{"id":"alj-H004886-2024-09-17","awcc_number":"H004886","decision_date":"2024-09-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Lana Rogers","employer_name":"United Parcel Service, Inc","title":"ROGERS VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. AWCC# H004886 & H202191 September 17, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["neck","cervical","strain","back","wrist","lumbar","shoulder","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROGERS_LANA_H004886_H202191_20240917.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ROGERS_LANA_H004886_H202191_20240917.pdf","text_length":40037,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC NOS.: H004886 & H202191 \n \n \nLANA ROGERS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \nUNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nLM INSURANCE CORPORATION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \nLIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 \n \nA hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski, \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, appeared, pro se. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable David C. Jones, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nA hearing was held in the above-styled claim on June 19, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nOn April 17, 2024, a prehearing telephone conference was held on this claim. A Prehearing Order \nwas entered into this matter on that same day. Said order set forth the stipulations offered by the \nparties, their respective contentions, along with the issues to be litigated. \nStipulations \nThe parties submitted the following stipulations, either pursuant to the prehearing order, or \nat the beginning and/or during the hearing. I hereby accept the jointly proposed stipulations as \nfact: \n \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n2 \n \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The respondent-employee-employer on June 12, 2020, when the Claimant sustained \ncompensable injuries, including but limited to her head, left upper extremity and neck, \narising out of and during the course and in the scope of her employment with United \nParcel Service, Inc., the respondent-employer. That claim is on the record with the \nCommission as AWCC File No. H004886. \n3. That on March 8, 2022, the Claimant sustained another work-related injury during the \ncourse in the scope of her employment when a package struck the Claimant on the \nhead, causing further cervical strain or strain or aggravation of preexisting condition \nfrom the original injury. That claim is on record with the Commission as AWCC File \nNo. H202191. Said claim was accepted as a compensable claim “medical-only,” \nclaim, and all the initial evaluation and treatment were provided. \n4. The Respondents have controverted benefits related to both claims in their entirety. \n5. The Respondents are entitled to an offset for any group health carrier, disability group \n \nbenefits, and/or any unemployment benefits paid to or on behalf of the Claimant, \n \nshould the Claimant have applied for and received said benefits. \n \n 6. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \n Act. \n7. The Claimant received a change of physician on March 7, 2023. \nIssues \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing were as follows: \n1. Whether the Claimant sustained an injury to her back on June 12, 2020. \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n3 \n \n \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any additional medical benefits her neck injury \nand medical for her alleged back injury, in the form of physical therapy treatment. \nContentions \n The parties’ respective contentions are outlined below: \nClaimant: \nThe Claimant contends that she sustained a compensable back injury in the course of her \nemployment with the respondent-employer on June 12, 2020. \nShe further contends that she is entitled to additional medical treatment for neck injury of \nMarch 8, 2022, and initial medical treatment for her alleged back injury, in the form of physical \ntherapy treatment. \nRespondents: \n1. The Respondents contend that all appropriate benefits have previously been paid in \nregard to the June 12, 2020, incident and injury sustained. In that regard, the Respondents paid for \nall reasonably necessary treatment, paid the Claimant a period of temporary total disability benefits \nwhile she remained off work, as well as accepted and paid out the 2% impairment rating to the \nwrist assigned by Dr. Jeanine Andersson on August 5, 2021. Accordingly, the Respondents \ncontend that there are no further benefits due in regard to the June 12, 2020 incident, and that claim \nshould be dismissed with prejudice based upon the statute of limitations and the last