{"id":"alj-H109911-2025-12-02","awcc_number":"H109911","decision_date":"2025-12-02","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Trenton Cole","employer_name":"Southern Tire Mart LLC","title":"COLE VS. SOUTHERN TIRE MART LLC AWCC# H109911 & H407455 December 02, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/COLE_TRENTON_H109911H407455_20251202.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"COLE_TRENTON_H109911H407455_20251202.pdf","text_length":22243,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H109911 & H407455 \n \nTRENTON COLE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSOUTHERN TIRE MART LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT  \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT #1 \n \nTHE HARTFORD           RESPONDENT #2 \n              \n OPINION FILED DECEMBER 2, 2025 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondent #1 is represented by GUY A. WADE, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondent #2 is represented by RANDY MURPHY, Attorney, Little Rock. Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n \n On September 8,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for a hearing  at Fort  Smith, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on March 13, 2025, and a pre-hearing order was \nfiled on that same date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit \n#1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2   The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on December 8, 2021, and April 12, \n2024. \n3   Claimant sustained a compensable injury on December 8, 2021. \n \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n2 \n \n \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n1 Did claimant suffer a new injury/aggravation or a recurrence on April 12, 2024. \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe  claimant  contends  that “His ongoing need for treatment is due to the effects of his \nDecember 8, 2021, injury.  The April 12, 2024, incident was simply a recurrence of symptoms arising \nout of his December 8, 2021, injury and not a new injury.  The respondents have controverted his \nentitlement to additional compensation, including medical treatment, regarding his December 8, 2021, \ncompensable injury.  The claimant contends that he is entitled to medical mileage reimbursement that \nremains unpaid.” \nRespondent #1 contends that “Respondent, Travelers contends that the original injury was \naccepted with applicable benefits paid.  Claimant was released and returned to work and sustained a \nnew injury almost two years after his release.  Respondent Travelers did not provide workers’ \ncompensation  coverage  on  April  12,  2024, and  they  are  NOT  responsible  for  benefits  for  the \nsubsequent injury.  Claimant’s benefits are being paid for the subsequent April 2024 injury and \ntherefore have not been controverted by any party, regardless of responsible carrier.”  \nRespondent  #2  contends that “Claimant did not sustain a new injury or an aggravation on \nApril 12, 2024.  Respondents contend that the claimant’s knee problems and alleged injury of April \n12, 2024, were a continuation or recurrence of injuries on December 8, 2021.”  \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the claimant \nand  to  observe his demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  are  made  in \naccordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n3 \n \n \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on March \n13, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.  The evidence preponderates that claimant's compensable left knee injury of April 12, 2024, \nwas a recurrence, not an aggravation; said injury is the responsibility of Respondent No. 1, Travelers. \n \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n \n Claimant was the only witness to testify for any party.  He related how he was injured in 2021, \nwhich was accepted as a compensable injury to his left knee. Dr. Tom Coker performed surgery on \nhis left knee and has followed claimant’s treatment since that surgery.  Claimant said his knee has had \nissues which he termed “going out” and which he further explained was his knee would twist out of \nsocket and cause him to fall. \n On April 12, 2024, claimant was trying to ease back into work to see what he was capable of \nperforming at his job.  He was putting a tire on a vehicle; after removing the first one and putting the \nsecond one on, he said his left knee folded, causing him to fall to the floor.  