{"id":"alj-H201405-2025-01-08","awcc_number":"H201405","decision_date":"2025-01-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Defrenchi Harris","employer_name":"Hall Tank Co","title":"HARRIS VS. HALL TANK CO. AWCC# H201405 January 08, 2025","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","rotator cuff","cervical","back","fracture","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HARRIS_DEFRENCHI_H201405_20250108.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HARRIS_DEFRENCHI_H201405_20250108.pdf","text_length":31597,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H201405 \n \nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \n \nHALL TANK CO., LLC, EMPLOYER     RESPONDENT \n \nACCIDENT FUND GENERAL \nINSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER, TPA      RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 8, 2025 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 22\nND\n day of \nOctober 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nRespondents are represented by Karen McKinney, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 22\nnd\n day of October 2024, to determine the issues \nof compensability  for  a work-related  injury to  the claimant’s neck and left  breast, plus \nreasonable and necessary medical in regard to these specific injuries, plus attorney fees.  \nThe respondents raised the defense of statute of limitations. The claimant contended that \nhe sustained admitted compensable injuries to his left shoulder, but that the respondents \nare denying compensability and treatment for his left breast and neck area which were also \ninjured at the time of the compensable accident.  \n The respondents  contend  that  the  claimant  sustained  a  left  shoulder injury  along \nwith  a  left upper  arm  and  elbow  injury  on  November  18,  2021,  and  the  claimant has \nreceived all the benefits to which he is entitled. Respondents have not controverted any \nbenefits  related  to  the  left  shoulder  injury.  The  respondents contend that the  claimant \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nreported an injury to his left shoulder from working to tiedown ratchet straps, when he felt \na ripple or tear in his left shoulder. An MRI of the shoulder revealed an intact rotator cuff, \nbut a possible tear to the labrum. The claimant then underwent a left shoulder arthroscopy \nwith  a  subacromial  decompression  with  a  biceps tenodesis  on  February  9,  2022.  The \nclaimant was later involved in a post-surgery motor vehicle accident. The treating surgeon \ndid not note any issues with the claimant’s shoulder at the claimant’s follow up appointment \nfollowing the motor vehicle accident. The claimant obtained a Change of Physician from \nDr. Phillip Smith to Dr. D’ Orsay Bryant. Dr. Bryant saw the claimant and opined that the \nclaimant’s current problems were related either to the claimant’s cervical spine or his \nbrachial plexus. An MRI of the brachial plexus was normal. An IME was then performed by \nDr. James Adametz who opined that the claimant’s issues were not related to his brachial \nplexus. Dr. Jesse Abler performed an IME of the claimant’s left shoulder and he opined \nthat all the treatment the claimant had received to date was reasonable and the surgery \nthat was performed on the claimant does not typically create the neurologic disorder that \nwas experienced by the claimant.  \n A copy of the Pre-hearing order was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part \nof  the  record without  objection.  The  Order  provided  that  the  parties  stipulated  that  the \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission had jurisdiction of the within claim, that an \nemployer/employee relationship existed on November 18, 2021, and that the injury to the \nclaimant’s left shoulder was accepted as compensable and the appropriate benefits were \npaid.        \n The claimant’s and respondent’s  contentions  are all set  out  in  their  respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing Questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. The sole witness to testify was the claimant. From a review of the record as a \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nwhole, to include medical reports and other matters properly before the Commission and \nhaving  had  an  opportunity  to  observe  the  testimony  and  demeanor of  the  witness,  the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction  over  this \nclaim. \n2. That  an  employer/employee  relationship  existed  on November  18,  2021,  the \ndate  of  the  work-related  injury  to  the  left  shoulder which was  accepted  as \ncompensable. \n3. That  the claim involving injuries  to  the  neck  and  left  breast  are  barred  by  the \nstatute  of  limitations. Consequently,  the  question  of  the  medical  treatment  of \nthese injuries are moot. \n4. