{"id":"alj-G907099-2025-01-14","awcc_number":"G907099","decision_date":"2025-01-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jeffrey Lovelis","employer_name":"Arkansas State Police","title":"LOVELIS VS. ARKANSAS STATE POLICE AWCC# G907099 January 14, 2025","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["neck","cervical","back","fracture","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LOVELIS_JEFFREY_G907099_20250114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"LOVELIS_JEFFREY_G907099_20250114.pdf","text_length":27926,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G907099 \nJEFFREY LOVELIS, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \n \nARKANSAS STATE POLICE, \nEMPLOYER         RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS INSURANCE DEPARTMENT/ \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA      RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 14, 2025 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 19\nth\n day of June \n2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Steven R. McNeely, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, \nArkansas. \nRespondents are represented by Charles H. McLemore, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n A hearing was conducted on the 19\nth\n day of November 2024, to determine the sole \nissue of additional reasonable  and  necessary medical treatment. A  copy  of  the  Pre-\nhearing Order dated August  13,  2024, was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made \npart  of  the  record without  objection.  The  Order  provided that the parties stipulated as \nfollows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n \n2. An  employer-employee  relationship  existed  on or  about  September  19, \n2019. \n \n3. An injury to the neck was accepted as compensable. \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \n  \nThe  claimant’s  and  respondent’s  contentions are set  out  in  their  respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing  questionnaire and made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. The  claimant  contends  that he  is  entitled  to  additional  reasonable  and \nnecessary  medical  treatment,  specifically  being  a  return visit to  Dr.  James  Suen  to \naddress the diagnosis claimant received from the VA doctor in Florida finding a crack in \nhis Hyoid Bone, or alternatively an IME with a doctor in Florida. The respondents contend \nthat  the  claimant  reported  on  September  29,  2019, that  he  had injured his  neck  on \nSeptember   19,   2019,   while training,   which   was   accepted   as   compensable   by \nRespondents with the Claimant having been provided reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment for the compensable  injury, which including  treatment  by  Dr.  Steven  Shorts, \notolaryngologist, who opined that there was no long lasting disability for this type of injury.  \nDr. Shorts released the claimant to full duty on October 28, 2019.  Dr. Scott Carle saw \nthe  claimant  for  an  Independent  Medical  Examination  on  November  14,  2019,  and \nordered an MRI of the claimant’s neck and throat and opined that the  claimant  was  at \nMaximum Medical Improvement and had no permanent impairment. \nThe claimant returned to Dr. Shorts, who did not treat the claimant but referred the \nclaimant to Dr. James Suen, otolaryngologist, on November 16, 2020. Dr. Suen ordered \na barium swallow study which was normal and a CT scan which was unremarkable. He \nperformed an exploratory surgery on July 14, 2021, and found no major abnormalities but \ndid remove part of a lymph node and upper lateral thyroid cartilage just below the hyoid \nbone on the left side. The claimant was then later seen by Dr. Wayne Bruffett who ordered \nan MRI of the cervical spine and opined on October 21, 2021, that the claimant had no \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \ninjury to the spine that would result in a permanent impairment and placed no restrictions \non the claimant.  Dr. Suen released the claimant at MMI on January 3, 2022, indicating \nthat he had nothing else to offer but non-narcotic pain management might be useful, and \nthe claimant presented to Dr. Carlos Roman who ultimately released the claimant with a \n0%  impairment  rating.    The  claimant  moved  out  of  state  and sought further  treatment \nwhich the respondents were aware of, and they then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Want \nof Prosecution on June 4, 2024.  The claimant objected to the dismissal and contended \nthat he should be allowed to return to Dr. Suen after the diagnosis of a crack in his hyoid \nbone as determined by a VA doctor or in the alternative, an IME.  \n The sole witness to testify was the claimant, Jeffrey Lovelis. Both parties submitted \nexhibits  without  objection. From  a  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole, to  include  medical \nreports and other matters properly before the Commission and having had an opportunity \nto observe the testimony and demeanor of the witness, the following findings of fact and \nconclusions of law are made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n2.  