benefits \nhaving been paid more than 2 years since the injury date or last payment made on that particular \nclaim. \n2. The Respondents contend that all appropriate benefits have been paid in regard to \nthe Claimant’s compensable injury of March 8, 2022. In that regard, the Respondents contend that \nthe Claimant merely sustained a temporary aggravation of her preexisting cervical condition, and \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n4 \n \n \nall reasonably necessary medical treatment was provided. It appears that this claim was a “medical- \nonly” claim, and the Claimant continued to work for the Respondent/Employer thereafter. The \nRespondents contend that the Claimant was granted a one-time change of physician to Dr. Sokolow \nand that the Respondents provided the initial evaluations and treatment recommended. However, \nthe Respondents contend that there were no significant objective medical findings to support the \nClaimant’s ongoing complaints, and that further treatment is not reasonably necessary nor related \nto the injury from March 8, 2022. Accordingly, the Respondents contend that the March 8, 2022, \nclaim should be dismissed with prejudice. \n3. The Respondents contend that no further medical treatment or indemnity benefits \nare due in regard to either of the above-referenced claims and therefore both claims should be \ndismissed. \n4. The Respondents contend that they would be entitled to an offset for any group \nhealth carrier, disability carrier, and/or unemployment benefits paid to or on behalf of the \nClaimant, should the Claimant have applied for and received said benefits. \n5. The Respondents reserve the right to amend and supplement their contentions after \nthe discovery has been completed. \n FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \nhear the testimony of the Claimant and observe her demeanor, I hereby make the following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. \n2012): \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n5 \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \n \nclaim. \n \n2. I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n 3. The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \n \na compensable injury to her back during and in the course and scope of her \nemployment with the respondent-employer on June 12, 2020. The issue relating to \nmedical treatment the Claimant’s back has been rendered moot and discussed in this \nOpinion. \n4. The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any additional \nmedical treatment is reasonably necessary in connection with her compensable neck \ninjury of March 8, 2022. \nSummary of Evidence \nLana D. Rogers (referred to herein as the “Claimant”), was the only witness to testify \nduring the hearing. Sign language interpreters for the Claimant were: Ms. Julie Lowe and Ms. \nKaren Owens. \n The record consists of the June 19, 2024 hearing transcript and the following exhibits: \nSpecifically, the documentary evidence includes Commission’s Exhibit 1, which comprises the \nPrehearing Order filed on April 17, 2024, along with the parties’ responsive filings; the transcript \nfor the Prehearing Telephone Conference was marked as Commission’s Exhibit 2, which has been \nretained in the Commission’s file; Claimant’s medical Exhibit comprising eight (8) pages was \nmarked Claimant's Exhibit No. 1; and Respondents’ Medical Exhibit 1 contains two-hundred \nnineteen (219) numbered pages; \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n6 \n \nThe Claimant was allowed to proffer the following: Claimant’s Exhibit 2 is a Non-Medical \nDocumentary Exhibit consisting of thirteen (13) pages; and Claimant’s Exhibit 3 is a Non-Medical \nDocumentary Exhibit consisting of the three (3). These exhibits have not been considered in this \nOpinion. \n Testimony \nLana D. Rogers/the Claimant \nAt the time of the hearing, the Claimant, age 44 completed high school. She testified that \nshe has worked for the respondent-employer/United Parcel Service (hereinafter referred to as, \n“UPS”) approximately six (6) years. The Claimant confirmed that she is alleging that she sustained \na back injury in the course and scope of her employment with UPS on June 12, 2020. \nThe Claimant testified that on the day of her alleged injury to her back, she was inside of a \ntrailer unloading boxes, which was pull up to the dock. According to the Claimant, the driver of \nthe truck shifted and pulled away and caused the trailer tilt, causing some boxes to fall. She \ntestified that a small box fell, and she bent down to pick it up, when another box fell on her head, \ncausing injury to her back. The Claimant testified that she reported her injury to her supervisor. \nPer the Claimant, she had to go to the office to fill out an injury report, which was done by \ncomputer. According to the Claimant, it was a long form, and it took her about 45 minutes to an \nhour to complete it. \nAfter the Claimant completed the injury form, she was told by the supervisor, Alan \nHarrelson, to go to the emergency room/ER at Baptist, in North Little, for medical treatment of \nher injury. However, the Claimant testified that while she was at the Baptist ER, Mr. Harrelson \ntexted her and told her to go to Urgent Care at Concentra, and she did so. Per the Claimant, they \ndid tests and made an appointment for her to come back for re-evaluation of her back. However, \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n7 \n \nthe Claimant did not recall undergoing an MRI of her back. At that time, the Claimant essentially \ntestified that she had a headache, and the back of her neck, all that way down her mid-back hurt. \nShe testified that they recommended she undergo physical therapy treatment. \nOn cross-examination, counsel for the Respondents pointed out to the Claimant that she \ntestified about the box hitting her on her head and she went to Concentra, but she is now claiming \na back injury due to the 2020 incident. Counsel asked, “Are you claiming you hurt your back from \nthe 2020 incident or the 2022 incident? The Claimant replied, “Both.” The Claimant confirmed \nthat the insurance carrier provided her treatment at Concentra. She confirmed that she had physical \ntherapy following the 2020 injury. The Claimant agreed that she saw Dr. Adametz, at Concentra, \nfor both her neck, and she also had a wrist injury. She admitted that she had complaints of the \nneck and wrist. The Claimant underwent an MRI of both her wrist and lumbar spine at the \ndirection of Dr. Adametz. She did not recall having had a prior MRI of the lumbar spine in 2018. \nThe Claimant testified that she had a car accident in 2018. In fact, the Claimant confirmed that \nshe had a couple of car wrecks. \nThe Claimant did not recall if there were any changes between the 2018 MRI and the 2020 \nMRI. She admitted that she was off work from UPS during the first injury and she went to work \nfor Great Clips. The Claimant testified that during the car accident, she collapsed because she was \nhit from behind very hard. However, the Claimant agreed that she testified during her deposition \nthat she had a car wreck on November 13, 2019. Said accident occurred after the earlier MRI. \nThe Claimant confirmed that she was still actively undergoing treatment for the 2020 injury when \nshe went to work for Great Clips. She confirmed that eventually based upon her wrist complaints, \nshe was sent to a wrist/hand specialist, Dr. Jeanine Andersson. \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n8 \n \nShe confirmed that Dr. Andersson ordered a nerve conduction study to determine if she \nhad any radicular problems with her neck. The Claimant did not recall whether the test results \nwere normal. The nerve conduction study was done on April 29, 2021, with an impression of no \nradiculopathy. She agreed that Dr. Andersson sent her for additional physical therapy after that. \nDr. Andersson released that the Claimant for the 2020 injury on August 5, 2021. She assigned the \nClaimant a 2% impairment rating for her wrist. The Claimant was released to return to work in a \nfull duty capacity and the impairment rating was paid out. \nOn March 8, 2022, the Claimant sustained a second injury. During the second injury, the \nClaimant testified that a box fell and hit her on the head. The Claimant admitted that she went to \nConcentra for initial medical treatment. Although the medical records do not mention her back \nbeing hit, the Claimant maintained that the box also hit her back. However, the Claimant \nspecifically stated that she told doctors at Concentra that she her back was hit. The Claimant \nconfirmed that she returned work for the respondent-employer after her 2022 injury, and she has \ncontinued to work for UPS almost ever since then. \nOn November 9, 2022, the Claimant had another car wreck. The Claimant denied that she \naggravated her neck and back as a result of that non-work-related car wreck. Instead, the Claimant \ntestified that she injured only her left shoulder. \nThe Claimant testified: \nQ Did you not tell me in your deposition that you had aggravated your back as a result \nof the car wreck? \n \nA So if you recall, I had two accidents, and in the last car accident I injured my left \nshoulder because of the seatbelt. I didn’t say anything about my back. I didn’t hurt my \nback. There might have been some misunderstanding. Maybe you misunderstood, I’m not \nsure, but I didn’t say anything about hurting my back at that time. \n \nShe denied that she testified during her deposition that her back was hurt from the MVA \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n9 \n \nbecause it was already hurting. The Claimant admitted that she did recall saying that at her \ndeposition, but she testified that it was not for the last car accident. She specifically testified that \nshe said she had injured her back, but not in the last accident. The Claimant stated that she would \nprefer her words not be twisted. \n According to the Claimant, she went to see Dr. Mocek after her injury from work, and not \nas a result of her November 9, 2022, car wreck. She denied that her personal injury attorney sent \nher to Dr. Mocek for her car wreck. \n The Claimant explained: \n Q Okay. You went to him after the car wreck though, correct? \nA I believe that I saw Dr. Mocek before the car accident. If I did see him afterwards, \nit did not have anything to do with the accident injury of my left shoulder. \n \nQ But he’s the one that sent you for the MRI in January of 2023, correct? \nA For my spine. I think you’re trying to confuse me, but I was sent for my spine. It \nhad nothing to do with that. The last car accident was from the seatbelt and the \nseatbelt tightening up and injury (sic) when it pushed and pull against my left \nshoulder. \n \nIt appears that the records submitted show that Dr. Mocek ordered that MRI for her lumbar \nspine after the car wreck. She had already had one for her prior workers’ compensation claim in \n2020. The Claimant finally confirmed that Dr. Mocek sent her for another MRI after her car \nwreck. She essentially admitted that she has a third-party claim for the November 9, 2022, car \naccident, which is still active. The Claimant received a change of physician to Dr. Sokolow for \nher back injury of 2022 with UPS. This order was entered on March 15, 2023. \n She agreed that she saw Dr. Sokolow on March 15, 2023. The Claimant maintained that \nshe told Dr. Sokolow about her years of back problems and pain that she had before she went to \nwork at UPS. It was brought to the Claimant’s attention that none of this information was in the \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n10 \n \nreport. She explained that she did not have an interpreter for this medical visit. The Claimant also \ntestified that she wrote back and forth to the doctor during her office visit with him. However, \nmiraculously none of the information made to the history. The Claimant maintained that she told \nDr. Sokolow about her car wreck in November 2022, but it did not make it into his medical file. \n Under further questioning, the Claimant confirmed that she is claiming all of her back \nproblems occurred in either 2020 or 2022 while working for UPS. She essentially testified that it \ntook some time for her to sign the medical release form. She explained that she had a lot of things \ngoing on at the time, but once the Chief Judge finally explained why she need to sign, she did so. \nIt appears that this was done at the dismissal hearing of December 13, 2023. \n The Claimant admitted that she was asked many times during her deposition (taken on \nApril 17, 2019) if she had prior back problems before she went to work for UPS. And, throughout \nthe deposition she would say, “Well, I don’t recall. I don’t recall. I don’t remember a lot. I don’t \nremember.” However, the Claimant testified that she has read through some of the documents to \nrefresh her memory so that she does not have to say she cannot remember. According to the \nClaimant, she testified during her deposition that she had an epidural and that made her back tight. \nShe confirmed that she testified during her deposition that she had no prior treatment to her neck \nbefore going to work for UPS in 2019. \n She was asked if she had chronic low back problems dating all the way back to 2006. The \nClaimant testified that she remembered that she had back problems dating back all the way to when \nshe gave birth to her daughter in 2003. She denied that she had back pain at least 14 years prior \nto her injury at UPS. The Claimant replied: “It’s not back pain but just a feeling of tightness in \nmy back, and uncomfortable feeling, not really pain to where it hurts but just an uncomfortable \nfeeling in my back.” \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n11 \n \n The Claimant was asked if she had a car wreck in 2013, but she maintained she could \nremember if it was 2013. Next, the Claimant was shown page 8 of the exhibits in admission from \nBaptist Medical Center’s Emergency Room. Her reply was: “This says – wow. I do not remember \nthis one.” The Claimant did not recall having neck pain following that motor vehicle accident \nalthough the medical records show that she did. She also did not remember following up at the \nER three (3) days after that for ongoing neck pain. \n Under further questioning, the Claimant admitted that as far as her prior back