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents are ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The Pre-hearing Order along with the Pre-hearing questionnaires of the parties were \nadmitted  into  the  record  without  objection. The  claimant  submitted one exhibit  that  was \nadmitted  without  objection which  consisted  of  166 pages  of  medical  reports. The \nrespondents  also  submitted an exhibit without  objection that consisted  of  24  pages  of \ndocuments.  \n The claimant, DeFrenchi Harris was the sole witness to testify. He was 49 years old \nat the time of the hearing and had obtained his GED. He was employed by the respondent \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nand sustained work-related injuries on November 18, 2021, while strapping down a tank \nthat was to be transported on the back of a truck. The respondent manufactures large tanks \nwhich are  placed underground  or  aboveground at  gas  stations.  The  claimant stated  he \ninjured  himself  while  working  with a rachet  strap where he felt “a ripple effect as I was \ntightening the - - tightening the strap down.”  “It was like from - - from out there to like from \nin here and back here (Indicating), but it was like a - - it was like a - - I felt it, and that’s \nwhen  I  had  to  just  stop. I had to stop what I was doing at that moment.”  The  claimant \nadmitted he was pointing to the inside and the back side of the elbow. The claimant’s \nattorney described the pointing as the claimant pointing all the way up his arm from the – \nin his elbow area going all the way up into his shoulder over to the base of his neck. The \nclaimant went on to state that it was not painful when it occurred, but he knew he had to \nstop what he was doing.  He admitted receiving medical treatment, initially at Concentra, \nand later under Dr. Phillip Allan Smith, who performed surgery. (5 – 8)   \nHe also admitted to receiving some temporary disability workers’ compensation \nbenefits and on June 28, 2022, coming under the treatment of Doctor D’ Orsay Bryant.  He \nadmitted Dr. Smith performed the surgery and released him back to work, and after a few \nweeks of working, he started hurting and was sent back to work without the sling but was \nplaced on a weight restriction or light duty.  He started off while on light duty picking up \ndebris  around  the  compound.  He  felt  this  activity  was  causing  pain  and additional \ncomplications and told HR about it and they stopped him from picking up the debris. (Tr. 9, \n10)  He then was placed in the breakroom studying things like storm-water prevention and \nforklift operations.  He stated he eventually was told that the respondent did not have any \nmore light duty available. (Tr. 11) He was then placed in transitional work where he worked \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nat an animal shelter for a short period of time.  He walked dogs, cleaned the dog pit, and \nwashed bowls. (Tr. 13) The claimant then testified as follows: \n“If you sit me down at my company job and you sit me down and you say \n‘Hey, we don’t want you to do nothing cause we don’t want you to jeopardize \nor hurt yourself any more than you are,’ I think it was a displacement or \ndouble  jeopardy  for  you  to  send  me  to another company that don’t have \nnothing to do with your company that don’t have nothing to do with your \ncompany, so it was like a double jeopardy to me that made me like ‘Hold on \ncause you - - you’re fixing to make - - have me to hurt myself more, and you \nalready don’t want to still do my surgery, right? \n \nThe  claimant  stated  that  he  returned  to  HR  and  told  them  he  could  not  go  back  to  the \nanimal shelter, and one reason was due to the travel to the shelter, and he thought that he \nstopped working somewhere around the end of the year. (Tr. 14, 15) \n The claimant admitted he had seen Dr. Bryant with the last visit on the 17\nth \nday of \nthe month of the hearing.  He did not have a return appointment at the time of the hearing. \n(Tr.  15,  16)  The  claimant additionally provided  that  he  had  not  received  any  temporary \ndisability benefits since the animal shelter, but that he was continuing to get a paycheck \nfrom the respondent. (Tr. 17, 18) \n Under cross examination, the claimant admitted that if he were injured today, and if \nhe went to the doctor today, his statements to the doctor would be more accurate than if \nhe went to the doctor a year later.  He admitted he was injured about three years ago and \nwas sent to Concentra.  He was shown page one of the Claimant’s exhibit which provided \nthat the claimant stated that he had pain in his left humerus from strapping down a load.  \nHe admitted that he did not mention pain in his chest or neck at the time due to the fact he \nwas not feeling pain in his chest or neck at the time.   He further admitted that he felt a pop \nin the biceps area and that was where he felt the pain. (Tr. 21 – 24) He was aware that he \nwas diagnosed with left shoulder pain at the time of his initial doctor visit.  He continued \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nsuffering pain and then returned for a MRI, which showed a possible labral tear, and was \nthen referred to Dr. Smith at Ortho Arkansas, who ordered a second MRI and then operated \non his left rotator cuff.  After the surgery, he was released to return to work with no overhead \nuse of his left arm. (Tr. 25, 26) The claimant also admitted that he was placed on a lifting \nrestriction of two pounds but after a while, he complained to HR that bending over hurt his \narm.  He admitted the doctor did not say that he could not bend over and there was no \nrestriction about picking up something with his right arm.  He also admitted he was then \npaid  to  sit  down  and  study.  However,  an  issue  arose  between  him  and  the  building \nmanager, which caused issues with more than the claimant and the building manager, and \nhe was then sent to transitional work at an animal shelter in Jacksonville, about two years \nafter the injury. (Tr. 27 - 29) He also admitted that he did not want to go to Jacksonville and \nhis  last  day  at  the  shelter  appeared  to  be  November  7,  and  even  after  that  date,  the \nrespondents attempted to get him back to the shelter, but when they offered to send him \nback, he did not go, and that this was at the end of 2023. He further admitted that there \nwere  no  medical  reports  that  provided  he  was  unable  to  walk  dogs,  and  no  restrictions \nregarding his right arm. (Tr. 30 - 32) \n The claimant admitted that he lost control of his vehicle on black freezing ice and \nreturned  to  Dr.  Smith  on  March  15,  2022,  six  weeks after his surgery.  (Tr.  33) He also \nadmitted that Dr. Smith examined his shoulder after the motor-vehicle accident and stated \nhis shoulder would be okay. (Tr. 37) \nIn regard to his visit to Dr. Bryant, the claimant admitted nerve conductions studies \nwere ordered. (Tr. 39) He also admitted that a second MRI was ordered by Dr. Smith who \nthen performed surgery to repair a labrum tear. (Tr. 40) The claimant was questioned about \nthe report by Dr. Bryant dated September 13, 2022, which provided for a tear of the superior \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nlabrum. (Tr. 42) He was also questioned about Dr. Bryant ordering a MRI of the cervical \nspine, in December of 2022. (Tr. 43) The claimant was then questioned about the AR-C \nfiled on March 31, 2022, which provided that the claimant had suffered an injury to his left \nshoulder and arm. (Tr. 45) The claimant was also questioned about an AR-C filed on July \n15, 2024, which referred to an injury date of November 18, 2021, which included the left \nshoulder, left breast area, and neck.  (Tr. 46) He was also questioned about a report from \nDr. Smith, dated March 21, 2022, which was after the motor vehicle accident, and which \nprovided that there was nothing wrong with the claimant, and the claimant agreed. (Tr. 47) \nIn regard to his neck injury, the claimant responded to the question, “So you didn’t injure \nyou’re neck at work, did you” with the simple response of “No.”  (Tr. 48) \n At this point, the claimant rested, and the parties were allowed to make a closing \nstatement.    The  claimant’s  attorney  stated  the  claimant’s  issues  involved  the  deltoid \nmuscle.  It was argued that the claimant’s complaints have gone all the way back to \nNovember 22, 2021, and his complaint involved the shoulder which included the muscles \nof the shoulder and the nerves that innervate the muscles of the shoulder.  (Tr. 49, 50) In \nregard to the argument involving the statute of limitations, the respondents contended there \nwere  no  objective  medical finding of “an injury to the deltoid to the chest.  There’s no \nmention of any medical findings that would take this outside of the internal shoulder injury \nmechanism that we have accepted. “We have accepted a labral tear, we’ve operated on a \nlabral tear, we’re continuing to provide treatment for the shoulder, whether it’s a labral tear \nor there’s something else.” The respondents went on to contend that the motor vehicle \naccident that occurred later was a clear independent intervening cause.  The AR-C was \nfiled  under  representation  by  an  attorney  claiming  an  arm  injury  and  a  shoulder  injury. \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \n“There’s no AR-C  filed  until  after  the  statute  of  limitations  has  run  on  a  claim  for  a  new \ninjury.”  (Tr. 53 – 55)    \n       In regard to medical records, the claimant submitted 166 pages of medical records. \nThe  initial  report  dated November  18,  2021,  occurred  when  the  claimant  presented  to \nConcentra with pain in his left humerus, due to strapping down a load, as he self-reported.  \nThe report provided for pain involving the AC joint, the deltoid, the anterior glenohumeral \njoint,  the  supraspinatus, and the  anterior, lateral, and  posterior  shoulder.  There  was  a \npositive  empty  can  test,  drop  arm  test, and Apley’s scratch arm test. The  assessment \nprovided  for  an  injury to  the  tendon  of  the  long head  of  the  left biceps and  left  shoulder \npain. The left shoulder x-rays provided no evidence of a left shoulder fracture or dislocation. \n(Cl. Ex. 1, P. 1 – 8) The claimant returned for a follow up on November 22, 2021, and the \nreport provided the pain was located in the left anterior shoulder and left biceps area.  The \nclaimant was allowed to return to work with no lifting of the left arm. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 9 – 14)  \nOn  November  23,  2021,  the  claimant  received  his  first  MRI  at  Chenal  MRI.    The  report \nprovided for a larger posterior labrum tear with an intact supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and \nteres  minor  muscles with  edema  of  the  supraspinatus  and  to  a  lesser  extent  the \nsubscapularis muscles.  The report also provided for moderate glenohumeral joint effusion \nand mild accumulation of fluid in the subacromial subdeltoid bursa and with edema of the \nposterior lateral aspect of the deltoid muscle. A moderate strain of the biceps muscle was \nnoted as well as a low- grade strain of the deletion muscle. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 15 – 17) \n The claimant returned to Concentra on November 29, 2021; December 2, 2021; and \nDecember 7, 2021.  The reports provided that the claimant reported pain in his right upper \nback  area and  shoulder  pain after  pushing a broom at work.    The  pain was in  the  left \nanterior  shoulder  and  left  biceps  area  with constant symptoms.    The  claimant  was then \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nreferred to a physical therapist to improve his range of motion.  The reports provided that \nthe therapy proceeded as expected. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 18 – 31)  \n The  claimant  was  referred  to  Dr.  Phillip  A.  Smith  on  December  10,  2021.  The \nassessment provided for a left posterior labral tear and went on to provide that the original \nMRI was of poor quality and a repeat MRI was recommended. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 32 – 38) A \nsecond MRI was obtained on January 14, 2022.  Under impression, the report provided \nthat  no  rotator  cuff  tear  was  identified  but  that  there  was  a  tear  of  the  posterior  labrum.  \nThere was mild edema in the subscapularis and supraspinatus muscles most consistent \nwith a mild grade 1 strain which have improved since the previous study. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 39, \n4)  The  claimant  then  returned  to  Dr.  Smith  on  January  20,  2022,  and  a left  shoulder \narthroscopy with labral debridement versus labral repair was discussed. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 41 – \n47)  \n On  January  26,  2022,  Dr.  Smith  issued a return  to  work note which provided  the \nclaimant should not return to work until evaluated post-operatively. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 48, 49) \nThe claimant then returned to Dr. Smith on February 9, 2022, for a left shoulder arthroscopy \nwith a labral debridement and a biceps tenodesis for a left shoulder posterior tear. (Cl. Ex. \n1, P. 50 – 52) He again returned to Dr. Smith for a follow up on February 17, 2022.  The \nreport  provided  that  the  left  shoulder  showed  healed  portals  with  no  signs  of  infection.  \nTherapy was started and a prescription for pain medication was provided.  A return-to-work \nnote was provided which stated the claimant could return to work on February 18, 2022, \nwith  the  left  arm  in  a  sling  and with no  use  of  the  left  arm.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  53 – 59) The \nclaimant retuned to Dr. Smith on March 15, 2022.  The report provided for healed incisions \nbut with atrophy of his left extremity due to non-use. (Cl. Ex. 1, 60 – 64)  \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \n The claimant also submitted medical records dated March 22, 2022, which provided \nhe presented to the emergency medicine department of Baptist Health with left shoulder \npain, along with pain and swelling of the left arm.  