{"id":"alj-H108614-2023-04-27","awcc_number":"H108614","decision_date":"2023-04-27","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Michael White","employer_name":"Pulaski County Special School District","title":"WHITE VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H108614 APRIL 27, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:2","denied:5"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WHITE_MICHAEL_H108614_20230427.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WHITE_MICHAEL_H108614_20230427.pdf","text_length":30230,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: H108614 \nMICHAEL WHITE,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nPULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION,  \nWCT                                                                                                                       RESPONDENT \n \n \n         OPINION FILED APRIL 27, 2023        \n        \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Mark Alan Peoples, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn  February  15,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  Previously, a prehearing telephone conference was conducted in matter on November \n30, 2022, from which a Prehearing Order was filed on that same day.  A copy of said order and \nthe parties’ responsive filings have been marked as Commission’s Exhibit 1, and made a part of \nthe record.   \nStipulations \nDuring  the  prehearing  telephone  conference,  and/or  hearing  the  parties  agreed  to  the \nfollowing stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n2 \n \n2. That  the  employee-employer-insurance  carrier  relationship  existed  at  all  relevant \ntimes,  including  on  or  about  July  26,  2021,\n1\n  when  the  Claimant  sustained a \ncompensable left knee injury in the course and scope of his employment with the \nPulaski County Special School District.  \n3. The Claimant’s average weekly wage on the  day  of  his  accidental  injury  was \n$769.53, which was sufficient to entitle him to corresponding compensation rates \nof  $513.00  per  week  for  temporary  total  disability  (TTD)  compensation,  and \n$385.00 a week for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.  \n4. The  Claimant  was  released  to  return  to  work  at  maximum  medical  improvement \n(MMI) on March 29, 2022, by Dr. Eric Gordon, with a 2% PPD rating to  his left \nlower extremity/knee.     \n5. The Respondents have controverted this claim for a right knee injury in its entirety.  \n6. All   issues   not   litigated   herein   are reserved  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act. \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing included the following: \n1. Whether the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right knee as a result \nof his July 26, 2021 work-related accidental injury. \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the medical treatment of record provided by Dr. \nEthan  Schock  that  has  been  incurred  for  his  right  knee,  and  treatment  going \nforward, including the recommendation for right knee arthroscopy. \n \n1\n  Although at various times during the hearing, the parties referred to the date of injury as being July 27, \n2021, they have now stipulated that the correct date of the Claimant’s accidental injury is July 26, 2021.  (T. 31)      \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n3 \n \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant: \n The Claimant contends: \n (a) That he sustained work injuries to his right knee on or about July 26, 2021;  \n (b) That he is entitled to medical treatment relative to his work injuries; and \n            (c) That  the  benefits  set  forth  above  have  been  controverted  and  thus,  the \nundersigned counsel is entitled to maximum statutory attorney’s fees. \nRespondents: \n The Claimant did not sustain a compensable  injury to his right knee within the course and \nscope of his employment.  Any complaints and/or need for treatment pre-existed any claimed work \ninjury and are not the responsibility of the Respondents.  \n                    FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the evidentiary record, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \nhear the testimony of the Claimant and observe his demeanor, I hereby make the following findings \nof fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this     \n          \n                      claim. \n \n2.     I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n3.     The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he  \n \n                      sustained a compensable injury to his right knee during his work-related incident \n \n                      of July 26, 2021.  \n \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n4 \n \n          4.       The issue pertaining to medical treatment for the Claimant’s right knee is moot  \n         and will not be addressed herein because of the above Finding/Conclusion No. 3.   \n          5.        All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation  \n \n Act. \n      \nSummary of Evidence \nMr. Michael White (referred to herein as the “Claimant”) was the sole witness to testify at  \nthe hearing.  \n            The record consists of the February 15, 2023, hearing transcript and the following exhibits: \nSpecifically, Commission’s Exhibit 1 includes the above referenced documents; the Respondent’ \nMedical Exhibit includes one hundred seventy-one pages and it has been marked as Respondents’ \nExhibit 1; and Respondents’ Non-Medical Exhibits, has been marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 2, \nconsisting of four numbered pages was offered into evidence without objection. \n                                                           Testimony \nMichael White/the Claimant     \n The Claimant is fifty-four years old.  He confirmed that he continues to be employed by \nthe  Pulaski  County  Special  District  and  is  assigned  to  work  at  Harris  Elementary  School.  \nHowever,  on  July  26,  2021,  the  Claimant  worked  at  Daisy  Bates  Elementary  School.  While \nworking at Daisy Bates, the Claimant performed employment duties of a Pre-K paraprofessional.  \nHowever, the Claimant essentially testified that during the summer months, he took on part-time \njobs for the school district preparing the school building for the new school year.  The Claimant \nbasically  testified  that  he  helped  with  the  stripping  and  waxing  of  the  floors,  moving  furniture \naround, cleaning and maintenance of the school, and various other laborious tasks. \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n5 \n \n On July 26, 2021, the Claimant was helping with a strip and wax of some of the classroom \nfloors.    According  to  the  Claimant,  he  was  teamed  up  with  a  female  coworker.    The  Claimant \ntestified that he went to get the water to rinse the floor and had not been made aware by anyone \nthat another coworker had spilled stripper wax on the floor.  According to the Claimant, when he \nstepped  in  the  hallway,  he  slipped  and  suddenly  fell  to  the  floor.    Specifically,  the  Claimant \nexplained that he “went down really quick and hit the floor real hard.”  The Claimant agreed that \nhis legs went out from under him, causing him to fall and land on his backside. \n The Claimant confirmed that he reported his injury to management, and it was accepted as \na compensable workers’ compensation claim.  He testified that it took about four weeks before he \nheard from the workers’ compensation adjuster.  The adjuster referred the Claimant to Concentra, \nlocated in southwest Little Rock.  The Claimant testified that they took x-rays of his lower back \nand left knee.  Additionally, the Claimant maintained that the medical staff at Concentra started \nhim on physical therapy for both knees and his lower back.  The Claimant further maintained that \nas they performed physical therapy on his left knee, it became more painful, and he could hardly \nwalk.  As a result, they sent the Claimant to Conway for an MRI of his left knee.   \nRegarding the Claimant’s right knee, he asserted: \nQ: And I would like for you to continue, but before we do, just go back.  When you \nvery  first  went  to  Concentra,  did  you  inform  the  doctors  at  Concentra  that  you  had  a \nproblem with your right knee?  \nA: Yes. \nQ: Okay.  You included that in the body parts that you needed help with? \nA: Yes.   \nQ: Okay.  All right.  You went to - - and you had an MRI on your right knee. \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n6 \n \nA: Yes, sir. \nQ: Okay. \nA:  No, it was on the left knee.   \n(T. 15-16) \nUltimately,  the  Claimant  had  surgery  on  his  left  knee,  and  several  months  of  physical \ntherapy.  The Claimant confirmed that his left knee condition has resolved, and Dr. Eric Gordon \nassigned him a 2% rating.   He further confirmed that the Respondents accepted and paid the 2% \nrating.  \nRegarding his right knee, the Claimant testified that he first received treatment for his right \nknee, after he returned back to work.  However, the Claimant maintained that previously, he had \ntold  Dr.  Gordon  that  he  was  having  issues  with  it  probably  before  being  released  from  care.  \nSpecifically, the Claimant further maintained that his reporting to Dr. Gordon occurred after his \nsurgery, but before he got released from care.           \n The   Claimant   testified   that   while   Arkansas   Ortho   (the   Claimant   is   referring   to \nOrthoArkansas) was doing therapy on both his knees, they concentrated mostly on the knee that \nhe  had surgery on, which was his left knee.  Again, the Claimant maintained that he informed Dr. \nGordon  before  being  released  from  his  care  that  he  was  having  some  issues.    Upon  being \nquestioned as to whether Dr. Gordon refused to treat his right knee, the Claimant did not give an \naudible response.    \nHence, the Claimant’s attorney next asked him how he came under the care of Dr. Ethan \nSchock for his knee.  He explained that he told his primary care doctor, Dr. Richland,\n2\n  about what \nwas going on and she suggested several doctors for him to call and see if they could get him in to \n \n2\n  The medical records show that the Claimant’s primary care physician is Dr. Alison Richardson, instead of \nDr. Richland.  \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n7 \n \ncheck his right knee.  The Claimant testified that he called Dr. Schock and he agreed to see him.  \nDr. Schock sent the Claimant for an MRI of his right knee.  At that point, they discovered that the \nClaimant had a tear in his right knee.    \nThe Claimant confirmed that he continues to experience problems with his right knee.  He \ndescribed  his  knee  pain  as  being  a  throbbing  pain,  associated  with  some  swelling  from  time  to \ntime.  According to the Claimant, he limps due to the swelling in his right knee.   The Claimant \ntestified  that  he  paid  his  medical  bills  for  his  visits  with  Dr.  Schock  through  his  regular  health  \ninsurance,  which  is  Health  Advantage.  He  confirmed  that  Dr.  Schock  has  recommended \narthroscopy  to  repair  his  right  knee.    The  Claimant  admitted  that  he  wishes  to  have  the  surgery \ndone on his right knee.                   \n On cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that he has seen the report from Concentra \ndated August 20, 2021, which does not mention a right knee injury.  At that time, the Claimant’s \ndiagnosis was left knee pain.  The Claimant maintained that he told them at Concentra about his \nright knee issues during that initial visit of August 20 because they performed physical therapy on \nboth knees during that time.   However, the Claimant had not started physical therapy during that \ntime.  Per  the  August  20,  2021,  office  visit,  the  Claimant  reported  a  history  of: “Fall at work.  \nSlipped on stripper.  Twisted left knee and hit buttocks.  Continued left knee pain.”   \n Under further cross-examination, the Claimant testified: \nQ: There’s no mention of any right knee issue, is there? \nA: I    -  - mean, I’m trying to  -  - I’m just trying to follow you when say there’s no \nmention. \n(T. 21) \nThe Claimant was given a copy of page 1 of the Respondents’ exhibit for him to review.   \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n8 \n \nNext, counsel for the Respondents asked the Claimant if there was any mention of right knee pain \nproblems or issues on the document.  Before providing counsel with a direct answer to his question, \nthe Claimant started to explain rather than giving a direct answer.  However, after being prompted \nby counsel to answer the question, the Claimant admitted that the document does not mention any \nright knee problems or issues.  \n Under further questioning, the Claimant admitted that the only thing they took an x-ray of \nat Concentra was of his left knee.  He admitted that the MRI ordered by Concentra was for his left \nknee. The Claimant was shown a copy of page 12 of the Respondents’ exhibit, which is a letter \nfrom the adjuster to Dr. Carle, who is the doctor that the Claimant saw at Concentra.  Per this letter, \nthe adjuster mentions only the Claimant’s left knee.  He confirmed that said letter does not mention \nany problems with his right knee. \n With respect to when his symptoms started, the Claimant testified that he started having \nproblems with throbbing and swelling in his right knee before he was released by Dr. Gordon, and \nwhile he was still undergoing physical therapy.  The Claimant testified that he mentioned his right \nknee to Dr. Gordon several weeks before being released from his care.           \n According to page 161 of the Respondents’ exhibit, Dr. Gordon declared the Claimant to \nbe  at  maximum  medical  improvement  (MMI)  and  gave  him  a  2%  impairment  to  his  lower \nextremity  on  March  29,  2022.    The  Claimant  maintained  that  he  mentioned  the  throbbing  and \nswelling of his right knee to Dr. Gordon sometime in February of 2022. \n The Claimant testified: \n Q: Okay.  So up to that point had you had any issues with your right knee? \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n9 \n \n A: I had and they were doing therapy on both knees, as I said, at Concentra and \nwhen I went to Arkansas Ortho, and why it’s not documented, I can’t  --  I  can’t \nvouch for that. \n(T. 25) \nHe confirmed that he went to Matthew Brown for physical therapy.  The medical records  \nof the Claimant’s physical therapy visits start on page 54 of the Respondents’ exhibit, and they \ncontinue  through  page  133.    However,  according  to  these  medical  records,  the  only  thing  they \ntreated in physical therapy was the Claimant’s left knee.  The Claimant testified that he does not \nknow  why  there  is  no  documentation  of  any  problem  with  his  right  knee  in  any  of  his  physical \ntherapy records.  Also, the Claimant testified that he does not have reason to account for their lack \nof documentation.  \nNext, counsel for the Respondents questioned the Claimant about an incident involving his \nright knee, which he mentioned to his PCP, Dr. Richardson.  He confirmed that Dr. Richardson is \nthe  doctor  he  saw  complaining  of  right  knee  problems  after  his  release  by  Dr.  Gordon.    