{"id":"alj-H201515-2024-11-13","awcc_number":"H201515","decision_date":"2024-11-13","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jackie Johnson","employer_name":"Ar Department Of Transportation","title":"JOHNSON VS. AR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AWCC# H201515 November 13, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","knee","shoulder","fracture","wrist"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_JACKIE_H201515_20241113.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JOHNSON_JACKIE_H201515_20241113.pdf","text_length":15061,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H201515 \n \nJACKIE JOHNSON, Employee                                                                       CLAIMANT \n \nAR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer                         RESPONDENT                                                                       \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, Carrier                                    RESPONDENT                                                                \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2024 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Harrison, \nBoone County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by F. S. “RICK” SPENCER, Attorney, Mountain Home, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by ROBERT MONTGOMERY, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On October 10, 2024, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Harrison, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on May 8, 2024, and a pre-hearing \norder was filed on that same date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as \nCommission’s Exhibit #1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.       The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n 2.      The claimant sustained a compensable injury to his low back on February \n10, 2022. \n 3.            Claimant  was  earning  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $650.58  which  would \nentitle him to compensation at the weekly rates of $434.00 for total disability benefits and \n\nJohnson – H201515 \n2 \n \n$326.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.      Claimant’s entitlement to additional medical treatment in the form of pain  \nmanagement by Dr. Matthew McNelley at Interventional Pain Management Associates. \n2.       Claimant’s entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits based on a  \npermanent impairment. \n3.         Attorney’s fee on benefits paid subsequent to April 2022. \nAt the time of the hearing claimant reserved the issues relating to permanent partial  \ndisability benefits and an attorney fee; leaving as the only issue claimant’s entitlement to \nadditional medical treatment. \n The claimant contends he is entitled to continual medical treatment by Dr. Matthew \nMcNeeley for the management of his pain related to his compensable lower back injury. \nThe respondents contend they accepted claimant’s February 10, 2022 low back \ninjury as compensable and appropriate benefits have been paid.  Respondents contend \nthat the claimant has received all reasonably necessary medical treatment to which he \nmay be entitled relative to his compensable injury.  Claimant was referred to Dr. McNelley \nat  Interventional  Pain  Management  Associates  and  a  lumbar  epidural  steroid  injection \nwas authorized by respondents on September 12, 2022.  Respondents authorized and \npaid   for all   reasonably   necessary   medical   treatment   through   October   9,   2023.  \nRespondents  were  at  that  point  notified  that  claimant  experienced  multiple  different \nintervening  events,  namely,  he  fell  off  the  roof  of  a  house  while  on  paternity  leave, \nreported falling from a ladder the next week, and injured himself while picking up an air \nconditioner.  The medical treatment the claimant now seeks is not related to the February \n\nJohnson – H201515 \n3 \n \n10, 2022 compensable injury, but rather to the various intervening events he experienced.   \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear \nthe testimony of the witnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of \nfact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.      The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  a  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted on May 8, 2024, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are \nhereby accepted as fact. \n 2.     Claimant has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment for his compensable injury. \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant is a 51-year-old man who began working for respondent in October 2017, \ndriving a tractor on a mowing crew.  The parties have stipulated that  claimant suffered a \ncompensable injury to his low back on February 10, 2022, when he felt back pain while \nhe was turning with a 5-gallon bucket of water while up on a salt brine tank.   \n Claimant  eventually  came  under  the  care  of  Dr.  Allan  Gocio,  a neurosurgeon  in \nMountain  Home.    In  a  report  dated  April  20,  2022,  Dr.  