{"id":"alj-H200936-2023-10-10","awcc_number":"H200936","decision_date":"2023-10-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Melvin Thompson","employer_name":"City Of Helena/west Helena","title":"THOMPSON VS. CITY OF HELENA/WEST HELENA AWCC# H200936 OCTOBER 10, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","cervical","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOMPSON_MELVIN_H200936_20231010.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"THOMPSON_MELVIN_H200936_20231010.pdf","text_length":19551,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H200936 \n \nMELVIN THOMPSON, EMPLOYEE       CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF HELENA/WEST HELENA, EMPLOYER          RESPONDENT \n \nAR MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-WCT, TPA                RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED 10 OCTOBER 2023 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative  Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 20 April 2023 in Helena/West Helena, Phillips County, Arkansas. \n \nMr. Kenneth A. Olsen, Attorney-at-Law of Bryant, Arkansas, appeared for the claimant. \n \nMs.  Mary  K.  Edwards,  Attorney-at-Law  of  North  Little  Rock,  Arkansas, appeared for  the \nrespondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe  above-captioned  case  was  heard  on 20 April 2023 in Helena/West  Helena, \nArkansas, after the parties participated in a prehearing telephone conference on 17 January \n2023.  A Prehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as “Commission’s Exhibit \nNo 1”,  was  entered  on 18 January  2023. The  Order  stated that the ISSUES  TO  BE \nLITIGATED included  compensability; entitlement  to  medical  and  indemnity  benefits; \ncontroversion; and attorney’s fees. All other ISSUES were reserved. \nThe Prehearing Order set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  An employee/employer/carrier relationship existed between the parties on 11 January \n2022 when the claimant sustained a back injury. \n \nThe claimant was the sole WITNESS at the hearing. \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n2 \n \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their prehearing questionnaire responses, \nwere incorporated by reference into the Prehearing Order and were listed as follows: \nThe  claimant  CONTENTDS  he  is  entitled  to  medical  and  indemnity  benefits  and \nattorney’s fees.  \nThe respondents CONTEND that the claimant sustained an injury on 11 January 2022 \nwhile working for the City of Helena/West Helena.  His claim was accepted and benefits were \npaid accordingly.  Claimant, however, reinjured his back in a motor vehicle accident on 16 \nJanuary  2022,  and  that  injury  was  not  work-related.  They  further  contend  that  any \ncontinued problems are or were related to the motor vehicle accident and not the 11 January \n2022  work  incident.  The  respondents  reserved the  right  to  amend  their  responses  or \npleadings. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving  reviewed  the  record  as  a  whole  and  having  heard  testimony  from  the  witness, \nobserving his demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law under \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The claimant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled \nto any additional benefits or medical treatment. \n \n3. The claimant, accordingly, failed to establish that he is entitled to any attorney’s fee. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY and MEDICAL EVIDENCE    \nA. Claimant on Direct-Examination  \nMelvin  Thompson  is  a fifty-five (55) year  old  male who was working for  the  City of \nHelena/West Helena in January of 2022. He testified that on January 11\nth\n, the robotic arm \nof the city’s  garbage  truck was  not  working  properly, so  he  and  others were  dumping \nresidential  garbage  containers  by  hand.  [TR  at  12.]  He  offered  that  he  hurt  his  back \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n3 \n \nstruggling  with  one  particularly  heavy  container. Mr. Thompson said, “the next  day, I \ncouldn’t get up out of the bed, I was in so much pain.  So I called my supervisor at 5:30, 6:00 \n[in the morning], and they instructed me to go to [Helena Regional Medical Center (HRMC)].” \n[TR at 13.] The claimant said that the hospital performed various imaging. [TR at 14.] \nMr.  Thompson  stated  that  this  was  not  his  first  back  injury.  He  worked  in \nconstruction  most  of  his  life  and  specifically  had  back  trouble  in  2014. Past  procedures \nperformed included “epidurals and block shots” and rhizotomies, but he denied any “invasive \nback surgery.”  [TR  at 15.] Multiple  MRIs were performed  over  the  years,  and  he  was \ndiagnosed with disc bulge as far back as 2014.  More disc bulges were seen via MRI in 2017. \n[TR at 16.] \nHe experienced some muscle spasms in 2018 and went for another MRI in 2020 when \nbulging discs were seen again, along with an annular fissure. [TR at 17.] He stated that he \ndid  not  return  to  work  after  the  11  January  2022  incident. At  the  end  of  March, Mr. \nThompson saw a provider in Memphis who recommended physical therapy for his back pain. \n[TR at 18.]  