. \n \nb.  The  Claimant  contends  that  his  wage  loss  disability  is \ngreater  than  it  was  before  the  material  worsening  in  his \ncondition occurred. \n \nc.  The  Claimant  contends  that  his  attorney  is  entitled  to  an \nattorney’s fee in regard to any wage loss disability awarded \nover and above that which has previously been awarded.” \n \nThe respondents contend: \n \n“The  Respondents  contend  that  this  claim  has  been \naccepted  as  compensable  and  that  the  claimant  has  been \nprovided    all    benefits    to    which    he    is    entitled.    The \nRespondents  contend  that,  to  date,  the  claimant  has  bene \nprovided   all   medical   treatment   that   is   reasonable   and \nnecessary  for  the  compensable  injury  that  he  sustained, \nincluding pain management. \n \nThere  was  a  previous  hearing  in  this  matter  on  November \n22, 2021 resulting in the December 17, 2021 Opinion of the \nAdministrative  Law  Judge,  followed  by  a  May  13,  2022 \nOpinion  of  the  Full  Commission.  There  was  also  another \nprevious  hearing  in  this  matter  on  June  17,  2024,  the  issue \nlitigated was the claimant’s demand for wage loss disability \nbenefits,  resulting  in  the  July  16,  2024  Opinion  of  the \nadministrative Law Judge finding that the claimant is entitled \nto 35% wage loss disability benefits. This award has already \nbeen paid in a lump sum to the claimant at his request. The \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-3- \nprior  decisions  in  tis  matter  are  final,  res  judicata,  and  the \nlaw of the case. \n \nSubsequent   to   the   hearing   and   award,   the   claimant \ndemanded a new FCE, then after the Respondent schedule \nan  FCE  for  him,  the  claimant  demanded  that  the  FCE  be \ncancelled.  The  claimant  then  eventually  underwent  his  own \nFCE  and  demanded  that  he  be  accommodated  at  work  for \nnew  sedentary  limitations  he  claimed  to  have.  The  claimant \nhad  performed  unreliably  at  an  FCE  on  March  27,  2024  in \nthe   sedentary   classification   with   24   of   46   consistency \nmeasures.  Dr.  Blankenship  released  the  claimant  at  MMI \nand  on  March  4,  2024  wrote  that  the  claimant  has  a  13% \npermanent  impairment  rating.  Dr.  Blankenship  also  wrote \nthat  the  claimant  could  return  to  gainful  employment  with \nwork restrictions. The claimant in fact returned to work for his \nemployer  where  his  restrictions  were  accommodated,  and \nthis was the subject of previous litigation. The claimant now \ncontends  that  his  restrictions  have  changed  in  some  way, \nthat   he   is   no   longer   able   to   perform   his   job   with   the \naccommodations  provided  by  his  employer,  and  that  he  is \nentitled to a greater wage loss award. \n \nThe  Respondent  contends  that  the  claimant  has  not  had \nanother   surgery,   has   not   been   assigned   any   greater \npermanent  impairment  rating  of  different  work  restrictions \nfrom   an   authorized   treating   physician,   and   he   cannot \nestablish   a   change   in   physical   condition   to   modify   the \nprevious  compensation  award.  The  Respondent  contends \nthat  the  claimant  cannot  prove  his  work  injury  is  the  major \ncause   of   his   abstinence   from   working   or   any   greater \ndisability he claims to have. The Respondent contends that a \nbona   fide   offer   of   employment   has  been   made   to   the \nclaimant,  which  the  claimant  has  declined  and  cannot  be \nentitled  to  an  award  of  wage  loss  disability  benefits  or \npermanent  total  disability  benefits.  The  Respondent  also \ncontends  that  the  claimant’s  demands  are  barred  by  the \ndoctrine  of  res  judicata  since  his  demands  have  already \nbeen litigated. \n \nThe   Respondents   reserve   the   right   to   raise   additional \ncontentions,  or  to  modify  those  stated  herein,  pending  the \ncompletion of discovery.\" \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-4- \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 \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted on July 16, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date \nare hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. Claimant’s claim for additional benefits is not untimely. \n 3. Claimant’s claim for additional benefits is not barred by res judicata. \n 4. Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has \nsuffered  a  change  in physical  condition that  would  entitle  him  to additional  benefits  for \nwage loss. \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The   claimant   is   a   54-year-old   man   who   began   working   for   respondent \napproximately  16  years  ago.  He  suffered  an  admittedly  compensable  injury  to  his \nlumbar  spine  on  December  19,  2011.  Surgery  on  claimant’s  lumbar  spine  was \nrecommended   by   two   neurosurgeons,   but   claimant   elected   not   to   undergo   the \nrecommended procedure. Instead, claimant returned to work for respondent performing \na  job  that  allowed  supervisory work, and  he  continued  to  receive  medical  treatment  in \nthe form of pain management, which primarily consisted of pain medication.  \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-5- \n A prior hearing was conducted on claimant’s entitlement to stem cell injections. \nBefore  a  final  decision  could  be  made  by the  Commission  regarding  this  request,  the \nphysician  recommending  the  injections  indicated  that  the  injections  would  no  longer \nbenefit  claimant’s  condition.  Accordingly,  claimant  withdrew  his  request  for  the \ninjections.  \n Thereafter,  claimant  filed  for  and  received  a  Change  of  Physician  to  Dr. \nBlankenship,  who  initially  treated  claimant  on  February  20,  2023.  Dr.  Blankenship \nrecommended  a  different  surgical  procedure  than  that  previously  recommended  for \nclaimant and  he performed  the  surgery  on  April  18,  2023.  Following  that  procedure, \nclaimant  continued  treating  with  Dr.  Blankenship;  underwent  epidural  steroid  injections \nby Dr. Cannon; and underwent physical therapy. \n Dr.   Blankenship   opined   that   claimant   had   reached   maximum   medical \nimprovement on March 4, 2024, and assigned claimant a 13% impairment rating to the \nbody as a whole for his compensable low back injury. A hearing was conducted on June \n17, 2024, on the issue of claimant’s entitlement to benefits for wage loss resulting from \nhis compensable injury. An Order was filed on July 16, 2024, finding that claimant had \nsuffered  a  loss  in  wage  earning  capacity  in  an  amount  equal  to  35%  to  the  body  as  a \nwhole. That opinion was not appealed, and the parties have stipulated that it is final. \n Claimant  has  filed  this  current  claim  contending  that  his  physical  condition  has \nworsened  and  that  he  is  entitled  to  additional  permanent  disability  benefits  over  and \nabove the 35% previously awarded. \n \n \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-6- \nADJUDICATION \n Initially,  respondent  contends  that  claimant’s  request  for  additional  benefits \nbased  upon  a  change  in  physical  condition  is  untimely.  In  support  of  this  contention, \nrespondent  cites  ACA §11-9-522(d)  and  ACA §11-9-713.  With  regard  to  ACA §11-9-\n713, respondent contends that claimant’s request for a hearing on May 22, 2025, was \nmore than six months after the lump sum payment for previously awarded benefits was \nmade on September 6, 2024.  \n However, I find that claimant’s request was timely because his request was filed \nwithin  one  year  of  the  date  of  last  payment  of  compensation.  While  ACA §11-9-713 \ndoes contain a six-month time period for filing a claim based upon a change in physical \ncondition,  ACA §11-9-702(b)(1)  states  that  claims  for  additional  benefits  must  be  filed \nwithin one year from the date of last payment of compensation. The conflict between the \nsix-month  period  and  the  one-year  period  was  addressed  in Southern  Wooden  Box \nCompany v. Smith, 5 Ark. App. 14, 631 S.W.2d 620 (1982) in which the Court held that \nwhere a claimant seeks additional benefits after a final award, ACA §11-9-713 governs \nas to the grounds required and ACA §11-9-702(b) governs the period of limitation for all \nclaims for additional benefits, whether or not there has been a final award. \n Thus, claimant’s request for a hearing for additional benefits based on a change \nin  physical  condition  filed  on  May  22,  2025,  was  within  one  year  of  the  lump  sum \npayment  on  September  6,  2024.  