His boss told him he \ncould  go  home  for  the day, but claimant  later  explained  that  he  was  told  that  he  had  to  go  to  the \nOccupational Medicine Clinic to take a drug test.  He said that this was similar to what had happened \nto him multiple times since his surgery.  Claimant did not believe that he had sustained a new injury \nto his knee and that it does not do anything different after the April 12, 2024, incident than it was \nafter his surgery. \n On cross-examination, Mr. Wade cross-examined claimant on behalf of respondent Travelers \nIndemnity Company.    Claimant agreed that his impairment rating after the surgery by Dr. Coker had \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n4 \n \n \nbeen accepted and paid and his medical expenses had been paid for follow up visits.  Claimant testified \nthat he is working the same number of hours that he worked before the December 2021 accident.  \nWhen he returned to work, claimant was doing counter sales and making tickets, keeping up with the \nbooks, and things of that nature.  In September 2023, Dr. Coker said that claimant could increase his \nactivity and on April 12, 2024, he was in the shop working away from the desk. \n After seeing Dr. Ian Cheyne at Mercy Occupational Medicine, he was then seen by Dr. Coker.  \nClaimant agreed that he had not received any treatment for his knee between September 11, 2023, and \nApril 12, 2024.  Claimant said that his incident report on April 12, 2024, was correct “was guiding a \nsuper single tire on wheel and putting on first bead and weight of right leg when first bead went and \npivoted to left and knee gave out.”  Claimant agreed that the way he pivoted on April 12, 2024, made \nthe  pain  worse than it  had  been  before.    Claimant  stated  that  he  did  not  see  Dr.  Owen  Kelly  in \nRussellville for an examination or evaluation on his left knee.   \n On cross-examination by Mr. Murphy for respondent #2, The Hartford, claimant agreed that \na  subluxation  of  his  knee  is  what  he  calls “folding,” which happened many  times  before  April  12, \n2024.  He said his subluxation continued from his knee injury in 2021, and that he had not had a new \ninjury  at  any  point  since  December  8,  2021.    Claimant  believes  all  of  his  problems  relate  to  his \nDecember 8, 2021, injury.  He agreed with Dr. Kelly’s assessment, “Mr. Cole’s April 12, 2024, incident \nappears to be just a recurrence/continuation of his previous 2021, injury and would not be deemed a \nnew injury.”     \n On redirect-examination, claimant said his knee had gone out nine or ten times between the \nDecember 8, 2021, injury and the April 12, 2024, incident.  He described it as being sore and swollen \nfor  a  little  while  but  nothing  that  happened  on  April  12,  2024,  had not already  been  happening.  \nClaimant said that in this instance, he was sent to the doctor.  Claimant said that he was not lifting \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n5 \n \n \nanything unusual at the time of the April 12, 2024, incident nor did he trip or fall.  He said there was \nnothing different about that incident than the other times that his knee gave out on him before April \n12, 2024.   \n On recross-examination, by Mr. Wade, claimant said he had been back to Dr. Coker on other \noccasions due to his knee folding.  Claimant said that on April 12, 2024, he was pivoting when the \nknee went out.  Since April 12, 2024, his knee has not folded or given him more difficulty than before \nthat date. \n On  recross-examination,  by  Mr.  Murphy, claimant  said  that  when  his  knee  folds,  he \nexperiences some pain and has some minor swelling or tenderness, but it goes away.  He said that is \nwhat happened after the April 12, 2024, incident. \n On redirect-examination, by Mr. Walker, claimant related that the company has a policy that \nif any incident occurs at work that an incident report was to be filled out.  Claimant did not ask to go \nto the doctor on April 12, 2024; he left the premises and then was called and told he had to take a \ndrug test.  He again related that the collapsing of his knee on April 12, 2024, was no different than \nother occasions when the knee had collapsed before that date.   \n On recross-examination, claimant said that when he was told he needed to see a doctor on \nApril 12, 2025, he asked to go see Dr. Coker, but he was sent to Mercy Occupational to take a drug \ntest.   \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n In addition  to the  prehearing  order  discussed above,  the  exhibits admitted  into  evidence  in \nthis case were Claimant’s Exhibit #1, consisting  of  two  index  pages  and  fifty-six  numbered  pages \nthereafter; Claimant’s Exhibit #2, consisting of one index page and three pages of letters to respondent \n#1 attorney; Respondent #1 Exhibit #1, consisting of three index pages and one hundred twenty-\n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n6 \n \n \nthree numbered pages of medical records; Respondent #1 Exhibit #2 the incident report for the April \n12, 2024; Respondent #2 Exhibit #1 consisting of one index page and twenty-six pages of medical \nrecords. \n Reviewing the medical records in chronological order, the records that predate the April 12, \n2024, incident showed that claimant suffered a dislocated left patella with collateral ligament damage.  \nClaimant underwent arthroscopic knee surgery on February 8, 2022.  Dr. Coker referred claimant for \na functional capacity evaluation (FCE) which was performed on May 25, 2022.  Claimant put forth a \nreliable effort and based on that evaluation, Dr. Coker released him to work at a “sit down position,” \nbut  claimant could  carry pursuant  to the  findings  of  the  FCE,  which  demonstrated  claimant  could \nwork at the heavy classification of work.  Dr. Coker did state that claimant should not be climbing \nstairs  nor performing  full  squats.    A  12%  permanent  impairment  rating  was  assessed,  which \nrespondent #1 accepted and paid. \n When Dr. Coker saw claimant on March 3, 2023, claimant reported “he feels like the patella \nis unstable and gives occasionally, this is when he gets tired is when he has to flex.”\n1\n  Dr. Coker sent \nclaimant  for  a  second  FCE,  which  was  performed  on  May  1,  2023.    Claimant  again  put  forth  a \nconsistent effort, but the result of this evaluation was that claimant’s impairment now placed him in \nthe medium classification of work.  Dr. Coker said that claimant’s permanent restrictions would now \nbe  occasional  lifting once  or  twice  a  day  over  sixty  pounds  with  frequent  lifting  up  to  twenty-five \npounds.  He stated that claimant could do “more physical activity and build strength up but I think \nthese limitations on how much weight and how often he should lift are probably permanent.”  His \n \n1\n Dr. Coker’s notes have several incomplete sentences and missing punctuation; I recognize the records are mainly \nfor his benefit, and errors in the transcription of his dictation are of little consequence to him in rendering care to his \npatients. Instead of correcting those entries to what I believe was meant, I am reproducing what is contained in the \nrecords as is.  The incorrect date of injury mentioned twice in Dr. Coker’s report is left as he wrote it.  \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n7 \n \n \nassessment status was “post  patella  dislocation  with loose body  and  now  some  post  traumatic \npatellofemoral chondromalacia.” \n Claimant again saw Dr. Coker on September 11, 2023, but no office chart for that day was \nsubmitted, only a return to work note for claimant to return on September 13, 2023. \n    As mentioned in claimant’s testimony, he went to Mercy Clinic Occupational Medicine on \nApril 12, 2024.  Dr. Cheyne’s diagnosis was that claimant had a sprain of an unspecified collateral \nligament of his left knee and a recurrent subluxation of patella, left knee.  Dr. Cheyne released claimant \nto return to work on April 13, 2024, to sedentary duty.  Claimant was referred for an MRI on his left \nknee by Dr. Cheyne which was performed on April 28, 2024.  The findings were:  \n“Compared  with  a  3  January  2022.    There  is  again  noted lateral  patella \nsubluxation in relation to the trochlear notch.  The retinaculum appears to be \nintact.  The cruciate and collateral ligaments are intact as well as distal patellar \ntendon  complex and  quadrisects  tendon.    Small  amounts  of  joint  fluid.    No \nmeniscal tear or definite joint body.” \n \nThe impression was: “mild collateral patellar subluxation.  Small amount of joint fluid.  No \nother internal derangement \nClaimant  saw Dr.  Coker  again  on  April  30,  2024.  His  notes  for  the  physical  exam  were  as \nfollows: \n“All this was discussed with him and understood.  Exam  until  loose  body  is \nextension full flexion is got patellofemoral grinding he stable varus valgus ACL \nPLC.  He has a very hypermobile patella significant trochlear grove genu valgus \nknee.  