{"id":"alj-H000613-2024-05-14","awcc_number":"H000613","decision_date":"2024-05-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sabrina Daniels","employer_name":null,"title":"DANIELS VS. ARAMARK CAMPUS, INC.AWCC# H000613May 14, 2024","outcome":"affirmed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["ankle","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DANIELS_SABRINA_H000613_20240514.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"DANIELS_SABRINA_H000613_20240514.pdf","text_length":14261,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H000613 \n \nSABRINA D. DANIELS,  \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nARAMARK CAMPUS, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nINDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MG’T. SERVICES, INC.,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 14, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), \nAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Monticello, Drew County, Arkansas, on February \n14, 2024. \n \nThe claimant, Ms. Sabrina Daniels, of Monticello, Drew County, Arkansas, appeared in person, and \npro se.  \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Randy P. Murphy, Anderson, Murphy & \nHopkins, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nINTRODUCTION \n  \n In the  prehearing  order  filed  November  29,  2023,  the  parties agreed  to  the  following \nstipulations, which they affirmed on the record at the hearing: \n \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has   \n  jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n 2. The employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed at all relevant times  \n  including January 21, 2020, when the claimant sustained an admittedly compensable \n  injury to her left ankle and left foot for which the respondents paid both medical and \n  indemnity benefits. \n  \n 3. The claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) is $313.00, which is sufficient to  \n  entitle her to weekly compensation rates of $209.00 for temporary total disability  \n  (TTD), and $157.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. \n  \n\nSabrina Daniels, AWCC No. H000613 \n \n2 \n \n4. The claimant underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) which concluded she \nsustained a seven percent (7%) permanent anatomical impairment rating to her left \nlower extremity; and that she was able to perform work in the MEDIUM work \ncategory as defined in the United States Department of Labor Guidelines (DOL \nguidelines). \n \n5. The respondents accepted this 7% permanent anatomical impairment rating to the \nclaimant’s left lower extremity, and paid her PPD benefits based on this rating. \n \n6. The claimant last saw a physician for treatment of her compensable injury sometime \nin February 2023. \n \n7. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination \nand/or litigation. \n \n(Commission Exhibit 1 at 2; Reporter’s Transcript at 39). Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement, \nthe sole issue litigated at the hearing was:  \n \n1. Whether  the  claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment,  specifically \nadditional physical therapy (PT), for alleged continued pain complaints in her left \nankle and left foot. \n \n2. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination \nand/or litigation. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 39).  \n \n            The prehearing order also strongly advised the claimant to call the \n  \nCommission’s Legal Division and to obtain the services of an attorney to represent her in this matter \n \non more than one occasion. (Commsn’n Ex. 1 at 1; T. 1). The hearing record consists of the reporter’s  \n \ntranscript, as well as any and all exhibits attached thereto. \n \n The claimant contends she is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of PT to \nher left ankle and left foot based on her continued complaints of pain and swelling. She reserves any \nand all other issues for future determination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 40).  \n\nSabrina Daniels, AWCC No. H000613 \n \n3 \n \n  The respondents contend they have paid the claimant all benefits to which she is entitled. \nThe respondents further contend the claimant is not entitled to any additional medical treatment – \nhere, specifically, the PT – for her alleged subjective complaints of pain and/or swelling. The \nrespondents specifically contend the claimant’s continued subjective complaints of pain and/or \nswelling are neither related to nor reasonably necessary for treatment of her compensable injury \nsince her healing period has long since ended; her permanent impairment rating is minimal and has \nbeen paid in full; her complaints of pain and swelling are subjective in nature and not supported by \nany objective medical evidence reported by any physician; and she has not sought or required any \nmedical treatment in almost one (1) year as of the hearing date. The respondents reserve the right \nto supplement their contentions and to assert any and all other applicable defenses and arguments \nupon the completion of necessary investigation and discovery. The respondents reserve any and all \nother issues for future determination and/or litigation. \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 40). \n  The record consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein and \nattached thereto. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  The relevant facts are set forth in the parties’ prehearing order stipulations, supra, as well as \nthe claimant’s own hearing testimony. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 40; 7-36). The claimant, Ms. Sabrina \nDaniels, sustained an admittedly compensable injury to her left ankle/left foot on January 21, 2020. \nOn January 21, 2020, the claimant was working with Aramark on the campus of the University of \nArkansas at Monticello (UAM) cooking and serving omelets when she ran out of cooking oil. She \n“hollered’ back into the kitchen asking someone to bring her some more cooking oil, but nobody \nresponded to her request. Consequently, the claimant walked back into the kitchen to retrieve more \n\nSabrina Daniels, AWCC No. H000613 \n \n4 \n \ncooking oil. As she was walking in the kitchen looking around for more cooking oil she slipped, \nheard a “’pop’” in her left ankle, and fell to the floor. When she looked down at her left ankle, it \n“was layin’ flat on the concrete floor.” (T. 8-10).  \n  The claimant was immediately taken to the hospital in Pine Bluff where Dr. Regis Renard, \nan orthopedic surgeon, determined she had broken her ankle in three (3) places. Dr. Renard \nperformed surgery on the injured left ankle, part of which consisted of Dr. Renard placing a rod in \nthe claimant’s left ankle. At that time Dr. Renard did not prescribe any PT for the claimant, but \nadvised her she was to “exercise” her foot to “keep it movin’...and move it around certain parts of \nthe day.” (T. 11-15).  \n  The claimant underwent an FCE which concluded she was entitled to a 7% permanent \nanatomical impairment rating to her left lower extremity (which the respondents’ have paid out); \nand that she was able to perform work in the MEDIUM work category as defined in the United \nStates  Department  of  Labor,  Office  of  Workers’  Compensation  Programs,  Work  Capacity \nEvaluation of Musculoskeletal Conditions Guidelines (OWCP Guidelines). In April 2023, the \nclaimant returned to work “for ESS as a substitute teacher”, and she testified her required job duties \nfor this job were “more sedentary.” (T. 15-16).  \n  The claimant testified the last time she saw a doctor for treatment of her left ankle/left foot \ninjury was some time in February 2023 when she last saw Dr. Renard. On cross-examination the \nclaimant admitted she had requested and obtained a change of physician (COP) (and it appears \nthere were two (2) COP orders issued in this claim), and that at some point in early 2023 a physician \nhad recommended she undergo some PT. And, although the respondents apparently approved and \nreapproved the PT recommendation in early 2023, the claimant admitted she had failed to undergo \nPT at that time. There exist no medical records in the hearing record whatsoever and, specifically, \n\nSabrina Daniels, AWCC No. H000613 \n \n5 \n \nthere exists no medical evidence in the record indicating that any physician has recommended any \nadditional PT for the claimant. (T. 16-36).  \nDISCUSSION \nThe Burden of Proof \n  When deciding any issue, the ALJ and the Commission shall determine, on the basis of the \nrecord  as  a  whole,  whether  the  party  having  the  burden  of  proof  has  established  it  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2) (2024 Lexis Replacement). The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he is entitled to benefits. \nStone v. Patel, 26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-\n704(c)(3) (2024 Lexis Repl.) states that the ALJ, the Commission, and the courts “shall strictly \nconstrue” the Act, which also requires them to read and construe the Act in its entirety, and to \nharmonize its provisions when necessary. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 \n(Ark.  App.  2002).  In  determining  whether  the  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proof,  the \nCommission is required to weigh the evidence impartially without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(4) (2024 Lexis Repl.); Gencorp Polymer Products \nv. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. \n196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). \n  All claims for workers’ compensation benefits must be based on proof. Speculation and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Corrections v. Glover, 35 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 595 \nS.