{"id":"alj-G901606-2023-05-30","awcc_number":"G901606","decision_date":"2023-05-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Louisa Hampton","employer_name":"University Of Arkansas Medical Sciences/uams","title":"HAMPTON VS. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MEDICAL SCIENCES/UAMS AWCC# G901606 MAY 30, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck","back","rotator cuff","repetitive","thoracic","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HAMPTON_LOUISA_G901606_20230530.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HAMPTON_LOUISA_G901606_20230530.pdf","text_length":48443,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: G901606 \nLOUISA HAMPTON,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT                                                  \n \nUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MEDICAL  \nSCIENCES/UAMS,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                          RESPONDENT NO.     1 \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION,                                        \nINSURANCE CARRIER/THIRD PARTY  \nADMINISTRATOR (TPA)                                                                  RESPONDENT NO.     1 \n \nDEATH AND PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY  \nTRUST FUND                                                                                       RESPONDENT NO.     2 \n \n \n         OPINION FILED MAY 30, 2023     \n        \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Ms. Laura Beth York, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  No.  1  represented  by  Mr.  Charles  McLemore,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondent No. 2 represented by Ms. Christy L. King, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.   \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn  March  7,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  Previously, a prehearing telephone conference was conducted in this matter on January \n11, 2023.  On that same day, a Prehearing Order was filed.   \nA copy of said order and the parties’ responsive filings have been marked as Commission’s \nExhibit 1 and made a part of the record. \n \n \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n2 \n \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. \n2. That  the  employee-employer-insurance  carrier  relationship  existed  at  all  relevant \ntimes, including on or about March 4, 2019. \n3. At that time, the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder. \n4. The  Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  on the  day  of  her  accidental  injury  was \nsufficient  to  entitle  her  to  a  weekly  compensation  rate  of  $372.00  for  temporary \ntotal  disability  (TTD)  compensation,  and  $279.00  a  week  for  permanent  partial \ndisability (PPD) benefits. \n5. Respondents  No.  1  have  accepted  and  paid  a  7%  anatomical  impairment  to  the \nClaimant for her compensable right shoulder injury.   \n6. The  Claimant  was  released  to  return  to  work  at  maximum  medical  improvement \n(MMI) on October 20, 2022, by Dr. O’Malley.  \n7. A hearing was held in this matter on December 18, 2019, resulting in an opinion \ndated May 6, 2020, which was affirmed and adopted by the Full Commission on \nDecember 16, 2020.  That opinion is the law of the case.     \n8. Respondents No. 1\n1\n have controverted this claim for additional benefits.  \n \n1\n There is a clerical error in the hearing transcript on page 8.  It incorrectly reads that Respondent No. 2 \nhas controverted this claim for additional benefits.  Instead, it should reflect that Respondents No. 1 have \ncontroverted the claim for additional benefits. \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n3 \n \n9. 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 the Claimant has been rendered permanently and totally disabled by her \ncompensable  right  shoulder  injury,  or  in  the  alternative  suffered  wage-loss \ndisability. \n2. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant: \nThe  Claimant  contends  that  on  March  4,  2019,  pushing  a  cart  when  an  elevator  door \nslammed  into  her.    She  sustained  an  injury  to  her  right  shoulder,  neck  and  back.    Respondents \ninitially accepted the claim as compensable and sent her to the doctor.  Following a few visits to a \nnurse  practitioner,  the  Respondents  denied  the  claim  in  its  entirety,  citing  no  objective  medical \nfindings.  The Claimant was forced to treat on her own.  The Claimant underwent an ultrasound to \nher right shoulder, which revealed a massive rotator cuff tear.  Dr. Shahryar Ahmadi performed \nsurgery in June 2019.    \nThe  Claimant  filed  a  Prehearing  Questionnaire  and  went  to  a  Full  Hearing  to  address \ncompensability.  In an opinion dated May 6, 2020, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the \nClaimant  to  be  credible  and  found  that  she  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she \nsustained a compensable injury.  Medical and indemnity benefits were awarded.  The Respondents \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n4 \n \nappealed  the  decision  to  the  Full  Commission.    On  December  16,  2020,  the  Full  Commission \nAffirmed and Adopted the ALJ's opinion. \nOn  March  17,  2021,  Dr.  Ahmadi  released  the  Claimant  at  MMI  with  a  6%  whole  body \nimpairment rating and no restrictions despite her complaints of pain.  Dr. Ahmadi left UAMS, and \nthe  Claimant's  care  was  transferred  to  Dr.  O'Malley.    She  was  diagnosed  as  having  scapular \ndyskinesia.    She  underwent  considerable  physical  therapy  to  address  the  condition.    An  MRI \nrevealed considerable atrophy, despite months of physical therapy and strengthening.  On August \n18, 2022, Dr. O'Malley noted that no other surgery was needed but that she should continue her \nhome therapy exercises. \nOn  October  14,  2022,  a  Functional  Capacity  Evaluation  was  performed.    The  Claimant \ngave a reliable result and was given permanent light duty restrictions.  On October 20, 2022, Dr. \nO'Malley released the Claimant at MMI with a 7% whole body rating and permanent light duty \nrestrictions.  \nThe Claimant is 67 years old with a high school education.  She worked primarily in factory \njobs on assembly lines until going to work for UAMS.  Originally, she was hired to take supplies \nto  patient  rooms,  and  then  moved  over  to  the  sterile  instruments  department  where  her  job \nconsisted  of  transporting  carts  of  dirty  instruments.    The  Claimant  was  terminated  by  the \nRespondent  employer  during  the  course  of  her  treatment.    The  Claimant  contends  that  she  is \npermanently and totally disabled because of this work injury, or in the alternative that she sustained \nsignificant wage loss.  Claimant further contends that her attorney is entitled to an attorney fee.   \nAll other issues are reserved. \nRespondents No. 1: \nThe Respondents contend that on March 4, 2019, the Claimant reported having an injury \nto her back and neck with symptoms down her right leg after an elevator door hit her in the back.  \nThe  Respondents  provided  treatment  for  the  Claimant's  reported  back  and  neck  injury,  but  the \nclaim was controverted after there were no objective findings of an injury to the Claimant's back \nor neck.  The Claimant demanded a hearing, alleging a right shoulder injury requiring surgery to \nrepair  her  rotator  cuff  on  June  20,  2019,  due to  the  March  4,  2019,  injury.    The  Administrative \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n5 \n \nLaw  Judge  ruled  in  favor  of  the  Claimant,  and  this  was  affirmed  by  the  majority  of  the  Full \nCommission and is now res judicata and law of the case.  Respondents No. 1 paid the Claimant \nthe awarded TTD benefits and medical treatment, including the surgery the Claimant underwent \nby Dr. Shahryar Ahmadi in June 2019. \nDr. Ahmadi had released the Claimant at Maximum Medical Improvement on March 17, \n2021, and assigned her a 6% permanent anatomical impairment to the body as a whole, which the \nRespondents accepted and paid to the Claimant.  \nThe Claimant continued complaining of symptoms after her release by Dr. Ahmadi,  and \nshe  was  provided  treatment after Dr. Ahmadi was no longer available with Dr. O’Malley,  who \ntreated her conservatively including a MRI, injection, and physical therapy.  Dr. O’Malley released \nthe  Claimant  at  maximum  medical  improvement  on  October  20,  2022,  with  a  7% impairment \nrating to the body as a whole, which has been accepted by Respondents No. 1 for the additional \n1% impairment rating. \nThe Claimant in fact returned to work after March 4, 2019, and worked through June 18, \n2019.  The Claimant’s employment with the Respondent-Employer ended March 2, 2020.   The \nClaimant is evidently collecting Social Security benefits now.    \nThe  Claimant  performed  reliably  in  the  Light  classification  of  work  at  a  Functional \nCapacity  Evaluation  on  October  14,  2022.    Vocational  rehabilitation  has  been  offered  to  the \nClaimant by Respondents No. 1. \nRespondents  No.  1  reserves  the  right  to  raise  additional  contentions,  or  to  modify  those \nstated herein, pending the completion of discovery.           \nRespondents No. 2: \nThe Trust Fund has deferred to the outcome of litigation on the above-named issues. \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n6 \n \nHowever, if the Claimant is found to be permanently and totally disabled, the Trust Fund \nstands ready to begin weekly benefits in compliance with A.C.A. §11-9-502.   Therefore, the Trust \nFund has not controverted the Claimant’s entitlement to benefits.   \nThe Death and Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund will state its remaining contentions \nupon completion of discovery.  \n                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on  my  review  of  the  relevant  evidentiary  record,  to  include  the  documentary \nevidence  listed  below,  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  after  having  had  an \nopportunity to hear the testimony of the Claimant and observe her demeanor during the hearing, I \nhereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \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.     The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she   \n          is permanently and totally disabled due to her compensable right shoulder injury of  \n          March 4, 2019.   \n \n          4.        The Claimant proved she sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of 33% over \n                     and above her 7% permanent anatomical impairment rating. \n \n          5.        The Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on the indemnity   \n                     benefits awarded on this claim.    \nSummary of Evidence \nMs. Louisa Hampton (referred to hereafter as the “Claimant”) was the sole witness to  \ntestify at the hearing.  \n            The  record  consists  of  the  March  7,  2023,  hearing  transcript  and  the  following  exhibits, \nwhich  were  offered  into  evidence  without  objections:  Specifically,  Commission’s  Exhibit  1 \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n7 \n \nincludes  the  above  referenced  documents;  the Claimant’s  Exhibit  1, includes  six  (6)  pages  of  \nMedical Summary Report, and four hundred and twenty-three (423) numbered pages of Medical \nRecords;  Claimant’s  Non-Medical  Index  includes  eight  (8)  numbered  pages,  which  has  been \nmarked  as  Claimant’s  Exhibit  2;  Respondents  No.  1’s  Medical  Exhibit consists  of  four  (4) \nnumbered pages and it has been marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 1; Respondents No.1’s Exhibit 2 \nconsists of fourteen(14) numbered pages; the Hearing Transcript of December 18, 2019 has been \nmarked Respondents’  Exhibit  3 and  is  retained  in  the  Commission’s  file;  Former  Chief \nAdministrative Law Judge Barbara Webb’s opinion of May 6, 2020 comprising of thirty-six (36) \npages has been marked as Joint Exhibit 1; and Joint Exhibit 2 is the Full Commission’s opinion of \nDecember 16, 2020, consisting of six (6) numbered pages was designated accordingly.     \n                                                           Testimony \nThe  Claimant,  Louisa  Hampton,  (DOB:  8/10/55)  testified  that  she  has  a  high  school \neducation.  