{"id":"alj-H104907-2024-08-07","awcc_number":"H104907","decision_date":"2024-08-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Cedrick Bennett","employer_name":"Pine Bluff School District","title":"BENNETT VS. PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H104907 August 7, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:4","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","back","hip","neck","knee","ankle","shoulder","wrist"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BENNETT_CEDRICK_H104907_20240807.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BENNETT_CEDRICK_H104907_20240807.pdf","text_length":19268,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H104907 \n \nCEDRICK BENNETT, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nPINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER          RESPONDENT \n    \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, \nCARRIER/TPA              RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 7 AUGUST 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 9 May 2024 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nDavis Law Firm, Mr. Gary Davis, for the claimant. \n \nWorley, Wood & Parrish, PA, Ms. Melissa Wood, for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 9 May 2024 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The \nparties participated in a pre-hearing telephone conference on 26 March 2024. A Prehearing \nOrder, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1, was entered \non 15 April 2024. \nThe Order stated that the only ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED was whether the \nclaimant was entitled to additional medical treatment. \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their Prehearing Questionnaire \nResponses, were incorporated into the Prehearing Order.  \nPer the claimant’s CONTENTIONS, he was permitted a change of physician and then \nseen by Dr. Angela Lovett. The respondents paid for his initial evaluation, but have since \ncontroverted his entitlement to additional treatment. \nPer the respondents’ CONTENTIONS, the claimant has received all appropriate \nbenefits regarding his accepted injury of 2 June 2021. They have denied additional \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n2 \n \ntreatment as being reasonable and necessary since 6 May 2022. Any treatment sought \nwithout the respondents’ knowledge prior to that date was unauthorized. They also contend \nthat the claimant had preexisting problems with his cervical spine and that any additional \ntreatment sought in relation to that issue is not related to the 2 June 2021 injury. \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 2 June 2021. \n \nThe claimant was the sole WITNESS to testify at the hearing.  \nThe EVIDENCE presented consisted of the testimony along with Commission’s \nExhibit No 1 (the 15 April 2024 Prehearing Order), Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (120 pages of \nmedical records and two pages of non-medical records), and Respondents’ Exhibit Nos 1 (22 \npages of medical records) and No 2 (7 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 his 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 he is entitled to \nadditional medical benefits. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY & MEDICAL EVIDENCE \nClaimant Cedric Bennett \nThe claimant has been an employee of the Pine Bluff School District for twenty-eight \nyears, working as a mechanic for twenty-six of those years. He was involved in an on-the-\njob accident on 2 June 2021 while working to replace an exterior light on a school bus. The \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n3 \n \nclaimant was on a ladder behind the bus when it unexpectedly started to roll backwards. \nHe was knocked from the ladder, and the bus rolled over his hand and elbow. While trying \nto get out from under the bus, he also hit his head. The claimant attributed the accident to \nthe bus’s airbrake not being properly applied prior to starting repairs. \n According to the claimant, he has experienced pain, numbness, and tingling in his \nlegs and arms, along with difficulty turning his head after the accident. He offered that he \nhas felt some relief on his left side since having an SI joint procedure. The claimant stated \nthat he would like to proceed with a similar procedure for his right side. \n After the accident, the claimant was initially treated at MedExpress and Jefferson \nRegional Medical Cener. He then presented to OrthoArkansas, where he was seen by Dr. \nVictor Vargas, who ordered imaging and some injections for pain relief. The claimant \nrecalled the respondents ending their authorization of ongoing care on 6 May 2022. \nThereafter, he sought treatment utilizing his group health plan. Since coverage was denied \nby the carrier, the claimant has seen several