{"id":"alj-G509436-2023-08-15","awcc_number":"G509436","decision_date":"2023-08-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Gerline Charles","employer_name":"University Of Arkansas For Medical Sciences (uams)","title":"CHARLES VS. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES (UAMS) AWCC# G509436 AUGUST 15, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["lumbar","back","hip","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CHARLES_GERLINE_G509436_20230815.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CHARLES_GERLINE_G509436_20230815.pdf","text_length":20115,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: G509436 \nGERLINE CHARLES,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL \nSCIENCES (UAMS), EMPLOYER                                                        RESPONDENT NO. 1   \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION,  \nCARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINSTRATOR (TPA)                       RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILTY TRUST  \nFUND                                                                                                         RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \n \n         OPINION FILED AUGUST 15, 2023      \n        \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant appeared pro se/unrepresented. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the Honorable Charles H. McLemore, Attorney at Law, Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondent No. 2 represented by the Honorable Christy L. King, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Ms. King waived her appearance at the hearing.   \n \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn  May  17,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing telephone conference was conducted on March 29, 2023, from which a \nPre-hearing Order was filed that same day.  A copy of this order and the parties’ responsive filings \nhave been marked as Commission’s Exhibit 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \nStipulations \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or during the hearing the parties agreed \nto the following stipulations: \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n2 \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n \n2. That  on  or  about  June  9,  2010  the  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable “medical \nonly” lumbar spine injury.  (Tr. 9) \n \n3. That  the  Claimant's  average  weekly  wage  (AWW)  on  the  date  of  her  accidental \ninjury was $684.07, with weekly corresponding compensation rates of $456.00 for \ntemporary total disability (TTD) compensation and $342.00 for permanent partial \ndisability (PPD) benefits, respectively. \n4. Respondents No. 1 have controverted this claim for additional medical benefits.  \n5. All   issues   not   litigated   herein   are   reserved under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act. \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing included the following: \n1. Whether this claim is barred by the statute of limitations.  \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment for her back injury. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant:  The  Claimant  contends  that  on  June  9,  2010  she  was  injured  while  returning \nsterile  instrument  cases  to  the  storage  shelves  for  the  One-Day  Surgery  Department.    Claimant \ncontends that when she reached to place an ACL tray on the shelf, she caught a kink across her \nlower back and right buttock.  She was unable to move until the spasm released.  The Claimant is \nrequesting to be reinstated and reimbursed for medical bills that she paid and additional ongoing \nmedical treatment for her low back.    \nRespondents No. 1: \nRespondents No. 1 contend that the Claimant reported having an injury to her back on June \n25, 2009, which Respondents No. 1 accepted as medical only, providing initial treatment, and the \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n3 \n \nClaimant did not miss sufficient work to be entitled to temporary disability benefits.  The last visit \nRespondents No. 1 are  aware of was September 22, 2009 for this date of injury.  The Claimant \nreported having a lumbar injury on June 9, 2010 which was accepted by the Respondents No. 1 as \nmedical only and medical benefits have been paid to or on behalf of the Claimant by Respondents \nNo. I on this claim.  Medical treatment has been conservative, Claimant treated sporadically, and \nthe  last  visit  Respondents  No.  l  are  aware  of  was  February  5,  2018.    After  the  Claimant's \nemployment with Respondents No. 1 ended April 8, 2011, the Claimant  collected unemployment \nbenefits, then admittedly found new employment elsewhere where she worked without restriction \nuntil her employment ended there as well. \n               The Claimant filed a form AR-C on December 18, 2015 claiming initial and additional \nbenefits for an injury to her low back and right buttock occurring June 25, 2009, but did not request \na hearing for any benefits. The Claimant indicated in a March 30, 2020 email to the Commission  \nthat  she  desired  a  hearing  on  this  claim,  but  did  not  pursue  a  hearing  for  any  benefits,  so \nRespondents  No.  1  filed  its  Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Want  of  Prosecution  on  December  20,  2021\nwhich the Claimant objected to. The Claimant demanded a hearing, but at the Claimant's request, \nno  hearing  was  set,  and  the  file  returned  to  the  Commission's  general  files  May  24,  2022.