Gocio  stated  that  imaging  of \nclaimant’s  low  back  revealed  disc  bulging  with  degenerative  disc  disease;  disc  space \nnarrowing at L3-4 and L4-5; and mild stenosis.  He also noted that claimant’s EMG/NCV \nstudies were normal.  He stated: \n  Patient is not likely to benefit from surgical treatment. \n\nJohnson – H201515 \n \n4 \n \n Dr.   Gocio   recommended   continued   therapy   and   referred   claimant   to   pain \nmanagement.  He also instructed the claimant to return as needed.   Finally, Dr. Gocio \nindicated  that  claimant  could  return to  work as  of April  20,  2022, with work  restrictions \nand  opined  that  claimant  had  a  0%  impairment  rating.    Dr.  Gocio  reiterated  the  0% \nimpairment rating in a report dated May 12, 2022.   \n In  his  next  report  dated  June  13,  2022,  Dr.  Gocio  stated  that  claimant  had \nundergone  a  functional  capacities  evaluation  with  51/52  consistency  measures  within \nexpected limits and that claimant had been placed in the medium work classification.  Dr. \nGocio stated that claimant could return to work within the restrictions set out in the May \n23, 2022 FCE.   \n Following  this  release  by  Dr.  Gocio,  claimant  did  return  to  work for  respondent \nperforming  his  prior  job.    He  testified  that  he  had  help  from  co-employees  when \nperforming  heavier  jobs  at  work  and  that  he would  be hurting when  he  returned home \nafter a day from work.  Claimant continued to work for respondent until he took off work \nfor paternity leave on July 12, 2023, which he believes lasted twelve weeks.  Claimant \ntestified that he returned to work for respondent after the paternity leave ended in October \n2023.   \n On October 9, 2023, claimant sought medical treatment from the emergency room \nat North Arkansas Regional Medical Center for complaints of back, knee, and shoulder \npain  with  an  onset  of  the  day  before  after  falling  nine  feet  from the roof of  his  house.  \nClaimant  was  diagnosed  with  acute  low  back  pain  and  instructed  to  follow up  with  his \ndoctor for a possible MRI scan if his symptoms did not improve.  A CT scan of that same \ndate was interpreted as showing no acute fracture. \n\nJohnson – H201515 \n \n5 \n \n On October 12, 2023, claimant was again seen at the emergency room at Baxter \nMedical Center by Dr. Mark West.  At that time claimant attributed his back pain to the \ninjury in February 2022 with no mention of the fall from the roof. \n On October 13, 2023, claimant was seen by Asa Smith, APRN at Interventional \nPain Management with reports of pain in his low back and into his left leg.  The report \nstates that claimant indicated that his current medications were not effective since falling \noff the roof a week ago.  Finally, the report indicates that claimant had seen Dr. Gocio in \nthe past and it was recommended that claimant return to Dr. Gocio. \n On   December   14,   2023,   claimant   was   again   seen   at   Interventional   Pain \nManagement by Dr. Michael Munn, APRN.  Claimant indicated that he had a worsening \nof his pain in his low back after lifting an air conditioner.  Claimant was given medication \nand again instructed to return to Dr. Gocio. \n Finally, claimant was seen by Kimberly Cudworth, APRN at Cross Roads Family \nClinic  on  August  19,  2024,  where  he  was diagnosed with  lumbar  degenerative  disc \ndisease;  lumbar  back  pain;  and  weakness  of  the  left  lower  extremity.    Claimant  was \nprescribed  medication  and  again  referred  back  to  Dr.  Gocio  and  to  Dr.  McNelley at \nInterventional Pain Management. \n Respondent  initially  accepted  liability  for  additional  medical  treatment,  but  upon \nreceiving  the  reports  regarding  falling  from  a  roof  and  lifting  an  air  conditioner  denied \npayment  of  additional  medical.    Claimant  has  filed  this  claim  requesting  payment  of \nadditional medical treatment from Dr. McNelley at Interventional Pain Management. \n \n  \n\nJohnson – H201515 \n \n6 \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  for  his \ncompensable low back injury.  Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance \nof  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment.   Dalton  v.  Allen \nEngineering Company, 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W. 2d 543 (1999).   \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof. \n As previously noted, after claimant’s injury on February 10, 2022, he came under \nthe  care of  Dr.  Allan  Gocio who treated  claimant  with  physical  therapy  and  pain \nmanagement.  He also released claimant to return to work with permanent restrictions as \nof June 13, 2022.  Claimant did return to work for respondent and continued working for \nrespondent until he took paternity leave on July 12, 2023, more than one year later.  He \ntestified that this leave lasted approximately twelve weeks and that he returned to work \nfor respondent on an unknown date in October 2023.  There are no medical records in \nevidence regarding any medical treatment for the compensable injury during this more \nthan one-year period of time.   \n The next medical record after claimant was released to return to work by Dr. Gocio \non June 13, 2022 is dated October 9, 2023 from the emergency room of North Arkansas \nRegional  Medical  Center.    