{"id":"alj-H202251-2023-09-28","awcc_number":"H202251","decision_date":"2023-09-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Larry Rodebaugh","employer_name":"Ark. Industrial Machinery, Inc","title":"RODEBAUGH VS. ARK. INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY, INC. AWCC# H202251 SEPTEMBER 28, 2023","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Rodebaugh_Larry_H202251_20230928.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Rodebaugh_Larry_H202251_20230928.pdf","text_length":15047,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H202251 \n \nLARRY RODEBAUGH (DEC’D), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nARK. INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE CO. AMERICA,  \nCARRIER/TPA                       RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on September 13, 2023, in Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Ms. Karen H. McKinney, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A full  hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on  September  13,  2023.    Claimant  was \nrepresented  by  Mr.  Gary  Davis,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock,  Arkansas;  Respondents \nwere represented by Ms. Karen McKinney, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nof the within claim. \n \n2. An  employer/employee  relationship  existed  on  December  7,  2021, \nwhen Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left elbow and \narm. \n \n3. Respondents  accepted  the  claim  as  compensable  and  paid  all \nbenefits through date of Claimant’s death on March 13, 2022. \n \n 4.  The parties  will  stipulate  to  Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  and \ncompensation rates on or before the hearing date. \n \n\nRODEBAUGH H202251 \n \n2 \n \nISSUES \n The parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1.  Whether  the  Claimant’s  death  resulted  from  a  stroke  on  3/13/22  associated \nwith surgery performed 3/11/2022. \n \n2.  Whether  Claimant’s  wife,  Brenda  Young,  is  entitled  to  dependency  death \nbenefits. \n \n3.  Whether Claimant’s funeral expenses should be paid by Respondents. \n \n4.  Attorney’s fees.  \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nClaimant’s  and  Respondents’  contentions  are  set  out  in  their  responses  to  the \nPrehearing Questionnaire.  Said contentions are hereby incorporated by reference.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  including  medical  reports,  documents, \nClaimant and Respondents’ post hearing briefs that are blue-backed and made a part of \nthis  record  and  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an \nopportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the  Claimant’s  widow,  Brenda  Young,  the  sole \nwitness in this claim, and observe her demeanor, I hereby make the following findings of \nfact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.  The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over  this \nclaim. \n2.  The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted.  \n\nRODEBAUGH H202251 \n \n3 \n \n3.  The Claimant’s estate has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that \nthe  cause  of  Claimant’s  death  was  multiple  cerebral  infarctions  occurring  on \nMarch 13, 2022, approximately 3 days after elbow surgery. \n4.   The  Claimant’s  estate  has proven  beyond  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nthat  his  death  on  March  13,  2022,  from  multiple  cerebral  infarctions  was  a \ncompensable  consequence  of  his  compensable  December  7,  2021,  injury  to \nhis left elbow and arm. \n5.   Claimant’s  estate  has  proven  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that \nBrenda  Young,  wife  and  now  widower  of  Claimant,  is  entitled  to  benefits  in \naccordance with A.C.A. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2002). \n6.  Claimant’s  estate  has  proven  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  its \nattorney is entitled to controverted attorney fees. \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The  sole  witness  at  the  hearing  was  the  Claimant’s  widow,  Brenda  Young.  In \naddition  to  the  prehearing  order  discussed  above, I  also  have  admitted  into  evidence \nClaimant’s   and   Respondent’s exhibits   that   were   properly   admitted   before   the \nCommission. Claimant suffered a compensable injury to his left elbow and arm during the \ncourse and scope of his employment with Respondent. Claimant needed surgery to repair \nthe tendons in his left arm. The Claimant had surgery on March 11, 2022, at the Arkansas \nSurgery Center. The Claimant, according to his widow, appeared to be having a stroke. \nThe left side of his face was drooping, and his words were slurred. Dr. Joshua Smith, an \nanesthesiologist,  evaluated  claimant  and  stated  that  it  was  not  a  stroke  but Horner’s \n\nRODEBAUGH H202251 \n \n4 \n \nSyndrome from the nerve block in the left clavicle area. Claimant was discharged, with \nobjections, by the patient’s wife and now widow. The symptoms appeared to have cleared \nup by the time of discharge.  \nThe  next  morning  the  Claimant  was  transported  by  ambulance  to  the  Arkansas \nHeart Hospital in Bryant, Arkansas. He was again showing symptoms of what appeared \nto be a stroke such as left facial droop, weakness in his left leg, and some slurred speech. \nThe Claimant remained at the Bryant Heart Hospital for approximately 1 to 1.5 hours and \nwas  transported  by  ambulance  to  CHI  Saint  Vincent  Hospital  in  North  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. The Claimant died approximately one day after being admitted into CHI Saint \nVincent Hospital. The Claimant’s cause of death was determined to be multiple cerebral \ninfarctions which all parties did not dispute as the cause of death.  \nThe Respondents argue that the stroke like symptoms or Horner’s Syndrome   had \nresolved. Respondents further argue that Claimant had a CPAP machine but didn’t use it \nwhile he was in the hospital.  The Respondents’ strongest argument was that the multiple \ncerebral infarctions were not a complication of Claimant’s recent repair of his left triceps \nsurgery. The Respondents rely on Dr. Adedamola Adepoju, Neurosurgeon, report, dated \nMarch 22, 2022, that denies a connection between Claimant’s recent left triceps surgery \nand his death. The Respondents also used Dr. Barry D. Baskins report stating that “within \na reasonable medical certainty that Mr. Rodebaugh [Claimant] died as a result of a stroke \nrelated to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as outlined in his autopsy.” Dr. Baskins \ncontinued,  “There  was  no  clear  indication,  based  on  my  review  of  the  records  and \nautopsy, that Mr. Rodebaugh’s death was the result of surgical complication or the result \nof his work injury.” Dr. Baskins based his opinion on the Claimant’s extensive records, \n\nRODEBAUGH H202251 \n \n5 \n \noperative note, and his autopsy report. The autopsy was performed by Dr. Frank Paretti, \nForensic  Pathologist.  Claimant’s  estate  lawyer  counters  with  signed  releases  warning \nClaimant that strokes are a risk that can occur from his left triceps surgery.  \nAdjudication \n A. Compensable Consequence \n Claimant’s  estate  has  contended  that  on  March 11,  2021,  immediately  after \nundergoing surgery that had been prescribed by his authorized treating physician for his \ncompensable  left  elbow  and  arm  injury,  Claimant  experienced  what  appeared to  be  a \nstroke and was later officially diagnosed as multiple cerebral infarctions that resulted in \nhis death.  The estate has argued that his multiple cerebral infarctions and resulting death \nwere compensable consequences of his compensable injury. \n If  an  injury  is  compensable, every  natural  consequence of  that  injury  is  likewise \ncompensable.   Air  Compressor  Equip.  Co.  v.  Sword,  69  Ark.  App.  162,  11  S.W.3d  1 \n(2000); Hubley v. Best West. Governor’s Inn, 52 Ark. App. 226, 916 S.W.2d 143 (1996).  \nThe test is whether a causal connection between the two episodes exists.  Sword, supra; \nJeter  v.  McGinty  Mech.,  62  Ark. App.  53, 968  S.W.2d  645  (1998).   The existence  of  a \ncausal  connection  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission.   Koster  v.  Custom  Pak  & \nTrissel, 2009 Ark. App. 780 (2009).  It is generally a matter of inference, and possibilities \nmay  play  a  proper  and  important  role  in  establishing  that  relationship.   Osmose  Wood \nPreserving v. Jones, 40 Ark. App. 190, 843 S.W.2d 875 (1992).  A finding of causation \nneed not be expressed in terms of a reasonable medical certainty where supplemental \nevidence  supports  the  causal  connection.   Koster,  supra; Heptinstall  v.  Asplundh  Tree \nExpert Co., 84 Ark. App. 215, 137 S.W.3d 421 (2003). \n\nRODEBAUGH H202251 \n \n6 \n \n Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2002), a claimant has the burden of \nestablishing  the  existence  of  a  compensable  consequence  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence.  This standard means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  \nBarre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415 (2009) (citing Smith v. Magnet Cove \nBarium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947)). \n A  compensable  consequence  must  be  established  utilizing  all  the  statutory \nelements  of  compensability.   Burkett  v.  Tiger  Mart,  Inc., 2009  AWCC  70,  Claim  No. \nF608022 (Full Commission Opinion filed May 4, 2009), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on \nother grounds, 2009 Ark. App. 93, 304 S.W.3d 2; Jones v. B.A.E. Sys., 2004 AWCC 81, \nClaim  Nos.  F001696  &  F212243  (Full  Commission  Opinion  filed  May  6,  2004).    This \nincludes the requirement that there be medical evidence of an injury support by objective \nfindings.   Malone  v.  Mid-South  Mfg.,  Inc.,  2003  AWCC  82,  Claim  No.  F100223  (Full \nCommission Opinion filed April 28, 2003). \n The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that \nperson’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 \nArk.  App.  309,  37  S.W.3d  649  (2001).    The  Commission  must  sort  through  conflicting \nevidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \nto believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate \ninto findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n Claimant’s  medical  records  contain  objective  findings  that  he  suffered  a  serious \ninjury to his left elbow and arm that required surgery. There is no need to go into the finite \ndetails of such injury since both parties have stipulated that the Claimant had sustained \na  compensable  injury  to  his  left  elbow  and  arm.  