A 2022 MRI revealed an additional disc bulge. He associated that bulge with new \npain, including numbness and tingling. [TR at 19.] \nWithin  a  week  of  his  reported  work  injury,  Mr.  Thompson  was  in  a  motor  vehicle \naccident, when “a vehicle shot past me and cut me off, hit my front bumper.” [TR at 20.]  He \ndeclined ambulance transportation and immediate medical treatment after the accident. [TR \nat 21.] \nAccording to the claimant, he did not complete physical therapy because coverage was \ndenied. That was around the time that he learned his claim was being denied going forward. \n[TR  at  22.]  Mr.  Thompson  testified  that  he  already  received  some  temporary  disability \nbenefits  on  the claim  and that  those started  the  day  he reported  an injury.  Benefits were \npaid from January into March. [TR at 23.]  \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n4 \n \nThe claimant testified that he has not been able to return to work since the 11 January \nincident and he claimed that neither Dr. Lovell [the provider in Memphis] nor Dr. Michel [his \nPCP] released him to return to work. [TR at 24.] Mr. Thompson said that Medicaid covers his \ntreatment with Dr. Michel when he does not have other insurance coverage. The claimant \nstated  that  he  continues  seeing  Dr.  Michel  for  back  pain,  muscle  spasms,  and  other \nmedications. [TR at 25.] He denied taking medication for his back prior to the 11 January \n2022 incident. [TR at 26.] He also described his back as “good” for the seven to eight years \nprior to that date. When asked, “How is your back as we sit here today?” his response was \nthe same—“good.” [TR at 27.] He could not remember the last time he took Gabapentin for \nmuscle spasms. \nMr. Thompson concluded his direct-examination saying that he felt he could go back \nto work, that he did not need additional medical treatment, that he did not need a referral to \na specialist, and that his current work status is without restrictions. [TR at 28.] \n B.  Claimant on Cross-Examination by Ms. Edwards \n The claimant stated that he was discharged home from HRMC after imaging studies \nand being assessed with lumbar and cervical sprains. [TR at 29.] He then followed up with \nhis PCP Dr. Michel, whom he has seen for seven (7) or eight (8) years. [TR at 30.] \n Mr. Thompson denied any injury in the car accident a few days after his work incident \nand denied seeking damages for injuries in the lawsuit he filed subsequent to that accident. \nWhen asked, “You didn’t claim any sort of back injury in that, correct?” he answered, \n“Correct.” Id. Reviewing the lawsuit’s complaint, he acknowledged that chest pain, rib pain, \nand back pain were listed among the sustained injuries. [TR at 31.] Somewhat confusingly, \nhe stated that the complaint was accurate but that “they put the back pain down wrong.” [TR \nat 32.] The claimant also acknowledged that he recently settled the lawsuit.   \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n5 \n \n Mr.  Thompson  confirmed  that  he  had  not  returned  to  work  since  the  date  of  the \nincident.  He  acknowledged  HRMC  authorized  his  return to work. When asked, “But you \ndidn’t want to go back to work, correct?” he answered, “I didn’t. They wouldn’t let me.” [TR \nat 34.] He further acknowledged that Dr. Michel authorized his return to work and that Dr. \nLovell eventually returned him to work, also. The claimant confirmed again, though, that he \nnever returned to work after 11 January 2022.  \n The claimant acknowledged his past workers’ compensation claims for back injuries \nand that Dr. Michel prescribed him medication over the years for his back symptoms. [TR at \n35.] Mr. Thompson then testified about some of his past back issues and treatment history, \nincluding an imaging note from 2014 stating “degenerative findings normal for age.” [TR at \n36-40.]  In  a  24  November  2015  note  the  same  physician  reported, “he is not a surgical \ncandidate” and “he  wants  to  be  off  work,  but  explained  that  his  lower-back  pain  does  not \nrequire him to be permanently off work.” The claimant said he was aware of that report. [TR \nat  41.]  His  cross-examination  concluded  with confirmation  that  another  provider also \nauthorized his return to work without restrictions in January of 2023. [TR at 42.] \nD.  Claimant on Additional Examination \nOn redirect examination, the claimant stated that he did not tell Dr. Lovell about his \nauto accident when he saw him in March of 2022. He also stated that an attorney drafted \nand filed his personal injury lawsuit without his review. [TR at 43.] \nBefore closing the record, the respondents’ counsel stated that the claim was denied \nafter they learned of Mr. Thompson’s auto accident, but she made clear that they were not \nseeking repayment for any of the benefits already paid to Mr. Thompson or on his behalf.  \n E.  Medical Evidence \n An extensive set of medical records was offered and admitted to the record as “Joint \nExhibit No 1.”  Most of those records, 124 of the 166 pages, related to the claimant’s various \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n6 \n \noffice  visits  and  treatments  for  back  problems  pre-dating  the  11  January  2022  injury. \nConsistent with his testimony around a history of back problems, the records reflect ongoing \ncomplaints of pain and imaging reports showing various levels of spinal disc derangement. \n Specific  to  this  claim, Mr.  