The \nClaimant admitted that he mentioned an incident to Dr. Richardson concerning him having hit his \nknee on the bed.  However, the Claimant continued to deny having injured his knee during this \nincident  and  continued  to  maintain  that  he  injured  his  knee  during  his  work-related  fall  of  July \n2021.  The Claimant specifically stated that he does not recall which knee he injured during the \nincident at his home.   \nOn page 171 of the Respondents’ exhibit is a note authored by Dr. Ethan Schock. It reads: \n“Dr. Richardson’s note of July 18, 2022 describes a new injury to his right knee which occurred \nwhen he struck some furniture in his home in a separate incident.”  The Claimant admitted that he \ntold Dr. Richardson he bumped his knee on his bed.  However, he stated that he discussed with his \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n10 \n \ndoctor about the fall that he had at work and the surgery on his left knee.  Dr. Schock stated in his \nnotes, “In none of Dr. Gordon’s medical records and his subsequent visits and documentation, is \nthere is no mention of any injury to the right knee on July 27, 2021.”  The Claimant testified that  \nhe does not know why he said that because they were doing therapy on both his knees and lower \nback and then not documenting what they were doing.  Also, the Claimant testified that he could \nnot give an account of why the Concentra records are completely blank when it comes to any type \nof injury to his right knee, or why Dr. Gordon’s records do not show a right knee injury.  According \nto the Claimant, Dr. Gordon met with him several times before releasing him, and he touched and \nfelt around his right knee.  Therefore, the Claimant maintained that he would have assumed that \nDr. Gordon would have done what Dr. Schock did and had an MRI done prior to releasing him.  \nThe Claimant testified: \nQ: So Concentra’s records are wrong; Dr. Gordon’s records are wrong; the  \nphysical therapist’s records are wrong, if we’re to believe you that you told them \nof the right knee problems, correct? \nA: Correct. \nQ: They’re all wrong? \nA: Correct.   \n(T. 28)       \n                                                               Medical Evidence \nThe Claimant was evaluated by Dr. Ethan Schock on June 16, 2022 for consideration of \nhis right knee.  Dr. Schock noted that the Claimant had a history of a previous left knee arthroscopy \nperformed by his partner, Dr. Gordon, in a work-related injury last year.  The Claimant reported \nright knee pain associated with weightbearing and walking, but also at rest.  However, per these \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n11 \n \nclinical notes, the Claimant gave a duration of right knee problems for four months.  Dr. Schock \nordered an MRI of the Claimant’s right knee to further evaluate what may represent a medial \nmeniscus tear versus a more distal/pes anserinus related process.                 \nAn MRI was performed of the Claimant’s right knee on June 24, 2022, with the following \nimpression: \n1. Complex undersurface tearing of the medial meniscus is centered at the body posterior \nhorn junction with mild adjacent reactive bone marrow edema of the medial tibial plateau.  \n \n2.  Prominent  area  of  high-grade  partial-thickness  cartilage  loss  at  the  posterior  medial \naspect  weightbearing  medial  femoral  condyle   with  mild  to  moderate   degenerative \nsubchondral T2 hyperintense signal.  \n \n3. Small area of high-grade partial-thickness cartilage fissuring at the patella. \n \n4. Probable mild edema at the superolateral aspect of Hoffa’s fat pad, which can be seen \nwith patellofemoral maltracking.     \n \nOn August 24, 2022, Dr. Schock authored a medical report.  \nI have reviewed available records in the Ortho Arkansas EMR, provided x-rays, provided  \nx-rays of the right knee dated November 2, 2021 as well as a family practice note with Dr. \nAllison Richardson on July 18, 2022. \n \nPatient does have a history of a work-related injury on July 27, 2021 to his left knee which \nwas treated by my partner, Dr. Eric Gordon with knee arthroscopy on October 21, 2021. \n \nIn none of Dr. Gordon’s medical records, and my subsequent visits and documentation is \nthere any  mention of injury to the right knee on July 27, 2021. \n \nDr. Richardson’s note from July 18, 2022 describes a “new injury to the right knee which \noccurred when he struck some furniture in his home in a separate incident.” \n \nConsidering these sources of information and lack of documentation or previous mention \nof right knee involvement with the July 27, 2021 work-related incident, I believe there is \nno/0% causal relationship to his present right knee meniscal and degenerative arthritis knee \nissues.  This opinion is rendered within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. \n   \nMy review of the Non-Medical Exhibit records of evidence shows that on July 27, 2021,  \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n12 \n \nthe Claimant signed a Form AR-N wherein he asserted injuries to his back and shoulders as a result \nof his work-related fall on July 26, 2021.       \nThe Claimant’s attorney filed a Form AR-C with the Commission on July 11, 2022.  