{"id":"alj-H103121-2024-02-02","awcc_number":"H103121","decision_date":"2024-02-02","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Corry Baker","employer_name":"Rock Region Metro","title":"BAKER VS. ROCK REGION METRO AWCC# H103121 FEBRUARY 2, 2024","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["cervical","shoulder","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Baker_Corry_H103121_20240202.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Baker_Corry_H103121_20240202.pdf","text_length":13668,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H103121 \n \nCORRY W. BAKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nROCK REGION METRO, \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MGMT RESOURCES, \nTHIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on  January  3,  2024,  in  Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant was represented by Ms. Sheila Campbell, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents  were  represented  by  Ms.  Melissa  Wood,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A full hearing was held on this claim on January 3, 2024.  A prehearing telephone \nconference took place on June 7, 2023. A prehearing order was entered on that date and \nsubsequently  entered  into  evidence,  with  amendments  by  the  parties,  as  Commission \nExhibit 1. 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 \nof the within claim. \n \n2. An employee/self-insured employer/third-party administrator \nrelationship  existed  among  the  parties  on  or  about  November  1, \n2020, when Claimant alleges, he sustained a compensable injury to \nhis cervical spine and left shoulder. \n \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n\nBAKER H103121 \n \n2 \n \n4. Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  of  $950.47,  entitles  him  to a \ntemporary  total  disability  rate  of  $634.00,  and  a  permanent  partial \ndisability rate of $475.00.\n1\n \nISSUES \n The parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1.  Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his cervical spine and left \nshoulder by specific incident. \n \n2.  Whether Claimant gave proper notice of his injuries to Respondent/Employer.\n2\n \n  \n3.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  any  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment. \n \n4.  Whether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   temporary   total   disability   benefits   from \nNovember 2, 2020, to a date yet to be determined. \n \n5.  Whether  Respondent/Employer,  pursuant  to  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-411,  is \nentitled to a set-off for all benefits paid by Claimant’s group health carrier, along \nwith  all  short-term  and  long-term  disability  benefit  and  all  unemployment \nbenefits received by him. \n6.  Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee.  \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nClaimant’s   Contentions:   The   Claimant   contends   that   he   has   sustained   a \ncompensable injury to his cervical spine on or about November 1, 2020. Claimant was \nmaking a left turn onto Scott Hamilton Drive. When he turned his head, something popped \nin his neck and the pain radiated into his shoulder and neck. The pain gradually worsened \nuntil he went to the emergency room on February 5, 2021. Claimant reported the injury \nto  Gwen  Amhurst  in  Human  Resources  and  was  then  sent  to  Concentra.  Claimant \n \n1\n The parties stipulated and the Commission approved Claimant’s average weekly wage, \ntemporary total disability benefits, and permanent partial disability benefits on the hearing date. \n2\n Respondents moved to add the issue of notice of injuries, and it was granted. \n\nBAKER H103121 \n \n3 \n \ncontends that he is a candidate for injections to his neck. Claimant contends he is entitled \nto  permanent  partial  disability,  temporary  partial  disability,  and  wage  loss  benefits. \nClaimant  further  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment,  including \nmedical expenses, travel, and a controverted attorney’s fee.  \nRespondents’ Contentions: The Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on \nNovember 1, 2020, or at any other time while working for Respondent/Employer. There \nwas no notice of the alleged injury until February 5, 2021. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  including  medical  reports,  non-medical \ndocuments,  and  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  the \nopportunity to hear the testimony and observe the demeanor of both the Claimant and \nGwen Amhurst, Director of Human Resources for Respondent/Employer, I hereby make \nthe following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n \n2.  The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3.  The  Claimant  has  not  proven  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he \nsustained  a  compensable  cervical  spine  and  left  shoulder  injury  by  specific \nincident. \n \n4.  Based  on  my  finding  of  no  compensability,  the  remaining  issues  of  notice, \nreasonable   and   necessary   medical   treatment,   temporary   total   disability \nbenefits,  offsets,  and  a  controverted  attorney’s  fee  are  moot  and  will  not  be \naddressed in this opinion. \n \n \n \n \n \n\nBAKER H103121 \n \n4 \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Claimant’s Exhibit 1, Medical Records, that consists of 5 \npages, Respondents’ Exhibit 1, Medical Records, that consist of 93 pages, Respondents’ \nExhibit 2, Non-Medical Documents, consisting of 35 pages, Commission Exhibit 1, Pre-\nHearing Order, that consists of 5 pages, and Claimant’s and Respondents’ blue-backed \npost-hearing briefs. The Claimant, Corry Baker, and Gwen Amhurst, Director of Human \nResources for Respondent/Employer, were the only two witnesses in the full hearing.  \nClaimant was a bus driver for the Respondent/Employer. He has worked for the \nRespondent/Employer for fourteen years. Based on testimony, on or around November \nand December 2020, Claimant was turning his assigned bus onto Scott Hamilton Drive \nwhen he heard a pop in his neck followed by immediate pain radiating into his shoulder \nand  neck.  Claimant  testified  that  he  believed  this  pain  would  go  away,  but  instead  it \nworsened over time. The pain increased so much that he felt it necessary to report it to \nRespondent/Employer on February 5, 2021. The Claimant went to Respondent/Employer \non  that  date  and  completed  all  the  necessary  paperwork  and  was  immediately  sent  to \nConcentra  for  medical  treatment.  However,  the  source  of  Claimant’s  pain  was  not \nrevealed  until  an  MRI  was  administered  on  July  5,  2022.  