{"id":"alj-H005904-2024-09-24","awcc_number":"H005904","decision_date":"2024-09-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Barbara Grant","employer_name":"Baptist Health","title":"GRANT VS. BAPTIST HEALTH AWCC# H005904 September 24, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["hip","back","lumbar","thoracic","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GRANT_BARBARA_H005904_20240924.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GRANT_BARBARA_H005904_20240924.pdf","text_length":25628,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H005904 \n \nBARBARA GRANT, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nBAPTIST HEALTH, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER              RESPONDENT \n    \nCLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR SERVICES, TPA         RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 24 SEPTEMBER 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 26 June 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe Wren Law Firm, Mr. Daniel Wren, for the claimant. \n \nWorley, Wood & Parrish, PA, Mr. Jarrod Parrish, for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 26 June 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas. The \nparties participated in a pre-hearing telephone conference on 21 May 2024. A Prehearing \nOrder, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1, was entered \non 22 May 2024. \nThe parties agreed to the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  The employee/employer/TPA relationship existed at all relevant times. \n3.  The claimant sustained a compensable work injury on 8 August 2020 that was \naccepted as compensable and has received some benefits, accordingly, on the claim.  \nThe sole ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED was whether the claimant is entitled to \nadditional medical treatment. Specifically, she claims that she is entitled to additional MRI \nimaging. All other potential issues have been reserved. \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n2 \n \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their Prehearing Questionnaire \nResponses, were incorporated into the Prehearing Order.  \nPer the claimant’s CONTENTIONS, she exercised her right to a change of physician \nto Dr. Kenneth Rosenzweig, whom she saw on 11 December 2023. Dr. Rosenzweig \nrequested an MRI of the pelvis with attention to the bilateral hips and the right sacroiliac \n(SI) joint. The respondents denied coverage for the same. \nPer the respondents’ CONTENTIONS, all appropriate benefits have been provided. \nThe claimant was released with no restrictions and a 0% impairment rating. The \nrespondents contend that additional treatment, specifically the MRI imaging, is not \nnecessary or reasonable. Alternatively, they contend that the requested treatment is not \nrelated to her accepted work injury. \nThe claimant was the sole WITNESS testifying at the hearing. The EVIDENCE \npresented consisted of her testimony along with Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 22 May \n2024 Prehearing Order), Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (Dr. Rosenzweig’s New Patient H&P note \nand request for additional imaging), and Respondents’ Exhibit Nos 1 (54 pages of various \nmedical records) and 2 (three pages of non-medical records). \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the \nwitness, observing her demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of \nlaw under ACA § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The previously noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nto additional treatment in the form of additional MRI studies of her pelvis. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY & MEDICAL EVIDENCE \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n3 \n \nClaimant Barbara Grant \n The claimant testified that she is currently working for the respondent-employer \n(Baptist) as a utilization review nurse. At the time of her August 2020 workplace accident, \nhowever, she was nursing in direct patient care. She testified that she injured herself when \nshe slipped on the floor walking out of a patient room. The injury was reported, and \ntreatment was provided. The claimant eventually underwent right hip surgery with Dr. \nJames Tucker to repair a torn labrum. \n She was later found to be at maximum medical improvement and released without \nany restrictions by Dr. Tucker. The claimant testified that returning to floor nursing was \ndifficult, so Baptist accommodated her with a move to utilization review, which is a desk \njob. Discussing the ongoing difficulty she associates with her work injury, she stated, \n“continued back pain, mobility issues, pain issues.” [TR at 11.] She also testified that she \nexperiences tremors, which “have been ongoing since the beginning... they come and go. \nSome days are worse, some days are better.” [TR at 12.] \n On cross examination, the claimant stated that she has experienced shaking and \ntremors since her injury and throughout her treatment. She acknowledged that her \nutilization review position is a permanent job and that it pays more than her previous \nposition with the Baptist. The claimant also acknowledged previous diagnostic studies: \nQ:  All right. Now, I’m going to review with you all the diagnostic studies that \nyou’ve had in the claim. You had an MRI on your lumbar spine in August of \n2020, MRI of your right hip in October 2020, an EMG study in March of ’21, a \nright hip arthrogram in March of ’21, an MRI of your right hip again in July \nof ’21, a CT of your lumbar spine in October ’21, an MRI of your thoracic and \nlumbar spine in December of ’21, and another MRI of your low back in \nJanuary of ’22. Do you dispute that you’ve had all those diagnostic studies? \nA:  No, I do not.  \nQ:  So that would be three MRIs and a CT on your low back, two MRIs and an \narthrogram on your right hip and a MRI of your thoracic spine. Seven total \ndiagnostic studies, right? \nA:  Yes.  \nQ:  Okay. Three of them including your right hip, right? \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n4 \n \nA:  Yes, sir. \nQ:  And what are you asking for here today? \nA:  Another MRI of my pelvis and bilateral hips. \nQ:  Okay. And when I look at Dr. Rosenzweig’s report, he only references an \nMRI of the lumbar spine in March of ’23 not the two hip MRIs or the hip \narthrogram. Do you have any explanation for why he would not have \ndiscussed or documented those prior studies on the area he’s recommending a \nstudy for? \nA:  No, other than the most recent imaging that I have is what I provided him \nwith. \nQ:  Okay. You agree— \nJudge:  Is that to say he doesn’t have access to the other studies and \nimaging reports? \nA:  I am not sure if he has access and they—he didn’t ask me to bring \nthat. He asked me to bring the most recent, which is what I took. \nQ:  Okay. You’ll agree with me you did not take the disc or films from any of \nthe diagnostic studies dealing with your right hip, the two MRIs or the \narthrogram? \nA:  Yes.  \nQ:  Okay. And you agree with me it would be important for Dr. Rosenzweig to \nknow about all the other diagnostic studies if, in fact, he’s going to \nrecommend more diagnostic studies, right? \nA:  Yes. \n \n[TR at 16-18.] \n The claimant went on to testify that she also began having left hip pain after Dr. \nTucker’s release, but that she did not report that to Baptist. She acknowledged that Dr. \nTucker was her authorized provider before exercising her change of physician to Dr. \nRosenzweig, but that she also saw “Dr. Moore, Dr. Maggio, Dr. Brown, and docs at the Air \nForce Clinic” on her own in the meantime. [TR at 19.] The claimant testified that despite \nthe details of her care with those other providers not appearing in Dr. Rosenzweig’s notes, \nshe did discuss the care they provided with him. She acknowledged that she’d been released \nfrom care by Drs. Cayme, Tucker, and Vargas; that she’d already undergone seven \ndiagnostic studies; and that Dr. Rosenzweig’s request for an MRI was “primarily driven” by \nher “subjective” complaints. [TR at 21.] \n The respondents’ counsel asked if she understood the purpose of a Functional \nCapacity Evaluation (FCE) and if she “knew it was important to be honest and to put forth \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n5 \n \nconsistent effort.” [TR at 22.] The claimant answered in the affirmative. He asked if she felt \nunwell on the day of the evaluation or if she had “any issue with the evaluator and how \nthey dealt with you.” Id. She denied feeling unwell or having any issues. The 17 September \n2021 FCE returned a reliability score of 38 out of 55. The conversation around the \nreliability of her effort continued: \nQ:  So the one opportunity you have to show objectively what you can and \ncan’t do and at a time when you knew you needed to give honest consistent \neffort, you produced a 38 out of 55 reliability score, right? \nA:  Yes, sir. \nQ:  And you, at your deposition, told me you had no explanation for that. \nA:  Well, I have an explanation, but I’m not going to state that here. I tried \nmy hardest. \nQ:  You’ll agree with me that’s the only assessment we have of the reliability \nof your complaints? \nA:  Yes. \nQ:  As far as objective testing, right? \nA:  Yes. \nQ:  Okay. \nJudge:  Well, the reliability score, if that’s going to go toward your \ncredibility in the general sense as to, you know, your condition and \nwhat you’re experiencing, if you have an explanation then, do you not? \nYou just told me you had something you don’t want to tell us. I would \nbe interested to hear. \n A:  I went— \n Judge:  I mean, you don’t have to. It’s your choice. \nA:  I went in there and I did everything that I could to the best of my \nability and the guy was very nice. We had casual conversations, while \nI took breaks in between and I, honestly, feel like, because it’s a \nworkers’ comp claim and they don’t want to deal with it, they give you \na score that they want to give you. Because [Mr. Wren] had already \ntold me in advance to go in there and do it, to make sure I tried with \nthe best of my ability, which I did. \n Judge:  Okay. \nQ:  So ma’am, are you insinuating or indicating that the evaluator, who you \ntold me you didn’t have any problems with, manufactured a 38 out of 55? \nA:  Yes. \n \n[TR at 23-24.] \n Claimant’s counsel objected to further questioning around the FCE and the \nclaimant’s opinion on the validity of the testing as not being relevant. The objection was \noverruled, and the claimant went on to state that she did not complain about the FCE at \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n6 \n \nher deposition because she “was thinking more on personal terms,” and she did not