{"id":"alj-H005060-2023-07-12","awcc_number":"H005060","decision_date":"2023-07-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Stanley Cheathem","employer_name":"Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc","title":"CHEATHEM VS. HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. AWCC# H005060 JULY 12, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["repetitive","wrist","back","carpal tunnel"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CHEATHEM_STANLEY_H005060_20230712.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CHEATHEM_STANLEY_H005060_20230712.pdf","text_length":27863,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H005060 \n \nSTANLEY R. CHEATEM,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                CLAIMANT \n                                                       \nHUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                            RESPONDENT \n                                            \nSAFETY NAT’L CASUALTY CORP./                                \nCORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP, INC.,   \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                           RESPONDENT   \n \n \nOPINION AND ORDER FILED JULY 12, 2023 \n                                                                                      \nHearing  conducted  before  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (the \nCommission),  Administrative  Law  Judge  (ALJ)  Mike  Pickens,  on  Thursday,  April  13, \n2023, in Hope, Hempstead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe  claimant  was  represented  by  the  Honorable Malcolm  A.  Simmons,  Simmons  Law \nFirm, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \nThe  respondents  were  represented  by  the  Honorable  Edward  W.  McCorkle,  McMillan, \nMcCorkle & Curry, LLP, Arkadelphia, Clark County, Arkansas. \n \nINTRODUCTION \n        In  the  prehearing  order  filed  March  1,  2023,  the  parties  agreed  to  the  following \nstipulations, which they affirmed on the record at the hearing: \n1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has jurisdiction \n over this claim. \n  \n2. The   employer/employee/carrier-TPA   relationship   existed   at   all   relevant   times \nincluding December 19, 2019, when the claimant alleges he sustained a gradual onset \nwork-related  injury  to  his  right  due  to  the  alleged  rapid-repetitive  nature  of  his  job \nduties. \n \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n \n2 \n \n3. The  claimant's  average  weekly  wage  (AWW)  was  $460.00,  which  is  sufficient  to   \nentitle  him  to  weekly  compensation  rates  of  $370.00  for  temporary  total  disability \n(TTD), and $230.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. \n \n4 The respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n5. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation and/or  \ndetermination. \n \n(Commission Exhibit 1 at 1-2; Hearing Transcript at 7-8). At the hearing the parties also agreed \nto stipulate that the respondents’ private investigator witnesses would testify consistent with \nthe reports the respondents introduced into evidence, and claimant’s counsel advised he did \nwant to to cross-examine these particular witnesses. (T. 67-68; 81-82). \n Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement the issues litigated at the hearing were: \n1. Whether the claimant sustained a gradual onset compensable injury within the \n      meaning of the Arkansas' Workers' compensation Act (the Act) to his right wrist on \n          December 19, 2019. \n \n2. If the claimant's alleged injury is deemed compensable, the extent to which he is \n entitled to medical and indemnity benefits.  \n \n3.      Whether the claimant's attorney is entitled to a controverted fee on these facts. The \n         parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation and/or \n         determination. \n \n4.      The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation and/or  \n         determination. \n \n(Comms’n. Ex. 1 at 2; T. 7-8).  \nThe claimant contends that on or about December 19, 2019, he was relocated to a \nnew position, line and job that he wasn't used to performing. His right wrist had been irritated \nfor a few weeks before he was moved to the new job, but nothing unusual for the type of work \nhe performed. The claimant contends the newly assigned position caused him to use his right \nwrist in a more demanding way that really ignited the pain, causing him to request and seek \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n3 \n \nmedical treatment. The plant nurse, Yvonne Moorland, wrapped and rubbed the claimant's right \nwrist. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2-3; T. 82-83; Claimant’s Post-Hearing Brief).  \nThe respondents contend the claimant  cannot meet his burden of proof pursuant to \nthe Act in demonstrating he sustained a gradual onset injury that culminated in disability as of \nDecember 19, 2019. The respondents contend the claimant did not injure his right wrist within \nthe course and scope of his employment and, therefore, he did not sustain a compensable gradual \nonset  injury within the Act’s meaning.  The  respondents  contend  the  relevant  medical  reports \nindicate the claimant already had a scapholunate advanced collapse of his right wrist as well as \nosteoarthritis of his right wrist which are non-compensable conditions/injuries. (Comms’n Ex. \n1  at  3;  T.  83-86; Respondents’ Post-Hearing  Brief).The  record  herein  consists  of  the  hearing \ntranscript  and  any  and  all  exhibits  contained  therein  and/or  attached  thereto,  as  well  as  the \nparties’ blue-backed post-hearing briefs. \n                                          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n          The claimant, Mr. Stanley R. Cheathem  (the  claimant), is now 52 years old. He \nbegan working at Husqvarna Outdoor Products (Husqvarna) on October 17, 2016, working on \nan  assembly  line  making  small  engines,  and  was  assigned  to  Line  5  on  the  carousel  in  the \nassembly department. His last day working at Husqvarna was July 14, 2020. Sometime around \nthe end of 2017 or the beginning of 2018 the claimant was reassigned to a new job on Line 3, \nwhich he testified “was a lot more strenuous” as it required him to torque flywheels and to place \nthe  modules  on  the  prouduct  units.  The  claimant testified  concerning  the  details  of  these  job \nduties  at  the  hearing. The record is devoid of any evidence in rebuttal of the claimant’s \ntestimony concerning his job duties. (T. 13-18; 62-66).  \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n \n4 \n \n          According to the hearing record the claimant sustained a work-related injury to his \nleft hand  – specifically, his left thumb, which was “locking” and hurting – in July 2018. The \nmedical  records  from  this  time  period  reveal  the  claimant  made  no  complaints  of  right  wrist \npain. Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Brian Norton of Speciality Orthopaedics diagnosed the claimant \nwith  “stenosing tenosynovitis” of his left thumb, which Dr. Norton opined was work-related. \n(Claimant’s Exhibit 2 at 15; 11-15). Dr. Norton performed an A1 pulley release to correct this \ncondition. The respondents accepted this left hand/thumb injury as compensable, and paid both \nmedical and indemnity benefits. The claimant testified this 2018 compensable injury to his left \nthumb “was resolved” as of the date of the subject hearing date. (T. 19; Responds.’ Brief at 1).   \n           In January, 2020, the claimant first signed a Form AR-N alleging a right wrist injury. \nOn July 3, 2020, he filed a second Form AR-N with the Commission alleging he had injured \nhis “Right wrist” on “12-12-2019”, which he attributed to the rapid and repetitive nature of the \njob duties he was performing at that time, described in detail in his hearing testimony. (CX1 at \n1-2; T. 13-18; 66; 62-66). The record reveals the claimant did complain of right wrist pain to \nthe Husqvarna nurse at various times between January 23, 2020 through February 6, 2020, and \nhe received first aid. (Respondents’ Exhibit 2 at 1). The claimant testified he visited the nurses’s \nstation some nine (9) times between January 8, 2020 through July 14, 2020, and he said, “one \nof these was I was [sic] sent there unnecessarily to be treated.” (T. 29) (Bracketed material \nadded). \nThe claimant continued to work at Husqvarna until July 14, 2020, when Husqvarna required \nhim to stop working until he received a medical release stating he could return to work. (T. 29; \nRX3). Thereafter, the claimant did not ever return to work at Husqvarna.  \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n5 \n \n         On  October  9,  2020,  the  claimant  applied  for  unemployment  benefits.  On  the \nunemployment benefits application form he represented subject to the applicable penalties of \nmaking false statements  that he was available immediately for  full-time  work that he had no \ndisabilities that would prevent him from performing his normal job duties. (RX3; T. 44-45).  \n        On October 14, 2020 – some three (3) months after he last worked at Husqvarna – the \ndid claimant did receive a release to return to work from an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse \n(APRN)  at  Cabun  Rural  Health  Services.  The  release  stated he could, “return to work on \n10/15/2020 with the following restrictions: no use of hand held power tools with his right hand, \nno lifting of 5 pounds or more with the right hand, and must wear brace/splint with any activity.” \n(RX2 at 2).  \n          The same day, October 14, 2020, the claimant sought medical attention for his right \nwrist pain at the Hope Medical Center. At that time he was diagnosed with chronic pain of his \nright wrist; osteoarthritis of his right wrist, “of an unspecified type”, and tendonitis of is right \nwrist.  (RX2  at  4;  3-5).  On  October  15,  2020,  the  claimant  reported  back  to  the  Husqvarna \nnurse’s station and presented the release and work restriction note to the licensed practical nurse \n(LPN)  on  duty,  Ms.  Autumn  Murillo;  however,  because  of  the  work  restrictions  he  did  not \nreturn to work, and left the premises. (RX2 at 6). \n          Relevant  medical  records  from  October  28,  2020  through  September  1,  2021 – \nparticularly   those   of   orthopedic   surgeons   Drs.   Brian   Norton   of   Arkansas   Speciality \nOrthopaedics,  and  G.  Thomas  Frazier  of  the  University  of  Arkansas  for  Medical  Sciences \n(UAMS) –  repeatedly note the claimant’s complaints of “chronic wrist pain”, as well as his \n“unspecified osteoarthritis type”, and an injury to his right scapholunate ligament “with no \ninstability.” (See,  e.g.,  RX2  at  8;  7-45).  There  exists  no  medical  opinion  in  the  record  stated \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n \n6 \n \nwithin a reasonable degree of medical certainty these conditions were caused by the claimant’s \nwork duties at Husqvarna. The UAMS medical records of Dr. Lori George reveal the claimant \nhas  hypertension,  and  Type  2  diabetes  mellitus  with  hypoglycemia  but  he  is  not  insulin \ndependent. (RX2 at 48-68).  \n        In a clinic note of February 5, 2021, the claimant told his medical provider at Hope \nFamily  Practice  Center  that  his  right  wrist  pain  was,  “...intermittent  and  only  becomes \nbothersome at night, first thing in the morning, or when he is trying to perform twisting and \ngripping manuevers with his right hand/wrist.” (RX2 at 8). The claimant testified  he  did  not \nwant  to  undergo  the  wrist  fusion  surgery  to  repair  his  right  wrist  scapholunate  dissociation \ncondition his treating orthopedic surgeon has recommended to correct the right wrist deformity, \nand that he has no outstanding medical bills at this time because he has health insurance. (T. \n64-65).  \n        The  claimant  further  testified  his  current  self-employment  activities  include  some \nminimal  barber/hair-cutting  (in  the  past  he  attend  and  graduate  from  cosmetology  school), \nraising  and  selling  pit  bull  dogs,  and  some  Gospel  preaching.  (T.  44-61). The claimant’s \ntestimony in this regard is consistent with the respondents’ private investigators’ eyewitness \nreports, and other evidence of record. (T. 46-61; RX1 at 12; RX1A, the thumbdrive; RX1B at \n1-3; RX1C at 1-8). \n          Ms. Kristie Skinner and Ms. Carol Kissman testified on the respondents’ behalf. Ms. \nSkinner testified that she works in Husqvarna’s human resources (HR) department. Ms. Skinner \ntestified  she  sent  a  letter  to  the  claimant  dated  July  15,  2020,  which  stated  the  physical \nrequirements of his job, and requesting that she provide him with some documentation from a \nhealth care provider as to what his physical limitations and restrictions, if any, were at that time. \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n7 \n \n(RX8). Ms. Skinner then identified a nurse’s note dated 10/15/2020 from Ms. Autumn Murillo \ndiscussed above. She said that after the claimant presented her with this note, she did not contact \nhim and he never contacted her. (RX9). (T. 68-76). \n       Ms. Kissman, who was not employed by Husqvarna at the time of the hearing, testified \nshe was the HR manager for workers’ compensation, but had retired in 2020. She explained \nthat before her 2020 retirement she was transitioning out of her position, and that she still works \nfor  Husqvarna  on  a  part-time  basis.  Although  she  testified  she  had  not  been  a  part  of  the \ninvestigation,  she  said  she  was  aware  that  Husqvarna  had  conducted  an  investigation  of  the \nclaimant’s alleged right wrist injury and determine it was not work-related. She also testified \nconcerning the claimant’s normal work hours, apparently disputing the claimant worked as \nmany hours as he said he did, especially in December since that is a slow time for Husqvarna. \n(T. 77-81). \n                                                      DISCUSSION \nThe Burden of Proof \n  When  deciding  any  issue,  the  ALJ  and  the  Commission  shall  determine,  on  the \nbasis of the record as a whole, whether the party having the burden of proof has established it \nby  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence. Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-704(c)(2)  (2023  Lexis \nReplacement). The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he \nis entitled to benefits. Stone v. Patel, 26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). Ark. \nCode  Ann. Section  11-9-704(c)(3)  (2023  Lexis  Repl.)  states  that  the  ALJ,  the  Commission, \nand the courts “shall strictly construe” the Act, which also requires them to read and construe \nthe Act in its entirety, and to harmonize its provisions when necessary. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, \n77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 (Ark. App. 2002). In determining whether the claimant has met \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n \n8 \n \nhis  burden  of  proof,  the  Commission  is  required  to  weigh  the  evidence  impartially  without \ngiving the benefit of the doubt to either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(4) (2023 Lexis \nRepl.); Gencorp Polymer Products v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. \n1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987).  \n   All  claims  for  workers’  compensation  benefits  must  be  based  on  proof. \nSpeculation  and  conjecture,  even  if  plausible,  cannot  take  the  place  of  proof. Ark.  Dep’t  of \nCorrections v. Glover, 35 Ark. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. \nv.  Herndon,  264  Ark.  791,  595  S.W.2d  155  (1979).  It  is  the  Commission’s  exclusive \nresponsibility  to  determine  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses  and  the  weight  to  give  their \ntestimony. Whaley  v.  Hardees,  51  Ark.  App.  116,  912  S.W.2d  14  (Ark.  App.  1995).  The \nCommission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any other witness’s testimony, but \nmay  accept  and  translate  into  findings  of  fact  those  portions  of  the  testimony  it  deems \nbelievable. McClain  v.  Texaco,  Inc.,  29  Ark.  App.  218,  780  S.W.2d  34  (Ark.  App.  1989); \nFarmers Coop. v. Biles, supra.  \n   The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical evidence just as it does any \nother  evidence,  and  its  resolution  of  the  medical  evidence  has  the  force  and  effect  of  a  jury \nverdict. Williams  v.  Pro  Staff  Temps.,  336  Ark.  510,  988  S.W.2d  1  (1999).  It  is  within  the \nCommission’s province to weigh the totality of the medical evidence and to determine what \nevidence  is  most  credible  given  the  totality  of  the  credible  evidence  of  record. Minnesota \nMining & Mfg’ing v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). \nGradual Onset Compensable Injuries \n With respect to an alleged gradual onset compensable injury Ark. Code Ann. § 11-\n9-102(4)(A) (2023 Lexis Repl.) defines “compensable injury” as follows: \n \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n9 \n \n(ii)    An injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body and arising out \n         of and in the course of employment if it is not caused by a specific incident or is \n         not identifiable by time and place of occurrence; if the injury is: \n \n(iii)  Caused by rapid repetitive motion.  Carpal tunnel syndrome is specifically \n categorized as a compensable injury falling within this definition[.]  \n \n(Bracketed material, and emphasis added). \n The test for determining whether an injury is caused by rapid repetitive motion is \ntwo (2)-pronged: (1) the task must be repetitive, and (2) the repetitive motion must be rapid. \nMalone v. Texarkana Public Schools, 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998). Multiple tasks \ninvolving different movements can be considered together to satisfy the “repetitive element” \nof rapid repetitive motion. Id. \n            Just  as  in  the  case  of  any  other  compensable  injury,  an  alleged  gradual  onset \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D); Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16). “Objective findings” are \ndefined as findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-102(16)(A); Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, at 80 250 S.W.3d \n263,  at  272  (Ark.  App.  2007).  Objective  findings  specifically  exclude  such  subjective \ncomplaints  or  findings  as  pain,  straight-leg-raising  tests,  and  range-of-motion  (ROM)  tests \nsince they all are subjective in nature and subject to the claimant’s voluntary control or \nmanipulation. See, Burks v. RIC, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 862 (Ark. App. 2010).  \n           With respect to a gradual onset injury caused by rapid repetitive motion the resulting \ncondition is compensable only if the alleged compensable injury is the “major cause” of the \ndisability  or  need  for  treatment. Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)(E)(ii); Medlin  v.  Wal-Mart \nStores, Inc., 64 Ark. App. 17, 977 S.W.2d 239 (1998). “Major cause” means greater than fifty \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n \n10 \n \npercent (50%) of the cause. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(ii); Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. \nPope, 482 S.W.3d 723 (Ark. App. 2016). The “major cause” requirement may be established \nby the fact the claimant was asymptomatic prior to an incident, and then became symptomatic \nand required medical treatment after the incident. Parker v. Atlantic Research Corp., 87 Ark. \nApp. 145, 189 S.W.3d 449 (Ark. App. 2004) (Emphasis added). \n          Both the claimant’s and respondents’ attorneys did an excellent job trying their cases, \nand their post-hearing letter briefs were most informative and helpful in assisting this ALJ in \nrendering the opinion and order herein. And based on the applicable law as applied to the facts \nof this case I am compelled to find the claimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating \nhis gradual onset right wrist injury which he reported via Form AR-Ns filed both in January \n2020,  and  July  The  respondents  correctly  cite  the  applicable  law  in  their  post-hearing  brief, \nwhich is consistent with that set forth above. As the respondents note, in Parker vs. Atlantic \nResearch  Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 152, 187 S.W. 3d 449 (Ark. App. 2004), the Arkansas \nCourt of Appeals explained: “Where, as in the case before us, a rapid repetitive motion injury \nis argued to be an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, the claimant must prove by a \npreponderance of evidence that the injury: 1) arose out of and in the course of her employment; \n2) caused internal or external physical harm to the body requiring medical services; 3) was \ncaused by rapid repetitive motion; 4) was the major cause of the disability or the need for \ntreatment; and 5) was established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.”  \n   In the same paragraph the Parker court goes on to cite two (2) other precedents, \nHigh Capacity Prods. v. Moore, 61 Ark. App. 1, 962 S.W.2d 831 (Ark. App. 1998), and Tyson \nFoods, Inc.  v. Griffin, 61 Ark. App. 222, 966 S.W.2d 914 (Ark. App. 1998), both of which \naffirmed the Commission’s findings and held that, as in Parker, “the claimant’s employment \nactivities  in  the  form  of  rapid  repetitive  movement  had  aggravated  his  degenerative \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n11 \n \nosteoarthritis in the area of his hands and wrists, and that his condition of carpal tunnel \nsyndrome and aggravation of his preexisting degenerative arthritis constituted the major cause \nof his need for ongoing medical treatment.” Consequently, the Parker case is the oft-cited \nprecedent standing for the proposition that  the Act’s “major  cause” requirement may be \nestablished by the fact the claimant was asymptomatic prior to an incident, and then became \nsymptomatic and required medical treatment after the incident.   \n          In the case at bar, it is beyond reasonable dispute the job duties the claimant was \nperforming at Husqvarna before and during December of 2019 were rapid and repetitive in \nnature. (T. 13-18; 62-66). In fact, as the claimant’s attorney points out in his post-hearing brief, \nthere exists no testimony in the record to the contrary. Moreover, the respondents’ citing of the \nspot-on Parker precedent frames the threshold issue to be decided as whether the claimant’s \nrapid repetitive motion job duties aggravated his obviously preexisting osteoarthritis and \nscapholunate dissociation conditions in his right wrist.  \n          The fact the preponderance of the evidence in the record demonstrates the claimant’s \nright wrist condition was asymptomatic before he reported the subject work-related incident, \nand then became symptomatic and required medical treatment after the reported incident meets \nthe requirement set forth in Parker, et al, compels a finding the claimant’s right wrist injury \nconstitutes a gradual onset compensable injury within the Act’s meaning. (Note: Scapholunate \ndissociation is a condition, usually caused by an injury, where the small bones of the wrist – \nthe scaphoid and lunate – move out of alignment. This is often the result of damage to the \nscapholunate  interosseous  ligament  which  holds  these  small  bones  in  place. See,  e.g., \nhttps://my.clevelandclinic.or/health/diseases23444-scapholunate-dissociation#diagnosis-and-\ntests ). \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n \n12 \n \n            Of course, this ruling entitles the claimant to, among other possibly applicable \nbenefits, payment of his medical bills and related expenses, and indemnity benefits. However, \nthe claimant testified that after considering all hos options, and the risks and possible outcomes \nof the right wrist fusion surgery his treating orthopedic surgeon recommended, he did not wish \nnor intend to have it, and was not requesting the respondents to pay for this surgery at the \nsubject hearing. (T. 64). The claimant also testified he has no outstanding medical bills at this \ntime since his private health insurance has paid for all his medical bills, apparently both those \nrelated to treatment of his right wrist, as well as those related to his non-work-related conditions \nsuch as his diabetes and hypertension.  \n           Moreover, there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether, and if \nso to what extent, the claimant is entitled to indemnity benefits, specifically at this time \ntemporary total disability (TTD) benefits. In fact, the record reveals the claimant has remained \nactive and working on his own, self-employed, although he has not returned to work at \nHusqvarna since he last worked there on July 14, 2020. Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-411 \n(2023 Lexis Repl.) gives the respondents the right to take a dollar-for-dollar credit/off-set \nagainst any disability or unemployment benefits any third-party(ies) paid to the claimant. See \nalso, Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-506 (2023 Lexis Repl.). The record reveals the claimant \napplied for unemployment benefits and represented on the application he signed on October 9, \n2020, among other things, that he had no physical disabilities that would prevent him from \nperforming his normal job duties.  \n            Consequently, this ALJ is unable to specifically determine the extent to which, if \nany, the claimant is entitled to medical benefits and related expenses, and indemnity benefits \n– specifically TTD benefits – based on the record before me at this time.   \n           Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, I hereby make the following: \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n13 \n \n                 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n 2.  The stipulations contained in the prehearing order filed March 1, 2023, which the  \n      parties affirmed on the record at the hearing, hereby are accepted as facts.  \n \n 3.  The claimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating his job duties at Husqvarna  \n      constitute rapid repetitive motion. See, Parker; High Capacity Prods.; and Tyson  \n                 Foods, Inc., supra. \n \n  4.    The  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proof  in  demonstrating  his  rapid  repetitive  job \nduties \n       were the “major cause” of his disability or need for medical treatment of his right wrist.  \n5. The preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes the claimant’s rapid  \n              repetitive job duties aggravated his obviously preexisting osteoarthritis and  \n              scapholunate dissociation conditions since these conditions were asymptomatic prior \n              to performing the subject rapid repetitive job duties and became symptomatic and \n              required  medical  treatment  thereafter. See,  Parker;  High  Capacity  Prods.;  and \nTyson’s \n              Foods, Inc., supra.  \n \n6. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-508 the claimant is entitled to payment of \nall  his  reasonably  necessary  medical  and  other  expenses  related  to  his  compensable \nright wrist injury.  \n \n7. The record before the ALJ is insufficient to deternine the extent of TTD benefits, if \nany, to which the claimant is entitled based on his compensable right wrist injury. \n \n8. The claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted fee. \n \nAWARD \n            The respondents are hereby directed to pay benefits in accordance with the “Findings of \nFact and Conclusions of Law” set forth above. All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without \ndiscount, and this award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \nSection 11-9-809, and Couch v. First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 \n(Ark. App. 1995); Burlington Indus., et al v. Pickett, 64 Ark. App. 67, 983 S.W.2d 126 (Ark. App. \n1998); and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Sauer, 358 Ark. 89, 186 S.W.3d 229 (2004). \n\nStanley R. Cheathem; AWCC H005060 \n \n14 \n \n           If  they  have  not  already  done  so  the  respondents  hereby  are  ordered  to  pay  the  court \nreporter’s invoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt of this opinion and order. \n               IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       _____________________________ \n                                                                                    Mike Pickens \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H005060 STANLEY R. CHEATEM, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SAFETY NAT’L CASUALTY CORP./ CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER FILED JULY 12, 2023 Hearing conducted before th...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:05:16.605Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H005060-2023-07-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CHEATHEM_STANLEY_H005060_20230712.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}