problems, \nshe started seeing a chiropractor back in May of 2015. These records show that in 2015, the \nClaimant complained of cervical lumbar and lumbar sacral region pain and problems to the \nchiropractor. According to the Claimant, she complained to the chiropractor because of the shot \nshe received when her child was born back in 2003. The Claimant denied that she had problems \nwith back pain. Instead, the Claimant testified that she had an uncomfortable feeling in her back, \nbut not specifically denied that she had back pain or that it her back hurt. \n The following exchange took place with the Respondents’ attorney and the Claimant: \nQ Did you get treatment for your back and neck and your whole spine with the \nchiropractor? \n \nA To be honest with you, I really don’t remember the car accident. When you bought \nit up, I did not remember that car accident. When you brought it up, I did not \nremember that car accident, and then the one in 2015, I don’t remember that either. \nYou asked and I’m just telling you that I don’t remember. \n \nThe Claimant did not recall a chiropractor for back issues and neck issues, from a period \n \nof almost three (3) years, which was from 2015 until 2018. According to the Claimant, she went \nto see the chiropractor because of an uncomfortable feeling in her back, and not because of pain. \nShe specifically testified that she had a feeling of stiffness, “a feeling of very stiff.” The Claimant \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n12 \n \nadmitted that she complained of left hip pain and pain going down her leg. These notes are on \npages 21-27 of the exhibits. (Tr. 63) \n She denied that she had leg pain or hip pain before she went to work at UPS. The Claimant \ntestified that she hurt her left femur at UPS because she had fallen in a hole. She explained that it \nwas not the left leg. Per the Claimant, it was two different things that were going on, so the injury \nto the femur was not happening at that time. She denied she recalled telling the chiropractor that \nanything she would do pretty much aggravate her back condition, which was on page 46 of the \nexhibits. The Claimant continued to maintain that anything she would do caused her back to be \nuncomfortable. She also maintained that this discomfort resulted from the epidural injection she \nreceived when her child was born in 2003. \n The Claimant treated with Skinner Chiropractic and a couple of days and later she transited \nover to Pinnacle Chiropractic a couple of days apart. According to the Claimant, she transitioned \nfrom Skinner because he was a very tall and big gentleman, and he was very rough with her back. \nThe Claimant testified she was afraid he was going to damage something. After the Claimant \ncompleted her treatment with the chiropractor, she started going to UAMS for chronic left side \nand low back sciatica in May of 2018. However, the Claimant did recall going to physical therapy, \nbut she did not recall the specifics or reason for this treatment. She denied she recalled \ncomplaining about pain radiating down her thigh in 2018. Her reply was, “On the left leg, but \nwas not the femur. That was a different separate issue.” \n An MRI was performed of the Claimant’s back on May 29, 2018, which is found at page \n97 of the exhibits. She admitted she was complaining about numbness and tingling in her feet \nwhen she was treating at UAMS. Next, the Claimant was asked about page 110 of the \nRespondents’ exhibit, which give a good history, as far as the chronic low back pain and pain into \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n13 \n \nher leg. Per these notes, the Claimant was noted to have lumbar radiculopathy at L5-S1. She \nagreed that UAMS did offer her epidural steroid injections for her back pain, but she did want \nthem because of the prior problems. \n She confirmed that she had a car wreck in 2019 and had a whiplash injury. Her next injury \nwas not until 2020, when she had her first injury with UPS. The following exchange took place: \nQ So is it fair to say that you a pretty long history of prior back problems, pain down \nyour leg, and lots of treatment for back problems before your first injury at UPS? \n \nA No. I specifically remember saying that my left leg, not the femur which is a \ndifferent -- you’re trying to make it all like the same issue. These are very separate \ninjuries and my back issue was not an injury, it was uncomfortableness. It wasn’t \npain. I don’t know how to specifically describe it to you. \n \nThe Claimant was asked if she had years and years of back pain, back complaints, and \nextensive treatment including MRIs, physical therapy, and chiropractic treatment before her first \ninjury at UPS, no matter the cause. Her reply was, “Yes, I guess, because – I mean, yes.” \nIt appears