She worked  for  UAMS for over a year, in  the dietary department after leaving high \nschool.  The Claimant also worked at  Timex for  over ten (10) years.   She worked at Cliffs and \nAssociates for eleven (11) years, and at New York Air Brake for over ten (10) years.  The Claimant \nwas laid off from there, before going back to work for UAMS, in their central supply sterilization \ndepartment.   \n Per the Claimant, she first went to work in 1974 at UAMS in dietary.  Her  employment \nduties included transporting food trays to patients, doing the dishes, and keeping the tables clean.  \nThe Claimant worked at Timex on the assembly line, doing repetitive-type work, which included \nputting “little pieces” in watches.  No lifting was needed for this job.  The Claimant also worked \non  the  assembly  at  Cliffs  and  Associates,  assembling  speakers/woofers  and  testing  them  on  the \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n8 \n \ncomputer.    The  Claimant  also  put  the  networks  on  the  board  for  the  cabinets.    Specifically,  she \npainted, stained, glued, and soldered the cabinets.   \nWhile working for New York Air Brake, her job duties involved the rebuilding of air brakes \nfor trains.  She explained that they had to rebuild the valves.  According to the Claimant, her work \nentailed  the  small  body  parts.    Later,  the  Claimant  went  to  work  in  an  inventory  position.    The \nClaimant  denied  that  she  was  a  manager  in  any  of  these  positions.  She  was  the  Inventory \nCoordinator before they closed the plant.  The Claimant confirmed that New York Air Brake is no \nlonger  a  viable  business  in  Arkansas.    In  fact,  she  denied  that  any  of  the  prior  jobs  that  she \npreviously performed are still around, except for the positions she performed at UAMS.   \n In that regard, the Claimant confirmed that she returned to work for UAMS in 2012.  The \nClaimant worked in central supply, where she pulled supplies for the patients.  In this position, the \nClaimant  had  to  find the patient’s location using the computer.    However,  someone  else  would \npick up the supplies at the window and transport them to the patients.  The Claimant explained that \nthe majority of these items were very small.  Following her work in central supply, the Claimant \nwent  to  work  in  the  sterilization  department.    She  initially  filled  orders  for  the  operating  room \n(OR), which included lifting heavy trays.  Per the Claimant, she transported the trays to the OR on \na cart.  Next, the Claimant became a transporter.  After the doctor performed a surgical procedure, \nthe  Claimant  had  to  transport  the  dirty  instruments  and  utensils  from  the  operating  room  to  the \nsterilization area.  She confirmed that she was working in this position when she got injured on \nMarch 4, 2019.  \nThe Claimant  confirmed that there  was  a determination of  compensability for the injury \nthat  she  sustained  on  March  4.    She  further  confirmed  she  was  injured  when  the  elevator  door \nslammed and knocked her over a small cart that she was pulling.  The Claimant  agreed that she \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n9 \n \nsustained an injury to her right shoulder during this incident.  However, the Respondents denied \nthe claim and it came on for a hearing before the Commission.  She agreed that a determination \nwas made that she sustained a compensable right shoulder injury, in the form of a massive rotator \ncuff tear.  The Claimant confirmed that she has had extensive medical treatment since her injury. \nOn June 20, 2019, Dr. Ahmadi performed right shoulder surgery to repair the rotator cuff.  \nThe Claimant testified that following the surgery she was hurting and in constant pain in one area.  \nAs a result, Dr. Ahmadi ordered physical therapy.  The Claimant had an ultrasound on August 20, \n2020, and another one February 2, 2021.  She confirmed that she had been treating and following \nup with Dr. Ahmadi throughout this period. The Claimant agreed that the first ultrasound showed \natrophy and the second ultrasound showed bursitis.   \nOn March 17, 2021, Dr. Ahmadi released the Claimant from care with a 6% whole body \nimpairment  rating  and  no  restrictions.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  the  Respondents  started \npaying her for the rating.  She admitted that during the time limit between her injury and when Dr. \nAhmadi released her, the condition of her shoulder was getting worse.   \nThe Claimant testified that she was terminated by UAMS, when she exhausted her FMLA.  \nShe  confirmed  that  during  the  course  of  her  treatment  with  Dr.  Ahmadi,  she  was  on  light  duty.  \nThe Claimant confirmed that she was released by Dr. Ahmadi on March 17, 2021.  According to \nthe Claimant, Dr. Ahmadi left his employment  with UAMS.  At that point, the Claimant began \ntreating under the care of Dr. O’Malley.  She confirmed that he ordered more physical therapy for \nher shoulder.  The Claimant testified that the therapy gave her some relief, but the pain was still \nthere.                                         \nShe confirmed that Dr. O’Malley ordered an MRI of her right shoulder in February 2022. \nThe  Claimant  agreed  that  it  did  not  show  a  re-tear  in  her  shoulder.  As  a  result,  Dr. O’Malley \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n10 \n \nordered  a functional capacity evaluation (FCE).    According to the Claimant, she was down for \ntwo days after undergoing this evaluation.  She explained that she used an icepack to help relieve \nthe swelling and tightness.  The Claimant agreed that the results of the evaluation revealed that she \nput forth a reliable effort, and it returned her to light duty work.  She agreed that on October 20, \n2022,  Dr. O’Malley  assigned  her  an  added  1%  impairment  rating  for  her  shoulder,  which  the \nRespondents accepted and paid. \nThe  Claimant  confirmed  that  she  has  not  worked  since  her  March  4,  2019,  injury.  She \nadmitted that she met with a vocational rehabilitation specialist, Keondra Hampton.  