{"id":"alj-H106627-2026-04-22","awcc_number":"H106627","decision_date":"2026-04-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Eduvijes Sanchez","employer_name":"Sc Realty Svcs., Inc","title":"SANCHEZ VS. SC REALTY SVCS., INC. AWCC# H106627 April 22, 2026","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["knee","ankle","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sanchez_Eduvijes_H106627_20260422.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Sanchez_Eduvijes_H106627_20260422.pdf","text_length":27552,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H106627 \n \n \nEDUVIJES JUARDO SANCHEZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSC REALTY SVCS., INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 22, 2026 \n \nHearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 20, 2026, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant\n1\n represented by Mr. Scott Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Guy  Alton  Wade,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On March  20,  2026,  the  above-captioned  claim  was  heard  in Jonesboro, \nArkansas.  A prehearing conference took place on November 10, 2025.  The Prehearing \nOrder  entered  on  that  date  pursuant  to  the  conference  was  admitted  without  objection \nas  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the  stipulations, \nissue, and respective contentions were properly set forth in the order. \nStipulations \n At  the  hearing,  the  parties  discussed  the  stipulations set  forth  in  Commission \nExhibit 1.  They are the following, which I accept: \n \n \n1\nClaimant is a Spanish-speaking individual.  The proceedings were interpreted to \nher by Ms. Juanita Acosta.  Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the interpreter’s \noath contained in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-101(e) was administered to Ms. Acosta. \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n2 \n \n1. The  Arkansas Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (the  “Commission”) \nhas jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The  employee/employer/carrier  relationship existed  among  the  parties  on \nAugust  3,  2021,  when  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her \nright knee. \n3. Respondents  have  accepted  the  above  injury  as  compensable  and  paid \nmedical  and  indemnity  benefits  pursuant  thereto,  including  permanent \npartial  disability  benefits  in  accordance  with  a  rating  of  seventy-five \npercent (75%) to the lower extremity that was assigned to Claimant by Dr. \nBarry Baskin. \nIssue \n At the hearing, the parties discussed the issue set forth in Commission Exhibit 1.  \nThe following was litigated: \n1. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment. \nAll other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties read as follows: \n Claimant: \n 1. Claimant  contends  that  she  has  received  some  medical  treatment,  most \nrecently being seen by Dr. Barry Baskin pursuant to her one-time change \nof  physician.    He  gave  her  an  impairment  rating  of  seventy-five  percent \n(75%)  to  the  lower  extremity  and  recommended  a  functional  capacity \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n3 \n \nevaluation.  No continued medical treatment, nor payment of benefits, has \nbeen done since that time. \n Respondents: \n1. Respondents  contend  that  they  accepted  the  claim  as  compensable  and \nare paying the applicable medical and indemnity benefits.  This claim has \nnot been controverted. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documents, and \nother  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear \nthe  testimony  of  Claimant  and  to  observe  her demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704 \n(Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that she  is \nentitled  to additional  treatment of  her stipulated compensable right  knee \ninjury by her   authorized   treating   physician, Dr. Barry   Baskin,   as \nrecommended and outlined in his November 29, 2023 report in evidence. \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n4 \n \nADJUDICATION \nSummary of Evidence \n Claimant was the sole hearing witness. \n In  addition  to  the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  the  exhibit  admitted  into \nevidence in this case was Joint Exhibit 1, a compilation of Claimant’s medical records, \nconsisting of two index pages and 127 numbered pages thereafter. \nAdjudication \n Introduction.   As  the  parties  have  stipulated—and  I  have  accepted—Claimant \nsustained a compensable  injury to  her right  knee on August  3,  2021.   Her  treatment \ntherefor has consisted of, inter alia, a total knee arthroplasty.  