{"id":"alj-H108607-2023-11-14","awcc_number":"H108607","decision_date":"2023-11-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jason Blake","employer_name":"Hot Springs Village Property Homeowners Association","title":"BLAKE VS. HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE PROPERTY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AWCC# H108607 NOVEMBER 14, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","cervical","lumbar","neck","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//BLAKE_JASON_H108607_20231114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BLAKE_JASON_H108607_20231114.pdf","text_length":27952,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.: H108607 \n \nJASON A. BLAKE, EMPLOYEE                                                                            CLAIMANT \n \nHOT SPRINGS VILLAGE PROPERTY HOMEOWNERS \nASSOCIATION, EMPLOYER                                                                           RESPONDENT                \n \nCENTRAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR/TPA                                                       RESPONDENT                                                                      \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2023 \n  \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  CHANDRA  L.  BLACK  in  Hot  Springs, \nGarland County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, appeared at the hearing. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  the  Honorable  Michael  E.  Ryburn,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn  August  25,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  in  Hot  Springs, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing telephone conference was conducted on July 12, 2023, from which a pre-\nhearing order was filed that same day.  A copy of that order and the parties’ responsive filings have \nbeen marked as Commission’s Exhibit 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \nStipulations \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties agreed to \nthe following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within  \n \nclaim. \n \n\nBlake – H108607 \n2 \n \n2. That the employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed at all relevant times, \nincluding on or about October 12, 2021. \n3. The Claimant’s average weekly wage on October 12 was $882.00, which entitles him \nto weekly compensation rates of $588.00 and $441.00. \n4. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties agreed to stipulate that the Respondents are \nentitled  to  receive  a  credit/offset  for  any  indemnity  benefits  awarded  herein  for  the \nweeks during which the Claimant received unemployment benefits.  \n5. All issues not litigated here are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct. \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues litigated at the hearing were as follows: \n1.   Whether the Claimant sustained a compensable low back injury on October 12. \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment, to  \ninclude additional steroid injections.  \n3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from October  \n \n13, 2021 through to a date yet to be decided. \n4. Whether the Respondents wrongfully terminated the Claimant.  \n   \nContentions \nThe respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant:  \n The Claimant contends that he sustained a compensable low back injury while working for  \n\nBlake – H108607 \n3 \n \nthe respondent-employer on October 12, 2021.   He also contends that he is entitled to reasonable  \nand necessary medical treatment for his alleged low back injury, and temporary total disability   \ncompensation from October 14, 2021, to a date yet to be decided.  The Claimant has also alleged  \nthat the respondent-employer wrongfully terminated his employment.       \nRespondents:  \nRespondents  contend  that  Claimant  did  not  suffer a  compensable  low  back  injury  on \nOctober 21, 2021.  He has no new objective medical findings of a low back injury.  The Claimant   \nhad a pre-existing cervical fusion and no new findings of a cervical injury.  Dr. Wayne Bruffett \nstated, “There is no evidence of objective injury related to the work injury of October 12, 2021.” \n                                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  and  observe  their  demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has authority over this claim.    \n          \n      2.   I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n3.  The Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a   \ncompensable injury to his back on October 12, 2021.  Specifically, there are no objective \nmedical findings of record establishing an injury to the Claimant’s back.  \n      4.  The remaining issues of temporary total disability compensation and additional medical  \nbenefits have been rendered moot by the above findings.  Accordingly, these issues have \nnot been addressed in this Opinion. \n\nBlake – H108607 \n4 \n \n5.  The Claimant failed to offer any evidence to support a finding that the respondent-employer  \n     terminated his employment due to any cognizable remedy that falls under the Arkansas  \n          Workers’ Compensation Act.  \nSummary of Evidence \nAt the hearing, the Claimant and his former supervisor, Mr. Wesley Carpenter, were the \nonly two witnesses.  \n            The record consists of the August 25, 2023 hearing transcript, comprising of the following \nexhibits, in addition to Commission’s Exhibit 1: Claimant’s Exhibit 1 included a Medical Exhibit;  \nClaimant’s Exhibit 2 is a Non-Medical Exhibit consisting of one page; and Respondents’ Exhibit \n1  includes  a  cover  sheet and  Respondents’  Medical  Exhibit  consisting  of  seven  (7)  numbered \npages.  Additionally, the Claimant’s deposition taken on May 25, 2022,  was made a part of the \nrecord by the Respondents.  It has been marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 2. \n                                                         Testimony \nJason Blake \n The Claimant has a high school diploma.  According to the Claimant, approximately ten \nyears later he attended vocational school and became a master electrician.  On April 4, 2018, the \nClaimant  began  working  for  the  respondent-employer,  Hot  Springs  Village  Property  Owners \nAssociation.  The Claimant has alleged that he sustained an injury to his low back on October 12, \n2021.  At that time, the Claimant worked as an electrician for the respondent-employer.  \n He described his job duties as follows: “I serviced grinders and sewer tanks, which have a \nsewage  pump  in  them.    Every  house  in  the  Village  just  about  has  one,  and  maintenance  on  the \npanels on the sides of the houses... Plus we did construction and everything else.  We were a do-\nit- all team.” \n\nBlake – H108607 \n5 \n \n The  Claimant  testified  that  he  injured  his  back  on  October  12,  2021.    Per  the  Claimant, \nthere was one witness to his accidental fall, a coworker, Seth Davis.  He refused to say why Mr. \nDavis did not appear for his hearing.  The Claimant replied, “I don’t’ want to talk about it.  I don’t \nwant to get nobody in trouble.” According to the Claimant, on the afternoon of October 12, he was \n“called out” to a house after hours for repair work to a sewer tank.  He was wearing cowboy boots, \nand they were slippery.  As the Claimant walked around the house to the sewer tank, he could see \nit was full and had water coming out of it.  The Claimant slipped and fell and landed on top of the \nsewer tank.  According to the Claimant, he sat there for five or six minutes, and then he got up and \nfinished the job.   \n Shortly thereafter, the Claimant reported his injury to Jason Temple, and Wesley Carpenter, \nwho  was  his  supervisor.    The  Claimant  was  taken  to  a  local  clinic,  at  CHI  in  Hot  Springs.  \nAccording to the Claimant, they took a statement and gave him a drug test.  The Claimant testified \nthat he was in a lot of pain, so they gave him a pain shot.  The Claimant described his pain as being \na “real stabbing, sharp pain in the middle of his back,” which caused him not to be able to bend \nover or do anything at that time.  The Claimant went on to explain he was able to finish the job \nbecause the only thing Seth Davis had to do was open the door and flip the switch to the power for \nthe sewer tank to work.    \n The next day, on October 13, the Claimant went to the doctor.  The Claimant testified that \nthey scheduled him for a lumbar MRI, and after that he saw Dr. Wayne Bruffett.  According to the \nClaimant, Dr. Bruffett compared the MRI against the x-rays he took at his office.  The Claimant \nspecifically  testified  that  he  disliked  the  care  he  received  from  Dr.  Bruffett.    As  a  result,  he \ncontacted the insurance carrier to request another doctor.  They referred him to Dr. Reza Shahim \nat the Arkansas Surgical Medical Center.  The Claimant testified that he underwent a “three-facet \n\nBlake – H108607 \n6 \n \ninjection”  on  his  back  while  under  the  care  of  Dr.  Shahim.    Per  the  Claimant,  they  went  from \ntreating his back to treating his neck.  He testified he was given verbal orders directing him off \nwork.  The Claimant could not remember if any doctor took him off due to his alleged back injury.  \nHe confirmed he has not returned to work since October 2021, except for the light-duty work he \nperformed for the respondent-employer.  \n Next,  the  Claimant  testified  that  he  worked  on  light  duty  after  being  placed  on  these \nrestrictions by Dr. Mark Larey and Dr. Reza Shahim.  The Respondents’ attorney confirmed that \nthe Claimant got a change of physician before the Respondents controverted the claim. \n According to the Claimant, during his last visit with Dr. Shahim, he was accompanied by \na representative with the insurance carrier.   Specifically, the Claimant testified: \nQ What did he do at that last visit? \nA The work workman’s comp people, I think, her name was Kathy, she was there, \nand he said does your back feel better, and I was like, yes, sir.  He goes well, then you don’t \nneed surgery, yet, but your neck......  And then he started explaining about my neck. \n \nThe Claimant verified that he received some payments for temporary total disability from  \nthe day of injury until November 17.  Although the Claimant has not received any more treatment \nfrom Dr. Shahim, he has received treatment from Dr. John Pace.  According to the Claimant, Dr. \nPace has performed steroid shots on his back about six or seven times.   The Claimant testified that \nDr. Pace has also prescribed medications for his back. \n He confirmed that the Respondents last paid for  his  medical treatment when he saw Dr. \nShahim for a one-time change of physician.  The Claimant verified that he is asking for the medical \ntreatment of record, which he received after his visit with Dr. Shahim.  He is also seeking additional \ntreatment from Dr. Pace, in the form of steroid injections for his back.   \n\nBlake – H108607 \n7 \n \n Regarding medical treatment and injuries to his back prior to October 2021, the Claimant \nadmitted that he had “some messed-up vertebrae.”  He testified that he told every doctor he had \nsome  pre-existing  conditions.    The  Claimant  maintained  that  he  fell “many  times”  at  work  and \nvarious other places.  Per the Claimant, Dr. Bill James performed an injection in his lower back.  \nThe Claimant confirmed that he received unemployment benefits.  According to the Claimant, he \nstopped these benefits because he was going to have neck surgery. \n The Claimant testified that his symptoms from the October 12, 2021, work incident include \nnumbness in his pinkie toe and ankles, and hips  hurt.  According to the Claimant, his knees are \nnow  starting  to  hurt.    He  walks  with  a  cane  that  his  given  to  him  by  his  father.    The  Claimant \nconfirmed that prior to his October 2021 incident, he had back pain for which he was under pain \nmanagement.  However, Claimant’s pain doctor moved to  Georgia, and he has not seen anyone \nother than Dr. Pace for his back condition.  He admitted that he received one treatment in the form \nof  an  injection  from  Dr.  Pace  prior  to  October  2021.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  prior  to  his \nwork incident, he was prescribed pain pills for his back while under the care of Dr. Matt Huskey.  \n However, the Claimant maintained that all his prior back problems were at L6-L7; yet he \nstated that now his problems are at L4-L5.  The Claimant admitted that he previously underwent \nan  MRI  of  his  back.    He  also  admitted  that  he  was  in  a  car  wreck  four  years  prior  to  his  work \nincident,  for  which  he  received  a  settlement  of  $4,000.00  to  replace  his  vehicle.    The  Claimant \ndenied that he sustained any physical injuries during that accident.  According to the Claimant, he \ngot rear-ended in Hot Springs Village as a result of a minor car accident.  He was driving a 1996 \nMercury Mountaineer.  The Claimant also had another previous accident involving a four-wheeler \nin 2007 during Memorial Day weekend.  He further explained that he was riding as a passenger \n\nBlake – H108607 \n8 \n \nwhen they hit a tree.  He confirmed that he sustained a laceration down his right leg.  The Claimant \ndenied being thrown from the ATV.   \n The  Claimant  maintained  he  was  wrongfully  terminated  because  after  he  went  back  to \nwork.    At  that  time,  he  was  told  that  they  did  not  have  any  full-time  light  duty  work  available.  \nAccording to the Claimant, management told him he needed to get the paperwork changed by Dr. \nShahim so he could get on FMLA, but he refused to sign it.  The Claimant denied that he could \nperform  his  regular  duties  as  an  electrician  because  he  is  not  able  to  climb  a  ladder  or  carry \nanything over twenty pounds.  \n On   cross-examination,   the   Claimant   admitted   he   had   several   pre-existing   medical \nconditions before October 12, 2021.  He confirmed that he has undergone a cervical fusion.    The \nClaimant had his first neck fusion in 2007.  He maintained he does not know what caused him to \nhave a cervical fusion.  