The  MRI  report  revealed  the \nsource of his pain as being a “left subarticular disc extrusion at C4-C5 causing moderate \nspinal canal stenosis and slight mass effect on the left and the cord. There is moderate \nto severe right and mild left neural foramen stenosis....” The Claimant also had a “Central \ndisc protrusion at C3-C4 causing moderate spinal canal stenosis and mild mass effect on \nthe ventral cord.” This MRI report was done by Dr. Miles Ritter.  \n\nBAKER H103121 \n \n5 \n \nRespondents argue that Claimant had previously been in several car wrecks and \none as early as ten months before his alleged November and December 2020, cervical \nspine injury. One car wreck of note occurred March 15, 2011, where Claimant was taken, \nby  ambulance,  to  the  Baptist  Health  Medical  Center  located  in  Little  Rock,  Arkansas. \nThere  a  CT  scan  was  administered  which  showed  at  his  “C4-5...moderate  posterior \nspurring of the C5 end-plate with left lateral recess predominance.” The CT report further \nstated, “There is mild left-sided canal stenosis. There is left proximal foraminal stenosis.” \nDr. Scott B. Harter created this radiology report. Respondents feel due to this pre-existing \ncondition  they  are  not  responsible  for  Claimant’s  alleged  work-related  cervical  spine \ninjury. Respondent/Employer is also requesting, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-411, \na set-off for all benefits paid by Claimant’s group health carrier, along with all short-term \nand long-term disability benefit and all unemployment benefits received by him. \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable cervical spine and left \nshoulder injury by specific incident. \nTo determine compensability, I find Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) \n(Repl.  2012),  applies  to  the  analysis  of  Claimant’s  alleged  injuries,  and it  defines \n“compensable injury” as: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body \n.  .  .  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment  and  which  requires \nmedical services or results in disability or death.  An injury is “accidental” \nonly if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place \nof occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those \nfindings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16).  \n\nBAKER H103121 \n \n6 \n \nThe  element  “arising  out  of  .  .  .  [the]  employment”  relates  to  the  causal  connection \nbetween the claimant’s injury and his or her employment.  City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 \nArk. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987).  An injury arises out of a claimant’s employment \n“when  a  causal  connection  between  work  conditions  and  the  injury  is  apparent  to  the \nrational mind.”  Id. \n If  the  claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the \nrequirements  for  establishing  compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.  Mikel  v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). This standard \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 \nArk. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d \n442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).    The  determination  of  a witness’ \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  \nThe Commission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  \nIn so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or \nany other witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of \nthe testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \nI find the Claimant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury. Though the Claimant has presented objective findings \nin the forms of a C4-C5 disc extrusion and a C3-C4 disc protrusion, he has not proven an \nidentifiable time or date for his alleged cervical injuries. For example, on February 5, 2021, \n\nBAKER H103121 \n \n7 \n \nClaimant went to Concentra and reported that his injury occurred on November 1, 2021. \nSee  Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  page  56.   However,  on  February  4,  2021,  he  stated  in  a \nphysical therapy note that he has been experiencing pain in his shoulder and neck since \nOctober  2020.  See  Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  page  51. The  Commission’s  review  of \nClaimant’s AR-C filed on April 1, 2021, by the Claimant himself shows a date of injury of \nJanuary  21,  2021.  See  Respondents’  Exhibit  2,  page  11.  And  finally,  during  the full \nhearing on January 3, 2024, Claimant testified, more than once, that his injury occurred \naround November and December 2020. See Full-Hearing Transcript, page 12, lines 5-8 \nand page 27, lines 1-5. \nThe Claimant, although sincere in his testimony, does not know the date and time \nof  his  alleged  injuries.  True  the  Arkansas  Supreme  Court  held,  in Edens  v.  Superior \nMarble & Glass, 346 Ark. 487, 58 S.W.3d 369 (2001), that a claimant does not have to \nidentify  the precise  time  and  numerical  date upon  which  an  accidental  injury  occurred. \nInstead, the statute only requires that a claimant show that the occurrence of their injury \nis capable of being identified.  But due to the multiple inconsistencies cited above, I am \nnot able to find that the occurrence of Claimant’s alleged cervical and shoulder injuries is \ncapable of being identified without resulting to speculation and conjecture. Speculation \nand conjecture cannot serve as a substitute for proof. Dena Construction Co. v. Herndon, \n264 Ark. 791, 796, 575 S.W.2d 155 (1979). Consequently, I am unable to find a causal \nconnection between his alleged injuries and his employment. This, coupled with a lack of \nobjective  findings  regarding  his  left  shoulder,  compel  the  conclusion  that  Claimant  has \nnot  satisfied  his  burden  of  establishing  compensability;  and  his  claim  must  fail  for  that \nreason. \n\nBAKER H103121 \n \n8 \n \nB. Miscellaneous Issues. \n \n Based  on  my  previous  finding  of  no  compensability  in  this  opinion,  the  issues \nregarding notice, reasonable and necessary medical treatment, temporary total disability \nbenefits, offsets, and a controverted attorney’s fee are moot and will not be addressed in \nthis opinion.  \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthe parties shall 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 WCC NO. H103121 CORRY W. BAKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ROCK REGION METRO, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MGMT RESOURCES, THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Steven Porch, on January 3, 2024, i...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:57:10.304Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H103121-2024-02-02","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Baker_Corry_H103121_20240202.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}