providers, including but not limited to a pain \nspecialist and a rheumatologist. The claimant stated that his treatment has involved \nimaging and diagnostics, along with injections and prescriptions for pain. \n In December of 2023, the claimant saw Dr. Angela Lovett through a change of \nphysician authorized by the Commission. According to his testimony, Dr. Lovett was willing \nto provide ongoing treatment, but that was not authorized by the respondents. \n The claimant regularly takes Advil, Tylenol, and prescribed Hydrocodone for pain. \nHe stated that his job duties are limited to lighter work because of his pain problems. \nAccording to his testimony, the claimant had previously experienced some back troubles, \nbut he had not required injections for his pain. \n On cross examination, the claimant confirmed that he fell about four feet from the \nladder into a seated position on the ground and that he bumped his head while getting up. \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n4 \n \nHe acknowledged testifying at his deposition, “I bumped my head and I hurt my lower back \nand my tail bone and the left hand and elbow.” [TR at 21.] Discussing his treatment after \nthe accident, he went on: \nQ:  Okay. I asked you in the deposition, “What body parts hurt?” Your \nresponse was, “I bumped my head and I hurt my lower back and my tail bone \nand the left hand and elbow.” Is that right? \nA:  Yes, ma’am. \nQ:  Okay. Now, as far as your treatment with Dr. Vargas, you indicated that \nyou had CT scans done, x-rays, he also gave you some pain pills, a boot or \nsomething like that for your foot, is that right? \nA:  I had a pouch on my foot, yeah. \nQ:  Okay. And he also gave you a brace for your elbow, sent you for some \ninjections, and physical therapy, is that right? \nA:  Yes, ma’am. \nQ:  You would agree it’s been several years now since you’ve seen Dr. Vargas, \ncorrect? \nA:  Yeah, I can’t think of the exact – yeah, yes, ma’am. \nQ:  Okay. And after Dr. Vargas indicated to you that he couldn’t do anything \nelse, that’s when you started going to your family doctor, Dr. Harris, for \ntreatment, is that right? \nA:  Yes, ma’am. \n \n[TR at 21-22.] \n The claimant further testified that he believed that a previous hip surgery was \nrelated to his work injury and that he is wanting surgery on his right hip, too, which he \nrelates to his work injury. He acknowledged a medical report in July of 2021 that noted \nneck pain for the two or three months preceding that appointment. He did not dispute Dr. \nVargas’ 4 August 2021 record indicating that he was to be off work for the following three \nweeks and that he would then return to full duty. The claimant did not recall Dr. Vargas \nassigning him a zero percent impairment rating. He acknowledged beginning treatment at \nthe Pain Treatment Centers of America after his release from Dr. Vargas’ care; but he \nwould not endorse the accuracy of his complaints listed in their records. \n  Q:  That report though shows that you were there for pain your lower back, \nleg, neck, knee, mid-back, abdomen, ankle, hand, foot, chest, joints, nerves, \nand your shoulder. Does that sound like all the things you would have talked \nto your doctors there about? \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n5 \n \n  A:  I’m not going to agree—not that I know of. Not with all that. I just—I \nain’t gonna say yes or no about that. \n \n[TR at 25.] \n When asked about a long-term disability application, he acknowledged that the form \nrelates to an injury in August of 2022, that the form denies any relation to a workplace \ninjury, and that the form denies the filing of any workers' compensation claim. \n At the conclusion of direct and cross examination, the claimant was asked by the \nCommission to clarify the treatment he was seeking in his claim. In response, he explained, \n“I just want someone to fix me like I was before it happened with my accident. If you \ntalking about if he want to do another surgery on this side or whatever relieves me, that’s \nwhat I want. That’s the only thing.” [TR at 33.] \nMedical Records \n The emergency department record from 2 June 2021 notes, “Fell about 5 feet off a \nladder At work. Working on a school bus, when brake released and bus rolled into him \nknocking him off the ladder. Bus rolled over left hand. Complains of left hand, left elbow \nand lower back. Hit head. No loss of consciousness. No neck pain.” He was discharged with \nTramadol and Flexeril and instructions to follow up with his primary physician in one to \ntwo days or to return to the emergency department if any symptoms worsened.  \n He followed up on 8 June 2021 at Med Express with ongoing complaints of pain and \na headache and was then referred to the emergency department for a CT. X-ray imaging of \nhis foot and wrist were also ordered. The imaging was not remarkable but for degenerative \nchanges observed at his cervical spine, wrist, and foot. The claimant was discharged with \nTylenol #3 and instructions to follow up with an orthopedic consult if his symptoms did not \nimprove. He was to return to work in three days. \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n6 \n \n The claimant received another off-work note from MedExpress on 9 June 2021, \nbefore seeing Dr. Victor Vargas on 17 June 2021. The notes from his appointment with Dr. \nVargas relay cervical disc degeneration and lumbar or lumbrosacral disc degeneration that \nonset in 2014. The claimant’s assessment for that visit included: \nLow back pain \nDegenerative disc disease \nFacet arthropathy \nPossible L5 spondylolysis \nLeft wrist sprain \nLeft wrist mild-to-moderate osteoarthritic changes \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 26.] He was taken off work and ordered to undergo an MRI. According to a \nnote from Dr. Vargas on 7 July 2021, they discussed the following MRI findings: \nMRI of the lumbar spine showed a bulging disc at L5-S1 that contacts and \ndisplaces the traversing left S1 nerve root. Spondylolysis at L5 marrow \nedema signal is noted in the pars interarticularis on the right side. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 38.] An anesthetic and steroid injection at L5-S1 was given the same day, \nand the claimant received a note for returning to work on 4 August 2021. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at \n40.]   \n The claimant saw Dr. Vargas again on 16 July 2021, when Dr. Vargas found no \nobjective findings related to the claimant’s complaints of left foot and neck pain. The \nclaimant reported taking a muscle relaxer that was not prescribed by Dr. Vargas. Another \ninjection and then reevaluation were planned for the following month. Additional physical \ntherapy was also ordered. \n Dr. Vargas saw the claimant again on 4 August 2021. He charted the following: \nI have discussed with the patient that we have found no objective \nfinding of injury of the lumbar spine, however [he] has been treated for an \naggravation of the pre-existing condition but he has had transient relief of \nthe symptomology. \n I am considering that the patient has exhausted the options of \ntreatment conservatively to mitigate his symptoms of pain. However, the \npain is multifactorial and I am considered probably more likely than not his \nsymptoms are due to the preexisting condition. \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n7 \n \n Consequently, I think the patient is having relief of the symptomology \nwith the physical therapy and I highly recommended to continue physical \ntherapy for the cervical spine and lumbar spine with extension of 3 weeks. \nAfter that I would consider that the patient has exhausted the options of \ntreatment for conservative treatment and he can be considered at MMI when \nhe finished 3 more weeks of physical therapy prescribed today. \n Work status: The patient will be off work until 8/25/2021 where he \nwill return to work on full duty no restriction. \n Impairment rating: The patient is entitled to 0% impairment as a \nwhole person based on the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent \nImpairment, Fourth Edition, from the American Medical Association. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 58.] \n The claimant then returned to see Dr. Vargas on 8 September 2021. According to \nthat note: \nPatient presented today to the clinic, however he has been released in the \nprevious visit at MMI.  \nThe patient stated that he finished physical therapy last week. \nHe complains of some headaches. \nI explained [to] the patient that the patient was released at maximal medical \nimprovement last visit and I have no further recommendations and he is \nsupposed to return to work on full duty no restrictions on 8/25/2021. \nFor further details refer to my previous visit on 8/4/2021. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 68.] A return-to-work note for that day was provided. \n On 26 October 2021, the claimant presented to Pain Treatment Centers of America \nas a new patient under the care of Dr. Heather Whaley. The note from that visit lists: \nChief Complaint: Lower Back and Leg Pain \nOther Complaints:  Headache, Neck Pain, Knee Pain, Mid Back Pain, \nAbdominal Pain, Ankle Pain, Hand Pain, Foot Pain, Chest Pain, Multiple \nJoint Pain, Nerve Pain, Shoulder Pain, Muscle Spasm. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 17.] He was prescribed Gabapentin, Tizanidine, and Tramadol, and his \nrecords from Dr. Vargas were requested; but there is no mention in the record of a \nworkplace accident. \n The claimant then presented to Legacy Spine & Neurological Specialists in August \nof 2022, reporting low back and neck pain. He reported his pain as increasing over the past \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n8 \n \nyear. X-ray and MRI imaging studies were ordered and interpreted by Dr. Dominic Maggio. \nHis notes provide: \nLumbar spine MRI from 9/7/22 demonstrates degenerative disease. Of note at \nL5-S1 is a grade 1 anterolisthesis. There is moderate to sever left-sided and \nmoderate right-sided neural foraminal stenosis. No central canal stenosis. At \nL4-5 there is mild to moderate bilateral neural foraminal stenosis. No central \ncanal stenosis. No other areas of significant central canal or neural foraminal \nstenosis. There is preserved lumbar lordosis. \n \nCervical spine MRI from 9/7/22 demonstrates degenerative disease. Of note, \nat C6-7 there is moderate left-sided, no significant right-sided neural \nforaminal stenosis. At C4-5 there is moderate right-sided, no significant left-\nsided neural foraminal stenosis. No central canal stenosis. No other \nsignificant central canal or neural foraminal stenosis. No spondylolisthesis. \nThere is preserved cervical lordosis. \n \n. . . \n \nAP views of the pelvis demonstrate bilateral SI joint degenerative disease. No \nevidence of SI joint arthritis. No evidence of pelvic fractures or masses/lesions \nnear the SI joint. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 80.] A left-sided L5-S1 nerve block was planned. \n The claimant returned to see Dr. Maggio several more times for ongoing lower back, \nhip, and buttock pain. He reported minimal or only temporary relief from injection therapy \nbefore agreeing to proceed with a left-sided SI fusion in January of 2023.  \n On 4 December 2023, the claimant saw Dr. Angela Lovett after exercising his right \nto a change of physician through the Commission. She coded the following diagnoses: \nM5416 Radiculopathy, lumbar region \nM4306 Spondylolysis \nM4602 Spinal enthesopathy, cervical region \nM4607 Spinal enthesopathy, lumbosacral region \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 119.] She also administered a steroid injection at L4-L5-S1.  \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\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n9 \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 HE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL MEDICAL BENEFITS. \n \nThe claimant is not entitled to additional medical benefits for ongoing medical \ntreatment. He was treated for pain after his workplace accident; and as the course of his \ntreatment went on, it became clear that his complaints were related to degenerative \nproblems in his neck, lower back, and hips.  \nAt issue is whether the claimant is entitled to ongoing treatment related to a \nworkplace accident on 2 June 2021. His claim was initially accepted and benefits were \nprovided thereafter while the claimant sought and received care from Dr. Vargas.  \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, he must also establish that the treatment is causally related to his \naccepted injuries from 2 June 2021. Pulaski Cty. Spec. Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, 2013 Ark. App. \n569, 2013 WL 5592602. \nAfter several previous visits, Dr. Vargas saw the claimant again on 4 August 2021 \nand explained that his symptoms were due to preexisting, degenerative conditions. He \nassigned a zero percent impairment rating and returned the claimant to work at MMI, on \n\nC. BENNETT- H104907 \n10 \n \nfull duty, without restrictions on 25 August 2021. I find that opinion credible. Poulan Weed \nEater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002) (the Commission may accept or \nreject a medical opinion and determine its probative value). I further credit his opinion on 8 \nSeptember 2021 relaying again that the claimant was already released at MMI and that he \nhad no further treatment recommendations as related to the workplace injuries.  \nThe claimant later sought care on his own for pain management. Degenerative \nchanges were observed across the imaging studies that were later performed, and the \ntreatment he received was oriented towards relieving those degenerative conditions. Upon \nbeing granted a change of physician, the claimant saw Dr. Lovett who noted his many \ncomplaints and coded essentially chronic, degenerative conditions. She did not provide an \nopinion clearly relating his current complaints or possible future treatments to the incident \nin June of 2021. \nAccordingly, I do not find that the claimant is entitled to additional medical benefits \nfor ongoing treatment. \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 H104907 CEDRICK BENNETT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 7 AUGUST 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:54.312Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H104907-2024-08-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BENNETT_CEDRICK_H104907_20240807.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}