However, the \nClaimant denied that Ms. Hampton found any jobs for her.  The Claimant testified that she told \nMs. Hampton that she was willing to work if she could find a job that she could perform without \nbeing in pain.  She further testified that it was her plan to work after full retirement as long as she \ncould.    \nAccording to the Claimant, she is right-handed.  She denied that there are any jobs she can \nperform.  The Claimant also denied that she could perform any of her prior jobs that she named \nearlier, which were with  Timex, Cliff and Associates,  and New York Air Brake.   The Claimant \nstated that she can only lift five (5) pounds using her right arm and ten (10) pounds with her left \narm.  She testified that if she lifts something too heavy, it causes her shoulder to swell and tighten.   \nAccording  to  the  Claimant,  she  is  unable  to  remove  items  from  the  top  shelf  of  her  refrigerator \nwith her right hand/arm.  Instead, she explained that she must use her left hand. \nThe Claimant testified that a typical day for her includes taking a hot shower to allow the \nwater to run over her shoulder.  Then, she makes her bed.  According to the Claimant, she does \nsome basic household chores, including sweeping and mopping.  However, the Claimant is unable \nto  vacuum  because  of  the  vibrations.    She  eats  and  then  she  does  some  home  exercises  for  her \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n11 \n \nshoulder as recommended by her physical therapist.  According to the Claimant, sometimes after \ndoing the exercises, she has tightness in her shoulder and must use an icepack on it. \nShe was asked about her living situation.  According to the Claimant, she and two of her \nfriends live together.  They moved in together after her friends’ wives passed away.  The Claimant \nexplained that one of her housemates has cancer and the other one has degenerative arthritis, and \nof course she has shoulder problems.  According to the Claimant, the three of them help each other \nout.    She  confirmed  she  has  difficulty  using  her  right  hand  to  do  laundry.    The  Claimant  takes \nibuprofen and Tylenol. According to the Claimant, she takes four ibuprofens in the morning and \nfour at bedtime.  The Claimant sometimes takes a muscle relaxer.  She confirmed that she is sixty-\nseven (67) years old.  However, she denied that it was her plan to have to live with roommates.  \nInstead, the Claimant explained she had planned to live on her own and continue working until she \ncould not work anymore.    \nOn cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that she has not seen anyone for her right \narm since she last saw Dr. O’Malley.  The Claimant does not have a planned doctor’s visit.  She \nconfirmed that she worked as an inventory coordinator for New York Air Brake.  The Claimant \ntestified that when a truck brought in a shipment, the guys would bring the inventory to her booth.  \nShe would input everything into the computer and put it on a shelf.  When the bins ran low,  the \nClaimant had to refill the bins. The Claimant confirmed that the inventory included small parts, \nsuch as valves and screws.  She denied that she could perform any of her prior work, including her \nwork  at  Timex  due  to  the  movements  required  of  her  arm  and  the  walking  involved  in each \nposition. The Claimant also stated that she has a five-pound weight restriction.  She admitted that \nat the earlier hearing she said that she could perform her job at Timex.  However, the Claimant \nexplained that her shoulder condition has changed and gotten worse on a daily basis. \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n12 \n \nThe Claimant confirmed that she has not looked for work anywhere besides UAMS since \nher release by her doctors.   She confirmed that she is currently drawing Social Security Disability \nbenefits.    The  Claimant  began  drawing  these  benefits  in  September  or  October  2021,  when  she \nturned sixty-five (65).   She denied that she had planned to retire at the age of sixty-seven (67).   \nOn redirect examination, the Claimant testified that she had planned to continue working \nand draw Social Security benefits.        \nOn  re-cross  examination,  the  Claimant  testified  that  she  does  not  receive  any  retirement \nbenefits from UAMS because she worked for them only nine years.  According to the Claimant, \nhad she reached ten (10) years of employment at UAMS, she would be collecting benefits from \nthere but her injury prevented her from reaching the ten (10)-year mark.       \n                                               Medical Evidence \n The  first  record  of  medical  evidence  shows  that on  March  5,  2019,  the  Claimant  sought \ninitial  medical  treatment  from  UAMS,  under  the  care  of  Lakendra  Ready,  APRN,  CNP.    The \nClaimant provided a history of pushing a cart into the elevator one day ago, when the doors closed \non  her  back,  and  pushed  her  forward  into  the  cart.    She  reported  mid-thoracic  pain  and  neck \nstiffness  at  that  time.    Ready  placed  the  Claimant  on  modified  work  duty  and  prescribed  a \nmedication regimen. \n On  March  12,  2019,  the  Claimant  returned  to  Ms.  Ready,  her  nurse  practitioner,  for  a \nfollow-up  evaluation.    The  Claimant  reported  continued  pain in  her  scapula  area  that  felt  tight.  \nAlthough the Claimant had been taking Flexeril at night and ibuprofen 600 mg twice a day, she \nreported that these medications had been only mildly effective in relieving her symptoms.  Ready \ncontinued the Claimant on modified duty.   \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n13 \n \nThe Claimant presented to Dr. Gregory D. Sketas, with the UAMS Family Medical Center \non March 20, 2019, with a complaint of an elevator door having closed on her shoulder.  Dr. Sketas \nexamined the Claimant’s right shoulder, which resulted in an assessment of “scapular contusion.” \nTherefore, Dr. Sketas opined that the Claimant  could return to light duty  for the next couple of \nweeks and then could try her normal duty afterwards. \nOn April 30, 2019, the Claimant returned to the Family Medical Clinic for follow-up care \nunder  Dr.  