that the Claimant got a change of physician in March 2023 for her back to treat \nwith Dr. Sokolow. He recommended physical therapy, and the Respondents paid for that \ntreatment. At that point, therapy was no longer necessary and the carrier stop paying for it. \nSpecifically, after the Claimant’s second visit with Dr. Sokolow, the Respondents stopped paying. \nPer the Claimant, the second car accident is still ongoing now with the courts. Regarding \nthe November 9, 2022, car accident, she confirmed that it is her testimony that she only injured \nher shoulder in that accident. The Claimant testified that she was rear-ended. \n Medical Records \n Prior medical records dating back to August 18, 2006 demonstrates that the Claimant \nsought medical treatment from Baptist Health Medical Center, North Little Rock due to chronic \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n14 \n \nback pain. X-rays were performed with an IMPRESSION of: “No abnormality seen in the lumbar \nspine. Specifically, no fractures are seen.” \n The Claimant sought emergency treatment from the Emergency Department in North Little \nRock, ER due to a motor vehicle accident on January 29, 2013. This time, the Claimant was noted \nto have a “head contusion.” Said accident occurred while the vehicle was traveling at a low speed. \nThe airbag was not deployed. The Claimant complained of a headache. She was discharged home \nin stable condition. \n On February 2, 2013 the Claimant returned to the ER at Baptist NLR due to complaints of \na headache and dizziness since MVA. The Claimant complained of mainly neck pain. She was \nassessed with “Post Traumatic headache,” for which she was discharged home with medications \nfor her headache. \n Chiropractic records show that the Claimant treated at Skinner Chiropractic from May 12, \n2015, until November 14, 2016. The Claimant’s subjective complaints were for lower back pain \nand headaches. On April 1, 2016, the Claimant complained to the chiropractor that she was having \na lot of pain and stiffness in her lower back, for which adjudgments were performed in the form \nof spinal manipulation. \n Further review of the medical records shows that the Claimant sought medical treatment \nagain from Skinner Chiropractic from November 17, 2016, until May 7, 2018. The Claimant’s \nsubjective complaints of aching, numbness and shooting discomfort in her thoracic, lumbar and \nlumbosacral. On November 17, during initial consultation, the Claimant specifically complained \nof pain that radiated the back of her left leg. She was seen for a follow-up chiropractic visit on \nNovember 28, 2016, and she described lumbar, thoracic, and cervical symptoms and pain as being \nsharp and dull in intensity. \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n15 \n \nThe Claimant sought medical attention from UAMS on May 14, 2018, due to a two-year \nhistory of low back pain which radiated down her left anterior lateral thigh. She had numbness and \ntingling, but no associated weakness. The Claimant reported that she had been seeing chiropractor \nfor two (2) years without improvement. At that time, the Claimant was diagnosed “Chronic left-\nsided low back pain with left sided sciatica” by, Melissa Bryan, MA. \nAn MRI was performed of the Claimant lumbar spine on May 29, 2018, with the following \nimpression being rendered by Dr. Jennifer McCarty: \n1. Moderated L4-5 facet arthropathy, without neural foraminal narrowing nerve root \nimpingement, or disc herniation. \n2. Mild degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 with loss of the normal disc signal. Mild-to-\nmoderate bilateral L5-S1 osseous neural foraminal narrowing. \n \nThe Claimant was evaluated at the UAMS Orthopedic Clinic due to chronic low back pain \nassociated with radiculopathy, June 6, 2018. Dr. Michael Casset referred the Claimant for \nInterventional Pain Specialty Services. \nOn June 25, 2018, the Claimant was evaluated at UAMS for continued complained of \nchronic back pain at the Spine Center, Interventional Pain. She showed signs and symptoms \nconsistent with lumbar radiculopathy in the L-5 distributtion. The Claimant complained of falling \noff a ladder at work and sometimes falling when walking, such as in the parking lot. She \ncomplained of terrible burning pain in both feet, and numbness and tingling in the left leg. \nThe Claimant underwent initial evaluation at the Clinical Support in UAMS Rehabilitation \nServices, Physical Therapy due to a chief complaint of low back pain associated with radiculopathy \non August 3, 2018. Physical Therapist, Deborah Davis, determined that the Claimant met the \nmedical necessity requirement and would benefit from therapy intervention for her ongoing low \nback pain. \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n16 \n \nIt appears