{"id":"alj-G708582-2025-08-05","awcc_number":"G708582","decision_date":"2025-08-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Linda Bradley","employer_name":"Pine Bluff School District","title":"BRADLEY VS. PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# G708582 August 05, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRADLEY_LINDA_G708582_20250805.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BRADLEY_LINDA_G708582_20250805.pdf","text_length":13942,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                 CLAIM NO.: G708582 \nLINDA BRADLEY,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                             CLAIMANT \n \nPINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT, \nTPA/CARRIER                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \n             OPINION FILED AUGUST 5, 2025    \n       \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Pine Bluff, \nJefferson County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se/unrepresented, appeared for the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Melissa  Wood, Attorney at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn May  8,  2025, the  above-captioned  claims came  on  for a full hearing in Pine  Bluff, \nArkansas.  A prehearing telephone conference  was  conducted in  the  above-styled  claims on \nNovember 17, 2024, by Administrative Law Judge Jay O. Howe, from which a Prehearing Order \nwas  filed on that  same  day.  A  copy  of  said order and  the parties’ responsive  filings have  been \nmarked as Commission’s Exhibit 1 and made a part of the record without objection.   \nStipulations \nDuring the prehearing telephone conference, and/or hearing the  parties  agreed  to  the \nfollowing stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n\nBRADLEY-G708582 \n2 \n \n2. That  the  employee-employer-carrier  relationship  existed  at  all  relevant  times \nincluding on December 4, 2017, when the Claimant sustained compensable injuries \nto her neck and right shoulder. \n \n3. The Claimant’s average weekly wage was $416.37,  which  would  entitle  her  to \ntemporary  total  disability benefits in  the  amount  of  $278.00  per  week, and \npermanent partial disability compensation in the amount $209.00 per week.  \n4. On  June  9,  2022,  Dr.  Charles  Pearce  assigned  the  Claimant  a  4%  permanent \nimpairment  rating to  the  person  as  a  whole. The  Respondents  accepted  and  paid \nthis rating accordingly.  \n \n5. On April 12, 2024, the Full Commission entered an Opinion affirming and adopting \nan earlier ALJ Opinion on certain claims previously litigated.  The Law of the Case \nDoctrine applies accordingly.   \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing included the following: \n1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to an additional permanent partial disability rating, \nabove the 4% impairment rating previously paid to her by the Respondents for her \nshoulder injury of December 4, 2017. \n \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to additional medical benefits for her compensable \ninjuries. \n \n3. All other issues are reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant:  \nThe Claimant contends she is entitled to additional indemnity benefits to compensate her \nfor  the  difficulties  that  she  continues  to  experience  since her  December  4,  2017,  injury.   She \nadditionally claims entitlement to additional medical benefits.  \nRespondents: \nThe  Respondents contend that  all  appropriate  benefits  have  been  paid  with  regard  to \nClaimant’s injuries sustained on December 4, 2017. \n\nBRADLEY-G708582 \n3 \n \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 (Repl. 2012): \n1.      The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \n      claim.    \n        \n2.       I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n3.       The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence her entitlement to            \n      any additional permanent impairment benefits. \n           \n          4.            The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence her entitlement to any \n                         additional medical benefits for her December 4, 2017, compensable injuries.       \n            \n          5.           All issues not litigated herein are reserved.              \n             \nSummary of Evidence \nMs. Linda Bradley (referred to herein as the “Claimant”), was the only witness to testify at \nthe hearing.  \n            The  record  consists  of  the May 8,  2025 hearing  transcript and  the following exhibits: \nSpecifically, Commission’s  Exhibit 1 includes  the  Commission’s  Prehearing  Order filed  on \nNovember 8,  2023 and  the  parties’ responsive  filings; Respondents’ Exhibit  No.  1 is  a \nRespondents’ Hearing Exhibit Index of Medicals comprising of four totaled pages; Respondents’ \nExhibit No. 2 is a Respondents’ Hearing Exhibit Index of  Non-Medicals  consisting  of  fourteen \nnumbered pages; Respondents’ Exhibit No. 3 is a prior ALJ Opinion filed on November 17, 2023,  \nconsisting of sixteen numbered pages; and the Hearing Transcript of August 10, 2023 was marked \nas Respondents’ Exhibit No. 4.  It is retained in the Commission’s file.  The Full Commission’s \n\nBRADLEY-G708582 \n4 \n \nApril  12,  2024,  Opinion  was  inadvertently  left  out  of  the  hearing  transcript.    It  has  been  blue-\nbacked and made a part of the record in this present claim.   \n                                                          History \n At the time of the hearing, the Claimant was sixty-three years of age.  She testified that she \nworked for the Pine Bluff School District as a para-professional, assisting disabled students.  It is \nundisputed that the Claimant was injured on December 4, 2017, when a student suddenly ran into \nthe building unaccompanied.  The Claimant ran after the student and she tripped and fell, injuring \nher right shoulder and neck.   \n The Respondents accepted the claim as compensable and began paying benefits to and on \nbehalf of the Claimant.  However, the Claimant confirmed that her primary injury was to her right \nshoulder.  An MRI revealed a tear in her right shoulder.  Although the Claimant did not recall the \nexact date of her shoulder surgery, the record shows that Dr. Gordon performed this surgery on \nApril 19, 2018.    \n She  confirmed  that  the  Respondents paid  her temporary  total  disability  compensation \nfollowing  her  surgery.   Ultimately,  the  Claimant  was  assigned  a  4%  impairment  rating  for  her \nshoulder injury.  She confirmed that the Respondents paid her eighteen weeks of benefits for this \nimpairment rating. \n The Claimant admitted that she is asking for an increased rating above the previously paid \n4% rating for her compensable right shoulder injury of December 4.  