\nRespondents No. 1 again filed a motion to dismiss the Claimant's claim for lack of prosecution on \nJanuary 11, 2023, which Claimant has objected to. \nRespondents  No.  1  contend  that  the  Claimant  cannot  meet  her  burden  of  proving  that \nshe timely filed a claim for benefits, as the statute of limitations now bars the Claimant from \npursuing benefits on her claim(s).  Respondents No. 1 further contend that the Claimant cannot \nmeet  her  burden  of  proving  that  she  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  related  to  a \ncompensable  injury  occurring  either  June  25,  2009  or  June  9,  2010.  The  Claimant  cannot \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n4 \n \nestablish  that  she  is  in  or  has  been  in  a  healing  period  and  entitled  to  TTD  benefits  for  a \ncompensable  injury(ies).    Respondents  No.  1  contend  that  the  Claimant  cannot  be  entitled  to \nTTD benefits for time periods she was admittedly working, or receiving unemployment benefits \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-506, furthermore, the Claimant cannot establish she was in \na healing period and unable to work when she admittedly did work.  \nRespondents No. 1 reserve the right to raise additional contentions, or to modify those \nstated herein, pending the completion of discovery \n                    FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \nhear the testimony of the witness and observe her demeanor, I hereby make the following findings \nof fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704: \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.      I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n3.     This claim for additional medical benefits for the Claimant’s low back injury, which  \noccurred June 9, 2010 is barred by the statute of limitations under Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702  (b)  (1)  because  she  failed  to  timely  file  a  claim  for  additional  medical \nbenefits by March 25, 2019, and there is no document of record that can be relied on \nto support a finding that it contains the specific language required by section 11-9-\n702 (c). \n               \n          4.         Therefore, the remaining issue relating to additional medical treatment has been  \n                      rendered moot and not discussed in this Opinion.     \n            \nSummary of Evidence \nDuring the hearing, the only witness to testify was Ms. Gerline Charles/the Claimant.  \n            The  record  consists  of  the  May  17,  2023  hearing  transcript  and  the  following  exhibits: \nSpecifically, Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 includes the Commission’s Prehearing Order filed on \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n5 \n \nMarch  29,  2023 and  the  parties’ responsive  filings; Claimant’s  Exhibit 1  consists  of  Medical \nRecords with Index, which is made up of fifty-one pages; and Respondents No. 1, Exhibit 1 is a \nMedical Evidence with Index, which comprises eighty numbered pages; and they also offered into \nevidence a second exhibit of  Documentary Evidence with Index consisting of eighty pages, which \nhas been marked as Exhibit 2. \n                                                  Testimony \n  \n The  Claimant,  age  65,  began  working  for  UAMS  in  1990.    She  initially  worked  as  a \nsterilization processing technician.  In this position, the Claimant’s employment duties included \nbut  was  not  limited  to  the  handling  and  processing  of  surgical  instruments.    She  specifically \ntestified  that  she  was  responsible  for  the  cleaning  and  decontaminating  heavy  trays  of  surgical \ninstruments.  The Claimant also set the instruments up  that were to be used by the doctors who \nperformed surgical procedures.   \nOn June 9, 2010, the Claimant’s job title was Core Technician.  According to the Claimant, \nin that position, she worked back and forth between sterilization processing and one-day surgery \narea.    The  Claimant  verified  that  she  injured  her  back  on  June  9,  2010,  while  performing  her \nemployment duties.  She confirmed that the respondent-carrier accepted her low back injury as a \nmedical only claim.  \nShe gave the following description of her back injury of June 9, 2010: \nQ When you sustained an injury to your back.  Briefly, what happened?  \n \nA I was – We have to put instruments back on the – back on the shelves once \nthe cases have been sterilized and processed, and I had a ACL tray, which it was \ngetting close to time  -- well, it was closing  -- and I was cleaning up - - \nI  picked  up  the  ACL  tray,  which  weighs  about  anywhere  from  40  to  50 \npounds. \n                                                       \n  ***** \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n6 \n \nAnd when I reached to pick it up, when I got ready to turn to put it on the \nshelf, I caught a real back kink in my back, my right hip, and it went down my leg, \nand I  -- and it stayed there for a while.  