{"id":"alj-G903696-2023-06-07","awcc_number":"G903696","decision_date":"2023-06-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Donna Hassell","employer_name":"Walmart Associates, Inc","title":"HASSELL VS. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC. AWCC# G903696 JUNE 7, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:3","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","neck","back","cervical","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HASSELL_DONNA_G903696_20230607.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HASSELL_DONNA_G903696_20230607.pdf","text_length":10472,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO.  G903696 \n \nDONNA HASSELL, Employee                                                                         CLAIMANT \n \nWALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., Employer                                             RESPONDENT                         \n \nWALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, Carrier                                                 RESPONDENT                          \n \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 7, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JAMES A. ARNOLD, II, Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On May 24, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Springdale, \nArkansas.    A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on  March  15,  2023  and  a  pre-\nhearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date.    A  copy  of  the  pre-hearing  order  has  been \nmarked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n 2.   All prior opinions are final. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.    Claimant’s entitlement to additional medical treatment as recommended by  \nDr. Baird in the form of a spinal cord stimulator. \n\nHassell – G903696 \n2 \n \n The claimant contends she is entitled to treatment recommended by her authorized \ntreating  physician,  Dr.  Clinton  Baird,  in  the  form  of  a  spinal  cord  stimulator.    Claimant \nreserves all other issues. \n The respondents contend that Dr. Baird’s proposed spinal cord stimulator trial is \nnot   reasonably   necessary   medical   treatment   in   connection   with   the   claimant’s \ncompensable injury.  Indemnity benefits and attorney fees are being paid as appropriate. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear \nthe testimony of the witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted \non March 15, 2023 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2.    Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to a spinal cord stimulator trial as recommended by Dr. Baird. \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The claimant is a 61-year-old woman who was involved in a motor vehicle accident \nwhile working for respondent on February 4, 2019.  The parties have previously stipulated \nthat as a result of that accident claimant suffered compensable injuries to her right knee, \nneck, and low back.  Claimant underwent surgery in the form of a fusion at the L4-5 level \nby Dr. Armstrong on June 4, 2019.  Following that procedure claimant came under the \n\nHassell  - G903696 \n \n3 \n \ncare of Dr. Clinton Baird in Tulsa, Oklahoma who performed a sacroiliac joint fusion on \nFebruary 7, 2020.  In an Opinion filed on August 12, 2020, it was determined that claimant \nhad  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  was  entitled  to  additional \nmedical  treatment  for  her  low  back  and  SI  joint;  including  the  surgery  which  had  been \nperformed by Dr. Baird. \n Claimant  has  continued  to  treat  with  Dr.  Baird.    He  recommended  an anterior \ncervical  discectomy  and  fusion  at  the  C4-C7  level  and  performed  that  procedure  on \nSeptember 23, 2020.  Following a hearing on February 24, 2021, an Opinion was filed on \nMarch 17, 2021 finding that claimant had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe was entitled to additional medical treatment for her cervical injury which included the \nsurgery performed by Dr. Baird. \n Since that time, claimant has continued to receive medical treatment from Dr. Baird \nand has undergone pain management for complaints involving continued low back pain.  \nClaimant’s treatment has included injections, physical therapy, and pain medication.  On \nDecember  27,  2021,  Dr.  Baird  performed  a  lumbar  laminectomy  with  L5-S1  hardware \nremoval.   \n Despite claimant’s most recent surgery, she has continued to complain of low back \ncomplaints.  In his report of May 10, 2022, Dr. Baird recommended that claimant undergo \na spinal cord stimulator trial.   \n Respondent has  denied  liability for the spinal cord stimulator trial recommended \nby Dr. Baird, and as a result claimant has filed this claim contending that she is entitled \nto additional medical treatment in the form of the spinal cord stimulator trial recommended \nby Dr. Baird. \n\nHassell  - G903696 \n \n4 \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant contends that she is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form \nof a spinal cord stimulator trial as recommended by Dr. Baird.  Claimant has the burden \nof  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  medical  treatment  is  reasonably \nnecessary.  Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W. 3d 445 (2005).  \nWhat  constitutes  reasonably  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the \nCommission.  Wright Contracting Company v. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W. 2d \n750 (1984). \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof. \n As previously noted, claimant suffered an admittedly compensable injury to her low \nback  as  a  result  of  a  motor  vehicle  accident  on  February  4,  2019.    Since that  time, \nclaimant has undergone extensive medical treatment for her low back.  This includes a \nfusion at the L4-5 level by Dr. Armstrong; a sacroiliac joint fusion by Dr. Baird on February \n7,  2020;  and  surgery  to  remove  hardware  with  a  lumbar  laminectomy  by  Dr.  Baird on \nDecember  27,  2021.    In  addition  to  three  surgical  procedures,  claimant  has  received \ntreatment  in  the  form  of  medication,  injections,  and  physical  therapy.    Despite  this \ntreatment, claimant’s complaints of low back pain persist and as a result Dr. Baird has \nnow recommended a spinal cord stimulator trial. \n In  connection  with  the  spinal  cord  stimulator  trial,  claimant  was  referred  for  a \npsychological evaluation to determine whether she was a candidate for the spinal cord \nstimulator trial.  Claimant  was not evaluated by a local psychiatrist or psychologist, but \ninstead  participated  in  a  videoconference  examination  with  Dr.  Maria  Arizaga  who  is \n\nHassell  - G903696 \n \n5 \n \nboard certified in psychiatry and addiction medicine in New Mexico.  Dr. Arizaga authored \na report dated January 4, 2023, indicating that claimant  was a candidate for the spinal \ncord  stimulator  assessment  and  intervention.    Notably,  Dr.  Arizaga  performed  no \npsychological testing on the claimant. \n In  response  to  Dr.  Arizaga’s  report,  respondent  had  claimant  evaluated  by  Dr. \nRichard  Back,  a  clinical  neuropsychologist  in  Fayetteville.    Dr.  Back  performed  an  in-\nperson  evaluation  of  the  claimant  and  in  addition administered  psychological  testing  in \nthe  form  of  an  MMPI-2.    According  to  Dr.  Back’s  report  of  March  28,  2023,  claimant’s \nprofile from the MMPI-2 was elevated.  Significantly, it was his opinion that claimant would \nbe a poor surgical risk for pain control such as a spinal cord stimulator.  Specifically, Dr. \nBack stated: \n  Ms. Hassell’s Pain Assessment Index was calculated from \n  her MMPI-2 T-score.  Her scores (15.5) exceeds the cut-off \n  of 13.  Scores above 13 are associated with poor surgical \n  results aimed at pain reduction.  This formula is 93.5%  \n  accurate in identifying poor surgical risks for pain control. \n \n \n Dr. Back went on to diagnose claimant’s condition as Somatic Symptom Disorder \ndue to predominant pain and recommended conservative medical intervention. \n In addition, respondent had claimant undergo an evaluation by Dr. Carlos Roman.  \nIn a report dated May 15, 2023, Dr. Roman stated that a spinal cord stimulator might be \nan unnecessary risk and he recommended medication management.  I do note that in his \nreport   Dr.   Roman   indicated   that   claimant’s   psychiatric   evaluation   showed   no \ncontraindication to the stimulator.  Perhaps Dr. Roman was only aware of the report of \nDr. Arizaga and not of the report and MMPI-2 results of the testing performed by Dr. Back.  \n\nHassell  - G903696 \n \n6 \n \nClearly, Dr.Back’s report indicates that claimant is not a good candidate for pain reduction \nsurgery. \n In my opinion, the opinion of Dr. Back is entitled to greater weight than the opinion \nof Dr. Arizaga. First, Dr. Back performed an in-person evaluation of the claimant.  On the \nother hand, Dr. Arizaga performed her examination by teleconference.  More importantly, \nDr.  Back  performed  psychological  testing  in  the  form  of  an  MMPI-2  while  Dr.  Arizaga \nperformed  no  psychological  testing.    According  to  Dr.  Back,  claimant’s  MMPI-2  results \nindicate  that  she  is  a  poor  surgical  risk  for  pain  control.    Based  upon  the  test  results \nassessed by Dr. Back, which I find to be credible and entitled to great weight, I find that \nclaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to \nadditional medical treatment in the form of a spinal cord stimulator trial as recommended \nby Dr. Baird. \nORDER \n Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nto   additional   medical   treatment   in   the   form   of   a   spinal   cord   stimulator   trial   as \nrecommended by Dr. Baird.   Therefore, her claim for additional compensation benefits is \nhereby denied and dismissed. \n Respondents are liable for payment of the court reporter’s charges for preparation \nof the hearing transcript in the amount of $410.00. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n     _______________________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G903696 DONNA HASSELL, Employee CLAIMANT WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., Employer RESPONDENT WALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 7, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County, Arkans...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:06:02.723Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G903696-2023-06-07","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HASSELL_DONNA_G903696_20230607.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}