That an employer/employee relationship existed on September 19, 2019, when \nthe claimant sustained a compensable injury to his neck which was accepted \nas compensable by the respondent.   \n3.   That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to prove by \na preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the additional medical \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \ntreatment requested, specifically a return to the treating physician, Dr. James \nSuen or another IME in Florida, with said requested treatment being found to \nnot be reasonable and necessary.   \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The claimant, Jefferey A. Lovelis, 35 years old at the time of the hearing, was the \nsole witness to testify. He admitted to VA-related disabilities after serving in the Marines \nand being deployed to Afghanistan. These conditions did not involve his neck or throat, \nhowever but did involve PTSD, his hearing, and his knees. He returned to Arkansas and \nafter  some  intermediate  employment after  the  military  and became  employed  by  the \nArkansas  State  Police  in  2018  as  a  Trooper  in  Lincoln  County.    He  stated  he  had  no \nproblem performing his job duties until September 19, 2019.  On that date he was at a \ntraining facility for his yearly training, and they were working on neck restraints that could \npossibly  protect  them while  working on  the  side  of  the  highway.  12 Troopers  were \ninstructed  to get  on their  knees and  then  the individual Troopers were  instructed  to go \nbetween each remaining Trooper to become aware of different neck sizes that they might \nencounter.  He injured his neck when a Trooper came up behind him and picked him up \noff of his knees very slightly and he felt something tighten up.  A week later, he could tell \nsomething was going on and he felt a popping sensation in his throat while attempting to \nswallow. (Tr. 6 – 11) \n He initially saw Dr. Stephen Shorts and then saw Dr. James Suen, who could tell \nsomething was wrong but didn’t know what, based on CT scans and MRI’s. Dr. Suen then \nperformed exploratory surgery on July 14, 2021, “where he grinded my esophagus down, \nmy voice box down, and removed some lymph node and removed that calcified styloid \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \ntendon.” He went  on  to  testify  that after  the  surgery,  his  throat  popped every  time  he \nattempted to  swallow.  He  denied  being  involved  in  any additional accidents, since  the \nNovember  2019  date.  (Tr.  13,  14) The  claimant  felt  that  he  was  unable  to  be  a  State \nTrooper due to lacking a full range of motion in his neck and issues with the swallowing \nand grinding in his throat. He also stated that he lost the full range of motion in left arm. \n(Tr. 15, 16) \nUnder cross examination, the claimant admitted reporting the training injury to his \nrespondent employer within  six  or  seven  days.    He  went  on  to  provide  that  he  did  not \nreport it earlier because in the past, he had been through numerous chokeholds, and he \ndidn’t think anything was wrong. “So as the week progressed, I could tell that something \nwas going on because my neck, as it - - it got harder and harder to swallow and eat foods \nduring the week.” “I mean we - - That wasn’t the only neck restraint that we worked on \nthat day, so there was a lot of force on our necks that day for everybody, so I just thought \nit was maybe sore initially.” (Tr. 19, 20) \nIn regard to medical treatment, the claimant went initially to Med Express, and was \nthen referred to Dr. Shorts, an ear, nose, and throat doctor, where he eventually received \nan MRI after a couple of months. He also admitted seeing Dr. Carly, due to the fact his \nthroat was still swollen, and which affected his job. He was later referred to Dr. Suen, who \nordered a CT. It was the claimant’s understanding that Dr. Suen knew that something \nwas  wrong, and  the  exploratory  surgery  was  to determine what. After  the  surgery,  the \nclaimant admitted to receiving physical therapy for his left arm which helped 100 percent, \nbut the throat problems became worse. The claimant admitted that he was told the left \narm problem had nothing to do with the exploratory surgery. (Tr. 21 - 26) \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nThe  claimant  also  admitted treatment  by Dr.  Bruffett, who  ordered  a  MRI  of  the \ncervical  spine but who did  not  order  surgery.   In  regard  to his treatment  by Dr.  Suen, \nclaimant testified that “He exhausted everything he had.  