{"id":"alj-H102436-2024-05-21","awcc_number":"H102436","decision_date":"2024-05-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Valerie White","employer_name":"Desha County Judge","title":"WHITE VS. DESHA COUNTY JUDGE AWCC# H102436 MAY 21, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","dismissed:1","granted:3","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck","rotator cuff","wrist","carpal tunnel","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WHITE_VALERIE_H102436_20240521.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WHITE_VALERIE_H102436_20240521.pdf","text_length":18852,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H102436 \n \nVALERIE WHITE, EMPLOYEE         CLAIMANT \n \nDESHA COUNTY JUDGE, EMPLOYER             RESPONDENT \n    \nAAC, CARRIER/TPA                       RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 21 MAY 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 22 February 2024 in McGehee, Arkansas. \n \nMr. Mark Peoples appeared for the claimant. \n \nMr. Jason Ryburn, of the Ryburn Law Firm, appeared for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 22 February 2024 in McGehee, Arkansas, after \nthe parties participated in a prehearing telephone conference on 12 September 2023. The \nsubsequent Prehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s \nExhibit No 1, was entered on the day following the conference. The Order stated the \nfollowing ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: \n1.  Compensability of an injury to the claimant’s arm/elbow. \n2.  Medical benefits. \n3.  Whether the statute of limitations bars the claims. \n4.  Attorney’s fees. \nAll other issues are reserved. \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their Prehearing Questionnaire Responses, \nwere incorporated into the Prehearing Order.  \nThe claimant CONTENDS: \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n2 \n \nThat she sustained an injury to her arm/elbow as a compensable consequence of her \nshoulder injury and that she is entitled to medical treatment related to those injuries. She \nfurther contends that her claim is controverted, entitling her attorney to the maximum \nstatutory fees. \nThe respondents CONTEND: \nThat the claimant had an accepted shoulder injury. She filed an AR-C on 2 January \n2022, was treated, and was released at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on 18 April \n2022. The AR-C was dismissed on 1 May 2023. A subsequent AR-C was then filed on 31 \nJuly 2023 alleging a compensable consequence in an elbow injury. The statute of limitations \nbars any claims related or growing out of a 17 November 2020 injury. They further contend\n1\n \nthat she did not sustain a compensable arm/elbow injury and that all appropriate benefits \nwere paid. \nThat Order also set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  An employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on or about 17 November 2020, at \nwhich time the claimant sustained a compensable shoulder injury. \n \n3.  The respondents accepted that shoulder injury as compensable. \n \n4.  The respondents have controverted this claim as it relates to the alleged arm/elbow \ninjury. \n \n5.  The parties stipulated that the applicable weekly compensation rates are $354.00 for \nTemporary Total Disability and $266.00 for Permanent Partial Disability.\n2\n \n \nThe claimant was the sole WITNESS testifying at the hearing. \nAdmitted into evidence were Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 13 December 2023 \nPrehearing Order), Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (12 pages of medical records), and Respondent's \n \n1\n See TR at 8. \n2\n See TR at 6. \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n3 \n \nExhibit No 1 (five pages of medical records and seven pages of non-medical records). Both \nparties submitted post-hearing briefs, which I have blue-backed to the record. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the witness, \nobserving her demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law under \nACA § 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 her alleged \narm/elbow injuries are compensable injuries. \n \n4.  The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her alleged \narm/elbow injuries are a compensable consequence of her accepted shoulder injury. \n \n5.  Because the claimant failed to prove a compensable claim, whether she met her \nburden in proving that the filing was timely is moot. I am, therefore, declining to \naddress the statute of limitations issue. \n \n6.  Consistent with these findings, the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she is entitled to the requested benefits and associated attorney’s fee. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY & MEDICAL EVIDENCE \nClaimant Valerie White \nThe claimant is a 61-year-old female who was working at the Desha County \nCourthouse’s Tax Collector’s Office on or about 17 November 2020 when she fell down some \nstairs. She was helped up and taken to the McGehee Family Clinic, where she reported \nbeing seen by Dr. Pierce. According to the claimant, her right shoulder was hurting at the \ntime, and she was having difficulty moving it. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, \nwhich the respondents accepted, and she eventually underwent right shoulder surgery in \nMarch of 2021. [TR at 9-11.] \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n4 \n \nAccording to the claimant, she began having right elbow pain in June or July of 2022. \nShe said that a request for a nerve conduction study was not approved by the respondents. \nA nerve conduction study was eventually performed in January of 2023. [TR at 13-14.] She \ntestified that she had not benefited from any of the prescribed medications and that her \nelbow was still causing her problems at the time of the hearing. The claimant testified \nfurther that she wanted to “get it looked at further,” and that another provider ordered an \nMRI, but she left those records at home. [TR at 15.] “He did an MRI, but he did it on my \nneck, thinking there was some type of, I guess, nerve or whatever deal with the spine or \nwhatever, but like I said, I don’t remember what the results was; but I’m still dealing with \nthis problem.” Id. \nThe claimant stated that she experiences discomfort, numbness, and tingling that \nmostly bothers her while working at a computer. [TR at 16.] \nOn cross examination, the claimant explained that she underwent two shoulder \nprocedures, a rotator cuff repair and a manipulation under anesthesia. She acknowledged a \nphysician released her at MMI with no impairment on 18 April 2022 [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 5] \nbut said that she “didn’t quite understand it” because she still had issues with her shoulder. \nShe also confirmed that she had returned to work at full duty. [TR at 18.] \nThe claimant agreed that her 26 January 2022 Form C only listed a “right shoulder” \ninjury [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 7] but took issue with clinic notes from 20 November 2020 [Resp. \nEx. No 1 at 1] that indicated her reporting some right elbow pain radiating down to her \nwrist in the days just after her fall. [TR at 20-22.] She acknowledged a 2020 X-ray report \nwith a negative finding for her right elbow and testified that “elbow pain [was] going down \n[her] arm, that existed in 2020....” [TR at 24.] \nThat exchange continued: \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n5 \n \nQ:  Okay. And so, it’s—I believe, earlier, you testified that it started in 2022, \nthis right elbow to the arm pain, but now that you’ve reviewed these records, \nit may have started in 2020, is that right? \n \nA:  That’s correct, but what I’m saying—okay, what I’m saying, okay, yes, \nduring 2020 is when I fell. Like I say, I was in so much pain during that time, \nit was that right arm. You call it shoulder, arm, elbow, but it was that right \nside. \n \nId. \n The claimant went on to explain that at the time of the filing of her 31 July 2023 \nForm C [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 11], her elbow was hurting. “... I know in my terms, not medical, \nmy elbow it hurts. It goes down to numb. I go numb three fingers. My right hand three, \nfour, and five, the fingers.” [TR at 26.] She acknowledged a right wrist diagnosis of carpel \ntunnel syndrome but could not say whether her complained-of symptoms were due to the \ncarpel tunnel problems. “I wouldn’t have an idea. I don’t know. I don’t know anything about \nthe carpel tunnel,” she said. Id. \nThe claimant’s cross examination went on with several questions around what the \nclaimant felt in her hand, wrist, and elbow versus what was in the medical notes and what \nwas included in her Workers’ Compensation filings. And she confirmed that the \nrespondents had not been responsible for the billing of her doctors visits for her hands, \nwrist, or elbow. [TR at 27-32.] Her cross examination closed with, “Do you know of—has any \ndoctor found something in your elbow that they can point to and say, “This is what’s wrong \nwith our elbow”? She responded, “No, no. No, not that, no.” [TR at 34.] Her testimony \nconcluded shortly afterwards. \nMedical Evidence \nIn support of her claim, Ms. White submitted some clinic notes and a neurography and \nelectromyography (EMG) report. [Cl. Ex. No 1.] A 16 December 2022 note reflects in the HPI \nsection that she was having some numbness in her hands after “her hands started out being \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n6 \n \ncold then the numbness came on.” The note also states that “ibuprofen doesn’t help her \nhands.” The provided portions of that clinic note do not include an impression, diagnosis, or \nplan. \nThe 5 January 2023 neurography and EMG report notes an onset of right-hand \nnumbness, tingling, and weakness onset in June or July of 2022 and concluded that she has \n“mild carpal tunnel on right side.” \nThe submitted portion of a clinic note from her 20 February 2023 visit does not include \nan impression, diagnosis, or