{"id":"alj-H006753-2026-04-24","awcc_number":"H006753","decision_date":"2026-04-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jacob Shotzman","employer_name":"Wilbert Funeral Services Inc","title":"SHOTMAN VS. WILBERT FUNERAL SERVICES INC. AWCC# H006753 April 24, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SHOTZMAN_JACOB_H006753_20260424.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"SHOTZMAN_JACOB_H006753_20260424.pdf","text_length":9275,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n CLAIM NO. H006753 \n \nJACOB M. SHOTMAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nWILBERT FUNERAL SERVICES INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED APRIL 24, 2026 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by MICHAEL L. ELLIG, Attorney,  Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On  March 2, 2026, the above captioned claim was submitted in lieu of a hearing for decision \npursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement based on the stipulated record.    A pre-hearing conference \nwas conducted on January 8, 2026, and a pre-hearing order was filed on that same date.  A copy of \nthe pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made a part of the record \nwithout objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2.   All prior Opinions are res judicata. \n3.  The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on August 29, 2020. \n4.  The  compensation  rates  are  $480.00  for  temporary  total  disability  and  $360.00  for \npermanent partial disability.  \n\nShotzman-H006753 \n2 \n \n \nThe  parties  also  stipulated  that the  claimant  has  not  previously  undergone  an  independent \nmedical  evaluation  for  pain  management,  nor  has  he  previously  undergone  an  independent \npsychological evaluation.  \nThe issues in the prehearing order were:  \n1.  Respondents’ request for an independent medical examination by Dr. Carlos Roman. \n2.  Claimant’s entitlement to an independent psychological examination.   \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe  claimant  contended that  “The  claimant  is  entitled  to  an  independent  physiological \nexamination.”  \nThe  respondents  contended that “All  appropriate  benefits  are  being  paid  with  regard  to \nclaimant’s lower back injury sustained on August 29, 2020.  Claimant has undergone multiple surgeries \nwith Dr. James Blankenship, none of which appear to have been successful.  Dr. Blankenship has not \nrecommended  a  spinal  cord  stimulator,  and  claimant  did  not  pass  the  necessary  neuropsychic \nevaluation to obtain the same.  Respondents are requesting an IME with Dr. Carlos Roman to address \nthe multiple medications claimant is currently being prescribed to determine whether those medicines \nare reasonable and necessary.  This IME is being requested pursuant to ACA §11-9-511 and §11-9-\n811.    Respondents  contend  that  the  IME  is  reasonable  and  necessary  and  request  an  Order  for \nclaimant to attend the same with Dr. Roman.  Claimant has requested an independent psychological \nevaluation.  Claimant has already undergone one with Dr. Richard Back who determined that he is \nnot a candidate for a spinal cord stimulator.  There are no conflicting opinions on this issue, and an \nIPE is not reasonable and necessary.”   \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly before the Commission, and having reviewed the previous orders in this matter, the following \n\nShotzman-H006753 \n3 \n \n \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on January \n8, 2026, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact, as \nare the stipulations announced subsequent to the pre-hearing order.  \n 2.    Claimant’s request for an independent psychological evaluation is granted. \n 3.    Respondents’ request for an independent medical evaluation is granted.  \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n This matter has a long history, including two previous hearings.  The relevant finding from \nmy  July  1,  2021,  opinion  to  this  current  matter  was  that  claimant  met  his  burden  of  proof  by  a \npreponderance  of  evidence  that  he was entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  from  Dr.  James \nBlankenship.  On  July  11,  2024,  I  found  claimant  had again met  his  burden  of  proof  by  a \npreponderance  of  evidence  that  he was entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  from  Dr.  James \nBlankenship for his back injury.   \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n In addition to the joint medical exhibit of 78 pages, Commission exhibit #1 is the prehearing \norder;  the email exchange between the parties and the court as the decision was made to submit this \non a stipulated record is Commission exhibit #2.  \n \nADJUDICATION \n  \nThe question  to  be  decided  is  whether  the  parties'  cross-requests  for  independent  medical \nexaminations are reasonable and necessary in this matter. \n\nShotzman-H006753 \n4 \n \n \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-511(a) provides, in relevant part: \nAn injured employee claiming to be entitled to compensation shall submit to \nsuch  physical  examination  and  treatment  by  another  qualified  physician, \ndesignated or approved by the Workers' Compensation Commission, as the \nCommission may require from time to time if reasonable and necessary. The \nthreshold  question  is whether  the  examination  is  reasonable  and  necessary. \n(Emphasis added.) \n \n11 C.A.R. § 25-125 (formerly Rule 099.30(1)) of the Arkansas  \n \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission provides: \n \nAn independent medical examination shall include a study of previous history \nand  Medical  Care  information,  diagnostic  studies,  diagnostic  x-rays,  and \nlaboratory studies, as well as an examination and evaluation. This service may \nbe necessary in order to make a judgment regarding the current status of the \ninjured or ill worker, or to determine the need for further health care. (Emphasis \nadded.) \n \nRegarding claimant's request for an independent psychological examination, I note that Dr. \nRichard Back performed a pre-surgical psychology evaluation on April 16, 2025 (Exhibits 65-67). Dr. \nBack did not clear claimant for a spinal cord stimulator. However, significant clinical developments \noccurred between that evaluation and Dr. Blankenship's August 7, 2025, chart note questioning Dr. \nBack's  findings  (Exhibits  73-78),  including  an  August  4,  2025, lumbar  MRI  documenting  spinal \nstenosis and post-laminectomy syndrome (Exhibit 72) plus new 'right quad and hip flexor weakness... \n4/5  strength'  attributed  to  implant  extrusion. Dr.  Back's  evaluation  was  limited  to  stimulator \ncandidacy. After reviewing all records, I find a second psychological IME is reasonable and necessary \nto  determine  appropriate  care  at  this  time.  This  matter  will  be  referred  to  the  Medical  Cost \nContainment Division. \nTurning  now  to  respondents'  request,  they  seek  an  IME  by  Dr.  Carlos  Roman  to  evaluate \nclaimant's  physical  condition  and  medication  regimen  following  multiple  failed  surgeries.  The  joint \nexhibits amply  demonstrate  ongoing issues,  including 6-10/10  lumbar  pain with  positive  right  SLR \n\nShotzman-H006753 \n5 \n \n \n(Exhibit 1); Dr. Blankenship's documentation of hip flexor/quad weakness (Exhibits 59-64, 73-78); \nthe August 4, 2025, MRI showing spinal stenosis/post-laminectomy syndrome (Exhibit 72); and failed \nconservative measures including PT and ESI. \nGiven this claim's protracted history since the 2020 injury, including three lumbar fusions (L5-\nS1 May 2022; L4-L5 April 2023, September 2024 with implant extrusion), I find the request reasonable \nand necessary as it could benefit the Commission in determining what care is appropriate. However, \nI decline to appoint Dr. Roman to serve in this capacity; this matter will also be referred to the Medical \nCost Containment Division for the selection of an independent medical evaluator.  \nORDER \n \nClaimant's request for an independent psychological examination is granted. This matter will be \nreferred  to  the  Medical  Cost  Containment  Division  of  the  Commission  to  select  an  appropriate \nphysician. \nRespondents’ request for an Independent Medical Examination is granted.  This matter will be \nreferred to the Medical Cost Containment Division to select an appropriate physician.  \nThe cost of these examinations is to be borne by respondents, including mileage for claimant's \ntravel. The parties should provide the physicians selected by the Medical Cost Containment Division \nthe  medical  records,  including  any  diagnostic  testing  previously  performed,  in  order  for  those \nphysicians to have a complete record of what has transpired to this point. If either physician selected \nbelieves additional diagnostic procedures are necessary to properly evaluate the claimant, such should \nbe promptly authorized by respondents. \nThe parties shall cooperate promptly in scheduling these examinations. \n \n \n\nShotzman-H006753 \n6 \n \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                            \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H006753 JACOB M. SHOTMAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WILBERT FUNERAL SERVICES INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 24, 2026 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebasti...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:09.679Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H006753-2026-04-24","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SHOTZMAN_JACOB_H006753_20260424.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}