Jamie  Howard.  The  Claimant  reported  having  been  evaluated  at  St.  Vincent’s \nEmergency Department.  During the Claimant’s ER visit, they performed x-rays which revealed \nno fracture.  However, the Claimant reported that she continued to have burning, aching pain in \nthe right scapular area.  The Claimant also reported intermittent swelling in that area.  Yet, a repeat \nx-ray did not reveal any  evidence of a fracture.   Dr. Howard assessed the Claimant with “acute \nright shoulder pain,” for which she referred the Claimant to the Orthopedic Surgery Department \nat UAMS.      \nThe  Claimant  underwent  an  evaluation  on  May  7,  2019,  by  Dr.  Shahryar  Ahmadi,  an \northopedic specialist.  At that time, the Claimant complained of significant pain over the medial \nborder of her right scapula.   Dr. Ahmadi ordered an ultrasound of the Claimant’s right shoulder \nthat included the periscapular muscle and rotator cuff muscles. \nOn  May  14,  2019,  the  Claimant  underwent  an  ultrasound  of  her  upper  right  extremity, \nwhich revealed:  \nMassive  rotator  cuff  tear  involving  the  entire  supraspinatus,  infraspinatus,  and  near \ncomplete tear of the subscapularis, as detailed above.  Medial retraction of the tendons is \nseen.  There is also focal partial tear of the lateral insertional fibers of the deltoid. \nNo definite evidence of intramuscular abnormality along the right periscapular region.  \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n14 \n \nDr. Ahmadi reviewed the results of the ultrasound with the Claimant on May 21, 2019.  At \nthat time, Dr. Ahmadi opined that the ultrasound revealed that she had sustained “a massive rotator \ncuff tear in her right shoulder.”  The Claimant continued with pain with no improvement since her \ninjury and for this reason she suffered significant weakness in her shoulder.  Dr. Ahmadi discussed \nwith  the  Claimant  both  operative  versus  nonoperative  management  methods  of  treatment.  Dr. \nAhmadi offered to perform a right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff repair with the possibility \nof using allograft.  The Claimant opted to go ahead with the surgery.  \nOn June 20, 2019, Dr. Ahmadi performed “a right shoulder arthroscopy and rotator cuff \nrepair, subacromial decompression and biceps tenodesis,” to repair a massive rotator cuff tear. \nThe Claimant followed-up with Dr. Ahmadi on July 3, 2019, for post-surgical care of her \nright  shoulder  arthroscopy  and  rotator  cuff  repair.    At  that  time,  Dr.  Ahmadi  ordered  physical \ntherapy,  which  the  Claimant  tolerated  well.    However,  the  Claimant  continued  with  significant \npain and stiffness around the shoulder. \nShe continued to present to Dr. Ahmadi for clinical reassessment of her ongoing pain and \nother related symptoms due to her right shoulder injury.   \nOn  January  8,  2020,  the  Claimant  presented  to  the  UAMS  Orthopedic  Clinic  for \nreassessment  of  her  right  shoulder  injury.      Dr.  Isaac  B.  Majors evaluated the Claimant’s  right \nshoulder.  At that time, the Claimant was seven (7) months out from right shoulder arthroscopy \nand rotator cuff repair.  However, the Claimant had continued complaints of stiffness and pain in \nher right shoulder.  \nSubsequently  on  July  21,  2020,  the  Claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Ahmadi  for  clinical \nreassessment of her right shoulder.  At that time, he noted that the Claimant was especially sore in \nthe periscapular area.  Therefore, Dr. Ahmadi ordered an ultrasound for further investigation. \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n15 \n \nAnother ultrasound of the Claimant’s  right  shoulder  was  performed  on  August  6,  2020.  \nDr. Gitanjali Baja rendered the following impression: \nPostsurgical changes from prior rotator cuff repair.  \n \nModerate atrophy of the infraspinatus muscle belly, otherwise no focal abnormality noted \nat the site of point of tenderness.  \n \nMarked attenuation of the infraspinatus tendon at the footprint limiting detailed evaluation \nhowever no discrete retear noted.  The remainder of the cuff appears grossly intact. \n \nThe Claimant returned to Dr. Ahmadi on August 19, 2020.  He opined that the ultrasound  \nshowed  a  rotator  cuff  tear  that  had  completely  healed.    However,  the  Claimant  complained  of \ncontinued right shoulder pain, especially with the procedure part of the shoulder.  He reassured the \nClaimant about the healing of the tendon.  At that point, Dr. Ahmadi instructed the Claimant to go \nback  to  her  normal  activity  without  any  restriction  and  to  follow-up  with  him  on  an  as  needed \nbasis.   \nFive  months  later,  on  January  20,  2021,  the  Claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Ahmadi  with \ncontinued complaints of right-sided posterior periscapular pain.  At that time, he sent the Claimant \nfor an ultrasound evaluation of periscapular pain generating area. \nOn February 2, 2021, Dr. Tarun Pandley opined that the ultrasound of the Claimant’s right \nextremity  revealed:  “Periscapular  ovoid  hypoechoic  area  along  the  superomedial  border  of  the \nscapula is noted that may represent mild periscapular bursitis.  This coincided with area of probe \ntenderness upon examination.” \nThe next day, Dr. Ahmadi saw the Claimant for a follow-up clinic visit.  He stated that the \nultrasound showed that the rotator cuff muscle seemed strong.  However, Dr. Ahmadi opined that \nthe  Claimant  was  significantly  tender  over  the  medial  border  of  the  scapula.    He  assessed  the \nClaimant with “Chronic periscapular pain on the right side.”   Therefore, Dr. Ahmadi performed a \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n16 \n \nsteroid  injection  in  the  bursal  tissue,  which  the  Claimant  tolerated  well.    After  observation,  Dr. \nAhmadi discharged the Claimant home with instructions to follow-up with him for further clinical \nassessment.  \nDr. Ahmadi declared on March 17, 2021, that the Claimant had reached maximum medical \nimprovement for her shoulder injury.  He assessed the Claimant with a 6% permanent impairment \nto the body as a whole for her shoulder injury utilizing the fourth (4\nth\n) edition of the AMA Guides.  \nDespite  the  Claimant’s  ongoing  complaints  of  the  right  shoulder, Dr.  Ahmadi  released  the \nClaimant to normal activity without any restrictions. \nOn September 16, 2021, the Claimant presented to Dr. Lawrence O’Malley at the UAMS \nOrthopedic Clinic for evaluation of her continued right shoulder pain.  At that time, Dr. O’Malley \ndiscussed  with  the  Claimant  that  there  was  no  surgical  procedure  was  indicated.    However,  Dr. \nO’Malley recommended physical therapy to help improve the Claimant’s symptoms and returned \nher to full duty.   \nThe  Claimant  returned  to Dr.  O’Malley  on  January  20,  2022,  for  evaluation  of  her \ncontinued right shoulder pain and stiffness.  The Claimant reported that her shoulder pain improved \nafter  rotator  cuff  repair  surgery,  but  she  continued  to  have  pain  in  her  right  scapula.    She  also \nreported that she had completed physical therapy for her scapular dyskinesis since her last visit, \nbut she continued to have worsening pain.  His impression was “65-year-old female with persistent \nright shoulder pain in the setting of prior rotator cuff repair.”  Therefore, Dr. O’Malley ordered an \nMRI of her right shoulder. \nAn MRI was performed of the Claimant’s right shoulder on February 13, 2022,  with  an \nimpression of: \n1.  Postsurgical changes secondary to cuff-repair, with moderate fatty atrophy of the  \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n17 \n \nsupraspinatus  and  infraspinatus.    Attenuation  of  the  supraspinatus  and  infraspinatus     \ntendons without evidence of tear. \n \n2.  Mild to moderate glenohumeral osteoarthritis. \n3.  Mild AC joint degeneration.  \nOn February 17, 2022, the Claimant saw Dr. O’Malley for the results of her MRI.  At that \ntime, he noted that the Claimant had not improved with physical therapy and anti-inflammatories.  \nDr. O’Malley recommended that the Claimant undergo trigger point injections to her right shoulder \nblade.  \nThe Claimant returned to Dr. O’Malley on June 9, 2022 with continued right shoulder pain.  \nTherefore, Dr. O’Malley performed a trigger point injection on the Claimant’s right shoulder and \nordered more physical therapy.  \nOn August 18, 2022, the Claimant returned for a follow-up visit with Dr. O’Malley for her \nright  shoulder  pain.    The  Claimant  specifically  complained  of  some  medial  scapular  pain.  \nOtherwise, she continued to improve.  He discussed with the Claimant that surgical intervention \nwas  not  needed.    Dr. O’Malley  suggested  the  Claimant  continue  with  home  physical  therapy \nexercises.                   \nHowever, on October 5, 2022, Dr. O’Malley recommended that the Claimant  undergo a \nfunctional capacity evaluation (FCE).  \nOn  October  14,  2022,  the  Claimant  underwent  a  functional  capacity  evaluation.  The \nClaimant completed the evaluation with results demonstrating that she put forth a reliable effort \nwith  fifty-two  (52)  out  of  fifty-two  (52)  consistency  measures  within  expected  limits.  Per  this \nevaluation, the Claimant can occasionally bi-manual lift/carry up to twenty (20) pounds and the \nability to lift/carry up to ten pounds on a frequent basis.  She demonstrated the ability to perform \nreaching overhead occasionally.  Overall, the Claimant demonstrated the ability to perform work \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n18 \n \nin the LIGHT classification of work as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor’s guidelines over \nthe course of a normal 8-hour workday with limitations noted above. \nDr. O’Malley saw the Claimant on October 20, 2022, following her FCE.  He noticed that \nthe Claimant continued to have pain in her shoulder but was continuing to improve.  However, the \nClaimant reported that her pain was localized about the scapula.  Based on the fourth (4\nth\n) edition \nof  the  AMA  Guides,  Dr. O’Malley  assessed  the  Claimant  with  a  7%  whole  person  permanent \nimpairment.  Dr. O’Malley placed the Claimant on permanent restrictions of no lifting greater than \nten (10) pounds on her right upper extremity.  He placed the Claimant at MMI.  Dr. O’Malley’s \nimpression  was:  “...  persistent  right  shoulder  pain  in  the  setting  of  prior  rotator  cuff, scapular \ndyskinesia.”  The Claimant elected to proceed with a right shoulder subacromial injection, which \nshe tolerated well.      \n At the request of the Public Employee Claims Division, the Claimant underwent a complete \nVocational  Rehabilitation  Initial  Evaluation.    The  evaluation  was  performed  on  December  16, \n2022, by Keondra Hampton, MS, CRC.   Per this report, the examiner stated that the Claimant is \ncapable of performing work in the light category.  However, Ms. Hampton stated that due to the \nClaimant’s  limited  work  history  profile  of  unskilled  and  semi-skilled  occupations,  she  does  not \nhave any transferable skills that would transfer to many occupations within the Light category of \nwork.  Ms. Hampton did not offer the Claimant a job.  \nAdjudication \n A.   Permanent and Total Disability Benefits       \n“Permanent   total   disability”   means   the   inability   because   of   the   compensable   injury   or \noccupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages in the same or other employment.  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-519(e)(1).  Furthermore, the statute provides that the burden of proof shall be on the \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n19 \n \ninjured  employee  to  prove  their  inability  to  earn  any  meaningful  wage  in  the  same  or  other \nemployment. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-519 (e)(2). \n  A  permanent  impairment  rating  is  not  a  prerequisite  to  consider  the  effects  of  a \ncompensable injury or injuries in a claim for permanent total disability.  Rutherford v. Mid-Delta \nCommunity Services, Inc., 102 Ark. App. 317, 285 S.W.3d 248 (2008). \nThe first issue for determination is whether the Claimant has been rendered permanently \nand totally disabled due to her compensable right shoulder injury of March 4, 2019.   