Per  \nthis document, the counsel for the Claimant wrote “Claimant injured both knees on July 26, 2021.       \n         Adjudication \n A.   Compensability/Right Knee      \nIt is undisputed that the Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury to his left \nknee on July 26, 2021, when he slipped and fell on a wet floor at Daisy Bates Elementary School \nwhile  he  and  other  coworkers  were  in  the  process  of  stripping  and  waxing  the  floors.    The \nRespondents accepted the claim for a left knee injury and have paid benefits to and on behalf of \nthe Claimant, including a 2% impairment rating as assessed by his treating physician, Dr. Gordon.    \nHowever, the Claimant now asserts that he injured his right knee during his slip and fall \naccident  on  July  26,  2021.    Hence,  the  crucial  issue  for  determination  is  whether  the  Claimant \nsustained an injury to his right knee as a result of his work-related slip and fall incident on July 26, \n2021.  \n            In Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012), “compensable injury” means:  \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body ... \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services \nor results in disability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a \nspecific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]    \n  \n  A  compensable  injury  must  be  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot \ncome under the voluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann.§11-9-102 (16)(A)(i).    \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n13 \n \n The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that he sustained \na compensable injury.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9102(4)(E)(i).  Preponderance of the evidence means \nthe evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil \nCo., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003), citing Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 \nArk. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947).       \n After  reviewing  the  evidence  in  this  case  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the \ndoubt to either party, I find that the Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible \nevidence  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  right  knee  injury  on  July  26,  2021,  during  his  work- \nrelated fall.   \n Although I am convinced the Claimant is a hardworking employee, I found his  testimony \nto be less than forthcoming and incredulous concerning his alleged right knee injury.  Here, the \nClaimant’s testimony was marked by numerous inconsistencies and rebutted by the documentary \nevidence  of  record,  particularly,  the  medical  records.    As  a  result,  due  to  all  the  surrounding \ncircumstances outlined below, I cannot find that the Claimant has proven by a preponderance of \nthe evidence a causal connection between his workplace incident of July 26, 2021, and his current \nright knee condition.  \nSpecifically, the Claimant gave conflicting and confusing testimony concerning his alleged \nreporting of a right injury to medical professionals due to his work-related injury of July 2021.  In \nfact, what is most telling is the fact the Claimant’s testimony is not corroborated by the medical \nrecords.  It is highly improbable that multiple doctors and medical professionals failed to document \nthe Claimant’s report of a right knee injury.  Likewise, the mechanism of the Claimant’s fall is not \nconsistent with a right knee injury in either of his varied accounts of the incident.       \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n14 \n \n In  that  regard,  during  the  hearing  the  Claimant  testified  that  he  landed  on  his  backside.  \nHowever, when the Claimant provided a history of his workplace incident during his first visit to \nConcentra  on  August  20,  2021,  the  Claimant  reported  that  he “twisted  his  left  knee  and  hit  his \nbuttocks.”  There is absolutely no mention of a right knee injury.  The Claimant’s first medically \ndocumented  treatment  of  record  for  consideration  of  his  right  knee  is  not  until  a  year  after  his \nwork-related injury of July 26, 2021.  However, the Claimant continued to maintain that he made \ninitial reports of  an injury to his right knee to several treating medical professionals despite the \nfact  there  is  absolutely  no  documentation  of  an  alleged  right  knee  injury  in  any  of  the \ncontemporaneous medical reports as discussed above.  The Claimant was unable to explain why \nmultiple medical staff persons would omit from their medical notes his report of a right knee injury.  \nIt is noteworthy that a day after his work-related incident, the Claimant reported on the Form AR-\nN that he sustained injuries to his “shoulders and low back.”  In fact, there is absolutely no mention \nwhatsoever of an injury to either of the Claimant’s knees.     \nNevertheless, although on cross-examination, the Claimant denied he injured his right knee \nin a separate incident at his home after his work-related incident.  