{"id":"alj-H000250-2023-11-14","awcc_number":"H000250","decision_date":"2023-11-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Darryl Payne","employer_name":"Phillips Community College","title":"PAYNE VS. PHILLIPS COMMUNITY COLLEGE AWCC# H000250 NOVEMBER 14, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:2","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PAYNE_DARRYL_H000250_20231114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"PAYNE_DARRYL_H000250_20231114.pdf","text_length":12437,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H000250 \n \nDARRYL G. PAYNE, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nPHILLIPS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, EMPLOYER       RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION,  \nCARRIER/TPA                       RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 14 NOVEMBER 2023 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative \nLaw Judge JayO. Howe on 17 August 2023 in Helena/West Helena, Phillips County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe claimant appeared pro se. \n \nMr. Robert H. Montgomery, Attorney-at-Law of Little Rock, Arkansas, appeared for \nthe respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe  above-captioned  case is  before  the  Commission  again  related  to  a \ncompensable  injury  that  the  claimant  sustained  on  7  January  2020. The present \nmatter was  heard  on 17 August 2023 in Helena/West  Helena,  Arkansas,  after  the \nparties  participated  in  a  prehearing  telephone  conference  on 23 May 2023. A \nPrehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as “Commission’s Exhibit \nNo 1”,  was  entered  on that  same  day. The  Order  stated that the ISSUE  TO  BE \n\nD. Payne- H000250 \n2 \n \nLITIGATED was whether the claimant was entitled to additional treatment for his \ncompensable left quadriceps\n1\n injury. All other ISSUES were reserved. \nThe Prehearing Order set forth the following STIPULATION: \nThe  previous  decision  in  the  matter is  binding  precedent  under  the  Law  of  the \nCase Doctrine.\n2\n  \n \nThe claimant was the sole WITNESS at the hearing. \nThe  parties’ CONTENTIONS,  as  set  forth  in  their  prehearing  questionnaire \nresponses, were incorporated by reference into the Prehearing Order and were listed \nas follows: \nThe  claimant  CONTENDS  he  is  entitled  to additional medical treatment and \nassociated benefits.  \nThe  respondents  CONTEND,  generally,  that  the  claimant  has  received  all \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment for his compensable injury and that all \nappropriately related indemnity benefits have been paid accordingly. The additional \nspecifics of the contentions were read into the record in their entirety. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving  reviewed  the  record  as  a  whole  and  having  heard  testimony  from  the \nwitness, observing his demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions \nof law under ACA § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n \n1\n The Prehearing Order stated a “compensable left lower extremity injury,” but as an alleged knee \ninjury  and  potentially  associated  treatment  was  at  issue  in  the  hearing,  the  parties  agreed  on  the \nrecord that stipulating to a compensable injury to the left quadriceps was appropriate. See TR at 10. \n2\n That decision dated 22 June 2022 and authored by Administrative Law Judge Katie Anderson was \nentered into this record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 2. \n\nD. Payne- H000250 \n3 \n \n2. The previous ALJ decision is binding under the Law of the Case Doctrine. \n \n3. The claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to any additional medical treatment for his compensable injury. Nor is he \nentitled to any additional indemnity benefits related thereto. \n \n4. This matter should be dismissed accordingly. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY and EVIDENCE    \nMr. Darryl Payne testified on his own behalf as the sole witness at the hearing. \nHe  appeared  for  the  hearing  with  some  records  or  copies  of  records  that  were  not \nprovided   to   the   Commission   or   opposing   counsel   before   the   hearing   and   in \nconformance  with  ACA  §  11-9-705(c)(2)(A).  Respondents’  counsel  appropriately \nobjected  to  those  records being  admitted  to  the  record.  