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility of \nthe witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardees, 51 Ark. App. 116, 912 \nS.W.2d 14 (Ark. App. 1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any \n\nSabrina Daniels, AWCC No. H000613 \n \n6 \n \nother witness’s testimony, but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions of the \ntestimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. \nApp. 1989); Farmers Coop. v. Biles, supra.  \n  The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical evidence just as it does any other \nevidence, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. \nWilliams v. Pro Staff Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). It is within the Commission’s \nprovince to weigh the totality of the medical evidence and to determine what evidence is most \ncredible given the totality of the credible evidence of record. Minnesota Mining & Mfg’ing v. Baker, \n337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). \n  Ark Code Ann. Section 11-9-508 (Lexis Repl. 2024) requires respondents to provide all \nreasonably necessary medical treatment related to a claimant’s compensable injury. The claimant \nhas the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. App. 2003). \nWhat constitutes related, reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for the \nCommission. Hamilton v. Gregory Trucking, 90 Ark. App. 248, 205 S.W.3d 181 (Ark. App. 2005). \nBased on the total lack of evidence in the record it is impossible for the ALJ to rule in the claimant’s \nfavor on the facts herein. \n The claimant requests the ALJ order the respondents to pay for additional medical treatment \nin the form of PT for her complaints of pain and swelling in her left ankle/left foot; however, she \nhas failed to introduce any documentary evidence whatsoever indicating that any physician has \nrecommended she undergo PT at this time, or that PT is reasonably necessary for treatment of her \ncompensable injury left ankle/left foot injury at this time. There exists no medical evidence in the \nrecord at all – and certainly no physician’s current PT recommendation. Indeed, there exists no \n\nSabrina Daniels, AWCC No. H000613 \n \n7 \n \ncredible  evidence  in  the  record whatsoever the  claimant’s  request  for  PT  at  this  late  date  is \nreasonably necessary for treatment of her admittedly compensable left ankle/left foot injury.  \n The claimant last saw a physician for medical treatment in 2023 February; she has had her \nCOP; and she returned to work in April 2023. Although the respondents apparently had approved \nthe claimant’s request for PT in early 2023 (apparently on two (2) separate occasions), the claimant \nfailed and/or refused to undergo the PT at that time. (T. 28-36). Consequently, she cannot now be \nheard to credibly contend she is entitled to PT at this time – especially in light of the total lack of \nany credible evidence in the record demonstrating the requested PT is related to and reasonably \nnecessary in light of her compensable injury. While the claimant may or may not have benefitted \nfrom the representation of counsel in this matter, although the ALJ advised her on more than one (1) \noccasion to contact the Commission’s Legal Division and to retain the services of an attorney, she \nfailed and/or refused to do so.        \n Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The stipulations contained in the prehearing order filed November 29, 2023, which \nthe parties affirmed on the record at the hearing, hereby are accepted as facts. \n \n2. The  claimant  has failed  to  meet  her  burden  of  proof  pursuant  to  the  Act  in \ndemonstrating that her request for additional medical treatment in the form of PT \nis reasonably  necessary  for  treatment  of  her January  21, 2020,  compensable  left \nankle/left foot injury.  \n \n3. There exists no documentary or other sufficient evidence in the record – medical or \notherwise – demonstrating the claimant’s treating physician has recommended any \nadditional medical treatment at this time in the form of PT or otherwise.  \n \n  WHEREFORE,  for  all  the  aforementioned  reasons,  this  claim  hereby  is  denied  and \ndismissed subject to the parties’ statutory appeal rights.  \n\nSabrina Daniels, AWCC No. H000613 \n \n8 \n \n  If they have not already done so, the respondents shall pay the court reporter’s invoice within \n20 days of their receipt of this opinion. \n IT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n                                              \n \n       Mike Pickens \n       Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H000613 SABRINA D. DANIELS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARAMARK CAMPUS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ SEDGWICK CLAIMS MG’T. SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 14, 2024 Hearing conducted before the Arkan...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:54:12.251Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H000613-2024-05-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DANIELS_SABRINA_H000613_20240514.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}