The claimant was discharged home with \nself-care.   Claimant was  instructed  to  follow  up  with his  primary  care  physician.   A form \nprovided the claimant should be excused from work. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 65 – 87) \n Medical  records  from  Baptist  Health  Therapy  Center  dated  March  25,  2022, \nprovided that the claimant presented for physical therapy due to shoulder pain from a work-\nrelated  injury with  a chief  complaint of pain.    The  claimant  was  educated  in  regard  to  a \nhome exercise program with manual therapy techniques as needed. (Cl. Ex. 1, P.  88 – \n105) \n The claimant returned to Dr. Smith on April 1, 2022. The report described pain in \nthe left elbow.  A return to work note provided that the claimant could return to work on \nApril 2, 2022, with a restriction of lifting no more than two pounds with no overhead activity \nuntil April 26, 2022. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 106 – 112) The claimant then returned to Baptist Health \nRehabilitation institute on April 4, 2022, for a left shoulder biceps tendinosis protocol.  The \ntreatment emphasis was focused on pain relief and range of motion improvements. (Cl. Ex. \n1, P. 113 – 116) The following day, the claimant then returned to the Baptist Health Therapy \nCenter. The treatment focus continued to be pain relief with an increased range of motion. \n(Cl. Ex. 1, 117 – 123) The claimant then returned to Dr. Smith on April 6, 2022.  This report \nmentioned atrophy of the left deltoid and bicep and went on to provide that there was a \npossibility of a disc herniation causing the increased pain and weakness involving the left \narm.  Dr. Smith also stated that he would like to order an MRI of the cervical spine.  The \nclaimant was then sent back to work with a release which provided for a two-pound lifting \nlimit with no overhead activity, until after a MRI. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 124 – 128) The claimant then \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nreturned to the Baptist Health Rehabilitation Institute on May 2, 2022, and Baptist Health \nTherapy Centers on May 17, 2022, and May 20, 2022. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 129 – 139)  \n On June 28, 2022, the claimant presented to Dr. D’Orsay D. Bryant.  The report \nprovided that there was tenderness in the anterior shoulder, the subacromial region, and \nthe  rotator  cuff,  with  a  positive  impingement  sign,  along  with  decreased  strength  with \nresisted abduction. An EMG/NCS study was recommended along with a left shoulder MRI. \n(Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  140 – 142.)    The  claimant  then  received  a  left  shoulder  arthrogram  on \nSeptember 13, 2022.  There were no findings of a left rotator cuff tear, but degenerative \nchanges were noted in the AC subacromial subdeltoid bursa. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 143) The MRI \nof  the  shoulder which  was read by Dr.  Al  S.  Alexander on  the  same  date  provided that \nthere  was  a  tear  of  the  superior  labrum  but  no  muscular  atrophy along  with  moderate \nosteoarthritis of the AC and the glenohumeral joint. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 144)  \n The claimant then presented to Baptist Health on November 8, 2022, to the neuro \ndiagnostics  laboratory.    The  report  provided that there was left  brachial  plexopathy  with \nsevere involvement of the upper trunk vs. polyradiculopathy. “There is minimal residual \ninnervation of the deltoid and infraspinatus muscles.  MRI imaging of the cervical spine and \nbrachial plexus are recommended.” (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 146 – 148) \n The claimant returned to Dr. Bryant on November 23, 2022.  The report provided \nthat a MRI  that  was performed  in  Little  Rock  provided  for  prior  biceps  tendon tenodesis \nwith moderate osteoarthritis of the AC joint and the glenohumeral joint and a superior labral \ntear. Dr. Bryant opined under impression that the left superior labral tear was confirmed by \nthe  MRI  with  left  brachial  plexopathy along with  severe  involvement  of  the  upper  nerve \ntrunk.  An  MRI  of  the  cervical  spine  and  a  MRI  of  the  brachial  plexus  was  strongly \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nrecommended as further diagnostic workup of the patients severe left brachial plexopathy \nis a result of the work related injury on 11/18/2021. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 149 – 150) \n On December 9, 2022, the claimant obtained another MRI, this time at Chenal MRI.  \nThe MRI was of the cervical spine.  