Based off what he found after \nexploratory - - didn’t find anything - - I don’t think there was anything he could probably \ndo.” (Tr. 27) The claimant also admitted to performing a Functional Capacity Evaluation \n(FCE) and admitted that at the time of the examination, he was on medications from the \nVA  and that he may  not  have  understood  what  was  expected  of  him.  (Tr.  29)  He  also \nadmitted that after the surgery he lost a lot of strength in his left arm, and that was where \nthe physical therapy assisted him in getting his left arm strength back. (Tr. 30) He further \nprovided that the abilities in regard to his left arm have improved, but he still has problems \nwith his throat. (Tr. 31) \nThe claimant admitted he had moved to Florida. (Tr. 32) He also admitted that a \nletter dated June 7, 2022, provided he was entitled to disability from the Arkansas State \nPolice.  He also admitted seeing doctors in Florida which were part of the VA system and \nremembered  performing  a  “swallow  study”  and additionally receiving  another  MRI \nregarding his neck. (Tr. 33) The claimant felt the swallowing problem with his neck had \nnot  improved  but  he  had  become  more  tolerant  of  it.  He  also  admitted  currently being \nemployed by UF Health Hospital in St. Augustine for a little over a year. (Tr. 35, 36) In \nregard  to his throat,  he testified that  he  had  received  acupuncture  and  had  visited  a \nchiropractor. The claimant also testified that the surgery on his neck was performed on \nthe left side. (Tr. 39) \n In  regard  to  exhibits, claimant submitted  37  pages  of  medical  exhibits  without \nobjection. The records provide that he presented to Mainline Health on April 22, 2022, in \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nregard  to his  injury and  the  report  provided  the  claimant  was  unable  to  participate  full \ncapacity in regard to the job duties for the highway patrol and state trooper patrol.  He \nwas unable to perform a full range of motion in regard to his neck and also his bilateral \nupper extremities at the time. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 1) On April 6, 2023, he was seen by Dr. Neil \nChhedra at the University of Florida who saw the claimant through the VA.  A CT of the \nneck was ordered along with a barium swallow study. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 2 – 13) \n The claimant returned to Dr. Chhedra on May 16, 2023, and the report provided \nthat  the  claimant  presented  with  odynophagia  and  throat  clicking  and  had  a  history  of \ntrauma to the neck due to a choke hold to the neck during police training four years earlier. \n(Cl. Ex. 1, P. 14 – 20) He again returned to Dr. Chhedra on June 22, 2023, and an MRI \nwas discussed. The report provided that the MRI procedure was selected by the claimant, \nbut  the  report  showed “(Discontinued)”  by  the  term  “MR  Neck”  with  a  diagnosis  of \nOdynophagia. (Cl. Ex. 1. P. 21 – 28) He then returned again to Dr. Chhedra on September \n28, 2023, and was diagnosed with a fracture of the hyoid bone and odynophagia. (Cl. Ex. \n1, P. 29 – 36) \n Claimant’s  exhibit  two was also admitted  without  objection and consisted  of \nMerriam-Websters definition of Dysphagia and Odynophagia as well as Chapter 9 which \ncovered the Ear, Nose, Throat, and related Structure in the MA Guides 4th Edition. \n The  respondents  submitted  99  pages  of  medical  records  that  were  admitted \nwithout  objection.  The  records  provide  that  the claimant  presented  to  MedExpress  on \nSeptember  29,  2019, with  a  referral  to  an  ENT.  The  report  further  provided  that  the \nclaimant came in with neck pain due to hurting his neck 10 days earlier during training.  \n(Resp. Ex. 1. P. 1 – 9) The claimant was then referred to Dr. Stephen Shorts and he first \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nsaw him on October 8, 2019, with a diagnosis of a stretch of his left stylohyoid ligament.  \nIt  further  provided  that  the  claimant  could  return  to  work  as  long  as he avoided heavy \nlifting and strenuous bending of the neck for two weeks. A letter reiterating this point was \ndated October 15, 2019, as well as a note on a prescription pad, dated October 21, 2019. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 10 – 17) An MRI of the face and neck was obtained on November 22, \n2019,  and  it  provided  for  no  pathologic  or  post-traumatic  findings  of  the  cervical  soft \ntissues of the neck. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 18) \n A note titled “Fitness for Duty Status” dated November 26, 2019, and signed by \nDr. Carle, provided it appeared the claimant appeared to be able to perform the essential \nfunctions of his job. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 19, 20)   An Independent Medical Exam Report dated \nNovember  26,  2019,  provided  that  no  impairment  of  the  swallowing  mechanism  was \nidentified and provided for a 0% impairment rating. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 21 - 32) The claimant \nwas then referred to Dr. Suen by Dr. Shorts on November 16, 2020.