Thompson  was  seen  at  HRMC  a  little  after  2:00  in  the \nafternoon of 12 January 2022, where he reported pain in his back and neck. See J. Ex. No 1 \nat   125-132. X-Rays   were   ordered   and   IM   Ketorolac   and PO   Cyclobenzaprine   were \nadministered.  The  imaging  showed  no  acute  abnormalities.  According  to  his  discharge \nsummary, he was diagnosed with a cervical and lumbar sprains, prescribed 12 tablets each \nof Skelaxin and Ultracet, and given a Return to Work form. The summary listed his problem \nas ongoing. His work form initially authorized a return two (2)  days later,\n1\n but that form was \nrevised to authorize his return on 17 January 2022.\n2\n \n The claimant then presented to Dr. Michel at the Lee County Cooperative Clinic on \n14 January 2022. Id. at 133-136. He was noted without any acute distress and without any \noutward  signs  of  pain.  He  received  refills  for  several  medications  not  related  to  his  back \ncomplaints and does not appear to have received any prescriptions or treatments related to \nhis  back  pain.  Still,  he  was  given  a  note  excusing  him  from  work  through  the  end  of  the \nmonth.  \n Mr. Thompson’s next clinic presentation was on 21 February 2022. Id. at 137-138. He \nreported continuing pain and sought another prescription refill not related to his workplace \ninjury. An MRI was ordered. The cervical imaging showed some disc bulge and hypertrophy. \nId.  at  139-140.  The  lumbar spine  imaging was  compared  to  a  25 March  2020  study. Id.  at \n141-142.  Disc  desiccation  and  bulge  were  noted  as  unchanged,  with  an  overall  impression \n \n1\n Which a review of the calendar shows would have fallen on a Friday. \n2\n 17 January 2022 would have been the Monday following his visit. \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n7 \n \nstating, “Disc desiccation and disc bulge from L2-L3 through L5-S1 unchanged. No significant \nspinal canal stenosis is noted with mild bilateral neural foraminal stenosis at L4-L5.” Id. \n The MRI results were discussed at a follow-up clinic visit on 7 March 2022. Id. at 143-\n144. The HPI in the visit note stated, “This is the case of a 54 Y/O Black male with history of \nchronic pain and involvement in motor vehicle accident. Presented to discuss MRI report of \nthe cervical spine.” An osteoporosis screening  was  ordered,  and  that  scan  resulted  normal \nbone density findings on 11 March 2022. Id. at 145. \n Mr. Thompson returned to the clinic again on 16 March 2022. Id. at 146-147. He was \nreferred to UAMS for evaluation, noting “chronic neck pain and lumbar spine  pain  with \nmuscle  spasm  long  standing  and  is  status  post  recently  of  a  MVA...  MRI  revealed \ndegenerative cervical and lumbar disc disease.” Id. \n The claimant then presented to the Semmes-Murphey Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, \non  31  March  2022. Id.  at  148-152. According to the note, he was there “at the request of \nworker’s compensation.” Reviewing the imaging from 2017, 2020, and 2022, the clinic noted \n“there does appear to be a new disc bulge on the right at L4-5.  Otherwise  the  study  is \nsomewhat  unremarkable,  other  than  some  degenerative  changes.”  He  was  prescribed \nSkelaxin  and  Gabapentin,  with  light-duty  restrictions  and  no  commercial  driving,  and \nphysical therapy was ordered. The Return to Work note authorized his return that same day. \n The claimant presented again to the Lee County clinic the following day, 1 April 2022, \ncomplaining that he could not get his prescriptions. Id. at 153-155. The clinic note represents \nthat he reported a PT recommendation and “no return to work until further evaluation and \ncompletion of physical therapy.” Mr. Thompson was directed to Fenter Physical Therapy for \ntreatment.  \n Additional provider notes appear from the Lee County Cooperative Clinic appear in \nthe record from pages 156 to 166 of Joint Exhibit No 1. Mr. Thompson reported to the clinic \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n8 \n \non 18 May 2022 that the workers’ compensation carrier was no longer covering the cost of \nGabapentin. Id. at 161. \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \n The  stipulated facts are  outlined  above. It  is settled that  the  Commission, with the \nbenefit of being in the presence of the witness and observing his or her demeanor, determines \na witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their statements. See Wal-Mart \nStores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999).   \nA.   The Claimant Failed  to  Prove, by  a  Preponderance  of  the  Evidence, that  he  is \nEntitled to Any Additional Benefits. \n \nUnder Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation laws, a worker has the burden of proving, \nby a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable injury as the result of \na  workplace  incident.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)(E)(i).  A  compensable  injury  must  be \nestablished  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-\n102(4)(D).  