The  Commission  has  accepted  this \n\nRODEBAUGH H202251 \n \n7 \n \nstipulation and finds by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant’s injury to his \nleft  elbow  and  arm  are  compensable.  Thus,  compensability  has  been  fully  established \nand will not be further addressed. The issue now to be addressed is whether Claimant’s \ndeath is a compensable consequence of his compensable injury. \n The  Commission  is  authorized  to  accept  or  reject  a  medical  opinion  and  is \nauthorized to determine its medical soundness and probative value.  Poulan Weed Eater \nv. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002); Green Bay Packing v. Bartlett, 67 \nArk. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 692 (1999).  Based upon my review of the medical evidence, \nI credit the opinion of Dr. Frank Peretti, Forensic Pathologist, stating in his autopsy report \nthat Claimant “died of multiple cerebral infarctions with the contributory factors of status \npost left triceps tendon repair and hypertensive arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease.” \nDr. Peretti’s medical training and primary job function is determining the cause of death \nin people. Dr. Peretti’s opinion is based on an actual external and internal examination of \nClaimant’s  body  to  determine  the  contributing  factors  of  his  death. Thus,  I  credit  his \nopinion over the opinions of Dr. Adedamola Adepoju and Dr. Barry Baskins.  Therefore, \nClaimant’s estate has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Claimant’s death \nwas  the  result  of  a  compensable  consequence  stemming  from  the  compensable  left \nelbow and arm injury. More specifically, the repair of the compensable injury by way of \nleft triceps tendon surgery. \n In Cooper  v.  Textron,  2005  AWCC  31,  Claim  No.  F213354  (Full  Commission \nOpinion  filed  February  14,  2005),  the  Commission  addressed  the  standard  when \nexamination medical opinions concerning causation: \nMedical  evidence  is  not  ordinarily  required  to  prove  causation, i.e.,  a \nconnection between an injury and the claimant's employment, Wal-Mart v. \n\nRODEBAUGH H202251 \n \n8 \n \nVan Wagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999), but if a medical opinion \nis  offered  on  causation,  the  opinion  must  be  stated  within  a  reasonable \ndegree of medical certainty.  This medical opinion must do more than state \nthat the causal relationship between the work and the injury is a possibility. \nDoctors' medical opinions need not be absolute.  The Supreme Court has \nnever  required  that  a  doctor  be  absolute  in  an  opinion  or  that  the  magic \nwords \"within a reasonable degree of medical certainty\" even be used by \nthe  doctor;  rather,  the  Supreme  Court  has  simply  held  that  the  medical \nopinion  be  more  than  speculation;  if  the  doctor  renders  an  opinion  about \ncausation with language that goes beyond possibilities and establishes that \nwork  was  the  reasonable  cause  of  the  injury,  this  evidence  should  pass \nmuster.  See, Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296, 40 S.W.3d \n760 (2001).  However, where the only evidence of a causal connection is a \nspeculative  and  indefinite  medical  opinion,  it  is  insufficient  to  meet  the \nclaimant's burden of proving causation.  Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341, \nArk. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (2000); KII Construction Company v. Crabtree, 78 \nArk. App. 222, 79 S.W.3d 414 (2002). \n \nDr.  Peretti’s  opinion  was  clear  and  concise  that  Claimant’s  left  triceps  surgery  was  a \ncontributing  factor  to  his death.  Respondents  would  like  to  focus  on  Claimant’s  other \ncontributory  ailments  towards  his  stroke.  Nevertheless,  you  find  the  Claimant  how  you \nfind   the   Claimant –   Thin   Skull   Rule/Eggshell   Rule. Claimant’s   surgery   for   his \ncompensable injury was a contributing factor.     \nCONCLUSION AND AWARD \n Respondents  are  hereby  directed  to pay/furnish  benefits  in  accordance  with  the \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above. All accrued sums shall be paid in \na lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid, \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. 2002).  See Couch v. First State Bank of \nNewport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995). \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                           Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H202251 LARRY RODEBAUGH (DEC’D), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARK. INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE CO. AMERICA, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on Septem...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:03:17.210Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H202251-2023-09-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Rodebaugh_Larry_H202251_20230928.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}