that the Claimant underwent multiple sessions of physical therapy for her low \nback pain and associated radiculopathy at UAMS outpatient physical therapy clinic, until \nSeptember 27, 2018. \nOn November 13, 2019, the Claimant sought medical treatment from the Emergency \nDepartment in North Little Rock, Emergency Room. The Claimant was involved in a motor \nvehicle accident after being rear-ended. A CT of the Claimant’s cervical spine was performed as \na result of the Claimant having complained of lower head and neck pain. The findings of this exam \nshowed that there was no evidence of any acute bony fracture or misalignment. She also \nunderwent a CT of the head with no acute findings. The Dr. Joshua Adam, Tennyson placed the \nClaimant in a C-collar and discharged her home with Naprosyn for pain as needed. It was also \nrecommended that the Claimant apply a moist heating pad as needed for comfort. \nOn November 12, 2020, the Claimant underwent an MRI of the back. Dr. Alexander Albert \nopined: “IMPRESSION: Facet arthritis from L3-4 through L5-S1.” The Claimant also underwent \nother diagnostic tests for the wrist and hand which do not pertain to this claim. \nDr. Jeannine Andersson returned the Claimant to work on August 5, 2021, without any \nrestrictions. \nMedical notes from Concentra Medical Center dated June 29, 2022, show an office visit \nrecheck of the Claimant’s neck and back pain. In fact, Clint Bearden authored a Form 3, in this \nregard. His assessment was “1. Thoracic myofascial strain initial encounter. 2. Neck Strain \nsubsequent encounter.” However, it was noted that the Claimant was at a functional goal and \nready for discharge. At that time, the Claimant’s neck symptoms had resolved. Dr. Bearden opined \nthat her hip complaints were unrelated to the June 2022 incident. Therefore, the Claimant was \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n17 \n \nreturned to work and regular activities without any physical limitations or restrictions due to her \nworkplace injury. \nThe Claimant underwent an MRI of the lumbar spine on January 4, 2023. Dr. Raymond \nPeeples rendered the following IMPRESSION: “Multiple level facet hypertrophy. No evidence \nof acute lumbar spine injury or significant canal foraminal narrowing.” \nA review of the medical evidence records shows that the Claimant underwent a comparison \nMRI of the lumbar spine WITHOUT IV CONTRAST on May 3, 2024, to compare with a prior \nlumbar spine MRI of January 4, 2023. IMPRESSION: \n * Mild central stenosis L4-5 and L5-S1. \n * Left-sided foraminal stenosis L5-S1. \n* Moderate Facet arthritis L3-S1. \n* Findings are worse than previous study. \n \n ADJUDICATION \nA. Compensability \nThe Claimant has asserted a compensable back injury on June 12, 2020, while working for \nthe respondent-employer, United Parcel Service(UPS), Incorporated . \n \"Compensable injury\" means an accidental injury causing physical harm to the body, \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services or results in \ndisability or death. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i). A compensable injury must be \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-102(4)(D). The Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \na compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4) (E)(i). \nPreponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n18 \n \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of the \ndoubt to either party, I find that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible \nthat she was sustained an accidental injury to her lumbar spine arising out and in the course of her \nemployment with UPS on June 12, 2020. I am unable to find any objective medical evidence of \nan injury to the Claimant back. There is not any medical interpretation showing that there are any \nchanges between the 2018 MRI the 2020 MRI. There are no objective findings of an injury to the \nClaimant’s back which are causally connected to her work activities. The Claimant has \ncomplained chronic back pain and leg pain for years. She has received extensive chiropractic and \nphysical therapy for her back prior to her ever going to work for UPS. \nThe Claimant’s account of this incident is not credible. The Claimant initially reported that \nshe was hit on the head by the box, and there was no mention of a back injury. Her testimony was \nnot corroborated by the documentary medical evidence, which demonstrates that the Claimant has \na lifelong history of prior medical treatment for her back. The Claimant’s testimony is also not \ncorroborated by the contemporaneous medical documentation of record do not mention an injury \nto the Claimant’s back. The Claimant made mentioned of a neck injury. The Respondents \naccepted the neck injury and paid appropriate benefits for that