Since  I  have  found  that  this  was  within  the  one-year \ntime period, it is not necessary to consider whether the claim was filed within one year \nof payment of other benefits such as medical benefits. Accordingly, I find that claimant’s \nclaim was timely filed. \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-7- \n Next, respondent argues that claimant’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res \njudicata. The purpose of res judicata is to put an end to litigation by preventing a party \nwho has had one fair trial on a matter from relitigating the same matter a second time. \nCox v. Keahey, 84 Ark. App. 121, 133 S.W.3d 430 (2003). Res judicata applies where \nthere  has  been  a  final  adjudication  on  the  merits  of  the  issue  by  a  court  of  competent \njurisdiction on all matters litigated and those matters necessarily within the issue which \nmight  have  been  litigated. Beliew  v. Stuttgart  Rice  Mill,  64  Ark.  App.  334,  987  S.W.2d \n281 (1998). \n While  there  was  a  prior  hearing  on  the  issue  of  claimant’s  wage  loss,  the \nArkansas  Workers’  Compensation  law  provides  for  an  award  to  be  reviewed  and \nmodified  at  the  request  of  any  party  in  interest  on  the  ground  of  a  change  in  physical \ncondition. See ACA §11-9-713(a)(3). Here, claimant is contending that he has suffered \na  change  in  his  physical  condition  since  the  last  hearing  and is therefore  entitled  to \nadditional benefits for wage loss resulting from that change. I do not find that claimant’s \nclaim  based  upon  a  change  in  physical  condition  is  barred  by  the  doctrine  of res \njudicata. In fact, his claim is specifically permitted by statute. \n The primary issue in this claim is whether claimant has proven that he suffered a \nchange  in  his  physical  condition  such  that  his  prior  award  of  benefits  of  wage  loss \nshould  be  modified.  As  previously  noted,  modification  of  awards  is  governed  by  the \nprovisions of ACA §11-9-713. That statute states that the Commission may review any \ncompensation order, award, or decision. \n I find based on the evidence presented that claimant has failed to prove that he \nhas suffered a change in physical condition since the prior award.  \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-8- \n Prior  to  the  last  hearing  on  June  17,  2024,  claimant  was  provided  work  as  a \nstoreroom assistant for respondent, working five hours per day, five days per week. His \njob duties included handing out inventory, data entry, general office work, clerical work, \nanswering emails, and answering the telephone. \n Claimant testified that his job required him to perform a lot of twisting and turning \nin  an  office  chair  to  reach  a  fax/scanner  machine  behind  him.  He  testified  that  this \nactivity  increased  his  spasms  and  pain  which,  in  turn,  prevented  him  from  sleeping  at \nnight.  However,  claimant  admitted  that  he  has  been  taking  medication  for  muscle \nspasms for many years. \nQ What do you take for muscle spasms? \n \nA It’s Flexeril something – it’s a generic form of Flexeril. \nI don’t know. I don’t remember what it is called. \n \nQ How long have you been prescribed that? \n \nA For years. I don’t know how long. As long as I’ve been \ngoing to pain management. \n \nQ Okay. Who treats you for pain management? \n \nA Dr. Gaines. \n \nQ And how long have you seen Dr. Gaines. \n \nA I don’t know. \n \nQ Has it been some years? \n \nA It has been many years, yes. \n With  respect  to  muscles  spasms,  I  note  that  medical  records  dated  prior  to  the \nlast  hearing  contain  numerous  observations  of  muscle  spasms.  This  includes  the \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-9- \nmedical  records  of  Dr.  Slabbert,  claimant’s  primary care physician,  whose  medical \nrecords have been introduced at the most recent hearing. \n With regard to his inability to sleep, claimant also had these same complaints at \nthe time of the hearing in 2024.  \nQ So  does  your  pain  have  any  affect  on  your  ability  to \nsleep? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ What? \n \nA Most nights I don’t. If I get any sleep, it is about three \nhours of sleep, if I get sleep. \n \nQ What time do you typically try to get to bed? \n \nA 8:30, 9 o’clock. \n \nQ If you get to bed by 9 o’clock, about what time will you \nactually be able to go to sleep? \n \nA Well, as I said, most times I don’t. If I get sleep, after \nmidnight. \n \nQ And why is that? \n \nA Because I can’t – because of my pain. There is not a \ncomfortable position that I can get in that my back and that \nleg does not hurt. \n \n*** \nQ Do  you  have  firsthand  knowledge  that  you  are  not \nable  to  work  able  to  work  five  hours  a  day,  five  days  a \nweek? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And how do you know that? \n \nA Because I don’t get any sleep. I get zero sleep. I am \nin too much pain. \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-10- \n \n Thus, at the hearing in 2024, claimant testified that he did not sleep at night due \nto pain. \n Interestingly, the claimant’s last day to work for respondent was on October 11, \n2024.  Claimant  testified  that  on  that  day  he  was  driving  home  when  he  dozed  off  and \nran off the road into a ditch, tearing up the air dam on his vehicle. Claimant testified that \nhe is has not worked since that day and he attributes his falling asleep to his inability to \nsleep  at  night  caused  by  pain  and  muscle  spasms.  Again,  these  are  the  same \ncomplaints claimant had at the time of the 2024 hearing. In addition, I also note that the \nmedical  records  indicate  that  the  claimant  suffers  from  narcolepsy  for  which  he  is \ncurrently receiving treatment.  \n With respect to claimant’s ability to perform the job offered to him by respondent, \nI note that claimant’s supervisor offered to provide claimant with a sitting/standing desk; \nhowever, claimant chose not to accept that offer.  \nQ Didn’t  your  supervisor  offer  you  a  sitting-standing \ndesk? \n \nA They – yes. \n \nQ Okay. But you didn’t want that? \n \nA I  told  him  that  if – that I would let him know. I wasn’t \nthere  long  enough  to  kind  of  figure  out  what  my  problem \nwas. I had asked for a chair because I thought that the chair \nwas the issue. They provided a chair. I hadn’t used it long \nenough  to  see  if  that  benefited  me  because  the  condition \ndidn’t improve and it got worse before I had a chance to try \nthe other option. \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-11- \n I  also  note  that  claimant  testified  that  he  does  not  believe  he  is  capable  of \nperforming any job at this time. However, claimant had the same testimony at the 2024 \nhearing.  \nQ Okay.  Page  11  of  the  respondent’s  medical  exhibit \ndescribes the work duties you had and the last sentence on \npage  11  of  the  exhibit says,  “He  reports  he  is  unable  to \nperform those activities at this time due to his injury.” \n \n Did you say that to the FCE examiner? \n \nA I absolutely probably did. \n \nQ So  you  don’t  feel  like  you  could  do  that  supervisor \njob? \n \nA I don’t – if you are asking me, I don’t feel like I can do \nany job right now, but I am. I still – I don’t even feel like I am \nfixed. \n \n Thus, claimant had the same complaints at the time of the prior hearing in 2024. \n Before  the  hearing  on  June  17,  2024,  claimant  had  undergone  a  functional \ncapacity evaluation which was determined to be unreliable due to inconsistent effort on \nclaimant’s behalf. However, the evaluation determined that claimant demonstrated the \nability to work in at least a sedentary classification of work over the course of a normal \neight-hour  workday.  Dr.  Blankenship  eventually  placed  some  restrictions  on  claimant \nthat were less restrictive than the FCE. \n Since  the  2024 hearing,  claimant  has  undergone  another  FCE.  Notably,  the \nsecond evaluation indicated that claimant gave a consistent effort and was reliable. That \nevaluation   was   performed   by   Velvet   Medlock.   Medlock   compared   the   two   FCE \nevaluations  and  in  a  report  dated  March  17,  2025,  noted  that  both  reached  the  same \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-12- \nconclusion – that claimant was capable of performing sedentary work. The most recent \nFCE did not indicate that claimant was incapable of performing any work. \n Claimant also relies on the opinion of his primary care physician, Dr. Slabbert, in \nsupport of his contention that his physical condition has worsened.  \n First,  I  note  that  claimant  has  received  medical  treatment  from  Dr.  Slabbert  for \nmany  nonwork-related  conditions  including – gout;  anxiety;  depression;  neck  pain; \nupper  back  spasms;  allergies;  hypertension;  narcolepsy;  low  Vitamin  D.  Furthermore, \nclaimant has not been treating with Dr. Slabbert for his low back complaints; instead, he \nhas  been  receiving  pain  management  treatment  from  Dr. Gaines who  is  currently  his \nauthorized  treating  physician.  Basically,  Dr.  Slabbert,  in  a  report  dated  January  17, \n2025,  indicated  that  he  did  not  believe  claimant  would  be  able  to  continue  his  current \nwork in spite of the accommodations which had been made for him. Notably, at the time \nthis  report  was  written  by  Dr.  Slabbert,  claimant  had  not  worked  for  the  respondent \nsince October 2024, some three months earlier.  \nIn  addition,  on  June  6,  2025,  Dr.  