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 35, \n36)   The CT report of the soft tissue of the neck dated November 19, 2019, provided for \nan unremarkable postcontrast CT of the neck, with no acute findings, abnormal mucosal \nenhancement, or cervical adenopathy. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 37 - 39) Follow up progress notes \nby Dr. Suen dated April 19, 2021, provided that there was no significant abnormal finding \nin regard to the neck.   \nOn May 24, 2021, Dr. Suen scheduled exploratory surgery due to the fact that the \nclaimant was having so many problems and that the claimant wanted the surgery. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 41 - 44) Exploratory surgery of the left neck by Dr. Suen occurred on July 14, \n2021, the report provided the claimant wished to return to work and due to the fact that \nchronic pain was reported, it was felt that it be worthwhile to explore the neck to be sure \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nthere was nothing obvious that could be corrected. The hyoid bone was retracted, and \nthe  medial  cornu  of  the  hyoid was  felt where  the  stylohyoid  ligament  attached and Dr. \nSuen could “feel a slight thickening above that which I felt was a small calcification.”  \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 45 – 47) The claimant returned to Dr. Suen for a follow up on September \n7, 2021.  From that report, it appeared neck pain was still present. (Resp. Ex. 1, P 48, 49)   \nThe  claimant was then seen  by Dr. Wayne Bruffett on October 6, 2021,  and an \nMRI of the cervical spine was recommended. Dr. Bruffett also provided for no change in \nthe claimant’s work status. (Resp. Ex. 1, P 50 – 55) The MRI of the cervical spine dated \nOctober18, 2021, provided only for mild degenerative changes at C1 – C2. (Resp. Ex. 1, \nP.  55,  56)  The  claimant  then  returned  to  Dr.  Bruffett  for  a  follow-up  and  Dr.  Bruffett \nprovided he did not see any structural damage, but he suspected that the claimant would \nbe left with some residual symptoms. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 57 – 62)        \n The claimant then returned to Dr. Suen on November 30, 2021, who opined in his \nreport  that  the  claimant  suffered  from  an  unusual  neck  problem  secondary  to  trauma, \nwhich was most likely from muscle injury due to the trauma.  On December 20, 2021, Dr. \nSuen opined that he had exhausted all possible diagnoses for the claimant’s problems \nand that he was unable to resolve it.  He did not think that narcotic pain management was \nrequired but some of the anti-seizure meds used for pain could possibly be useful. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 63 - 65) \n The claimant was then seen by Dr. Carlos Roman on February 15, 2022, who felt \nthat a FCE (Functional Capacity Exam) was warranted.  It was found that the claimant \nwas at MMI with an impairment rating of zero.  The final diagnosis was neck pain post \nneck strain. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 66 – 68) A Functional Capacity Impairment Rating Report \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nprovided  that  there were  no  objective  findings  to  support  impairment and  therefore  the \nclaimant was given a 0% impairment rating. The report provided that an unreliable effort \nwas  given. (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  69 - 70) The FCE provided  that  the  claimant  performed \nunreliably with 36 of 53 consistency measures within expected limits. (Resp. Ex. 1. P 71 \n– 90) \n On  March  9,  2022,  Dr.  Roman  reviewed  the  FCE Exam  and  wrote  that  he  had \nalready released the claimant at MMI with a 0% impairment rating. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 91)  \nOn March 10, 2022, Dr. Suen provided in an email chain that he agreed with the findings \nof the FCE and that the claimant’s symptoms and complaints were not consistent with his \nexam.  He had examined the claimant multiple times, and he felt he was considered an \nexpert in regard to neck and throat problems.  He could not find anything abnormal on the \nexam and had even surgically explored the claimant’s neck and checked every structure \nthat could cause his symptoms and found nothing significant. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 92, 93) A \nBarium Swallow Study report from the University of Florida dated April 24, 2023, provided \nthat the claimant was a 34-year-old male with a previous fracture of the Hyoid bone. The \nreport provided for a normal examination or findings that are inconsequential. (Resp. Ex. \n1, P. 94 – 95) Finally, an MRI of the neck dated August 17, 2023, provided that there were \nno findings to explain odynophagia and there were no abnormalities on either this study \nor the prior laryngeal CT to suggest abnormalities of the hyoid bone or the remainder of \nthe laryngeal skeleton. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 96) \n The  respondents  also  submitted  27  pages  of  nonmedical  evidence  without \nobjection.  An  AR – N  Form  filled  out  by  the  claimant  provided  that  he  was  injured  on \nSeptember  19,  2019, when he was “having a practice with different exercises when \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nsomeone squeezed his head too hard and felt tightness on his neck.” This document was \nreceived on September 30, 2019, by the Public Employee Claims Division. (Resp. Ex. 2, \nP. 1-3)   The Employee’s Report of Accident also provided that the date of the injury was \nSeptember 19, 2019, and  involved  the  soft  tissue  of  the  neck. (Resp.  Ex.  2,  P. 4) The \nWorkers’ Compensation Incident Report provided that the claimant was involved with in-\nservice  training on  the  dates  of  September  17 -19,  2019,  when  he  hurt  his  neck while \ntraining. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 5) \n A letter from APERS dated June 7, 2022, in regard to the claimant’s application for \ndisability retirement, provided that the disability benefits would be effective June 1, 2022. \n(Resp. Ex. 2, P. 6 – 8) In addition, the minutes of the Arkansas State Police Commission \nmeeting dated July 14, 2022, provided that the claimant retired from the department on \nMay 31, 2022. (Resp. Ex. 2, P.  9 -13) A report provided that the claimant ran in the Bridge \nof Lions 5K and came in 10\nth\n out of 27\nth\n in his age group. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 21, 22)    \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn  the  present  matter,  the  parties  stipulated that the  claimant  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to his neck on September 19, 2019.  The claimant is therefore not \nrequired to establish “objective medical findings” in order to prove that he is entitled to \nadditional benefits. Chamber Door Indus., Inc. v Graham, 59 Ark. App. 224, 956 S.W.2d \n196 (1997) Once it is settled that a claimant has a compensable injury, the question of \nmedical service must be determined by looking at the facts in question and determining \nif the medical services are reasonably necessary for the treatment of the claimant’s injury \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nIn  determining  whether  the  claimant  sustained  his required  burden  of  proof,  the \nCommission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party.  Ark. Code Ann 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 \nS.W. 2d 521 (1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty to translate evidence on all \nissues before it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. \nApp. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nThe claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to benefits under \nthe  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act  and  must  sustain  that  burden  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence. Dalton v. Allen Engineering Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 635 \nS.W. 2d 823 (1982).  Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater \nweight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark App. 263, \n101  S.W.3d  252  (2003).    Further,  pursuant  to  Ark.  Code  Ann.  11-9-509  (a),  medical \nbenefits owed under the Workers’ Compensation Act are only those that are reasonable \nand necessary.  Employers must promptly provide medical services which are reasonably \nnecessary for treatment of compensable injuries. A.C.A. 11-9-508 (a).  However, injured \nemployees have  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the \nmedical treatment is reasonably necessary for the treatment of the compensable injury. \nOwens  Plating  Co.  v.  Graham,  102  Ark.  App.  299,  284  S.W.  3d  537  (2008).    What \nconstitutes reasonable and necessary treatment is a question for the Commission. Anaya \nv. Newberry’s 3N Mill,  102  Ark.  App.  119,  282  S.W.  3d  269  (2008).    When  assessing \nwhether medical treatment is reasonably necessary for the treatment of a compensable \ninjury,  both  the  proposed  procedure  and  the  condition  it  is  sought  to  remedy must  be \nanalyzed. See Wright  Construction  Co.  v.  Randall,  12  Ark.  App.  358,  676  S.W.2d  750 \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \n(1984).  Also, the respondent is only responsible for medical services which are casually \nrelated to the compensable injury.  Treatments to reduce or alleviate symptoms resulting \nfrom a compensable injury, to maintain the level of healing achieved, or to prevent further \ndeterioration  of  the  damage  produced  by  the  compensable  injury  are  considered \nreasonable  medical  services. Foster  v.  Kann  Enterprises,  2019  Ark.  App.  746,  350 \nS.W.2d 796 (2009).   \nIn  the  present  matter, the  initial  MRI  of  the  face  and  neck  dated  November  22, \n2019,  provided  no  pathological or  post  traumatic  findings regarding the  cervical  soft \ntissues of the neck.  