Reviewed his MRI and x-rays do not appreciate a true loose body I think \nhe has calcifications in his medial retinaculum and his will unless he locks think \nI can help him with the scope so continue to leg work but more sedentary job \nwe discuss the fact sleeves do not work for size PT he can do at home he knows \nwell and return some APRN.” \n \n The  assessment  plan  was “diagnosed patella subluxation  recurrent  secondary  to  on-the-job \ninjury and at this point he can be limited to a sedentary type job, desk type job, return to see me yearly \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n8 \n \n \nif that is what it takes to continue to evaluate his knees over time.”  After seeing claimant on June 10, \n2024, Dr. Coker noted that claimant was “stiffening up but he does have crepitus” and recommended \nthat claimant should do desk type work rather than squatting and kneeling. \n Dr. Coker saw claimant on October 29, 2024. This note contains the following sentence: “He \nreinjured his knee in April, but I believe that was an aggravation of a preexisting condition.  His initial \ninjury was back in February 2022. [sic]” \n Respondent #2 submitted a record review from, Dr. Owen Kelly, an orthopedic surgeon.  Dr. \nKelly did not conduct a physical examination of claimant rather expressed his opinion based on the \nrecords that he reviewed.  Dr. Kelly’s conclusions were: \n “Mr.  Cole  had  a  previous  patellar  dislocation that required  arthroscopic \nintervention.  The MRI that was performed on April 28, 2024, does not show \nevidence of any acute abnormality or injury.  The findings were consistent with \na chronic condition.  Mr. Cole’s April 12, 2024, incident appears to be just a \nrecurrence/continuation of his previous 2021 injury and would not be deemed \na new injury.  This is confirmed by the imaging and the treating physician.”   \n  \nADJUDICATION \n \n The parties did not dispute claimant had an incident involving his left knee at work on April \n12,  2024.   The  question  before me is whether  the  April  12,  2024, incident  constituted  a  new \ncompensable injury (making Hartford liable) or a recurrence of the December 8, 2021, injury (leaving \nTravelers  liable).  After  reviewing  all  the  evidence,  I  find  that  the  April  12,  2024, incident  was  a \nrecurrence of the prior injury. \nTo determine whether a subsequent episode is an aggravation or a recurrence has taken place, \nthe test is whether the subsequent episode was a natural and probable result of the first injury or if it \nwas precipitated by an independent intervening cause. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Carter, 62 Ark. App. 162, \n969 S.W.2d 677 (1998) (citing Bearden Lumber Co. v. Bond, 7 Ark. App. 65, 644 S.W.2d 321 (1983)). If a \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n9 \n \n \ncausal  connection  between  the  primary  and  subsequent  disability  exists,  there  is  no  independent \nintervening cause unless the subsequent disability is triggered by activity on the part of the claimant \nthat is unreasonable under the circumstances. Guidry v. J&R Eads Const. Co., 11 Ark. App. 219, 669 \nS.W.2d 483 (1984). \nTravelers understandably puts much emphasis on one sentence in Dr. Coker’s October 29, \n2024, report. “At the last visit provided in the record, he [Dr. Coker] determined the claimant’s April \n2024 accident was an ‘aggravation of a pre-existing condition.’” (Travelers’ brief, page 5; bold in \noriginal.) That, however, was not all Dr. Coker said.  The complete portion of that entry reads: “He \nreinjured his knee in April, but I believe that was an aggravation of a preexisting condition.  His initial \ninjury was back in February 2022. [sic]” My reading of what Dr. Coker entered on his chart is that \nwhich he  was treating related  back  to  the original injury.  The word “aggravation” has a particular \nmeaning in workers’ compensation law, but doctors often use \"aggravation\" to mean a previous injury \nworsened or  flared  up - not  in  the  legal  sense  of  an  independent  compensable  injury  creating  new \nliability.  The Commission need not base a decision on how the medical profession may characterize \na given condition, but rather primarily on factors germane to the purposes of workers' compensation \nlaw. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990). See also Curry v. Franklin \nElectric, 32  Ark.  App.  168, 798  S.W.2d  130 (1990)  where  the treating  physician used  the  words \n“aggravation” and “recurrence” interchangeably.   I  also  note  that both  Dr.  