{"id":"alj-H008038-2025-09-05","awcc_number":"H008038","decision_date":"2025-09-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Teresa Washington","employer_name":"Dept. Of Correction (e. Ark. Reg.)","title":"WASHINGTON VS. DEPT. OF CORRECTION (E. ARK. REG.) AWCC# H008038 September 05, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["carpal tunnel","back","wrist"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Washington_Teresa_H008038_20250905.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Washington_Teresa_H008038_20250905.pdf","text_length":21472,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H008038 \n \nTEREASA WASHINGTON, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nDEPT. OF CORRECTION (E. ARK. REG.), EMPLOYER   RESPONDENT \n \nSTATE OF ARKANSAS, CARRIER  RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA   RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on July 18,  2025,  in Forrest  City,  St. \nFrancis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, Pro Se, Ankeny, Iowa. \n \nRespondents  were  represented  by  Mr. Charles  H.  McLemore, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A full hearing was held on this claim on July 18, 2025. A prehearing telephone conference \ntook place on March 12, 2025. A prehearing order was entered on the same day, and subsequently \nentered  into  evidence  as  Commission  Exhibit  1,  without  objection  or  amendment. The  parties \nconfirmed the stipulations and the issues at the hearing. The parties’ stipulations are set forth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim.   \n \n2. An  employer/employee relationship  existed  on August  6,  2020,  when \nClaimant sustained bilateral carpal tunnel injury. \n \n3. Respondents have accepted this original claim as compensable and certain \nbenefits have been paid. \n \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n2 \n \n4. Claimant’s average weekly wage was $540.54, entitling her to temporary \ntotal disability rate of $360.00 weekly, and a permanent partial disability \nrate of $270.00 weekly.\n1\n  \n \n5. The  claim  has  previously  been  litigated,  with  a  final  decision  of  the \nArkansas Court of Appeals dated March 13, 2024, which is res judicata and \nthe law of the case. \n \n \nThe parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional reasonable and necessary medical treatment, \nincluding surgeries by unauthorized physician, Dr. David M. Rhodes, and related \nexpenses, including mileage and out of pocket expenses. \n \n2. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  Temporary  Total  Disability  (TTD) \ncommencing January 10, 2023, until a date yet to be determined. \n \n All other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \nClaimant contends: \nBecause my hands have never gotten well after I had surgery, I had to have surgery a second \ntime and I feel that I should have started back being paid after the second surgery.  I am currently \nseeing Dr. Paulson in Ankeny, Iowa at Iowa Ortho and I have surgery scheduled for February 29\nth\n \non my hands which continue to cause troubles.  Dr. Paulson did another nerve exam, and it \nshowed that my carpel tunnel is still there.  I know this doctor was not approved by Workers’ \nComp., but I am still having problems and that is the facts. \nRespondent contends: \nThat this claim was the subject of a hearing on April 15, 2022. An opinion from the ALJ \ndated July 12, 2022, was appealed by the Claimant to the Full Commission, which issued its own \n \n1\n These rates were stipulated to at the full hearing by both parties. \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n3 \n \ndecision on November 14, 2022. Respondent appealed that decision to the Arkansas Court of \nAppeals, which issued its opinion dated March 13, 2024.  This decision is now final, res judicata, \nand the law of the case.   \nRespondent has provided the Claimant with medical treatment, including conservative \ntreatment, injections and therapy for her wrists. The Claimant chose to see Dr. Sean Morrell.  The \nClaimant underwent surgery for carpal tunnel release on her right arm on October 26, 2020, by Dr. \nMorrell. The Claimant ultimately underwent surgery on her left arm on February 24, 2021, by Dr. \nMorrell. On December 17, 2020, the Claimant was released to return to work full duty without \nrestriction by Dr. Morrell following her right wrist surgery.  \nOn April 23, 2021, the Claimant was released at Maximum Medical Improvement by Dr. \nMorrell with no work restrictions so that she could return to her full duty employment. The \nClaimant in fact did return to work and subsequently filed a new claim for another injury. The \nClaimant was granted her one-time Change of Physician to see Dr. Michael Hood on June 22, \n2021. The Claimant requested the Change of Physician to get an impairment rating. Dr. Hood did \nnot take the Claimant off work, he in fact, stated that the Claimant could return to work full duty. \nAs for treatment, it is obvious the Claimant was prescribed hand exercises to perform at home \nfrom her testimony at the hearing that Dr. Hood gave her clay to roll up in her hand. Dr. Hood \nordered a Functional Capacity Evaluation, which the Claimant underwent July 28, 2021, where \nshe  performed  reliably  in  the medium classification  of  work.  The Claimant  demanded  an \nimpairment rating assigned by Dr. Hood, which was the subject of the previous hearing.   \nWhile the case was on appeal, the Claimant demanded additional treatment. The Claimant \nwas provided by Respondent a return visit to Dr. Hood after she refused to see Dr. Morrell again. \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n4 \n \nDr. Hood did not recommend surgery for the Claimant. The Claimant has now seen another \nphysician on her own, who is not an authorized physician, underwent surgery by that physician, \nevidently has had or intends to have additional surgery with that physician, and now demands that \nshe  be  provided  additional  period(s)  of  TTD  benefits  related  to  her  surgery(ies)  by  that \nunauthorized physician.  \nRespondents contend that the medical treatment the Claimant demands as an issue for a \nhearing is treatment with an unauthorized physician(s), that the Claimant is not entitled to another \nChange Of Physician, and that the Claimant cannot meet her burden of proving that additional \nmedical treatment by this unauthorized physician is reasonable and necessary for and causally \nrelated to her injury after the authorized physician she chose herself declined to do surgery on the \nClaimant. The Respondent further contends that the Claimant is not entitled to additional disability \nbenefits for period(s) related to her unauthorized medical treatment, nor is the Claimant entitled to \nperiods(s) of disability related to medical treatment which was not reasonable and necessary for \nand causally related to the injury. The Respondent reserves the right to raise additional contentions, \nor to modify those stated herein, pending the completion of discovery. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and the \nevidentiary  record,  I  hereby  make  the  following  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the treatment Claimant has received \nfrom  Dr.  David  M.  Rhodes  was  unauthorized.  Thus, the  cost  of  that  unauthorized \ntreatment and related expenses, including mileage and out of pocket expenses, is not \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n5 \n \nthe financial obligation of the Respondents.  \n \n4. The  Claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  is \nentitled to additional TTD benefits. \n \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Respondents’ Exhibit 1, correspondence, consisting of 1 page; \nRespondents’  Exhibit  2,  medical  records,  consisting  of  4  pages;  Respondents’  Exhibit  3, \ndocumentary evidence, consisting of 10 pages; Commission Exhibit 1, Pre-Hearing Order Filed \nMarch 12, 2025, consisting of 7 pages total. I have entered into the record by reference the previous \ntranscript of the full hearing that took place on April 15, 2022, the opinion from that hearing issued \non July 12, 2022, the de novo opinion from the Full Commission issued on November 14, 2022, \nand the appellate opinion from the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued on March 13, 2024. The \nClaimant did not enter any exhibits into the record. The Claimant was the only witness testifying \nat the full hearing.  \nThe Claimant was employed as a mental health advisor for the Respondent/Employer in \nFebruary 2017. April 15, 2022, TR 15. Her job was to make rounds on over 100 inmates three \ntimes a week and to type her reports. Claimant testified that she had to increase her job duties when \nCovid hit the State of Arkansas. Claimant began experiencing numbness and tingling in her arms \nin August 2020. Subsequently, the Claimant underwent surgery for her right upper extremity on \nOctober 26, 2020, (April 15, 2022, TR 20) and on her left upper extremity on February 24, 2021. \nApril 15, 2022, TR 24. The surgeries were performed by Dr. Sean Morrell, who eventually placed \nthe Claimant at maximum medical improvement with 0% permanent anatomic impairment rating \non April 23, 2021. April 15, 2022, TR 25. \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n6 \n \n The Claimant thereafter obtained a change-of-physician order to see Dr. Michael Hood \ndue to ongoing symptoms affecting both upper extremities, which included swelling, numbness, \npain, and weakness. April 15, 2022, TR 26-31. Dr. Hood gave the Claimant exercises to do to help \nwith  her condition. Id. Dr.  Hood  also  ordered  a  Functional  Capacity  Evaluation  which  was \nperformed on July 28, 2021, and received a 10% permanent anatomic impairment rating for each \nof her upper extremities. April 15, 2022, TR 32-34. The Respondents disputed this rating, and a \nfull hearing was held on April 15, 2022, to resolve the matter. Administrative Law Judge Terry \nDon Lucy, in an opinion filed on July 12, 2022, found that the Claimant had failed to prove by the \npreponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to a 10% impairment rating for each of her \nupper extremities. See Lucy Opinion dated July 12, 2022. Judge Lucy based his opinion on how \nDr. Hood assessed the Claimant’s injuries using subjective factors, not objective factors. Id.   \nThe Claimant appealed this decision to the Full Commission which reversed Judge Lucy’s \ndecision and found that the Claimant did prove by the preponderance of the evidence that she was \nentitled to a 10% impairment rating for each of her upper extremities. See Full Commission \nOpinion dated November 14, 2022. The Respondents appealed the Full Commission’s decision to \nthe Arkansas Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Full Commission’s decision on March 13, 2024. \nSee ADOC v. Washington, 2024 Ark. App. 181, 685 S.W.3d 347 (2024). \nDuring the time of the appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, the Claimant demanded \nadditional treatment. The Respondents agreed to provide the Claimant a return visit to Dr. Hood, \nafter she refused to see Dr. Morrell. Dr. Hood did not recommend surgery. The Claimant, without \nRespondent’s authorization, saw another physician, Dr. David M. Rhodes, and testified that she \nunderwent a surgery to her right upper extremity on April 14, 2023. It is important to note that \nbefore this operation, the Claimant signed an acknowledgement of Form AR-N on September 12, \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n7 \n \n2020. See April 15, 2022, TR 165-167.  Despite having the alleged unauthorized surgery by Dr. \nRhodes, Claimant testified that it did not improve her condition. The Claimant now wants the \nRespondents to pay for the treatment she had received from Dr. Rhodes.  \nAdjudication \nA. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment, including surgeries by unauthorized physician, Dr. David M. Rhodes, \nand related expenses, including mileage and out of pocket expenses. \n \n Arkansas Code Annotated Section 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012) states that an employer shall \nprovide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may be necessary in connection with \nthe injury received by the employee.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d \n153 (2003).  But employers are liable only for such treatment and services as are deemed necessary \nfor the treatment of the claimant’s injuries.  DeBoard v. Colson Co., 20 Ark. App. 166, 725 S.W.2d \n857 (1987).  The claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment \nis reasonable and necessary for the treatment of a compensable injury.  Brown, supra; Geo \nSpecialty Chem. v. Clingan, 69 Ark. App. 369, 13 S.W.3d 218 (2000). The standard “preponderance \nof the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, \n2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d \n442 (1947).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for \nthe Commission.  White Consolidated Indus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); \nWackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much \nweight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n8 \n \nconflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \nto believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into \nfindings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n Claimant has a compensable injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, in both wrists. She underwent \nsurgery by Dr. Morrell on October 16, 2020, for her right wrist, and on February 24, 2021, for her \nleft wrist. Dr. Morrell stated that the Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement for \nher work-related injuries on April 23, 2021. See April 15, 2021, TR 136-150. I credit this statement \nand find by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant’s healing period ended on April 23, \n2021. \n Despite having the surgery, she continued to have discomfort in her wrists and visited Dr. \nRhodes, without Respondents’ authorization, on January 10, 2023. There she complained about \nnumbness and tingling in both of her wrists that were associated with her compensable work-\nrelated injury. Respondents’ Exhibit 3, pp. 7-9. Dr. Rhodes recommended surgery to redo the “right \nmedian  nerve  decompression  at  the  wrist  through  an  extended  approach.” Id. Despite  this \nrecommendation, the Respondents’ arranged for an appointment with Dr. Hood, since Dr. Rhodes \nwas not an authorized provider.  \n The Claimant visited Dr. Hood on February 21, 2023. Respondents’ Exhibit 2. Dr. Hood’s \nvisit/medical note made clear that he did not believe the Claimant was “a good candidate for \nrevision carpal tunnel release. However, if it is desired, she should see a dedicated hand specialist.” \nId. Dr. Hood further opined that Claimant has achieved her “maximal recovery level.” Id. Dr. Hood \nassessed a final impairment rating for Claimant of 10% for each upper extremity. Id. Despite Dr. \nHood’s position, the Claimant testified that she was still experiencing symptoms with both of her \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n9 \n \nupper extremities and returned to Dr. Rhodes, without the authorization of the Respondents, for \nadditional treatment.   \n As the Arkansas Court of Appeals has held, a claimant may be entitled to additional \ntreatment, even after the healing period has ended, if said treatment is geared toward management \nof the injury.  See Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004); Artex \nHydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983).  Such services can include \nthose for the purpose of diagnosing the nature and extent of the compensable injury; reducing or \nalleviating symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; maintaining the level of healing \nachieved; or preventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury.  \nJordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra.  A claimant \nis not required to furnish objective medical evidence of her continued need for medical treatment.  \nCastleberry v. Elite Lamp Co., 69 Ark. App. 359, 13 S.W.3d 211 (2000). \n Without question, the Claimant was seeking relief from her symptoms, numbness and \ntingling, when she reached out to Dr. Rhodes on January 10, 2023. See Respondents’ Exhibit 3, \npp. 7-9. However, Respondents have argued that any treatment Claimant has undergone with Dr. \nRhodes, which is the subject of this full hearing, was unauthorized and that Respondents are not \nresponsible for the costs associated with that treatment.  In Tempworks Mgmt. Servs. v. Jaynes, \n2023 Ark. App. 147, 662 S.W.3d 280, the Arkansas Court of Appeals wrote: \nBriefly, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-514(c)(1) requires an employer or insurance carrier \nto deliver a Commission-approved notice to the employee “which explains the \nemployee’s  rights  and  responsibilities  concerning  change  of  physician.”  \nUnauthorized medical expenses incurred after the employee has received the notice \nare not the employer’s responsibility.  Id. § 11-9-514(c)(3).  But if the employee is \nnot furnished a copy of the notice, the change-of-physician rules don’t apply. \n \nThe change-of-physician rules do not apply absent proof that the claimant received a copy of the  \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n10 \n \nrules from the Respondents either in person or by certified registered mail.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-\n9-514(c)(1)-(2) (Repl. 2012).  See also Jaynes, supra; Stephenson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 70 Ark. \nApp. 265, 19 S.W.3d 36 (2000). \n The preponderance of the evidence in this matter establishes that Claimant did receive a \ncopy of these rules.  She admitted at the April 15, 2022, full hearing that she was given and signed \nthe two-sided Form AR-N, a copy of which is in evidence. See April 15, 2022, TR 39, 165-167. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that the treatment received by Claimant from \nDr. Rhodes was in fact unauthorized; as a result, the Respondents are not responsible for the cost \nof those unauthorized medical services.  \nB. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits from \nJanuary 10, 2023, to a date to be determined. \n \nIn  this  proceeding,  Claimant  has  also  claimed  entitlement  to additional temporary  total \ndisability  benefits  from  January  10,  2023, through  a  date  yet  to  be  determined.    Respondents \nstipulated that they did pay some benefits under the claim but maintained that Claimant was not \nentitled to any temporary total disability benefits. \n Claimant’s compensable carpal tunnel syndrome, in both of her upper extremities, is a \nscheduled injury.  See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-521(a)(2) (Repl. 2012).  An employee who suffers a \ncompensable scheduled injury is entitled to temporary total disability compensation “during the \nhealing period or until the employee returns to work, whichever occurs first . . . .”  Id. § 11-9-\n521(a).  See Wheeler Const. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  The \nhealing period ends when the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and \nnothing further in the way of treatment will improve that condition.  Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Parker, \n4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 (1982). Claimant must prove her entitlement to temporary total \ndisability benefits by a preponderance of the evidence.  Id. § 11-9-705(a)(3). \n\nWASHINGTON H008038 \n \n11 \n \n The Claimant testified that she is requesting TTD benefits from January 10, 2023, to April \n14, 2023. TR 21. I have previously found that the Claimant’s healing period ended on April 23, \n2021. The Claimant has not presented any reliable evidence demonstrating that she has entered \nanother healing period for the dates she has requested. For example, the Claimant demands TTD \nbenefits beginning January 10, 2023. This was the date when Claimant had a consultation with Dr. \nRhodes, an unauthorized physician. Nothing that Dr. Rhodes did that day would have caused the \nClaimant to enter another healing period. See Respondents’ Ex. 3, pp. 7-10. Rather the visit \nculminated into a recommendation for a future surgery. Id. The Claimant also testified “April the \n14\nth\n, I believe...I believe that my surgery was April the 14\nth\n, 2023.” TR 22. Here the Claimant used \nthe term “believe” but presented no credible evidence that she had surgery on April 14, 2023, or \non any other date that would cause her to enter another healing period for the dates she is seeking \nTTD benefits. Id. The Claimant has failed to meet her burden. Therefore, the Claimant has not \nproven by the preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to TTD benefits.  \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, the parties \nshall act consistent with this opinion.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       ___________________________________  \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H008038 TEREASA WASHINGTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DEPT. OF CORRECTION (E. ARK. REG.), EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STATE OF ARKANSAS, CARRIER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Jud...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:03.610Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H008038-2025-09-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Washington_Teresa_H008038_20250905.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}