In this proceeding, she is \nseeking additional treatment of her knee.  Respondents, on the other hand, have denied \nthat she is entitled to additional treatment of any sort. \n Evidence.    In her testimony,  Claimant described  how  her compensable injury \noccurred.   She  performed  janitorial  services  for  Respondent  employer  at various \nschools.  On August 2, 2021, she was cleaning at the school in Brookland, operating a \nfloor  buffer, when  she became  entangled  in  the  cord  and fell  and  hurt  her  right  ankle\n2\n \nand knee. \n Claimant was originally taken to NEA Baptist Hospital in Jonesboro.  There, she \nwas  given  pain  medication  and  an  injection.   Eventually, in  January  of  the  following \nyear, Claimant underwent  surgery.    This  was  a  total  knee  replacement by  Dr.  Ron \nSchechter.    Thereafter,  she  had  physical  therapy.   Asked  to  describe  what  she  was \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n5 \n \nfeeling, Claimant responded:  “Daily pain.  Constant pain.”  Schechter sent her for pain \nmanagement.  Dr. Ma, who is with the NEA Pain Management Clinic, addressed this by \ngiving  her  three  injections  into  the  right  knee.  Claimant took issue with Schechter’s \ntreatment of her, stating that he acted like she was malingering when she was unable to \nlift her leg.  The pain management clinic gave her a full-duty release on April 11, 2023. \n She  next went  to Dr.  Adam  Smith.   He  saw  her  on  one  occasion—July  27, \n2023—and released her to return to work with no restrictions. \n Claimant  obtained  a  change  of  physician  to  Dr.  Barry  Baskin.   Their  sole \nappointment took place on November 29, 2023.  He assigned her an impairment rating \nof  seventy-five  percent  (75%)  to  the  lower  extremity.    The  following  exchange  took \nplace: \nQ. With regard to your right knee, how are you doing? \n \nA. It still hurts and it hurts.  I can’t work.  At home, I just spend my time \non the bed.  Or I’ll stand up a little, but then rest again. \n \nShe walks  with  a  cane, and  uses a  walker at home.   She added:  “I can’t move it [the \nright knee] very well.  [My] foot just kind of slips away.  There has been two times where \nI have almost fallen, which is why I use the cane and the roller [walker] at home.”  \nClaimant experiences  weakness  and  numbness  in  her  knee.    She is  unable  to  afford \nany  medical  treatment  out  of  her  own  pocket;  and  she  does  not  have  any  health \ninsurance.  The only medication that she takes for her pain is over-the-counter. \n \n \n2\nAs discussed above, only the right knee injury is before me. \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n6 \n \n Despite the difficulties with her leg, Claimant acknowledged that she still drives, \nand that she still does the home exercises that she learned while in physical therapy. \n Under questioning from the Commission, the following exchange took place: \nQ. Is there some kind of treatment that you want me to award you? \n \nA. I  would  like  to  get  a  treatment  so  that  I  can  see  if  I  can  walk  well \nagain.    Because  I  want  to  return  to  work.    I  want  to  keep  working, \nbut it seems—feels impossible now. \n \nQ. Who  are  you  wanting  to  have  give  you  this  treatment?    What \ndoctor? \n \nA. Well, a good one. \n \nQ. Well, is that any of the doctors that you have seen so far? \n \nA. Well,  I  really  like  the  attention  I  received  from  the  last—from  Dr. \nBaskin, the last doctor I saw. \n \nQ. Okay.    Well, let’s swing back to him, then.  Are you asking me to \norder  that  you  be  allowed  to  go  back  and  see  Dr.  Baskin  again  at \nthe expense of Mr. Wade’s clients? \n \nA. Yes. \n \n The  medical  records  in  evidence  reflect  that on  August  2,  2021,\n3\n Claimant \npresented  to  the  emergency  department  of  NEA  Baptist  with  right  knee  pain  after  she \ntripped over a cord and fell in a gymnasium.  X-rays and a CT scan of that knee showed \nher  to  have  an  acute  depressed  fracture  of  the  lateral  tibial  plateau,  along  with  a \nmoderate to large effusion in the joint.  When she went to NEA Baptist Clinic on August \n12,  2021,  Claimant  presented  in  a  wheelchair  and  wearing  a  knee  immobilizer.   Dr. \n \n \n3\nAs noted above, the parties have stipulated that the date of injury was August 3, \n2021. \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n7 \n \nSchechter explained to her “that she has a serious injury [that] is going to be a very long \nrecovery.”  The doctor described the fracture as being comminuted.  