{"id":"alj-H005785-2023-03-07","awcc_number":"H005785","decision_date":"2023-03-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Donna Geels","employer_name":"Friendship Community Care, Inc","title":"GEELS VS. FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC. AWCC# H005785 MARCH 7, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GEELS_DONNA_H005785_20230307.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GEELS_DONNA_H005785_20230307.pdf","text_length":11157,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H005785 \n \nDONNA GEELS, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nFRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC., Employer RESPONDENT \n \nATA WC TRUST, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED MARCH 7, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in  Russellville,  Pope \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant unrepresented and appearing PRO SE. \n \nRespondents represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On December 8, 2022, the above captioned  claim came on for a hearing at  Russellville, \nArkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on  November  29,  2022,  and  an  Amended \nPre-hearing Order was filed on November 29, 2022.   A copy of the Pre-hearing Order has been \nmarked Commission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2.  The  relationship  of  employee-employer-carrier  existed  between  the  parties  on  August \n6, 2020. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n\nGeels – H005785 \n \n-2- \n 4. The claimant was earning sufficient wages to entitle her to compensation at the weekly \nrates  of  $310.00  for  temporary  total  disability  benefits  and  $233.00  for  permanent  partial \ndisability benefits. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1.  Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  COVID-19  illness  on  August  6,  2020, \nwhich include symptoms listed in Claimant’s Contention No. 2. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment. \n 3. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from April 5, 2022, \nto a date yet to be determined. \n 4.  Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  consequence  of  her  alleged  COVID-19 \nillness in the form of depression and anxiety. \n 5. Respondents’ entitlement to credit for short term disability benefits. \n Claimant’s contentions are: \n“1.  The  Claimant,  Donna  Geels,  contracted  COVID-19  while  on  the  job  on \nAugust 6, 2020, while working at a patient’s home in New Blaine, Arkansas. \n \n2. Despite initially accepting the Claim, the Respondents controverted this matter \nfollowing  her  diagnoses  with  post  COVID  syndrome  (specific  complications \nincluded, but are not limited to: ANA, dyspnea, and COPD). \n \n3. The Claimant contends that she is owed medical benefits and Temporary Total \nDisability Benefits from January 27, 2022, to a date yet to be determined. \n \n4. Due to the controversion of entitled benefits, the Respondents are obligated to \npay one half of the Claimant’s attorney’s fees. \n \n5. Claimant reserves the right to raise additional contentions at the hearing of this \nmatter.” \n \n Respondents’ contentions are: \n \n\nGeels – H005785 \n \n-3- \n“Respondents  contend  that  Claimant  did  not  suffer  a  compensable  injury  on  or \nabout 8/6/20. Respondents contend that Claimant’s need for medical treatment is \nnot related to a compensable injury and that her problems  predated any claimed \ninjury  or  are  personal  in  nature  and  not  associated  with  an  injury.  Respondents \nalso  contend  the  medical  documentation  does  not  support  the  need  for  medical \ntreatment or the entitlement to benefits associated with an alleged exposure.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a  61-year-old  female  who  alleges  to  have  sustained  a \ncompensable  COVID  illness  on  August  6,  2020.  The  claimant  was  an  in-home  care  worker  for \nthe respondent at the time and was providing in-home patient care for  a particular client during \nthat   timeframe.   The   claimant   described   her   job   duties   during   this   timeframe   on   cross \nexamination as follows: \nQ Tell  the  Judge,  if  you  would,  just  briefly  what  your  job \nentailed there. \n \nA My  job  entails  setting  an  example  for  good  behavior. \nAssisting  in  anything  they  are  not  physically   capable  to  do. \nTransporting  them  to  doctor’s  appointments.  Taking  them  to  get \ngroceries, to get shoes. Whatever their general needs would be. \n \nQ And  at  the  time  in  question,  this  would  have  been  August \nof 2020, you were working with a Richard Bower; is that correct? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ All right. As far as your work with him, the things that you \njust  testified  about,  that  is  what  you  would  do  for  Mr.  Bower;  is \nthat right? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ He is in his ‘60s; is that correct? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ So  you  would  just  assist  him,  but  you  told  me  in  the \ndeposition  that  you  didn’t  have  to  do  anything  physical  with  him. \nYou didn’t have to lift him; is that right? \n \n\nGeels – H005785 \n \n-4- \nA I  didn’t  have  to  lift  him.  I  had  to  help  him  lift  objects \nbecause he can’t use one arm. \n \nQ But  mostly  it  was  helping  him  learn  to  cook  or  do  things \nlike that; is that right? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ He usually wore a mask prior to August 6\nth\n; is that right? \n \nA Usually. \n \nQ Okay.  And  you  told  me  in  your  deposition  that  before \nAugust 6\nth\n, you always wore your mask and you had gloves when \nyou went into his home; is that right? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And I assume that you would have maintained that six-foot \ndistance  that  was  recommended  during  that  time  frame,  is  that \nright? \n \nA As best I could, yes. \n \n It  is  the  claimant’s  allegation  that  the  client  she was  assisting  in  his  home  for  the \nrespondent/employer  had  out  of  town  family  visit  the  client’s  home  during  the  time  she  was \nthere.  Those  family  members  were  later  found  to  have  had  COVID.  The  claimant  alleges  that \nsince  she  was  exposed  to  COVID, she  tested  and  was  found  to  be  positive  and  restricted  from \nwork.  The  claimant  also  alleges  that  she  suffered  specific  complications  following  her  COVID \ndiagnosis including ANA, dyspnea, and COPD. \n It is the claimant’s burden to prove that she suffered a compensable COVID illness on or \nabout August 6, 2020, as she has alleged. In order to do so the claimant must prove the existence \nof objective medical evidence under Arkansas Code Annotated §11-9-102(4)(D). The claimant is \nrequired to establish the existence of an injury based on medical evidence supported by objective \n\nGeels – H005785 \n \n-5- \nmedical  findings  as  described  in  Arkansas  Code  Annotated  §  11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  Objective \nfindings cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  unable  to meet  her  burden.  I  find  no  positive  COVID  test \nresults  regarding  the  claimant  in  any  of  the  medical  records  submitted  into  evidence.  I  do  find \ntwo negative COVID or coronavirus tests found at Respondents Exhibit 1, page 57 and page 58, \ndated September 21, 2020, and December 14, 2020, respectively. In fact, those two negative test \nreports appear to be the only medical records submitted into evidence from the year 2020. Two \npages of medical evidence found at Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 1 and 2, do mention COVID. In \nfact, page 1 of Claimant’s Exhibit 1 appears to be from July 7, 2022, as a note on the bottom left \nof  that  page  indicates  that  is  the  date  of  imaging.  This  medical  record  purports  to  be  from \nCardiology Associates of North Central Arkansas located in Russellville, Arkansas. Handwritten \nin the top right corner of that same document is the name Dr. Rasool.  In the History of Present \nIllness portion of that medical record, it in part states “according to her, she had bad COVID in \n2021.” The next medical record found at Claimant’s Exhibit 1, page 2, has no area that I can find \nthat indicates when this medical record was created or when the claimant was seen. However, it \ndoes  indicate  that  the  record  is  from  Millard-Henry  Clinic  of  Russellville,  and  again,  written  in \nthe  top  right-hand  corner  is  a  name,  Dr.  Schoenberger.  That  undated  medical  record,  in  the \nHistory of Present Illness portion, in part states “she became ill with COVID two years ago, but \nwas only trated  [sic]  with oral  antibiotics.” The claimant does place into  evidence some mental \nhealth assessments which do indeed mention COVID but are not related to any testing or dates of \npositive tests for COVID or the coronavirus. The medical evidence in this matter is simply void \nof any objective medical findings that the claimant suffered COVID illness or coronavirus on or \nabout August 6, 2020, as she has alleged. While I do realize, and the claimant has pointed out in \n\nGeels – H005785 \n \n-6- \nher  brief  to  the  Commission,  that  rules  and  restrictions  were  relaxed  during  this  time  period  of \n2020,  particularly  for  front-line  workers,  and  while  the  state  of  Arkansas  participated  in  that, \nthere was never any relaxing of Arkansas Code Annotated §11-9-102 regarding the requirement \nfor  objective  findings  to  establish  the  existence  of  the  injury  that  the  claimant  alleges  here  of \nCOVID  or  the  coronavirus.  As  such,  I  find  that  the  claimant  has  failed  to  meet  her  burden  of \nproof that she suffered a compensable COVID illness on or about August 6, 2020. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact  and conclusions of law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nNovember 29, 2022, and contained in an Amended Pre-hearing Order filed November 29, 2022, \nare hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \na compensable COVID-19 illness on or about August  6, 2020, which included symptoms listed \nin Claimant’s Contention No. 2. \n 3. The claimant has failed to prove her entitlement to medical treatment. \n 4.  The  claimant  has  failed  to  prove  her  entitlement  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits \nfrom April 5, 2022, to a date yet to be determined.  \n 5.  The  claimant  has  failed  to  prove  she  sustained  any  compensable  consequence  of  her \nalleged COVID-19 illness in the form of depression and anxiety. \n\nGeels – H005785 \n \n-7- \n 6. The  respondent’s request for a  credit  for short-term disability is moot as the claimant \nfailed to prove her alleged illness compensable.  \n ORDER \n Pursuant  to  the  above  findings  and  conclusions,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  deny  this \nclaim in its entirety. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n                                ____________________________                                              \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H005785 DONNA GEELS, Employee CLAIMANT FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC., Employer RESPONDENT ATA WC TRUST, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 7, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. Claimant u...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:09:12.958Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H005785-2023-03-07","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GEELS_DONNA_H005785_20230307.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}