The Claimant \nunderwent right shoulder arthroscopy rotator cuff repair by Dr. Ahmadi due to a massive rotator \ncuff  tear  on  June  20,  2019.    Subsequently,  the  Claimant  underwent  extensive  conservative \ntreatment  including  physical  therapy,  various  medication  regimens,  and  steroid  injections.    She \nreceived some relief from the surgery.  However, the Claimant has continued with significant right \nshoulder  pain  despite  surgical  intervention  and  extensive  conservative  treatment.  Nevertheless, \nthe parties stipulated that the Claimant has been assessed with a 7% permanent impairment for her \nright shoulder injury, which has been accepted and paid for by Respondents No. 1.   \nThe  Claimant  underwent  an  FCE  with  reliable  results  on  October  14,  2022.    Per  this \nevaluation the Claimant put forth a perfect effort, and she was released to LIGHT duty work, with \napplicable  restrictions  noted  above.    On  October  20, 2022, Dr. O’Malley placed  the  afore  light \nduty  restrictions  on  the  Claimant  permanently.    Although  the  Claimant  has  incurred  significant \nphysical  restrictions  due  to  her  compensable  right  shoulder  injury,  she  has  not  been  rendered \npermanently and totally disabled due to her compensable right shoulder injury of March 4, 2019.   \nHere, the permanent effects of the Claimant’s work-related injury prevent the Claimant from \nearning the same wages which she was receiving at the time of the injury.  However, the Claimant \nhas  the  ability  to  earn wages  in  other  less  strenuous  employment,  which would  pay  less  given  her \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n20 \n \nlimited education of only a high school diploma.  Her testimony demonstrates she is permanently and \ntotally disabled.  I did not find the Claimant credible in this regard.  The Claimant’s testimony that \nshe has been rendered totally disabled by her compensable shoulder injury is not corroborated by the \nmedical  evidence  (particularly  Dr.  O’Malley’s  expert  opinion  of  her  being  placed  on  light  duty \nrestrictions), or the vocational  specialist’s evaluation  of the Claimant’s  limited ability to  return to \nwork in the light category.   Hence, the preponderance of credible evidence shows that the Claimant \nhas the ability to perform work, at least in the LIGHT category.  Moreover, no doctor has opined that \nthe Claimant is incapable of returning to other employment in the sedentary category.  Hence, there \nis  no  credible  evidence  of  record  whatsoever  proving  that  the  Claimant  has  been  rendered \npermanently  and  totally  disabled  as  a  result  of  her  compensable  right  shoulder  injury  of  March  4, \n2019.    \nTherefore,  based  on  the  evidence  before  me,  I  find  that  the  Claimant  failed  to  prove  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that her compensable shoulder injury of March 4, 2019, has rendered \nher permanently and totally disabled.        \nB. Wage Loss \nFor  a Claimant with  an  unscheduled injury  who  is not permanently  and totally disabled, \nthe Claimant’s entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits is controlled by Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-522.    Permanent  disability  compensation  is  paid  where  the  permanent  effects  of  a  work-\nrelated injury prevent the worker from earning the wages which the worker was receiving at the \ntime of the injury.  A permanent impairment rating is a prerequisite for considering the effects of \na compensable injury in a claim for permanent partial disability for wage loss.  Wal-Mart Stores, \nInc. v. Connell, 340 Ark. 475, 10 S.W.3d 882 (2000). \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n21 \n \nWhen making a determination of the degree of permanent disability sustained by an injured \nworker  with  an  unscheduled  injury,  the  Commission  must  consider  evidence  demonstrating  the \ndegree to which the worker's anatomical disabilities impair the worker’s earning capacity, as well \nas other factors such as the worker's age, education, work experience, and other matters which may \nreasonably  be  expected  to  affect  the  worker’s  future  earning capacity.  Such  other  matters  may \ninclude, but are not limited to, motivation, post-injury income, credibility, and demeanor.  Glass \nv. Edens, 233 Ark. 786, 346 S.W.2d 685 (1961); City of Fayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, \n663 S.W.2d 946 (1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990).   \nHere,  the  Claimant  has  asserted  her  entitlement  to  wage-loss  disability.    The  parties \nstipulated that the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder on March 4, 2019.  \nThey  also  stipulated  that  the  Claimant  sustained  a  total  7%  permanent  impairment  rating  to  her \nshoulder.    Respondents  No.  1  have  accepted  and  paid  this  rating.      The  Claimant  underwent  a \nfunctional  capacity  evaluation  which  revealed  she  has  capabilities  of  performing  work  in  the \nLIGHT  category  per  U.S.  Dept.  of  Labor’s  guidelines  over  the  course  of  a  normal  eight-hour \nworkday.   \nThe Claimant is advanced (67) in age and has no transferable skills.  My conclusion of this \nwas  confirmed  by  the  vocational  rehabilitation  specialist’s  findings  and  my  review  of  the \nClaimant’s work history, education, and other relevant evidence.  Specifically, the Claimant has a \nlimited education (high school graduate)  and has performed  factory assembly line jobs over the \ncourse of her life.  In fact, in December 2022, the vocational specialist opined that the Claimant \nhas a limited work history profile of unskilled and semi-skilled occupations.  This evaluator also \nopined that due to the afore reasons, the Claimant does not have any transferable skills that would \ntransfer to many occupations within the Light category of work.   \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n22 \n \nAt the time of her injury, the Claimant had to lift heavy trays of operating instruments.  She \nsustained an injury to her shoulder on March  4, 2019, which required surgery.   Specifically, on \nJune  20,  2019,  Dr.  