dislike \nthe evaluator. [TR at 28.] The claimant was unsure why she would be targeted for an \nuntruthful evaluation report, saying, “I don’t know why I would be singled out. I do know \nthat the injury that I have is complicated and a lot of people don’t understand it and it does \nsometimes appear that it’s not real, but it’s real.” [TR at 30.] \n After some more back-and-forth, the claimant was asked: \nQ:  So, ma’am, my question before the objection was: If this evaluator, truly, \nwas trying to sabotage you and set you up and close your claim out and get \nyou out of here, why would he not give you a stinky score like 22 out of 55, 25 \nout of 55? \nA:  Because— \n Mr. Wren:  Your Honor, objection. It calls for speculation. \nJudge:  Yeah, the objection is noted. It does. It calls for—but it’s her \nopinion. It’s a speculative opinion. If you can answer the question, \nthen do. If you don’t know, you don’t know. \nA:  If they’re gonna—they don’t want it to look bad, like they are faking it and \nputting stuff in there that’s false, they’re not going to make it super low. \n \n[TR at 33-34.] The claimant went on to say that she was not pursuing any formal claims \nalleging fraudulent practices against the FCE evaluator. “I wouldn’t want to ruin \nsomebody’s career over my feelings and my opinions, except of proof.” [TR at 36.] \nMedical Evidence \n On 27 March 2014, the claimant saw Dr. David Johnson who noted, “Barbara comes \nwith chronic pain... She has seen Dr. Brad Thomas and Dr. Ricca for her back, but \ncontinues to have issues and has to take pain management.” [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 1.] \n On 6 October 2014, Dr. Johnson also noted, “comes with right leg pain. She has had \nthis for almost a month. It is burning and stinging mostly from the hip down to the heel.” \nHe assessed Cervical Disc Degeneration, Pain in Limb, and Chronic Pain. An EMG and \nnerve conduction study was scheduled for her right leg. [Id. at 8.] \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n7 \n \n An MRI of the lumbar spine on 27 August 2020 revealed a “small disc protrusion at \nL5-S1... in close proximity to the traversing right S1 nerve root in the right paracentral \nspace without definite mass effect or approximation.” [Id. at 9.] \n An MRI scan of her right lower extremity was conducted on 30 October 2020, and no \nremarkable findings were reported. \n Dr. Edward Saer saw the claimant on 2 November 2020 and reviewed her MRI \nfindings. He assessed: \nShe is symptomatically the same. She says she is going to start physical \ntherapy again tomorrow. The MRI of the hip is basically negative. There is no \nevidence of labral tear, no increased marrow signal or AVN, no joint effusion. \nI reassured her that her hip really is okay. Her symptoms are likely referred \nfrom the lumbar spine. At this point she has had good treatment and I think \nthat she just needs to complete her therapy. Hopefully she will begin to \nimprove soon. \n \n[Id. at 13.] \nA nerve conduction/EMG study was performed on 1 March 2021. The findings were \nwithin normal limits and Dr. Rodrigo Cayme’s impression was of a normal study. [Id. at \n14.] He released the claimant without any restrictions. \nA right hip arthrogram was then performed on 24 March 2021. Dr. Samuel Edwards \nfound a “tear of the right acetabular labrum between the 1:00 and 10:00 positions.” [Id. at \n18.] \nOn 13 April 2021, Dr. Cayme released the claimant to work without restrictions. [Id. \nat 19.] \nAnother MRI scan of the right hip was performed on 14 July 2021. The impression \nincluded, “Asymmetric deformity and truncation of the right labrum. This is seen anteriorly \nand laterally. This is consistent with labral tear without a known history of surgery. No \nhistory of surgery is provided.\" [Id. at 20.] That report was modified later the same day to \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n8 \n \nnote, “Patient does have a history of prior right labral repair. Findings are consistent with \npostoperative change.” [Id. at 21.] \n On 12 August 2021 Dr. Victor Vargas released the claimant to work without \nrestrictions. [Id. at 22.] \n The claimant presented for an FCE on 17 September 2021. That evaluation report \nstated: \nThe results of this evaluation indicate that an unreliable effort was put forth, \nwith 38 of 55 consistency measures within expected limits... during formal \nAROM testing, she demonstrated that she was not able to flex her hip more \nthan 75 degrees. However, during functional aspects of testing, she was \nobserved repeatedly assuming a flex position of her hip greater than 90 \ndegrees. She also failed to produce a significant cardiovascular response to \nphysical testing that would indicate that a significant degree of effort was \nbeing put forth. Her gait was also not consistent throughout the evaluation. \nDuring the walking trials she exhibited bulking/jerking movements of her \nright hip, but during prolonged walking and at other points throughout the \nevaluation she was observed walking with a smooth uninhibited gait pattern. \nShe also had pain reports that did not correlate with her movement patterns. \nHer frequent pain report level of 8 does not correlate with the description of \nthis level of pain provided to her and she failed to exhibit outward \ncompensatory movements. \n. . . \nShe reports she did more PT and injections and then underwent surgery in \nMay of 2021. She reports she has more PT after surgery and has had more \nMRIs which showed that her hip looks fine... She reports that her treatment \nhas consisted of physical therapy and injections in her right hip... Ms. Grant \ndescribes her pain as being in her right hip. She reports additional areas of \npain that include her low back which she does correlate to her work related \ninjury.  \n \n[Id. at 23, 26.] \n  The claimant then returned to Dr. Tucker after the FCE, and he noted the following: \nBarbara Grant presents back today for recheck. She continues to have \nbuckling of the right thigh and hip with ambulation. We have been unable to \nfind any anatomic source for this. The postoperative MRI has shown no signs \nof any pathology in the hip. We obtained a functional capacity exam to \nattempt to assign permanent work restrictions as she has now reached \nmaximal medical improvement. However the effort and symptoms on the \nFCE were inconsistent and they could not give us a valid set of work \nrestrictions. I discussed this with Ms. Grant today. There is really nothing \nmore that I can find to improve her hip or function. I will not be able to \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n9 \n \nassign permanent work restrictions secondary to the FCE. There is no \npermanent partial impairment based on the AMA guide to permanent partial \nimpairment ratings volume 4. Therefore we are releasing her to return to \nwork without restrictions and without an impairment rating. She was \ninstructed to follow-up as needed if she had any change in symptoms or new \noccurrence of injury. \n \n[Id. at 45.] Dr. Tucker also entered a Return to Work note that stated, “She has reached \nMMI and may return to work full duty. No impairment rating assigned.” [Id. at 46.] \n On 15 October 2021, the claimant presented to an emergency department with \ncomplaints of back pain. That note states that she reported a recent return to work after a \nlumbar injury and that she awoke that morning with her back spasming. Mild degenerative \nchanges were noted on a CT scan of her lower lumbar spine. She was diagnosed with \ndegenerative lumbar disc disease and lumbar muscle pain. She was prescribed Valium for \nmuscle spasms, topical Lidocaine patches, and a steroid dosepak. [Id. at 49-50.] \n The claimant presented for a thoracic spine MRI on 7 December 2021. Her history \nnoted, “Low back pain radiating to the right hip. Patient states that her hip and upper right \nthigh are sensitive to touch. Patient reports the pain is now radiating to the back and a \nlittle below her bra line.” The conclusions from that scan were: \nC-shaped curvature of the lumbar spine with main convexity to the right \nside. \n \nA broad-based disc bulge most pronounced in the central position as the C5-6 \nlevel seen on scout imaging with suggestion of partial effacement of the \nventral cord. \n \nSmall left paracentral protrusion at T7-8. \n \nRetrolisthesis, shallow broad-based disc bulge with superimposed central \nprotrusion, posterior annular tear and moderate facet hypertrophy at the L5-\nS1 level contributing to mild exiting neural foraminal stenosis and no nerve \nroot compression. \n \n[Id. at 52-53.] \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n10 \n \nThe claimant saw Dr. Rosenzweig as an authorized provider, after a change of \nphysician, on 11 December 2023. The note from her examination by Dr. Rosenzweig \nincludes: \nShe has ongoing groin pain, burning pain, back pain and hip pain. She is \nunder contract with pain management at Arkansas Spine and Pain. She \nreceives currently hydrocodone and had been on oxycodone. She had a variety \nof injections. She had an FCE which revealed inconsistent effort and non-\nreliable evaluation and was discharged from Dr. Jimmy Tucker’s care. The \nlast MRI of the lumbar spine was on 03/24/2023, which revealed degenerative \ndisc changes at 5-1 with a broad-based protrusion at 5-1, mild facet \narthropathy 3-4 through 5-1. No evidence of stenosis. She had a visit recently \nwith Dr. Phillips who felt that she might be myelopathic and recommended \nMRI of the thoracic spine. This was based on hyperreflexia. \n. . .  \nPrevious surgery hip arthroscopy with a labral repair. Although not reported \nin this note, she has had a prior intervention with the SI joint injection, \nlateral femoral cutaneous nerve injection for meralgia parasthetica. \n. . .  \nPain drawing reveals pain across the low back over the right greater \ntrochanter area over the anterior superior iliac spine, mid back and left flank \npain. \n. . .  \nPain score is 8...she began shaking and quivering in her right leg with her \nexamination...the quivering in her leg with examination appears to be pain \ninduced but somewhat unusual finding that did not follow a specific nerve or \nmuscle group. \n \nIMPRESSION: Chronic back and right hip pain status post arthroscopic \nlabral repair. \n \nPLAIN/RECOMMENDATIONS:  Deferred for further assessment of an MRI \npending per Dr. Phillips and review medical records. Consider updating MRI \nof her pelvis. Check the status of her hip. She states her left hip was hurting \nand is why I would like to have this included on MRI. I do not have a clear \nanswer for her source of chronic pain. I did review her MRI of the lumbar \nspine which appeared to be relatively benign. The hip and pelvis MRI would \nbe helpful to assess her iliopsoas tendon and the status of her labral repair.  \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1.] \n \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted as fact. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of the witnesses and observing their \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n11 \n \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 \n(1999).   \nA.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL MEDICAL BENEFITS. \n \nAn employer is required to provide treatment that may be reasonably necessary in \nconnection with a compensable injury. ACA § 11-9-508(a). Reasonable and necessary \nmedical services may include those necessary to diagnose a compensable injury, to reduce \nor alleviate symptoms, to maintain healing, or to prevent further deterioration of damage. \nJordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995). The employee has \nthe burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is \nreasonably necessary. Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W. 3d 445 \n(2005). In so doing, she must also establish that the treatment is causally related to her \nwork injury. Pulaski Cty. Spec. Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, 2013 Ark. App. 569, 2013 WL 5592602. \nWhat constitutes reasonably necessary treatment is a question of fact for the Commission. \nDalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999). \n I do not find that the claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that \nanother MRI scan of her hip is reasonably necessary. The claimant was released by Dr. \nTucker in September of 2021 and then eventually saw Dr. Rosenzweig through a change of \nphysician in December of 2023. The history she provided for her 2021 FCE noted that since \nsurgery, she “has had more MRIs which showed that her hip looks fine.” Dr. Tucker’s note \nupon her release stated that “the postoperative MRI has shown no signs of any pathology in \nthe hip.” \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n12 \n \nShe even acknowledged in her testimony that it is “important for Dr. Rosenzweig to know \nabout all the other diagnostic studies if, in fact, he’s going to recommend more diagnostic \nstudies.” \n Yet, she testified that she did not provide Dr. Rosenzweig with any discs or reports \nfrom past studies, except for a 2023 lumbar spine MRI, which she explained as, “He asked \nme to bring the most recent, which is what I took.” Additionally, she testified that she had \nbeen seen by several other providers, between Drs. Tucker and Rosenzweig, who are not \nnoted in Dr. Rosenzweig’s record. Dr. Rosenzweig’s note indicates that a “hip and pelvis \nMRI would be helpful to assess her iliopsoas tendon and the status of her labral repair.” Dr. \nTucker’s discharge note, however, comments exactly that an MRI has already shown no \npostoperative pathology.  \nAbsent evidence that Dr. Rosenzweig’s recommendation was based on a review of \nthe relevant past imaging (imaging that the claimant acknowledged would be important for \nhis review) and that he either discounted the findings therein or that he had reason to \nbelieve that new symptomology required new imaging, I do not find that the claimant is \nentitled to additional medical benefits in the form of additional MRI scans. In the absence \nof the same, I am unable to credit Dr. Rosenzweig’s opinion as one that is fully informed. \nSee Poulan Weed Easter v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002) (the \nCommission is authorized to accept or reject a medical opinion and is authorized to \ndetermine its medical soundness and probative value). Accordingly, the claimant has failed \nto meet her burden of proof on her claim for additional medical benefits. \nI should note that this finding does not turn on the lengthy back-and-forth in the \nrecord (and my rulings on the objections) around the claimant’s suspicions and accusations \nrelated to the FCE or the evaluator. She opened the door to the respondents’ questions \nabout the veracity of the testing itself, and I find her speculative opinions relevant with \n\nB. GRANT- H005904 \n13 \n \nregard to her discounting of the merit of the FCE report. And while I do find her \naccusations to be without merit and find her credibility to be lacking with regard to her \nactual efforts on the exam, I do not find her credibility on the nature of her ongoing \ncomplaints to be at issue in the question before me— whether additional imaging is \nreasonable and necessary in light of her admission that she did not provide all of the \nrelevant studies to Dr. Rosenzweig. \nV.  ORDER \n     Consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, this claim for \nadditional benefits is denied and dismissed.  \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H005904 BARBARA GRANT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BAPTIST HEALTH, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR SERVICES, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 24 SEPTEMBER 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law Judge...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:18.167Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H005904-2024-09-24","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GRANT_BARBARA_H005904_20240924.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}