Slabbert  completed  a  form  for  claimant \nregarding FMLA. Dr. Slabbert again indicated that he did not believe claimant would be \nable to return to work in the foreseeable future. Significantly, Dr. Slabbert’s opinion is \nbased  on  a  number  of  factors  which  are  not  related  to  his  compensable  injury.  For \ninstance, Dr. Slabbert indicates that the probable duration of claimant’s condition is for \nhis lifetime and that it could be work related. He then notes that claimant has undergone \ncervical spine and lumbar spine surgery. However, claimant’s cervical spine surgery \nand  issues  related  to  that  condition  are  not  related  to  his  work-related  injury.  Dr. \nSlabbert  also  notes  that  claimant  is  taking  antidepressant  medication  with  a  pending \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-13- \npsychiatric appointment. Again, these are conditions which are not related to claimant’s \nwork-related  injury.  In  describing  other  relevant  medical  facts  related  to  claimant’s \ncondition   Dr.   Slabbert   noted   that   claimant   was   being   evaluated   for   worsening \ndepression and was on medication that could/will affect his concentration. Again, this is \na condition which is not related to claimant’s work injury. Dr. Slabbert goes on to note \nvarious  conditions  which  include  depression;  radiculopathy;  chronic  back  pain;  the  use \nof  a  cane;  spasm  of  the  thoracic  back  muscle;  restlessness  and  agitation  due  to  pain; \nchronic  right  shoulder  pain; spinal  stenosis  of  the  cervical  region;  and  hypertension. \nAgain, many of these issues are not related to claimant’s low back complaints.  \nTherefore,  I  do  not  find  Dr.  Slabbert’s  opinion  regarding  claimant’s  ability  to \nreturn  to  work  persuasive  given  that  his  opinion  is  based  in  large  part  on  conditions \nwhich  are  not  related  to  claimant’s  work-related  injury  and  his  lack  of  any  specific \nmedical observations noting that claimant’s work-related condition has worsened since \nthe time of the last hearing in 2024. \n I  also  find  Dr.  Blankenship’s  opinion  of  November  21,  2024,  significant.  This \nreport  was  written approximately  one month after  claimant  last  worked  for  respondent. \nDr. Blankenship stated: \nThe gentleman’s main pain complaint is right buttock pain \nand  leg  pain.  He  underwent  surgical  intervention  with  a \nmultilevel  anterior  lumbar  interbody  arthrodesis  now  a  year \nand  a  half  ago.  He  is  also  complaining  of  some  headaches \nand mid scapular pain. Before I saw him for his low back, he \nhad anterior cervical arthrodesis and fusion by Dr. Johnson. \nHis  SI  joint  examination  is  negative  in  all-5  testing.  His \npiriformis examination is positive. The gentleman also had a \nright-sided  transforaminal  L5  ESI  that  did  not  afford  any \nrelief;  it  actually  exacerbated  his  pain.  He  is  back  in  doing \nphysical therapy with the folks at Total Spine. Unfortunately, \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-14- \ninitially  after  surgery  he  was  not  very  compliant  with  his \nphysical  therapy. I  just  do  not  see  a  compressive  etiology \nthat  would  explain  his  leg  pain.  His  surgical  construct  is \ngood.   It   appears   to   be   solidly   fused.   There   is   no \nadvancement of adjacent segment disease. His \npostoperative   myelogram   that   was   done   last   year   also \nlooked  good  with  no  residual  or  retained  stenosis  and  no \ncomplication of   the   orthopedic   implants. His   MRI   does \ndemonstrate  well-decompressed  thecal  sac  with  no  gross \ncomplications. With his plain x-rays looking as good as they \ndo,  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  problem  with  the  orthopedic \nimplants  or  the  decompression.  He  does  not  have  any \nadvancement   of   adjacent   segment   disease.   Solidity   of \narthrodesis cannot be determined on his MRI but, combined \nwith  his  plain  radiographs  and  visualization  of  anterior  bone \nformation,  I  do  not  think  pseudoarthrosis  is  a  problem. \n(Emphasis added). \n \n Dr.  Blankenship  went  on  to  indicate  that  he  had  nothing  further  to  offer  the \nclaimant other than a repeat functional capacity evaluation which claimant did not want. \nAgain, Dr. Blankenship’s report is notable because it was given almost one month after \nthe claimant last worked for the respondent. \n I do note Dr. Blankenship subsequently indicated he would defer to the opinion of \nmedical  providers  who  had evaluated  and treated  the  claimant  after  he  last  saw  the \nclaimant  on  November  21,  2024.  