Because of the \nhigh risk of having post-traumatic arthritis and valgus instability, due to the nature of her \ninjury, along with her age and osteoporosis, Schechter stated that he “would like to treat \nher nonoperatively for now with the idea that [they] might consider a primary total knee \nreplacement once the bone heals in some, if she’s not doing well.”  He ordered her to \nbe non-weightbearing for eight weeks, with reassessment in three months. \n When  Claimant  returned  to  the  clinic  on  September  9,  2021,  she  reported  that \nshe was feeling better, with not much pain.  Schechter stated that she was doing well, \nand  continued  with  the  plan  outlined  earlier.   X-rays  showed  some  consolidation  and \nhealing  of  the  fracture.  On  September  28,  2021,  Claimant  came  to  the  clinic  in  her \nbrace  and  walking  with  aid  of  a  cane.    She  related  that she was “doing well with very \nlittle  pain  .  .  .  [and  was]  anxious  to  go  back  to  work  and  was  hoping  that  [he]  would \nrelease her to work today.”  Dr. Schechter wrote: \nAll things considered, the patient is doing very well.  Her fracture seems to \nbe  stable  and  healing.    Despite  the  significant  defect  in  her  lateral  tibial \nplateau  she  seems  to  be  tolerating  things  well  with  minimal  pain  and  no \ngross stability right nail [sic].  I warned her that if she gets more active she \nmay become more symptomatic with pain or instability and if she does we \nmay   have   to   consider   total   knee   replacement.    We   are   going   to \ndiscontinue the knee immobilizer and let her use a neoprene knee sleeve \nfor comfort as needed.  She can wean out of the sling as tolerated.  She \nwas  very  anxious  to  go  back  to  work  and  felt  like  she  could  do  so.   I \nexplained  to  her  that  I  just  do  not  want  her  to  fall  but  otherwise  she  can \nprogress  without  restrictions.   She  like  she  could  do  and  wanted  to  go \nback to work so I have her a note to be released back to work. \n \n Dr. Schechter wrote on October 28, 2021: \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n8 \n \nThe patient is here for follow-up today about 3 months status post her right \ntibial  plateau  fracture.    She  reports  she  is  doing  much  better.    She  has \ntransition[ed]  to  a  hinged  neoprene  knee  sleeve.    She  is  walking  much \nmore  comfortably.    She  just  has  very  mild  pain  per  her  report.    She  is \ndoing good enough she wants to go back to work. \n \nOverall,  she  is  doing  well.    Her  fracture  [is]  stable  and  healing  in  good \nposition and she is not showing any signs of valgus collapse at this time.  \nWe  are  going  to  continue  conservative  treatment  for  now  and  do  so  as \nlong as she is comfortable and not unstable.  She wants to [try] to go back \nto work full duty.  She is a little bit worried about being up on her feet a full \n8  hours  a  day  but  wants  to  try.    We  are  going  to  release  her  to  full  duty \nwith  no  restrictions  and  plan  on  seeing  her  back  in  3  months  and whe[n] \nshe  calls  with  problems.    She understands that  if  she  is  struggling  with  a \nfull work day, she can call and we may change her to something such [a]s \nonly 4 hours a day on her feet. \n \nIn a note accompanying this record, Dr. Schechter stated: \nTo Whom it May Concern: \n \nIt  is my  medical opinion  that  Eduviges  Jurado  Sanchez may  return  to  full \nduty immediately with no restrictions. \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. \n \nSincerely, \n \nRon Dean Schechter \n \n The doctor’s September 28, 2021, warning to Claimant proved to be prescient.  \nWhen she went back to him on November 8, 2021, she told him that she had not done \nwell since going back to work at full duty.  She reported experiencing “sharp, pulsating \npains in her lateral knee.”  After examining her, Schechter opined that she needed more \ntime  to  recover.    He  took  her  back  off  work  for  two  more  weeks,  and  released  her \nthereafter to return to work for four hours a day for the next two weeks. \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n9 \n \n During   her   December   7,   2021,   appointment   with   Dr.   Schechter,   Claimant \npresented with  constant severe  pain,  using  a  cane,  and  walking  with  an  antalgic  gait.  \nSchechter  stated  that  Claimant  “does  not  seem  to  be  recovering  appropriately  and \ncontinues  to  have  severe  pain  which  is  limiting  her  work  and  ADLs  [activities  of  daily \nliving].”    After  discussion,  it  was  decided  that  she  should  undergo  a  total  knee \nreplacement.  This was the same recommendation reached after her January 13, 2022, \nappointment with him. \n The  knee  replacement  operation  took  place  on  January  19,  2022.   Her  pre  and \npost-operative  diagnoses  were  “[r]ight  knee  posttraumatic  arthritis  with  prior  tibial \nplateau fracture.”  