Objective  medical  findings  are  those  findings  that  cannot  come  under  the \nvoluntary  control  of  the  patient.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  Causation  does  not \nneed to be established by objective findings when the objective medical evidence establishes \nthat an injury exists and other nonmedical evidence shows that it is more likely than not that \nthe injury was caused by an incident in the workplace. Bean v. Reynolds Consumer Prods., \n2022 Ark. App 276, 646 S.W.3d 655, 2022 Ark. App. LEXIS 276, citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. \nv. VanWagner, supra. \nArkansas  law  requires  an  employer  to  promptly  provide  for  medical  treatment  and \nsurgical  services  that  are  reasonably  necessary  and  related  to  injuries  sustained  by  an \nemployee. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). A claimant must prove, by a preponderance of the \nevidence,  that  medical  treatment  is  reasonable  and  necessary. Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.  v. \nBrown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.2d 153 (2003).  Reasonable and necessary medical services \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n9 \n \nmay include those necessary to, among other things, reduce or alleviate symptoms resulting \nfrom the compensable injury. Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 953, \n1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 589. \nThe claimant failed to meet his burden on the claim that he is entitled to any beyond \nwhat  he  already  received.  Mr.  Thompson  does  not  deny  a  significant  history  of  back \nproblems.  The record shows that he called in early in the morning to report an injury after \nlifting a trash container the day before.  He presented to the emergency later that afternoon \nand was found to have no acute abnormality on imaging and no appreciable change compared \nagainst  available  imaging  from  2017.  The  emergency  department  providers  ordered  some \npain and anti-inflammatory medications and authorized a return to work in a few days (with \nan original return date for that Friday changed to the following Monday).  His problems were \nnoted  on  the  discharge  summary  as  ongoing,  and  he  was  to  return  to  work  without  any \nrestrictions. \nMr. Thompson then followed up with his PCP who extended his off-work status for an \nadditional  two (2) weeks without  stating why he  was  extending  that  status  and  without \nprescribing any treatment or medication for the claimant’s back. Two (2) days after that visit, \nthe claimant experienced a motor vehicle accident (MVA). \nDespite the expiration of his off-duty status, Mr. Thompson failed to return to work. \nThere  is  no  record  of  any  attempt  around  the  time  of  his  intended  return  to  work  to  seek \ntreatment, an extension of his off-work status, or some level of work restrictions to support \nany  ongoing  healing  efforts. Five (5) weeks after last presenting to his PCP’s clinic, the \nclaimant returned with more complaints of chronic pain and without reporting being involved \nin  an  MVA  just  days  after  his  last  visit.  Eventual  imaging  studies  revealed  findings \nconsistent with past studies and possibly an additional bulge at one disc area. \n\nTHOMPSON – H200936 \n \n10 \n \nMr. Thompson’s chronic pain, disc problems, and degenerative findings are noted \nthroughout  the  medical  records.  Additionally,  he  caused  a civil  complaint  to  be  filed \nsubsequent to that MVA where he alleged injuries to, among other things, his chest, ribs, and \nback which required medical treatment and which would continue to require the same. The \nclaimant  can  point  to  no  medical  evidence directly  relating  any  objective  finding  to  the  11 \nJanuary work incident, and he certainly cannot do so to the exclusion of the involvement of \nhis   days-later   MVA.   And   the   record   lacks   any   relevant   non-medical   evidence   that \npreponderates a finding that any ongoing back troubles are or were caused by the workplace \nincident claimed on 11 January 2022.  \nOn this record the claimant simply cannot prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, \nthat he suffered a compensable injury that entitled him to benefits and/or treatment beyond \nwhat the respondents already provided. \nB.  Attorney’s Fee \nConsistent  with  the  above,  the  claimant  fails  to  establish  that  he  is  entitled  to  an \nattorney’s fee. \nV.  ORDER \n Consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, this \nclaim is DENIED AND DISMISSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H200936 MELVIN THOMPSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF HELENA/WEST HELENA, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AR MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-WCT, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 10 OCTOBER 2023 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law Judge JayO. ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:01:28.322Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H200936-2023-10-10","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOMPSON_MELVIN_H200936_20231010.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}