At  that  time,  claimant  was  complaining  of  back, knee,  and \nshoulder pain.  The emergency room report states the following: \n  50 year old male presents complaining of low back, left \n  shoulder and wrist pain.  Patient complains of pain shooting \n  down his left leg.  No loss of bowel or bladder function.  No \n  leg weakness. \n  Occurred:  yesterday. \n\nJohnson – H201515 \n \n7 \n \n \n  Severity:  moderate \n  Injuries/Pain location:  back \n  Context:  slipped, OTHER (fell about 9 ft from the  \n  roof) \n \n \n The emergency room report does not indicate that claimant attributed his low back \ncomplaints  to  his  prior  work-related  injury  as  opposed  to  the  fall  from  the  roof  the  day \nbefore.  At the hearing claimant contended the fall from the roof did not worsen his back \npain; that he simply went to the emergency room to make sure he had not worsened his \nback pain; and that he fell because his legs were weak due to his work injury.  I find no \nmerit to these contentions.  As previously noted, claimant did not mention the prior work-\nrelated injury at the emergency room; instead, he gave a history of back, wrist and left \nshoulder pain after falling nine feet from the roof of his house.  Furthermore, there is no \nnotation in the medical record that claimant attributed his falling to weakness in his leg \ncaused by his prior work-related injury. \n There  is  also  a  medical  report  from  Asa  Smith,  APRN  at  Interventional  Pain \nManagement,  dated  October  13,  2023.  The  report  clearly  indicates  that  claimant  has \nbeen seen at the clinic before that date; however, none of the prior medical reports were \nsubmitted into evidence or the dates that claimant previously received treatment.  That \nreport also indicates: \n  This is a very pleasant patient who returns to the clinic \n  for follow-up on chronic lumbar and radicular leg pain. \n  He complains of some worsening after a fall off a roof \n  about a week ago.  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n In  short,  claimant  returned  to  work  for  respondent  in  June  2022  and  continued \n\nJohnson – H201515 \n \n8 \n \nworking there until he took paternity leave in July 2023.   There are no medical records \nfor treatment of  the compensable  injury  during  this  period  of  time.    The  next  medical \nrecord is from October 2023 when claimant sought medical treatment for back complaints \nafter falling nine feet off of  his roof at home. \n The medical reports also contain a history of a second incident.  In a report dated \nDecember 14, 2023, Michael Munn, APRN, notes: \n  Patient states he was lifting a small air conditioner \n  two days ago and when he twisted he experienced \n  immediate worsening pain in his low back with \n  weakness in his bilateral legs. \n \n      *** \n  Very pleasant patient returns in follow-up of his low \n  back pain worsened since falling off a roof in October, \n  now with reinjury 2 days ago.  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n Further contusing in this claim is claimant’s testimony that he was sent to see Dr. \nKnox by respondent and that Dr. Knox is the physician that referred him to Interventional \nPain  Clinic.    The  documentary  evidence  contains  no  medical  reports  from  Dr.  Knox.  \nFurthermore,  the  reports  from  Interventional  Pain  Clinic  indicate  that  claimant  was \nreferred to the claimant by Dr. Gocio, not Dr. Knox.  In fact, the clinic recommended that \nclaimant return to see Dr. Gocio. \n In  summary,  claimant  has  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence  that he  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  for  his compensable  injury.  \nHere, claimant returned to work for respondent and continued working there for over a \nyear until he took paternity leave.  Shortly after returning from paternity leave, claimant \nsought medical treatment from the emergency room for back pain resulting from a nine-\n\nJohnson – H201515 \n \n9 \n \nfoot fall from his roof at home.  Based upon the evidence presented, I find that claimant \nhas failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional \nmedical treatment for his compensable injury. \n \nORDER \n Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto additional medical treatment for his compensable low back injury.  Therefore, his claim \nfor additional compensation benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n Respondent is liable for payment of the court reporter’s charges for preparation of \nthe hearing transcript in the amount of $449.50. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _____________________________________ \n       GREGORY K. STEWART \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201515 JACKIE JOHNSON, Employee CLAIMANT AR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Harrison, Boone ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:46:23.860Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H201515-2024-11-13","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_JACKIE_H201515_20241113.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}