At the time of his surgery, the Claimant had group health insurance and \nused it to pay for his surgery.   \n The Claimant also admitted that he had low back problems before October 2021 that were \nsevere enough to cause him to undergo an MRI.   He verified that during his deposition, he testified \nthat  he  had  a “bad  disc”  in  his  back.    However,  the  Claimant  denied  that  anyone  suggested  he \nundergo back surgery at that time.  Instead, the Claimant testified that he has been on Hydrocodone \nfor years.  The Claimant’s pain management care before October 12 was under Dr. Petrov, but he \nmoved to Georgia.  He admitted that after Dr. Petrov left town, he tried to continue to treat at the \nPain Clinic Centers of America, but they discharged him from medical care because he failed a \ndrug test.  \n    He admitted that he had an MRI of his neck six days prior to October 12, 2021, because \nhis neck was swollen.  The Claimant maintained that he pinched his neck at a job site, but he did \n\nBlake – H108607 \n9 \n \nnot report it.  According to the Claimant, the MRI showed that some of the ligaments connecting \nto his shoulder had detached.  He confirmed that the fusion surgery for his neck fixed everything.   \n The Claimant confirmed that after the  October 12, 2021, incident, he had an MRI  about \nnine days later.  He agreed that the MRI showed that at L4-L5, there was moderate canal stenosis \nand  disc  desiccation,  along  with  multi-level  degenerative  facet  arthropathy.    In  that  regard,  the \nClaimant attempted to explain: \nA Where is the disc that you had back in 2019? \nQ I don’t know. \nA It’s not on here.  Why didn’t it show up on this MRI? \nQ I don’t know. \nHe admitted that Dr. Bruffett released him from care of his low back injury on November  \n17, 2021.  The Claimant confirmed that initially Dr. Shahim treated his back, but then he started \ntreating  his  neck  instead.    He  admitted  that  Dr.  Huskey  referred  him  to  Dr.  Pace,  who  is  a \nneurosurgeon.  The Claimant testified that he underwent neck surgery by Dr. Pace on November \n4, 2022.  He gave conflicting and confusing testimony about having been released from his neck \nsurgery.  (T 42)  However, the Claimant admitted that his neck surgery entailed additional fusion \nat  another  level  and  was  not  a  re-do  of  the earlier  fusion.    The  Claimant  admitted  that  his  neck \nsurgery keeps him from doing his career work.   \n Under  further  questioning,  the  Claimant  testified  that  he  returned  to  work  for  the \nrespondent-employer on light duty and worked until May 23 or 28, 2022.  He admitted that he told \nthe workers at the unemployment office,  “he was ready, willing, and able to work” when he signed \nup for benefits.  The Claimant confirmed that during his deposition, which was taken on May 25, \n2022, he testified he was looking for work at an electrical supply store.  \n\nBlake – H108607 \n10 \n \n According to the Claimant, he was told to wait until after his neck outcome before he did \nanything with his back condition.  He maintained that surgery has now been recommended for his \nback.  However, the Claimant admitted that he testified during his deposition that surgery had not \nbeen recommended for his back; but now he does need back surgery because a new MRI shows \nthat his condition has gotten worse since the October 22, 2021, MRI.   \nOn redirect examination, The Claimant confirmed that he had another MRI in January of \n2023 and Dr. Pace has recommended surgery on his back, but he is afraid to have it done.  Instead, \nthe Claimant testified that he wants to have “electroshock nerve therapy” for his back condition. \nWesley Carpenter \n Mr. Carpenter testified that he was the Claimant’s immediate supervisor on October 12, \n2021.  However, he confirmed that he has retired from the company as of a year ago in June.  Mr. \nCarpenter verified that the Claimant reported his October 2021 injury to him.   \n Specifically,  Mr.  Carpenter  provided the following explanation of the Claimant’s work-\nrelated fall: \n A Him and another guy was going down there...... James Wallace was going on a  \nsewer tank call at a residence for the Village, and it was a steep incline, and it had been raining, \nand as they were going down, he slipped and he fell and he landed on the lid of the tank, and when \nthey finished with their call, he came back and reported it to me, and we filled out the paperwork \non it then. \n  Mr. Carpenter confirmed the Claimant’s testimony that he took the Claimant to the after-\nhours clinic.  He verified that the Claimant was in pain.  Mr.  Carpenter confirmed that the Claimant \ncame to work after his injury and worked light duty.  However, he testified that the Claimant was \nin pain.        \n\nBlake – H108607 \n11 \n \n                                                       Adjudication \nThe primary issue in the case at bar involves an alleged injury to the Claimant’s back.   \nSpecifically, the Claimant contends that he sustained a compensable injury to his lower back on \nthe  evening  of  October  12,  2021,  when  he  slipped  and  fell  while  working  for  the  respondent-\nemployer.  \nIn  order  to  prove  the  occurrence  of  an  injury  caused  by  a  specific  incident  or  incidents \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, the Claimant must show by a preponderance of the \nevidence that: (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course of his employment; (2) the \ninjury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services or resulted in \ndisability  or  death;  (3)  the  injury  is  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings, which are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient; \nand  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific  incident  and  is  identifiable  by  time  and  place  of \noccurrence.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \nThe Claimant’s burden of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-102 (4) (E) (i).  This standard means the evidence  having greater weight or convincing force.  \nMetropolitan Nat ’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003), citing \nSmith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947).  If the Claimant does \nnot  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the  above  requirements  for  proving \ncompensability, compensation must be denied.   \nThe  Respondents  initially  accepted  this  claim  and  paid  medical  and  indemnity  benefits \nthrough  November  15,  2021,  the  day  of  the  Claimant’s  independent  medical  evaluation  by \nBruffett.  However, they have now controverted the claim in its entirety.   \n\nBlake – H108607 \n12 \n \n Here,  it  is  undisputed  that  the  Claimant  incurred  a  work-related  fall  on  the  evening  of \nOctober  12,  2021,  when  he  accidentally  slipped  and  fell  in  the  driveway  area  of  a  homeowner \nwhile working for the respondent-employer.  The Claimant promptly reported the incident to his \nsupervisor,  Mr.  Carpenter.    They  completed  the  proper  paperwork  for  the  incident  and  Mr. \nCarpenter transported the Claimant to a nearby walk-in clinic due to complaints of back and neck \npain. Although this report was not made  a part of the record, the Claimant testified that he was \ngiven a shot for pain and discharged home. \nYet, the first medical report of record following the Claimant’s October 12, 2021, work-\nrelated  fall  is  an  MRI  of  his  lumbar  spine,  which  was  performed  on  October  22.    Dr.  Devon \nHolder’s impression was: “At L-4-5, there is moderate canal stenosis.  Disc desiccation noted at \nL4-5 and L5-S1.  Multilevel degenerative facet arthropathy.” \n The next medical report of record after the Claimant’s alleged low back injury was authored \nby  Dr.  Wayne  Bruffett  on  November  15,  2021.    At  that  point,  the  Claimant  underwent  an \nindependent medical evaluation by Dr. Bruffett.  Specifically, the Claimant presented to discuss \nconcerns about his low back pain, mid back pain, and neck pain that began on October 12, 2021.  \nThe Claimant reported to Dr. Bruffett a medical history of prior chronic neck and low back pain.    \nHowever, the Claimant’s neck condition is not a part of this claim.      \nNevertheless,  Dr.  Bruffett  stated  that  x-rays  of  the  Claimant’s  lumbar  spine  showed \nevidence of “multilevel disc degeneration.”  The Claimant reported to Dr. Bruffett that as part of \nhis work-up for his work injury, he underwent an MRI of his  back on October 22.  Dr. Bruffett \nreviewed the MRI of his lumbar spine.     \nIn this regard, Dr. Bruffett opined that the October lumbar MRI also showed “multilevel \ndisc degeneration disc bulging, but no significant disc herniation.”  Dr. Bruffett explicitly opined \n\nBlake – H108607 \n13 \n \nthat the MRI of the Claimant’s lumbar spine showed no evidence of an objective injury related to \nhis work-related injury of October 12, 2021.  Dr. Bruffett opined that 100% of the pathology that \nis  noted  there  would  be  considered  pre-existing.    There  are  no  expert  opinions  or  probative \nevidence  to  the  contrary;  and  this  expert  opinion  is  consistent  with Dr. Holder’s  review  of  the \nlumbar  MRI,  wherein  he  cited  an  impression  of  only  degenerative  changes.    Per  these  medical \nnotes, Dr. Bruffett told the Claimant that any further medical treatment for his back would be for \nhis pre-existing condition and unrelated to his work injury.   