She further admitted that she \nhas no medical documentation to support her claim for these other benefits.  Her testimony shows \nthat she believes that she is entitled an additional rating for her shoulder injury due to chronic pain.  \nPer the Claimant, she experiences pain daily, and it has not ceased since her accident. \n\nBRADLEY-G708582 \n5 \n \n She described shooting pain in her shoulder that interferes with her activities of daily living, \nsuch as combing hair, daily grooming, and simple things like picking up pots and pans.  According \nto the Claimant, she also has difficulty sleeping.   \n Currently, she takes hydrocodone for her shoulder, which is prescribed by a doctor at the \nPain Treatment Centers of America, which is located in White Hall.  The Claimant readily admitted \nthat the only symptoms she has relating to her shoulder is pain.  She maintained that she has sought \nmedical treatment on her own for her shoulder condition in the form of injections, a TENS Unit, \nand physical therapy.  Despite this treatment, the Claimant maintained that her shoulder pain has \ncontinued since  her  compensable  injury. The  Claimant  maintained  that  an  implant  is  being \nrecommended for her shoulder, but she is afraid to undergo this procedure. However, no medical \ndocumentation has been presented in this regard to support a finding for an additional surgery.  \n On cross-examination the Claimant verified that she got a change of physician to treat with \nDr. Ahmadi at UAMS.  According to the Claimant, Dr. Ahmadi wanted to perform surgery, but he \nleft the clinic before he could perform the surgery.  That is the reason the Claimant began treating \nDr. Pearce.\n1\n  He released the Claimant from his care in July 2021.   \n The  Claimant  admitted  that  during  the  last  hearing,  she  agreed  that  the  treatment  she \nreceived from her primary care provider and Pain Treatment Centers of America was unauthorized.  \nAs a result, the Respondents did not pay for this medical care. \n On July 27, 2021, Dr. Charles Pearce released the Claimant from his care.  He returned the \nClaimant to full duty work with no restrictions.  At that time, he assigned the Claimant a 4% whole \nperson impairment rating for her right shoulder injury. \n                        \n \n \n1\n Although there is testimony from the Claimant referencing a “Dr. Pierce,” she is actually referring to Dr. \nCharles Pearce, which is the correct spelling of his last name.    \n\nBRADLEY-G708582 \n6 \n \n                Discussion \n This is the second hearing in this claim.  The first hearing was held on August 10, 2023. \nALJ Howe rendered an Opinion in that claim on November 17, 2023. At that time, the Claimant \nasserted that she was entitled to wage loss and permanent and total disability benefits.  ALJ Howe \nfound that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled \nto  any  additional  benefits  sought  in  connection  with  her  compensable  injuries.   The  Full \nCommission affirmed and adopted this decision in an Opinion issued on April 12, 2024.   \n Now, the  Claimant  contends  that  she  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  for  her \ninjuries and an additional rating above the 4% rating, which has been previously accepted and paid \nby the Respondents.   \n The relevant law at issue is outlined below: \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as \nmay be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-508(a).  The Claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat  medical  treatment  is  reasonably  necessary.   Stone  v.  Dollar  General  Stores,  91  Ark.  App. \n260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005). \n  Permanent  impairment  is  any  functional  or  anatomical  loss  remaining  after  the  healing \nperiod has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  \nThe  Commission  has  adopted  the  American  Medical  Association Guides  to  the  Evaluation  of \nPermanent  Impairment (4\nth\n ed.  1993)  to  be  used  in  assessing  anatomical  impairment.   See \nCommission Rule 34; Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(g) (Repl. 2012).  It is the Commission’s duty, \nusing  the Guides,  to  determine  whether  the Claimant  has  proved she  is  entitled  to permanent \nanatomical impairment.  Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).      \n\nBRADLEY-G708582 \n7 \n \nAny determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by \nobjective  and  measurable  physical  findings.    Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-704(c)(1)  (Repl.  2012).  \nObjective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012).   \nPermanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a  determination  that  the  compensable \ninjury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a) \n(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of \nmajor cause shall be established according to a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-102(14) (Repl. 2012).  \n Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003).      \n Here,  the  Claimant  did  not  offer  persuasive  testimony proving her  entitlement  to  any \nadditional medical treatment for her compensable injuries of December 4, 2017.  Nor did she offer \nany medical documentation or probative evidence recommending additional medical treatment for \nher compensable injuries of  December  4,  2017.  Under  these  circumstances,  I  am  compelled  to \nfind that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence her entitlement to any \nadditional medical treatment for her compensable injuries sustained in December 2017. \n Regarding an additional impairment rating for her right shoulder, the Claimant has offered \nno objective medical findings to support her claim for an additional impairment rating.  Her sole \ncomplaint is pain.  Pain is subjective in nature and does not constitute an objective medical finding \nsufficient to increase her impairment rating for her shoulder to anything above the 4%, previously \naccepted and paid by the Respondents.  \n \n\nBRADLEY-G708582 \n8 \n \n                                                           ORDER \nBased  on  the  foregoing  Conclusions  and  Findings  of  Facts,  this  claim  for  additional \nbenefits is hereby denied and dismissed in its entirety.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n          ______________________________ \n          CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: G708582 LINDA BRADLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT, TPA/CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 5, 2025 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Pine Bluff...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:59.821Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G708582-2025-08-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRADLEY_LINDA_G708582_20250805.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}