Coker  and  Dr. Cheyne \nrecorded that claimant has a recurrent subluxation of his patella. \n Moving from the semantics of the medical records, this case is unusual in that the claimant \ndid  not  attempt  to  prove  he met  the requirement  for a  compensable  injury  on  April  12,  2024,  but \nTravelers did to so prove. It is then necessary that I determine, based on the preponderance of all the \nevidence, whether the subsequent incident was an independent compensable injury or a recurrence of \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n10 \n \n \nthe prior injury. In that regard, it is similar to Curry, which also saw the carriers disputing whether the \nclaimant has suffered an aggravation or a recurrence, and thus, which one would be responsible for a \nsecond injury to the injured worker.   \n An aggravation  is  a  new  injury, Maverick  Transp.  v.  Buzzard,  69  Ark.  App.  128,  10  S.W.3d \n467(2000). As such, claimant would have to establish by a preponderance of the evidence (1) an injury \narising out of and in the course of employment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the \nbody which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence supported \nby  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific  incident \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Claimant declined to do so; instead, Travelers took on \nthe task of trying to establish that claimant met these requirements.   \n There was no question that claimant was at his place of employment on April 12, 2024, when \nhe pivoted and suffered a subluxation of his left knee, thus establishing the first and fourth elements. \nAs for the second element, claimant did not believe the injury required medical services; he was on \nhis  way  home  when  his  employer  directed  him  to a  medical  facility  for  a  drug  test  as  part  of  the \nemployer’s policy. Therefore, the second element is questionable; claimant may not have required any \nmedical attention before returning to work the next day. However, since claimant continued to see \nDr. Cheyne and then Dr. Coker, I will not stop the analysis here and look at what the objective findings \nrevealed.    \nThe swelling and joint fluid are objective findings that establish an injury exists to the knee. \nBut  in  the  context  of  an  aggravation or recurrence  dispute,  the  critical  question  is  whether  those \nobjective findings establish a new injury or whether they simply reflect a manifestation of the existing \nDecember 8, 2021, injury.  Viewing the evidence as a whole, the objective findings are consistent with \nanother symptomatic episode of the compensable knee injury of December 8, 2021.  Claimant credibly \n\nCole-H109911 & H407455 \n11 \n \n \ntestified that each of the prior subluxation episodes caused pain and swelling. The MRI showed no \nacute or new findings. Dr. Coker noted the loose bodies were 'small little debris from his first injury' \nand described the condition as 'recurrent subluxation' that would likely continue on a chronic basis. \nTaken as a whole, the objective findings establish the existence and continuation of  the December \n2021 injury, not the occurrence of a new compensable injury in April 2024.    \nORDER \n \n Respondent Travelers is directed to pay/furnish benefits in accordance with the findings of \nfact and conclusions of law set forth above. \n Pursuant to A.C.A § 11-9-715(a)(1)(B)(ii), attorneys fees are awarded \"only on the amount of \ncompensation for indemnity benefits controverted and awarded.\" In this case, there was no claim that \nindemnity  benefits  have  been  controverted  up  to  the  date  of  hearing,  and  as  all  issues  other  than \nmedical benefits were reserved, no attorney's fee can be awarded in this matter at this time. Claimant's \nattorney is free to voluntarily contract with medical provider pursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-715(a)(4). \n Respondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \ntranscript in the amount of $ 381.11. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H109911 & H407455 TRENTON COLE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SOUTHERN TIRE MART LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT #1 THE HARTFORD RESPONDENT #2 OPINION FILED DECEMBER 2, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:12.023Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H109911-2025-12-02","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/COLE_TRENTON_H109911H407455_20251202.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}