Claimant went back to Schechter on February 15, 2022, and informed \nhim that she was “feeling much better than before surgery and really not having much \npain.”  He wrote that “[o]verall, she seems to be doing okay.”  Claimant  was  sent  for \nphysical therapy.  Her therapy evaluation showed that she had “excellent” tolerance and \nwas “motivated though having pain with movement in her knee and struggling to weight \nbear through the leg.” \n On  March 16,  2022,  Claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Schechter.    She  reported  that  her \nknee  is  80  percent better.    However,  this  went  down  to  70 percent  when  she  saw  him \nagain on April 28, 2022.  She related to the doctor during this visit that she was having \nnumbness and tingling around her anterolateral knee extending down her anterolateral \nleg/foot.   The doctor wrote that “[a]ll things considered, I think she is doing fine.”  He \nexplained  that  she  would  need  a  minimum  of  six  months  to  recover  from  the  surgery, \nbut  added  that  it  could  “realistically  .  .  .  take  2-3  years  to  really  reach  maximal \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n10 \n \nimprovement.”  Schechter felt that her neuropraxia would improve over time.  Claimant \nthereafter returned to physical therapy. \n During  her  June  23,  2022,  visit  with  Dr.  Schechter,  Claimant  informed  him  that \nher pain was not getting any better, and that she is not doing well and is not ready to go \nback   to   work.    She  presented  with  “a  noticeably  antalgic  gait,”  and  lacking \napproximately five percent of full 120-degree flexion.  Because of Claimant’s symptoms, \nthe decision was made to request an ultrasound to rule out deep vein thrombosis, and \nto  refer  her  to  pain  management  to  address  the  possibility  of  complex  regional  pain \nsyndrome.  The  July  8,  2022,  ultrasound  of  Claimant’s  right  lower  extremity  was \nnegative for deep vein thrombosis. \n On  December  6,  2022,  Claimant  saw  Dr.  Zhangliang  Ma  with  the  NEA  Baptist \nPain Management Clinic.  Dr. Ma scheduled Claimant for a genicular nerve block, and \nconsidered a radiofrequency ablation and a spinal cord stimulator.  Tramadol and Lyrica \nwere prescribed.   Claimant  was  assigned  the  diagnosis  of  complex  regional  pain \nsyndrome  of  the  right  lower  extremity;  but  the  medical  records  in  evidence  do  not \ndocument  how  Ma  arrived  at  this.   During  a  February  15,  2023,  follow-up  visit  to  the \npain  management  clinic,  Claimant  reported  a  50  percent  improvement  in  her  pain  for \none week after the nerve block; and she rated her pain as 0/10 with Tramadol and 3/10 \nwithout it.  She requested an outside referral for a second opinion, and this was granted.  \nHer Tramadol was changed to Tylenol 3 due to drowsiness issues.  In another follow-up \nappointment  on  April  11,  2023,  she  informed  treating  personnel  at  the  clinic  that the \nnerve block gave her 60 percent improvement over a two-month period; and she rated \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n11 \n \nher pain as 7/10 without Tylenol 3 and 4/10 with it.  Because she was never contacted \nregarding  the  second  opinion  referral,  the  request  was  repeated.   Nurse  Practitioner \nNathan Perrin wrote that she could return to work with no restrictions.  When Claimant \nwent back to the clinic on June 7, 2023, she reported that her pain was “manageable” \nwith the medication being prescribed. \n Dr. Adam Smith saw Claimant on July 27, 2023.  She presented with pain since \nher knee replacement surgery.  His report reads in pertinent part: \nI  discussed  [with]  her  that  I  am  unsure  exactly  what  is  going  on  with  her \nknee.  She could have some instability versus aseptic loosening based off \nthe x-ray.  Her knee is not grossly loose to the point that I would be overly \nconfident  that  that  is  what  the  problem  is  but  she  does  experience  pain \nwith  varus  stress.    I  have  certainly  seen  patients  with  significantly  looser \nknees with no pain so I am not sure if this was the cause.  I am going to \nget  inflammatory  markers  to  rule  out  infection.    If  they  are  elevated \nwe  will  need  to  see  her  back  for  an  aspiration.    If  they  are  negative \nthen  I  will  likely  need  to  see  her  back  in  about  2  to  3  months  to  get \nrepeat x-rays to reassess these areas of osteolysis. \n \n(Emphasis added)  He released her to return to work with no restrictions. \n On  November  29,  2023,  Claimant  went  to  Dr.  Baskin.    His  evaluation  report \nreads in pertinent part: \nIMPRESSION: \nMs.  