plan, but lists her complaint as follows: \nHas been doing good. Has had surgery twice on her shoulder and is still \nhaving trouble. Has trouble raising her arm. She does exercises at home. She \nworks at the tax collector’s office. Has had NCV EMG bilateral uppers. When \nshe wakes up in the morning her arms hurt. Takes ibuprofen for pain. Says \nthat her right arm aches from the shoulder down to the elbow. Has not had \nan MRI of her neck. Is having lots of pain and she rates it at a 5 or 6. \n \nShe presented to the same clinic again on 4 May 2023, complaining that her fingers \nwere staying cold and hurting worse, with the left hand feeling colder than the right. The \nnote states that she reported still having problems with her shoulder and needing to do \nmore strengthening exercises. The plan from that visit included prescribing Procardia for \nher hand, wearing gloves at work to keep her hands warm, and doing shoulder exercises. \nAmong the records submitted to the record by the respondents were a clinic note from \n20 November 2020 that reflected some arm and elbow pain, but an X-ray report that same \nday showed no remarkable pathology of the right elbow. [Resp. Ex. No 1.] Clinic notes \nsubsequent to her shoulder surgery show that she received an injection in her right \nshoulder on 31 March 2022 and that on 18 April 2022 she was found to be stable and \nreassured that she “had a full recovery with no restrictions.” \nThe respondents also submitted copies of her 26 January 2022 Form AR-C that only \nindicated a right shoulder injury, a 1 May 2023 Order dismissing her claim without \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n7 \n \nprejudice (and noting that she did not oppose that dismissal at the time, according to a 14 \nMarch 2023 email to the Commission), and her 31 July 2023 Form AR-C that indicated \n“elbow problems as a compensable consequence of shoulder injury.” \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts, as agreed during the prehearing conference, are outlined above. It \nis settled that the Commission, with the benefit of being in the presence of the witness and \nobserving his or her demeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight \nto accord their statements. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 \nS.W.2d 522 (1999).   \nA.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT HER ALLEGED ARM/ELBOW INJURIES ARE \nCOMPENSABLE INJURIES. \n \nUnder Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation laws, a worker has the burden of proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury as the result of a \nspecific incident. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i). A compensable injury must be \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(D). Objective medical findings are those findings that cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). Causation does not \nneed to be established by objective findings when the objective medical evidence establishes \nthat an injury exists and other nonmedical evidence shows that it is more likely than not \nthat the injury was caused by an incident in the workplace. Bean v. Reynolds Consumer \nProds., 2022 Ark. App 276, 646 S.W.3d 655, 2022 Ark. App. LEXIS 276, citing Wal-Mart \nStores, Inc. v. VanWagner, supra. \nThe claimant alleges that her injuries were the result of a specific incident—namely the \n17 November 2020 fall. The claimant must establish four (4) factors by a preponderance of \nthe evidence to prove a specific incident injury: (1) that the injury arose during the course of \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n8 \n \nemployment; (2) that the injury caused an actual harm that required medical attention; (3) \nthat objective findings support the medical evidence; and (4) that the injury was caused by \na particular incident, identifiable in time and place. Cossey v. G. A. Thomas Racing Stable, \n2009 Ark. App. 666,5, 344 S.W.3d 684, 689. A causal relationship may be established \nbetween an employment-related incident and a subsequent physical injury based on the \nevidence that the injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of time following the \nincident, so that the injury is logically attributable to the incident, where there is no other \nreasonable explanation for the injury. Hall v. Pittman Construction Co., 234 Ark. 104, 357 \nS.W.2d 263 (1962). \nThe claimant, however, offers little evidence to support a claim for a compensable injury \nto her elbow or arm. She testified generally that she has “problems” with her elbow and \nthat she experienced some numbness into her fingers. The scant medical notes that she \nprovides in support of her claim date from more than two years after her fall, only mention \nsome arm soreness in passing, and seem to focus on her complaints of her hands feeling \ncold and numb. Indeed, the only note that ultimately addresses a plan for care primarily \nrelates to addressing the concerns about her hands—not her elbow. The EMG report, which \nconcludes mild right side carpel