injury. Additionally, the Claimant’s \ntestimony demonstrates that while she was off work for her 2020 injury she went to work for Great \nClips. The Claimant was also involved in a subsequent motor vehicle accident on November 9, \n2022, which aggravated her neck and back. Her 2024 MRI of the lumbar spine supports this \nconclusion. \nIn light of the above cited reasons, I find that the Claimant failed to prove an injury to her \nlumbar spine by medical evidence supported by objective findings. \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n19 \n \nTherefore, based on all of the foregoing, I find that the Claimant has failed to meet all of \nthe necessary requirements for establishing a compensable injury to her lumbar spine while \nperforming employment activities for her employer in June 2020. Thus, I therefore find that the \nClaimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable \ninjury to her back on June 12, 2020, during and in the course of her employment with the \nrespondent-employer/UPS. The issue of treatment for the Claimant’s back is rendered moot. \nB. Medical Benefits \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as \nmay be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-508(a). The Claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. \n260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005). \nThe Claimant failed prove that additional medical treatment for her neck is reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment for her compensable neck injury. Her testimony concerning prior \nproblems was conflicting and confusing. I did not find the Claimant to be a credible witness. \nNevertheless, the documentary evidence establishes this issue most appropriately. Particularly, \nthe evidence shows that the Claimant has had ongoing problems with neck and back dating to \n2006. The Claimant was provided appropriate care for her neck injury by Respondents. The \nClaimant was declared to be MMI for this injury. She received a change of physician to treatment \nwith Dr. Sokolow. The Respondents paid for two visits with her treating physician. They also \npaid for the additional medical physical therapy that he ordered for this injury. No doctor had \nrecommended any additional medical treatment for the Claimant’s neck injury in the form of \nphysical therapy treatment. The Claimant has since returned to work for UPS. She also has had \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n20 \n \na car wreck since her work-related neck injury. This car wreck occurred on November 9, 2022. \nAlthough the Claimant maintained that only her shoulder was injured during the car wreck, the \nevidence indicates otherwise. The probative evidence of record indicates that the Claimant \ncomplained of neck and back pain after this car wreck. The Claimant incredulously maintained \nduring the hearing that a physical therapist ordered additional medical treatment for her neck. This \nalleged suggestion/recommendation for additional physical therapy, even if taken as a fact is \ninsufficient evidence to support a finding for the need of more treatment for the Claimant’s neck \ninjury. I am not convinced of the Claimant being ordered any additional medical treatment by a \ndoctor. The record is devoid of a recommendation by a doctor or any other medical personnel for \nadditional medical treatment for her compensable neck injury. I am well aware that additional \nmedical treatment may be required and in order after the Claimant’s healing period has ended. \nHowever, I do not find that to be the case in this instance. The Claimant has been released to full \nduty work without any physical limitations or restrictions for this injury. I thus find that under \nthese circumstances the Claimant failed to prove her entitlement to additional medical treatment \nfor her compensable neck injury. \n ORDER \nBased in the foregoing findings of fact set forth herein this Opinion, I find that the Claimant \nfailed to prove she sustained a back injury in June 2022, and she failed to her entitlement to any \nadditional medical treatment for her neck. Hence, this claim is hereby respectfully denied and \ndismissed in its entirety. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n __________________________ \n CHANDRA L. BLACK \n ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE \n\n \nROGERS – H004886 & H202191 \n21","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC NOS.: H004886 & H202191 LANA ROGERS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 A hea...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:13.878Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H004886-2024-09-17","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROGERS_LANA_H004886_H202191_20240917.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}