The  nature  of  the  objection \nwas explained to the claimant, and the objection was sustained. [TR at 13-17] \nAfter some additional discussion about evidence and records, the Commission \nasked the pro se claimant to explain, “what exactly are you asking for today?” [TR at \n17]   He responded that he wanted the respondents to fix his knee. While the claimant \nreviewed  some  of  the  records  admitted  into  evidence  without  objection,  including \n“Respondent’s Exhibit No 1,” which included a report from Dr.  Charles Pearce, Mr. \nMontgomery began asking some questions of the claimant. [TR at 21] \nThe  claimant  was injured  on  7 January  2020 when  he  fell down  some  stairs \nwhile carrying computer equipment. [TR at 22] Under the care of Dr. Phillip Smith, \nhe was diagnosed with and treated for a left quadriceps tendon injury. A July 2020 \nMRI report read that the claimant’s meniscus was normal. [TR at 23] \n\nD. Payne- H000250 \n4 \n \nMr. Payne stated that his care with Dr. Smith ended after he (the claimant) \ncame to believe that he had a knee problem that Dr. Smith was not addressing. [TR \nat 24] The claimant mentioned seeing Dr. D’Orsay Bryant via a Change of Physician \nOrder and also saw, at some point, Drs. Martin and Busby. He was eventually seen \nat UAMS by Dr. Charles Pearce, who he testified had the benefit of accessing all of \nhis previous medical reports. [TR at 25] The claimant recalled Dr. Pearce indicating \nthat  he  reviewed  previous  reports and  that  Dr.  Pearce  did  not  believe  that  any \nadditional impairment ratings were appropriate for the left leg. [TR at 26] The doctor \nfurther  indicated  that  he  did  not  believe  any  additional  diagnostic  or  treatment \nmodalities were appropriate. Discussing Dr. Pearce’s report further, the claimant \nrecalled Dr. Pearce stating that his main deficit was related to decreased leg strength \nwhich  was  under  the  claimant's  control.  The  claimant  made  clear  that  while  he \nrecalled that opinion, he disagreed with it. He also disagreed with Dr. Pearce’s \nopinion that there would be little benefit from some arthroscopic procedure that the \nclaimant had discussed with some other provider. [TR at 27] \nThe claimant acknowledged that despite Dr. Pearce’s opinion against any \nadditional  treatment  being  indicated,  the  respondents  approved  an  additional  four \nweeks of physical therapy for his left leg. [TR at 27, Respondent’s Ex. No 2 at 47] He \nfurther agreed that it was settled in previous litigation that he reached MMI on 13 \nJuly 2021, but that he is now asking for additional surgery on his knee. [TR at 28] \nMr.  Payne  went  on  to  state  that  he believes  that  he is  entitled to  additional \nTTD benefits, but he appeared to relate that back to his previous position that he was \n\nD. Payne- H000250 \n5 \n \nentitled  to  a twenty  percent  (20%) impairment  rating  to  the  whole  body—a  rating \nthat Judge Anderson already found he was not entitled to. [TR at 29] He then said \nthat he should receive some additional TTD benefits because he never healed, despite \nthe earlier finding of MMI. [TR at 30] \nThe claimant testified that he was looking for work and thought that he could \nperform a sit-down job. [TR at 31]  He recalled testifying at his deposition that he has \nconcerns about arthritis and that he would like additional treatment on his left leg to \nevaluate for potential arthritis. [TR at 33]  His recent application for Social Security \nbenefits  was  denied,  but  he  acknowledged  experience  or  skills  in  many  areas  of \nbusiness operations. Mr. Payne recalled a vocational rehabilitation counselor saying \nthat he needed to “step up” his efforts to find a  job  and  stated  that  he  felt  he  had \nfollowed through on that. [TR at 35]  Mr. Payne further recalled the FCE placing him \nin  a medium  job  classification.  He  denied  continuing  leg  exercises  previously \nperformed at home to improve his strength. [TR at 36] \nThe parties discussed some evidentiary and procedural aspects of the case and \nclosed the record. [TR at 45] \nDr. Pearce’s report was discussed multiple times by the parties. That note \ninitially indicated that a final opinion would be offered once he was able to review the \nFCE report. His addendum to that note, dated 30 December 2020 states: \nI have received and reviewed the functional capacity evaluations \ncompleted  by  this  patient  on  August  13,  2021  and  November  3,  2021. \nThe patient gave valid effort with both tests and for both tests he was \nplaced in