Sanchez is  a  nice  lady  presenting  with  post-traumatic  arthritis  as  a \nresult  of  a  work  injury  around  8/2/2021  or  8/3/2021.    She  worked  as  a \ncustodian, had a fall, and sustained a severe tibial plateau fracture.  This \nwas  evaluated  by  Orthopaedics  and  it  was  suggested  she  could  have \ntrouble  down  the  road  and  in  fact  she  did.    She  went  on  to  have  a  total \nknee   arthroplasty   done   by   Dr.   Schechter   on   1/19/2022.      She   has \ncontinued to have pain in the knee.  She does have, on my x-rays, a right \ntotal  knee  arthroplasty  with  no  hardware  complication  or  fracture  seen.  \nSmall  joint  effusion  was  noted.   Previous  x-rays  by  Dr.  Adam  Smith \nsuggested that she might have had some lucencies around her knee.  We \ndo not have those films for review.  It is my impression that Dr. Schechter \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n12 \n \nhas now released her.  I do not have any follow-up notes addressing the \nlab  that  Dr.  Adam Smith mentioned  in his 7/27/2023  encounter  note.  He \nsaid he would likely need to see her back in 2-3 months to reassess \nthese  areas  of  osteolysis.    That  has  not  been  done  that  I  can  see.  \nMs. Sanchez has continued to be off work.  She has an antalgic gait.  She \nhas  some  decrease  in  her  range  of  motion  of  the  right  knee.    I  would \nexpect  her  to  have  probably  120°  of  flexion  in  her  knee.    She  had  106° \ntoday actively and passively.  She has -5° of full extension.  She appeared \nto  have  a  stable  knee,  but  did  have  some  pain  with  varus  stress \nmaneuvers   and   to   a   lesser   extent   valgus   stress   maneuvers.      She \ncomplains of some numbness in her right foot of uncertain etiology. \n \nPLAN: \nI would suggest that we get [an] EMG and nerve conduction studies \nto  assess  the  numbness  in  her  right  foot  and  leg  which  have  been \npersistent  dating  back  to  her  original  fall  and  fracture  of  the  right \nlateral  tibial  plateau.  She  does  have  a  ratable  condition  based  on  her \nfracture  and  subsequent  total  knee  arthroplasty,  which  was  greater  than \n51% the result of her initial work injury.  She, I think, still would benefit \nfrom seeing another Orthopaedist.  If Dr. Schechter has released her, \nshe could go ahead and complete her follow-up with Dr. Adam Smith.  \nI would be happy to work her up further with regards to seeing if she \nhas evidence of a knee infection.  The knee x-rays that we did today are \nreally unremarkable except for the small joint effusion.  I would like to get \nthe  test  results  that  Dr.  Smith  ordered.   A  sed  rate,  C-reactive  protein, \nCBC and white count would be useful.  More detailed imaging of the \nknee  would  also  be  helpful,  but  the  plain  films  that  I  did  did  not  reveal \nany evidence of osteolysis-like changes.  Ms. Sanchez would normally be \nat MMI after a total knee replacement at this point, but she still is having a \nlot of pain and not able to go back to work it appears.  She has not had \nan FCE.  That would be helpful as well. \n \nUsing the  AMA  Guides  to  the  Evaluation  of  Permanent  Impairment  4\nth\n \nEdition  and  turning  to  page  85,  table  64,  a  total  knee  replacement  with \npoor  result  would  provide  an  impairment  rating  of  30%  to  the  whole \nperson,  75%  to  the  lower  extremity.    At  this  point  it  appears  that  Ms. \nSanchez has not had anything better than a poor result.  The actual final \ndiagnosis  of  her  knee  pain  is  still  unclear  at  this  point.   I  will  be \nhappy  to  see  her  back.  My  opinions  giv[en]  in this evaluation  are  done \nso   with   reasonable   medical   certainty   based   upon   my   training   and \nexperience  and  based  on  the  records  that  I  have  to  help  with  performing \nthis evaluation. \n \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n13 \n \n(Emphasis added) \n Discussion.   Arkansas  Code Annotated Section  11-9-508(a)  (Repl.  2012)  states \nthat an employer shall provide for an injured employee “such medical . . . services . . . \nas  may  be  reasonably  necessary  in  connection  with  the  injury  received  by  the \nemployee.”  See  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.  v.  Brown,  82  Ark.  App.  600,  120  S.W.3d  153 \n(2003).  The claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject \nmedical  treatment  is  reasonable  and  necessary.   Id.; Geo  Specialty  Chem.  v.  Clingan, \n69  Ark.  App.  369,  13  S.W.3d  218  (2000).    The  standard  “preponderance  of  the \nevidence” means the evidence having greater  weight or  convincing force.   Barre  v. \nHoffman,  2009  Ark.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415; Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove  Barium  Corp.,  212 \nArk. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission.   White  Consolidated  Indus.  v. \nGalloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. \nApp. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). \n As  the  Arkansas  Court  of  Appeals  has  held,  a  claimant  may  be  entitled  to \nadditional treatment even after the healing period has ended, if said treatment is geared \ntoward management of  the  injury.  See Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc., 86  Ark.  App. \n230,  184  S.W.3d  31  (2004); Artex  Hydrophonics,  Inc.  v.  Pippin,  8  Ark.  App.  200,  649 \nS.W.2d 845 (1983).  Such services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the \nnature and extent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms resulting \nfrom  the  compensable  injury;  maintaining  the  level  of  healing  achieved;  or  preventing \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n14 \n \nfurther  deterioration  of  the  damage  produced  by  the  compensable  injury.   Jordan  v. \nTyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra. \n Claimant testified that none of her treating physicians has recommended that she \nundergo any further treatment.  I cannot credit this testimony.  As outlined above, both \nDrs. Smith and Baskin have recommended additional treatment for her.  Smith wanted \nto treat her for her knee pain—which she confirmed in her testimony that she has and \nwhich I credit—by first testing her for the presence of inflammatory markers to rule out \ninfection.  In  the  event  that  such  markers  were  found,  he  then  wanted  to  aspirate  the \nknee.  Dr. Smith added that if these tests were negative, he nonetheless desired to see \nher again in two to three months to get x-rays “to reassess [her] areas of osteolysis.” \n The  Commission  is  authorized  to  accept  or  reject  a  medical  opinion  and  is \nauthorized  to  determine  its  medical  soundness  and  probative  value.   Poulan  Weed \nEater  v.  Marshall,  79  Ark.  App.  129,  84  S.W.3d  878  (2002); Green  Bay  Packing  v. \nBartlett,  67  Ark.  App.  332,  999  S.W.2d  692  (1999).    Based  on  my  review  of  the \nevidence, I credit Dr. Smith’s opinion that Claimant needs this treatment. \n Dr.  Baskin,  in  turn,  opined  not  only  that  it  would  help  Claimant  to  go  to  an \northopaedist,  but  that  the  person  to  see  her  should  be  Dr.  Smith  in  the  event  that  she \nhas been released by Dr. Schechter.  According to Baskin, Claimant should undergo an \nEMG and nerve conduction studies to determine the cause of the numbness in her right \nfoot and leg.  Moreover, he stated that more detailed imaging of the injured knee, plus a \nfunctional capacity evaluation, would be of use here.  Finally, Baskin in his report stated:  \n\nSANCHEZ – H106627 \n \n15 \n \n“The actual final diagnosis of her knee pain is still unclear at this point.”  I credit these \nopinions. \n More  than  once  in  his  report,  Dr.  Baskin  wrote  that  he  would  be  glad  to  see \nClaimant again and treat her.  I credit this, along with Claimant’s stated wish in her \ntestimony that she would like to go back to him. \n In  order  to  prove  her entitlement  to  this requested  treatment,  Claimant  must \nprove that it is causally related to her stipulated compensable knee injury.  See Pulaski \nCty. Spec. Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, 2013 Ark. App. 569, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 601.  I find \nthat  Claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proof  on  this  matter.    She  has  established  her \nentitlement to additional treatment by Dr. Baskin as outlined in his report. \nCONCLUSION AND AWARD \n Respondents are directed to pay/furnish benefits in accordance with the findings \nof fact and conclusions of law set forth above.  All accrued sums shall be paid in a lump \nsum  without  discount,  and  this  award  shall  earn  interest  at  the  legal  rate  until  paid, \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. 2002).  See Couch v. First State Bank of \nNewport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995). \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H106627 EDUVIJES JUARDO SANCHEZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SC REALTY SVCS., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 22, 2026 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on March 20, 2026, i...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:07.615Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H106627-2026-04-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sanchez_Eduvijes_H106627_20260422.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}