And then I kind of eased -- Finally it let go. \nAnd  I  didn’t  think  a  lot  about  because,  you  know,  I  had  hurted  myself \nseveral times before but I didn’t realize how badly I had injured my back.    \n       \n The Claimant verified that she reported her injury to management.  She testified that she \nreceived medical treatment for her back injury at the Spine Center in the form of physical therapy \nand medications.  The Claimant also treated at OrthoArkansas under the care of Dr. Steven Paulus.  \nAccording to the Claimant, she underwent steroid injections to her back, which was performed by \nDr. Paulus, and he prescribed more medications.   \n As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant was not working.  She confirmed that she last \nworked for UAMS in 2011.  According to the Claimant, she was fired due to tardiness.  Although \nthe Claimant maintained that she last received treatment for her back in 2023, she was unable to \nprovide a medical record or any other evidence of record demonstrating that she received treatment \nfor her back during this period of time.   \n The Claimant initially maintained that she filed a Form AR-C with the Commission for her \nJune  2010  back  injury,  which  had  been  made  part  of  the  evidentiary  record.    However,  the \nClaimant finally admitted that her filing of a claim for additional benefits in this matter was made \nwhen she filed her prehearing questionnaire documents in 2023.  She verified that she made this \nfiling on February 17, 2023.  \n On  cross-examination,  the  Claimant  verified  that  her  deposition  was  taken  on  May  11, \n2022.  She  admitted that no doctor has  ever recommended surgery for her back.   The Claimant \nessentially admitted that she previously injured her back on June 25, 2009.  She admitted that she \ngave her employer/UAMS notice of her June 2009 back injury, and they provided her with medical \ntreatment for her injury.   \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n7 \n \nThe Claimant verified that she injured her back again in 2010, while lifting a heavy tray of \nACL surgical instruments.  According to the Claimant, the tray consisted of instruments used for \nreconstruction  of  a  knee,  including  tools  such  as  wire  cutters,  wire  pliers,  wrenches,  and  drills.  \nThe Claimant admitted that she injured her back while removing instrument trays from a cart.  She \nadmitted that she reported her most recent back injury of June 9, 2010, to her supervisor and signed \nan Employee Notice of Injury Form.  This document was signed by the Claimant on June 22, 2010. \nThe Claimant admitted that she had extensive conservative treatment for her back.  However, she \nconfirmed that no surgery has been recommended for her back injury of June 2010.  According to \nthe Claimant, she has been on a new “pill” for her back since the beginning of June, but it has \nmade her jittery, and caused her “head to swim” and incontinence.  The Claimant testified that she \nis unable to take narcotic pain medications such  as Hydrocodone.  She further testified that she \nlearned this years ago when she had her gallbladder removed.   \nUnder  further  questioning,  the  Claimant  maintained  that  she  was  fired  because  she  had \nbeen taking Tylenol and Gabapentin for her back all day and night, and these medications caused \nher  to  be  late  for  work.    As  a  result,  she  had  some  disciplinary  problems  with  tardiness  while \nworking  for  UAMS.  She  also  admitted  that  she  had  problems  with  excessive  alcohol  use.  \nHowever, the Claimant denied drinking while at work.  She admitted that after leaving UAMS in \n2011, a few months later she went to work at St. Vincent’s and worked there for about two years. \nRegarding her medical treatment for her back since February 2018, the Claimant testified \nthat they have done some injections on her own.  She also takes over-the-counter medications for \nher back. \nOn  further  redirect-examination,  the  Claimant  confirmed  that  the  respondent-carrier  last \npaid for medical treatment in 2018 due to her 2010 back injury.  She further confirmed that the \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n8 \n \nlast time they actually paid on her 2010 back injury would have been for her February 5, 2018, \ndoctor’s visit. \n              Documentary Evidence \nA review of the Pay Log Report for the Claimant’s June 9, 2010 back injury shows that her \nlast  medical  visit  was  with  OrthoArkansas  on  February  5,  2018.    Further  review  of  the  payout \nreport for the Claimant’s 2010 back injury was paid for by the respondent-carrier via checks issued \non March 25, 2018, in the amounts of $89.00 and $66.60.                       \n                                     Adjudication \nStatute of Limitations \nAlthough  the  Claimant  previously  sustained  an  admittedly  compensable  “medical  only” \ninjury to her low back on June 25, 2009 while working for UAMS, this prior injury, is not at issue \nat this time.   \nCurrently, this claim for additional benefits pertains exclusively to the Claimant’s second \nadmittedly compensable low back injury, which occurred on June 9, 2010. Since this is a claim for \nadditional  benefits,  the  crucial  issue  for  determination  is  whether  the  Claimant  filed  a  timely \nrequest for additional medical benefits for her June 2010 back injury.  \nTherefore,  Arkansas  law  limits  the  time  in  which  a  claim  for  additional workers’ \ncompensation  benefits  may  be  filed.    The  proper  statute  of  limitations  is  set  forth  in  Ark.  Code \nAnn. §11-9-702 (b) (1), (c): \n(b)  TIME FOR FILING ADDITONAL COMPENSATION: \n(1)  In cases in which any compensation, including disability or medical has  \n                 been paid on account of injury, a claim for additional compensation shall \n                 be barred unless filed with the commission within one (1) year from the  \n                 date of the last payment of compensation or two (2) years from the date of \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n9 \n \n                 the injury, whichever is greater. \n          (c)  A claim for additional compensation must specifically state that it is a claim \n                for additional compensation.  Documents which do not specifically request  \n                additional benefits shall not be considered a claim for additional compensation.   \n                    \nOur supreme court stated that a Claimant must prove that he or she acted with the time allowed for \nfiling a claim for additional compensation.  White Cnty.  Judge v. Menser, 2020 Ark. 140, at 8, \n597 S.W. 3d at 645.    \n  Here,  on  June  9,  2010,  the  Claimant  worked  for  UAMS  in  the  One-Day  Surgery \nDepartment,  as  a  Core  Technician.    Her  employment  duties  included  both  sterilizing  surgical \ninstruments and setting them up for surgical procedures.  It is undisputed that on June 9, 2010, the \nClaimant  injured  her  back  while  lifting  a  tray  of  instruments.    The  Claimant  testified  that  she \ncaught a “kink” in her back and hip during this lifting incident.  She promptly reported her injury \nto management.  The parties stipulated that the respondent-carrier accepted this as a medical only \nclaim  for  the  Claimant’s low back injury of June 2010. Both the Claimant’s testimony and the \ndocumentary evidence show that the insurance-carrier has paid for extensive conservative medical \ntreatment for the Claimant’s low back injury.  The Claimant last received medical treatment for \nher back on February 5, 2018.  The carrier issued a check on March 25, 2018.  She confirmed that \nshe did not make a claim for additional medical benefits until the filing of her responsive filings, \nwhich was done on February 17, 2023.    \n The time limitation for filing a claim for additional benefits is set out above in Ark. Code \nAnn.  §11-9-702  (b)(1).  Per  this  section,  a  claim  for  additional  benefits  shall  be  barred  unless  a \nClaimant  files  a  claim  for  additional  compensation  within  one  (1)  year  from  the  date  of  last \npayment of compensation or two (2) years from the date of the injury, whichever is greater.  Two \nyears from the date of injury would be June 9, 2012.  One year from the last payment of benefits \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n10 \n \nwould be by March 25, 2019.  Because the one-year date is greater, the Claimant was required to \nfile  a  claim  for  additional  benefits  by  March  25,  2019  which  is  one  year  from  the  date  of  last \npayment of compensation.  \n Here, this claim for additional benefits is barred by the statute of limitations set forth above \nbecause there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the Claimant ever filed a document that \ncontains the specific language required by Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702  that would suffice to support \na finding that she made a request for “additional” benefits to be considered a claim for additional \nbenefits.  Moreover, the Claimant admitted that she did not assert a claim for additional medical \ntreatment until February  17, 2023, which was when she filed of her responsive pleadings. Even \nthis filing is beyond the one year from the date of last payment of compensation, which occurred \non March 25, 2019.  \n Based  on  the  foregoing,  I  find  that  this  claim  is  barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations. \nTherefore,  the  remaining  issue  relating  to  additional  medical  treatment  has  been  rendered  moot \nand not discussed in this Opinion.     \nOrder \n Based on the the forgoing findings of fact, unfortunately this claim is barred by the \nstatute of limitations set forth in section 11-9-702.  Therefore, this claim for additional benefits is \nhereby respectfully denied and dismissed.    \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n            ______________________________ \n            HON. CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE \n \n \n \n\nCharles-H509436 \n \n11","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: G509436 GERLINE CHARLES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES (UAMS), EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINSTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT NO. 1 DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILTY TRUST FUND R...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:03:52.878Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G509436-2023-08-15","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CHARLES_GERLINE_G509436_20230815.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}