Hence, Dr. Bruffett pronounced the \nClaimant  to  be  at  maximum  medical  improvement  for  his  work-related  injury  and  released  him \nfrom  care  for  his  back  condition.   Dr.  Bruffett’s clinical  notes  do  not  reflect  or  cite  any  other \nobjective  medical  findings  establishing  an  injury to  the  Claimant’s  back,  such  as a  spasm, \ncontusion, abrasions, or swelling.           \nDuring the hearing, the Claimant credibly testified to having had  prior chronic problems \nwith his back.  He also reported a prior history of pre-existing back-related issues to Dr. Bruffett.  \nThe Claimant readily admitted that at the time of his work-related fall, he was taking Hydrocodone \nfor back pain.    The Claimant also testified that he had been previously told by medical providers \nthat he had a “bad disc,” in his back, but he maintained that it was at a different level.  However, I \ndid not find the Claimant’s testimony to be credible in this regard because his  testimony  is  not \ncorroborated  by  the  medical  evidence  of  record,  namely  the  MRI.    Moreover,  although  the \nClaimant  has  offered  testimony  of  complaints  of  back  pain,  it  is  well-established  in  workers’ \ncompensation law that complaints of pain are not recognized as an objective medical finding.  \n Quite notably, the Claimant did not present any medical records from his initial clinic visit \nor  any   contemporaneous  medical  records   establishing  an  objective   medical  finding  of a \ncompensable back injury to his low back.  Thus, I recognize that it is well-established in Arkansas \n\nBlake – H108607 \n14 \n \nworkers’  compensation  law  that pre-existing  conditions  may  be  compensable  if  they  are \naggravated by a work-related injury.  However, I do not find such circumstances to exist in this \ncase.  \n Therefore, based on all the foregoing, I have attached significant weight to Dr. Bruffett’s \nexpert opinion.  Specifically, I am unable to find any objective medical evidence establishing an \ninjury to the Claimant’s back because  of  his  work-related  fall  of  October  12,  2021.    Absent  an \nobjective medical finding establishing an injury, the Claimant cannot meet his burden of proving \nby  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  suffered  a  compensable  back  injury  on  October  12.   \nBecause there is not an objective medical finding proving a compensable injury to the Claimant’s \nlumbar spine, his claim for a work-related injury to his back must be denied. \n It is noteworthy to point out that the other medical records submitted are too remote in time \nto be causally connected to the Claimant’s work-related fall of October 12, 2021. \n Consequently,  the  remaining  issues  of  temporary  total  disability  and  reasonable  and \nnecessary medical treatment have been rendered moot and not discussed in this opinion.  \n Additionally, the Claimant has alleged that the Respondents wrongfully discharged him.  \nHowever,  the  Claimant  failed  to  provide  any  proof  that  the  respondent-employer  wrongfully \nterminated  his  employment  due  to  any  cognizable  remedy  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act.  \n                                                 ORDER \nThe  Claimant  did  not  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  credible  evidence  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable  back  injury  on  October  12,  2021,  in  the  course  of  his  employment  with  the \nrespondent-employer.    Therefore,  this  claim  for  a  back  injury  is  hereby  respectfully  denied  and \ndismissed  in  its  entirety.    The  remaining  issues  of  temporary  total  disability  compensation  and \n\nBlake – H108607 \n15 \n \nadditional reasonable and necessary medical treatment have been rendered moot and not discussed \nherein.    There  is  insufficient  evidence  to  support  a  finding  that  the  respondent-employer \nwrongfully terminated the Claimant’s employment due to any cognizable remedy under the Act.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED.       \n                    \n                                        \n__________________________                                                            \n                           CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                       Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H108607 JASON A. BLAKE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE PROPERTY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CENTRAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:00:23.328Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H108607-2023-11-14","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//BLAKE_JASON_H108607_20231114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}