An IME dated November 26, 2019, provided no impairment involving \nswallowing and provided for a 0% impairment rating.  Dr. Suen ordered a CT of the neck \nand there were no acute findings as stated in the follow-up by Dr. Suen on April 19, 2021.  \nExploratory surgery was performed by Dr. Suen on July 14, 2021, and the report provided \nhe retracted  the  hyoid  bone and  could  feel  the  medial  cornu  of  the  hyoid  where  the \nstylohyoid attached and could feel a slight thickening above the location which he felt was \na calcification.  The claimant was also seen by Dr. Bruffett, who recommended another \nMRI, and no structural damage was observed, although Dr. Bruffett felt the claimant did \nsuffer from some residual symptoms.  The claimant returned to Dr. Suen on November \n30,  2021,  and  Dr.  Suen  opined  that  the  claimant  suffered  from  some  unusual  neck \nproblems which were most likely caused by muscle injury due to the trauma.  Later on, \nDecember 20, 2021, Dr. Suen stated that he had exhausted all possible diagnoses and \nwas unable to resolve the problem.  On February 15, 2022, Dr. Roman found the claimant \nat  MMI  and  provided  a  0%  impairment  rating with no  objective  findings.    On  March  9, \n2022, Dr. Suen opined that the claimant’s symptoms and complaints were not consistent \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \nwith his physical exam  and stated that  he  could  not  find  anything  abnormal  in  the \nclaimant’s exam and could not find anything in his surgical examination of the claimant \nwhile exploring his neck which would cause the claimant’s symptoms.   \nLater on, April 24, 2023, a Barium Swallow Study was performed at the University \nof Florida which provided for a normal exam with inconsequential findings.  Additionally, \na MRI report from the University of Florida dated August 17, 2023, found no findings that \nexplained odynophagia and found no abnormalities in the study or in a prior laryngeal CT \nto  suggest abnormalities  of  the  hyoid  bone or  the  remainder  of the  laryngeal  skeleton. \nThe one report that differs from all of these previous findings was the one by Dr. Chhedra, \ndated September 28, 2022, and which diagnosed the claimant with a fracture of the hyoid \nbone and odynophagia.   \nAll medical reports and various imaging studies, except the opinion issued by Dr. \nChhedra, found  no consequential findings in regard to the claimant’s issues involving \nswallowing.  Dr. Suen, a well-respected surgeon in regard to neck and throat issues, even \nstated that the claimant’s symptoms and complaints were not consistent with his exam, \nand went on to state that he could not find anything abnormal in the claimant’s exam and \ncould not find anything in his surgical examination of the claimant while exploring his neck \nwhich would cause the claimant’s symptoms.   \n  Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to \ntheir testimony are within the exclusive province of the Commission.  Powers v. City of \nFayetteville, 97 Ark. App. 251, 248 S.W.3d 516 (2007).  Where there are contradictions \nin the evidence, it is within the Commissions’ province to reconcile conflicting evidence \nand to determine the true facts.  Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight, 99 Ark. App. 162, 258 S.W.3d \n\nJeffrey Lovelis – G907099 \n394  (2007).    The  Commission has  authority  to  accept  or  reject  medical  opinion  and  to \ndetermine its medical soundness and probative force.  Oak Grove Lumber Co. v. Highfill, \n62 Ark. App. 42, 968 S.W.2d 637 (1998).  However, the Commission may not arbitrarily \ndisregard the testimony of any witness.  Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. \n230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004).  \n   Based upon the above evidence and the applicable law, and after weighing the \nevidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, the medical \ntreatment  requested  is  found  to  not  be  reasonably  necessary  for  the  treatment  of  the \ncompensable injury and there is no alternative but to find that the claimant has failed to \nsatisfy the required burden of proof to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the \nreturn  visit  to  Dr.  Suen  for medical  treatment,  or  in  the  alternative  the  request  for  an \nadditional   IME is   reasonable   and   necessary treatment. If   not   already   paid,   the \nrespondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G907099 JEFFREY LOVELIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS INSURANCE DEPARTMENT/ PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 14, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Ja...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:17.801Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G907099-2025-01-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LOVELIS_JEFFREY_G907099_20250114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}