However,  that  deferral  does  not  change  the  fact  that \nDr.  Blankenship,  as  a  specialist,  evaluated  the  claimant  and  gave  an  opinion  based \nupon  specific  medical  findings  in  his  report  of  November  17,  2024.  Even  though  Dr. \nSlabbert has expressed an opinion regarding claimant’s ability to return to work, Dr. \nSlabbert  is  a  primary  care  physician,  not  a  specialist.  Furthermore,  Dr.  Slabbert’s \nmedical reports do not contain any details regarding his specific evaluation of claimant’s \nlow back complaints. Furthermore, as previously noted, Dr. Slabbert’s opinion is based \non conditions which are not related to claimant’s compensable low back injury. \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-15- \n I  also  note  that  claimant  was  evaluated  by  Carol  Kennedy,  APRN, at  My  Psych \nHealth on May 17, 2025. That report contains the following: \nPsych  Impression:  Presents  with  depression;  a  sleep  wake \ndisorder;  trauma, and related  disorders.  Level  of  stress  was \nsevere  and  included  economic  problems,  health  problems, \noccupational  problems,  problems  with  access  to  healthcare, \nand relationship problems. \n \n Many of these issues are not related to claimant’s compensable low back injury. \nDr.  Slabbert  has also indicated  that  claimant  suffers  from  depression.  However,  Dr. \nGaines,  claimant’s  pain  management  physician, in  her  report dated  June  19,  2025, \nstated  that  claimant  was  not  depressed  based  upon  a  depression  screening  that  was \nperformed and returned normal.  \n In summary, since the time of the last hearing in 2024, claimant has undergone \nno  additional  surgical  treatment.  He  has  not  been  assigned  any  additional  permanent \nimpairment.  Claimant  has  not  received  any  change  in  the  treatment  provided  by  his \nauthorized  treating  physicians.  Claimant  is  still  receiving  pain  management  treatment \nfrom Dr. Gaines as he was receiving at the time of the hearing in 2024. To the contrary, \nDr.  Gaines’  medical  records  indicate  that  she  has  decreased  the  amount  of  pain \nmedications given to claimant. Although I acknowledge that Dr. Slabbert has opined that \nhe does not believe that claimant can return to his job with respondent, I do not find his \nopinion  persuasive.  First,  his  opinion  is  based  on  conditions  that  are  not  related  to \nclaimant’s work-related  injury.  Second,  Dr.  Blankenship  in  his  report  noted  testing  and \nhis  exam  findings  did  not  explain  claimant’s  continued  complaints  of  leg  pain. \nFurthermore, Dr. Gaines, claimant’s authorized treating physician for pain management, \nhas not opined that claimant’s condition has worsened but instead, has reduced the \n\nBoggs – G305023 \n \n-16- \namount  of  pain  medications  prescribed.  Finally,  the  complaints  claimant  mentioned  at \nthe hearing which included muscle spasms, pain, lack of sleeping, and a belief that he is \nincapable of working were all present at the time of the hearing in 2024. \n Based  upon  the  foregoing  evidence,  I  find  that  claimant  has  failed  to  meet  his \nburden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he has suffered a change in \nhis  physical  condition.  Therefore,  I  find  that  claimant  is  not  entitled  to  additional \ncompensation benefits for wage loss. \n \nORDER \n Claimant’s claim was timely filed, and it is not barred by the doctrine of res \njudicata.  However,  I  find  that  claimant  has  failed  to  meet  his  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that he suffered a change in his physical condition since \nthe  last  hearing in  2024.  Accordingly,  claimant’s  claim  for  additional  compensation \nbenefits is hereby denied and dismissed.  \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court \nreporter,  Veronica  Lane,  fees  and  expenses  within  thirty  (30)  days  of  receipt  of  the \ninvoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G305023 JOHN BOGGS, Employee CLAIMANT ARK DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 12, 2026 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Fort Smith, Sebastian County...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:40.563Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G305023-2026-01-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BOGGS_JOHN_G305023_20260112.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}