Ahmadi  performed “a  right  shoulder  arthroscopy  and  rotator  cuff  repair, \nsubacromial decompression and biceps tenodesis.” \nFollowing surgery the Claimant underwent extensive conservative treatment, particularly \nin the form of physical therapy and a medication regimen.  On March 17, 2021, Dr. Ahmadi opined \nthat  the  Claimant  had  reached  maximum  medical  improvement  for  her  shoulder  injury.    Dr. \nAhmadi assessed the Claimant with a 6% impairment rating to the body as a whole for her shoulder \ninjury and released her to normal activities without any restrictions.  Respondents No. 1 accepted \nthis rating and have paid it in full. \nHowever, the Claimant continued with pain and tightness of the right shoulder.  She came \nunder the care of Dr. O’Malley.  He ordered additional diagnostic tests.  Dr. O’Malley performed \ntrigger point injections and ordered additional physical therapy.  Ultimately, in October 2022, Dr. \nO’Malley released the Claimant from care and assessed her with an additional 1%, which has been \naccepted and paid.  He placed permanent restrictions on the Claimant per her FCE, which revealed \nshe could perform work in the LIGHT category.          \nI found the Claimant to be a somewhat credible witness although I am not persuaded by \nher testimony that she has been rendered permanently and totally disabled by her shoulder injury.   \nYet my review of the relevant evidence shows that the Claimant has suffered significant physical \nrestrictions considering she is unskilled and right-handed.  Her testimony shows that she is unable \nto reach objects on the top shelf of her refrigerator.  The Claimant’s testimony also shows that her \neveryday activities have been severely restricted due to her compensable right shoulder injury.  No \nevidence to the contrary has been presented.   \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n23 \n \nNevertheless, the Claimant testified that she continues to suffer pain and tightness in her \nright shoulder.  She has not worked since her compensable injury.  The Claimant testified that she \nhad worked for UAMS nine (9) years at the point of her termination once she exhausted all of her \nFMLA.  Her testimony shows that she draws Social Security Retirement.  However, the Claimant \ndenied  receiving  any  type  of  retirement  benefits  from  UAMS  because  she  did  not  meet  the  ten \n(10)-year requirement of employment with them.  The Claimant testified that she was a few months \nshort of being qualified to draw a pension from UAMS.   No testimony to the contrary has been \npresented.  Conversely, the Claimant credibly testified that she had planned to work beyond full \nretirement.  She stated that she intended to receive retirement and continue working as long as she \ncould  work.    The  Claimant  readily  admitted  she  has  not  looked  for  work  because  she  does  not \nbelieve she can work essentially because of ongoing chronic shoulder pain, for which she takes \nibuprofen and occasionally she takes a muscle relaxer.        \n Based  on  my  review  of  the  evidence,  including  the  Claimant’s  credible  testimony,  and \nwhen considering her advanced age; limited education; work experience; the nature and extent of \nher shoulder injury; the 7% permanent anatomical impairment rating to the body as a whole for \nher right shoulder injury; the vocational specialist assessment of no transferrable skills and limit \nlight duty work options; her most recent primary work experience of heavy duty work; permanent \nLIGHT duty restrictions, lack of interest in looking for work within her restrictions; considering  \nshe had to take early retirement, and all other relevant matters reasonably expected to affect her \nfuture earning capacity, I find that the Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she sustained a 33%  wage-loss earning capacity in excess of her 7% permanent anatomical \nimpairment rating to the body as a whole for her compensable right shoulder injury of March  4, \n2019.       \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n24 \n \n Of note, although the Claimant met with a vocational rehabilitation specialist, there is no \nevidence showing that she was ever offered a job by the respondent-employer within her physical \nrestrictions.  Moreover,  there  is  no  evidence  whatsoever  demonstrating  that  the  vocational \nspecialist found any potential employment opportunities for the Claimant.      \nC. Controverted Attorney’s Fee  \nThe parties stipulated that Respondents No. 1 have controverted this claim for additional \nbenefits.  Per this stipulation and the award of benefits herein, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled \nto the maximum statutory attorney’s fee on all indemnity awarded herein in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-715(a) (2) (A) (Repl. 2012).           \nAWARD \nRespondents No. 1 are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact and \nconclusions of law set forth above.  All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, \nand this award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n809 (Repl. 2012).   See Couch v. First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W. 2d 57 \n(1995).  \nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a) (2) (A) (Repl. 2012), the Claimant's attorney is \nentitled to a 25% attorney's fee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein.  This fee is to be paid \none-half by the carrier and one-half by the Claimant.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n          ______________________________ \n          Hon. Chandra L. Black \n                 Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n\nHampton- G901606 \n \n25","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: G901606 LOUISA HAMPTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS MEDICAL SCIENCES/UAMS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT NO. 1 DEATH AND PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:08:05.998Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G901606-2023-05-30","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HAMPTON_LOUISA_G901606_20230530.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}