Under impression, the report provided for an “abnormal \nventral cord signal bilaterally at C3 – 4 suspected to reflect myelomalacia, within the lateral \nleft  hemicord  suspected  to  reflect  myelomalacia,  and  in  the  bilateral  ventral  C5-6  cord \nfavored   to   reflect   myelomalacia   but   a   component   of   active   impingement   related \nmyelopathic changes of the cord at C5–6 not excluded.” The report further provided that \nthere  was  moderate  canal  and  severe  neural  foraminal  stenosis  with  cord  impingement \nrelated from disc bulging and spondylosis.  At C4-5 and C3-4 there was found central canal \nand severe neural foraminal stenosis and negative findings of a mass or lymphadenopathy \nor neuritis. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 151 - 153) The claimant then returned to Dr. Bryant on December \n9, 2022, who opined the pathology of the cervical spine correlated to the severe brachial \nshoulder  plexopathy  found  on  the  EMG/NCS  and  that  the  claimant was  a  suitable \ncandidate for referral to a neurosurgeon. “This workup definitively explains the patients \nclaims  of  persistent  left  shoulder  pain  and  weakness  following  his  work-related  injury  of \nNovember 18, 2021.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 154, 155) \n The claimant presented to Dr. James Adametz of Neurological Surgery Associates \non March 14, 2023, who stated that he was aware of the work-place injury and the later \nmotor vehicle accident.  On exam, he observed atrophy of the deltoid and biceps of the left \narm. He opined that he thought the claimant was suffering more of a cervical spine and \nspinal cord issue than a brachial plexus issue. Naturally, some of it could have been from \nthe shoulder injury and surgery but I believe it is more extensive than you could explain \nfrom that.  At this point I am not sure anything can be done to really reverse his neurologic \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nsymptoms  but  to  prevent  further  damage  he  would  likely  benefit  from  surgery  on  the \ncervical spine. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 156 – 157)   \nThe claimant presented to Dr. Jesse Abeler of Bowen and Hefley Orthopedics on \nAugust  8,  2023, for  pain of the  right  and  left shoulder.    The  report  provided  that  the \nsymptoms began in October of 2021, after an injury.  The claimant presented for an IME.  \nConsiderable atrophy of the left upper trapezius, left deltoid, left biceps, and triceps was \nnoted.  The report by Dr. Abeler went on to provide that in his expert opinion, he felt the \nclaimant would benefit from a neurosurgery evaluation addressing the multilevel cervical \ncanal and foraminal stenosis which was felt to be leading to his left shoulder and upper \narm atrophy and objective weakness.  Shoulder x-rays of the left shoulder provided for left \nshoulder  atrophy  with multiple  level  spondylosis  and  radiculopathy  of the  cervical  spine.  \nDr. Abler opined as follows: “It is my opinion his cervical findings of foraminal stenosis and \ncanal stenosis are creating these complaints and he would benefit from an evaluation and \npossible treatment with a neurosurgeon.  It is my opinion that [n his initial injury the “ripple” \nthat he felt along his upper extremity was neurological in nature at his initial reported injury \nand  related  to  his  initial  injury  on  11/18/2021.    I  feel  the  shoulder  treatment  has  been \nreasonable and a review of the operative note demonstrates an appropriate technique for \nlabrum debridement, biceps tenodesis, and subacromial decompression.  This procedure \ntypically does not create the neurological disorder seen with the patient today.  I expect he \nhas reached maximal medical improvement regarding the shoulder biceps tenodesis, and \nhe demonstrates a separate issue regarding the neck related to his initial injury.  (Cl. Ex. \n1, P 158 – 164) \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \n The respondents submitted 24 pages of documentary evidence without objection.  \nThe original Arkansas Form C was filed on March 31, 2022, where the claimant contends \nthat he injured his shoulder and arm on November 18, 2021.  The second Form C was filed \non  July  15,  2024, and  here the  claimant  contends that he sustained multiple  injuries \nincluding his left shoulder, left breast area, and neck, on November 18, 2021. (Resp. Ex. \n1, P. 1, 2) \n The  respondents  also  submitted  documents  that  provided claimant  was  offered \nmodified  alternative  work.  (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  3 – 5)  There was  also  an  email  from \nrespondent’s attorney that provided the claimant had failed to report to his “transitional duty \njob” and this was dated November 17, 2023. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 6) The documents further \nprovided that the claimant was offered alternative work at the Jacksonville Animal Shelter \nand the claimant failed to appear. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. & - 16) The respondent then made an \noffer of an additional transitional to work assignment on December 21, 2023. (Resp. Ex. 1, \nP. 18 -23)   \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn the present matter, the threshold issue before us involves the statute of limitation \ndefense raised by the respondents. The issue is whether the claimant timely filed a claim \nfor a  work-related  neck and  left  breast injury along with  the  related  medical  benefits in \nregard  to  his work-related  compensable injury. The  law is clear  that  it  is the claimant’s \nburden to prove that he or she acted within the time allowed for filing of a claim for additional \ncompensation benefits. Stewart v. Ark. Glass Container, 2009 Ark. App. 300, 307 S.W.3d \n614 (2009).  Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-702 sets forth the following limitations: \n(a) Time for filing additional compensation. \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \n(b)  In  cases  in  which  compensation,  including  disability  or  medical,  has \nbeen paid on account of an injury, a claim for additional compensation shall \nbe barred unless filed with the commission within one (1) year from the date \nof the last payment of compensation or two (2) years from the date of the \ninjury whichever is greater. \n(c)  A  claim for additional  compensation  must  specifically  state  that  it  is  a \nclaim  for  additional  compensation.    Documents  which  do  not  specifically \nrequest  additional  benefits  shall  not  be  considered  a  claim  for  additional \nbenefits.  See Arkansas Code Ann. 11-9-702 (b) (1), (c) \nHere, the parties agree that the claimant injured his left shoulder on November 18, \n2021, the claimant was sent to Concentra on the day of the injury, and his left shoulder \nwas accepted as compensable.  He was appropriately treated at the time for his shoulder \ninjury, receiving MRIs, and  eventually  surgery  by  Dr.  Smith  on February  9,  2022.  The \nclaimant continued to see Dr. Smith but was apparently not satisfied with the results, and \non June 8, 2022, presented to Dr. Bryant, who found no evidence of a rotator cuff tear but \ndid  find  a  tear  of  the  superior  labrum  and  muscle  atrophy after  reviewing  an  MRI dated \nDecember 9, 2022.  The claimant was again seen by Dr. Bryant on December 15, 2022, \nfor problems that he was suffering in regard to his left shoulder.  Dr. Bryant opined that the \nclaimant was a suitable candidate for a referral to a neurosurgeon, and the claimant was \nlater seen by  Dr.  Adametz  of  Neurological  Surgery  Associates  on March  14,  2023,  and \nthen later by Brown and Hefley Orthopedics and Dr. Jesse Abeler on August 8, 2023.   \nThe  original AR-C Form  filed on  March 31,  2022, in  regard  to  the  November  18, \n2021, injury did not mention a left breast or neck injury.  A claim for these injuries was not \nmade until the filing of the second AR – C Form on July 15, 2024.  The filing of the AR – C \nForm on March 31, 2022, did not toll the running of the statute of limitations for injuries to \nthe  left  breast  and neck.    See Wynne  v.  Liberty  Trailer,  2022 Ark.  65,  641  S.W.3d  621 \n(2022). Consequently, the claim regarding the left breast and neck are barred by the statute \nof limitations.  It is also noted that there was no proof regarding a left breast injury and the \n\nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS – H201405 \nclaimant responded “No” when  asked  if  he  injured  his  neck  at  work during  cross \nexamination.    \nAfter  weighing  the  evidence  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  to \neither party, it is found that the claimant’s claim for a work-related neck injury and left breast \ninjury are  barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations, as  well  as a  failure  to satisfy  the required \nburden of proof by a preponderance of the credible evidence in regard to the claimed neck \nand breast injury.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the cost of the \ntranscript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ___________________________  \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY    \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201405 DEFRENCHI B. HARRIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HALL TANK CO., LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 8, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:09.398Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H201405-2025-01-08","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HARRIS_DEFRENCHI_H201405_20250108.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}