the medium category of work as outlined by the department of \nlabor. This allows occasional lifting from 21-50 lbs, frequent lifting 11-\n20 lbs and constant lifting 1-10 lbs. These are his restrictions. He has \n\nD. Payne- H000250 \n6 \n \npreviously been given impairment ratings and no additional impairment \nis indicated. There is no indication for further diagnostic or treatment \nmodalities for him. His main deficit is related to decreased strength in \nthe leg which is fully under his own control in my opinion. Arthroscopy \npreviously discussed by another physician would be of little benefit for \nhim. These statements are made within a degree of medical certainty.  \n[See Resp. Ex. No 1 at 15-17]  \n \nThe diagnosis for the visit with Dr. Pearce stated only “weakness of left  \n \nlower extremity.” \n \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \n The stipulated facts are outlined above. It is settled that the Commission, with \nthe benefit of being in the presence of the witness and observing his or her demeanor, \ndetermines  a  witness’  credibility  and  the  appropriate  weight  to  accord  their \nstatements. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d \n522 (1999).   \nA.  The Claimant Failed to Prove by a Preponderance of the Evidence that he is \nEntitled to Any Additional Benefits. \n \nThe parties previously stipulated to a compensable injury to the claimant’s left \nlower extremity, specifically his quadriceps, and treatment and related benefits were \nprovided.  The  question  now  is  whether  he  is  entitled  to  additional  treatment  and \nbenefits for an alleged problem with his left knee that he claims is causally related to \nthe compensable injury. Arkansas law requires an employer to promptly provide for \nmedical treatment and surgical services that are reasonably necessary and related to \ninjuries sustained by an employee. ACA § 11-9-508(a). A claimant must prove, by a \npreponderance of the evidence, that medical treatment is reasonable and necessary. \nWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.2d 153 (2003). Reasonable \n\nD. Payne- H000250 \n7 \n \nand necessary medical services may include those necessary to, among other things, \nreduce or alleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury. Jordan v. Tyson \nFoods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 953, 1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 589. A claimant \nis not required to provide objective medical proof of his need for continued treatment. \nArk. Health Ctr. V. Burnett, 2018 Ark. App. 427, 558 S.W.3d 408. But the claimant \nbears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that treatment \nis reasonable and necessary and that it bears a causal connection to the work injury. \nCossey v. Pepsi Beverage Co., 2015 Ark. App. 265, 460 S.W.3d 814. \nThe claimant failed to meet his burden on the claim that he is entitled to any \ntreatment or benefits beyond what he already received. The respondents provided a \nreport from Dr. Pearce that found no issue with the restrictions previously placed on \nthe  claimant  and  assessed  him only with  weakness  in  his  leg,  attributing  that \nweakness  to  the  claimant’s  own  control.  Dr.  Pearce  opined  that  any  additional \ndiagnostics or  treatment  would  be  of  little  benefit  and  specifically  opined  against \nsome  sort  of  arthroscopic procedure  that  the  claimant  discussed  with  another \nprovider at some point. Mr. Payne provided no documentary evidence in support of \nhis claims and  he  provided  no  testimony  to  persuade  me  that  a  present  condition \nrequires treatment and is causally related to his compensable injury. \nOn this record the claimant simply failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he is entitled any additional treatment or associated benefits beyond \nwhat the respondents have already provided. \nV.  ORDER \n\nD. Payne- H000250 \n8 \n \n Consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim is DENIED AND DISMISSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H000250 DARRYL G. PAYNE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PHILLIPS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 14 NOVEMBER 2023 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:00:27.546Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H000250-2023-11-14","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PAYNE_DARRYL_H000250_20231114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}