However, the medical records \nshow  that  on  July  18,  2022,  the  Claimant  reported  to  his  PCP,  Dr.  Richardson,  a  subsequent \nincident with his right knee wherein he struck his knee on some furniture at his home.  What is \nmost telling is the fact that the Claimant admitted to use of his personal health insurance to pay for \nthe treatment relating to his right knee.      \nMore  importantly,  there is  no  probative  evidence  whatsoever,  demonstrating  or  even \nsuggesting  that  the  Claimant  injured  his  right  knee  during  his  work  incident  of  July  26,  2021.  \nLikewise,  the  diagnostic  tests  (namely,  the  MRI)  of  record  demonstrate  significant  pre-existing \nabnormalities of the right knee that are degenerative in nature.  \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n15 \n \nOn August 24, 2022, Dr. Ethan Schock opined that due to the lack of documentation of a \nright knee injury by Dr. Gordon, the report of a new injury by Dr. Richardson in a separate incident \nat his home, and his degenerative arthritic knee issues, there is a zero percent causal relationship \nto the Claimant’s present right knee problems and his work injury of July 26, 2021.  This opinion \nwas rendered within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  There  are no expert opinions to the \ncontrary.    \nTo summarize,  I am not persuaded that the Claimant injured his right knee  during his July \n26, 2021 work-related fall due to the following: Considering the lack of any documented complaint \nof  a  right  knee  injury  despite  the  Claimant  having  been  evaluated  by  multiple  medical \nprofessionals;  that  there  is  no  medically  documented  report  of  an  injury  to  his  right  knee  until \nalmost  after  a  year  of  his  injury;  the  expert  opinion  of    Dr.  Schock  of  there  being  no  causal \nconnection  of  his  present  knee  condition  to  his  work-related  incident;  there  being  no  expert \nmedical opinion or probative evidence to the contrary; the fact that the Claimant struck his right \nknee on furniture at his home following his work-related fall; the mechanism of his fall; the fact \nthat he used his personal health insurance to pay for treatment on his right knee treatment with Dr. \nSchock; and because there are significant degenerative abnormalities of the Claimant’s right knee  \ndemonstrated  on  the  MRI  of  June  2022,  for  which  the  surgical  intervention  is  geared  toward \nrepairing.   I  am  aware  that  in  workers’  compensation  law,  employment  circumstances  that \naggravate  pre-existing  conditions  are  compensable.    However,  taking  into  consideration  all  the \nother probative evidence demonstrating otherwise, I do not find that to be the case here.      \nHence, for all the reasons set forth above, I am convinced that it would require conjecture \nand speculation to causally link the Claimant’s current right knee complaints to  his  workplace \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n16 \n \ninjury  of  July  26,  2021.    Conjecture  and  speculation  cannot  supply  the  place  of  proof.   Dena \nConstruction Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 575 S.W.2d 155 (1979).   \nUnder these circumstances, I am compelled to find that the Claimant failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that there is a causal connection between his July 26, 2021 work-\nrelated fall and the abnormalities demonstrated on the June 2022 MRI of his right knee, for which \nsurgical intervention has been recommended by Dr. Schock.       \n  Therefore, based on all of the foregoing evidence, I find that the Claimant failed to prove \nby a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his right knee, during \nand in the course of his employment with the respondent-employer during his July 26, 2021, work-\nrelated slip and fall.  \nB. Remaining Issue      \n Because the Claimant failed to prove he sustained a compensable right knee injury on July \n26, 2021, the other issue pertaining to medical treatment for his right knee has been rendered moot \nand not discussed herein.  Accordingly, this claim for a right knee injury is respectfully denied and \ndismissed in its entirety. \n                                                   ORDER \nIn accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim \nis hereby respectfully denied and dismissed in its entirety.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n          ______________________________ \n          HON. CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE \n \n \n\nWhite- H108614 \n \n17","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H108614 MICHAEL WHITE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, WCT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 27, 2023 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Little Ro...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:08:58.313Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H108614-2023-04-27","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WHITE_MICHAEL_H108614_20230427.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}