tunnel, states that her hand symptoms did not start until \nJune or July of 2022. The claimant made no effort to link her carpel tunnel diagnosis to the \nfall. And she reports that she experiences trouble with her hand feeling cold and numb \nwhile working on her computer, which would be consistent with carpel tunnel problems. \nThe record lacks credible evidence that would tie her more recent elbow or arm \ncomplaints to her fall back in 2020, and the claimant does not offer other credible testimony \nto support a finding that any arm or elbow problems are attributable to the workplace \nincident in 2020. Accordingly, I do not find that the claimant has proven by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she suffered a compensable injury to her arm or elbow. \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n9 \n \nB.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT HER ALLEGED ARM/ELBOW INJURIES ARE A \nCOMPENSABLE CONSEQUENCE OF HER ACCEPTED SHOULDER INJURY. \n \nIn affirming the Commission’s finding of a compensable consequence in another case, \nthe Court recently explained: \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012) requires an \nemployer to provide an injured employee such medical services as may be \nreasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the \nemployee. When the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in the \ncourse of employment, the employer is responsible for any natural \nconsequence that flows from that injury. For this rule to apply, the basic test \nis whether there is a causal connection between the injury and the \nconsequences of such. The burden is on the employee to establish the \nnecessary causal connection. Whether a causal connection exists between two \nepisodes is a question of fact for the Commission.  \n \nNucor Yamato Steel Co. v. Echols, 2023 Ark. App. 43, 660 S.W.3d 341, 2023 Ark. App. \nLEXIS 58 (internal citations omitted). \nIn that case, the claimant worked in steel production and claimed that he suffered an \ninjury to his left shoulder as a result of favoring it in the course of his labors after surgical \nrepair of an accepted and surgically repaired rotator cuff tear to his right shoulder. In \naffirming that award, the Court noted credible medical evidence of the claimant’s \n“overusing” his left side and objective findings consistent with that overuse and the \nresultant injury. \nHere, I do not find that the claimant met her burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she suffered arm or elbow injuries as a natural and compensable \nconsequence of her accepted shoulder injury. The facts here are clearly different from those \nconsidered in Nucor. Instead of making a logical connection between an injury related to \nher accepted shoulder injury, the claimant simply suggests that because she fell in 2020 \nand experienced a compensable right shoulder injury, any other problems or symptoms \nwith her right arm must also be connected to that shoulder injury. She fails, however, to \n\nWHITE- H102436 \n10 \n \nadvance credible evidence of a causal connection between the two. Her claim for benefits for \ninjuries alleged as compensable consequences of her accepted shoulder injury must, \ntherefore, fail. \nC.   THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ISSUE IS MOOT. \n \nOn July 31, 2023, the claimant filed her Form C stating that she “developed elbow \nproblems as a compensable consequence of shoulder injury.” The respondents contend, \namong other things, that this filing was not timely. In facing a challenge on the statute of \nlimitations, the claimant must prove that she timely made her filing within the applicable \nperiod for filing a claim for benefits. Wynne v. Liberty Trailer & Death & Permanent Total \nDisability Trust Fund, 2021 Ark. App. 374, 636 S.W.3d 348, 2021 Ark. App. LEXIS 394. \nBecause the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury, I am not addressing whether \nher claim was timely filed. \nD.   BECAUSE NO BENEFITS ARE BEING AWARDED, THE CLAIMANT IS NOT \nENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY’S FEE. \n \nConsistent with the findings above, the claimant has not met her burden of proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to benefits that would entitle her to an \naward of an attorney’s fee. \nV.  ORDER \n     Consistent with the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this claim is \nDENIED AND DISMISSED.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H102436 VALERIE WHITE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DESHA COUNTY JUDGE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AAC, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 21 MAY 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 22 February 2024 i...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:54:34.960Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H102436-2024-05-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WHITE_VALERIE_H102436_20240521.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}