{"id":"alj-H202890-2024-11-20","awcc_number":"H202890","decision_date":"2024-11-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Marion Pederson","employer_name":"Optum Care, Inc","title":"PEDERSON VS. OPTUM CARE, INC. AWCC# H202890 November 20, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["hip","back","cervical","neck","shoulder","thoracic","lumbar","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PEDERSON_MARION_H202890_20241120.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"PEDERSON_MARION_H202890_20241120.pdf","text_length":15619,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO.  H202890 \n \nMARION PEDERSON, Employee                                                                  CLAIMANT \n \nOPTUM CARE, INC., Employer                                                               RESPONDENT                                                                               \n \nFARMINGTON CASUALTY/SEDGWICK CLAIMS, Carrier                      RESPONDENT                                                                                               \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2024 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by RANDY P. MURPHY, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On October  30,  2024,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  hearing  at \nSpringdale, Arkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on June 26, 2024 and \na  pre-hearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same date.   A  copy  of  the  pre-hearing order has \nbeen marked as Commission’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 her right hip, low back, and \ncervical/neck. \nAt  the  time  of  the  hearing  the  parties  agreed  to  stipulate  that claimant  earned \nsufficient  wages  to  entitle  her  to  compensation  at  the  weekly  rates  of  $356.00  for total \n\nPederson – H202890 \n 2 \ndisability benefits and $267.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Claimant’s entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits. \n2.  Attorney’s fee. \n The claimant contends that as a result of her compensable injury of April 4, 2022, \nshe is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits and an attorney’s fee.  Claimant \nreserves all other issues. \n The   respondents   contend the   claimant   has   reached   maximum   medical \nimprovement and that any additional treatment is not related to the compensable injury. \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 witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact \nand 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 conducted \non June 26, 2024 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2.    The parties’ stipulation that claimant earned sufficient wages to entitle her to \ncompensation  at  the  rates  of  $356.00  for  total  disability  benefits  and  $267.00  for \npermanent partial disability benefits is also hereby accepted as fact. \n 3.    Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she is entitled to payment of permanent partial disability benefits in an amount equal \n\nPederson – H202890 \n \n3 \n \nto 7% to the body as a whole as a result of her compensable cervical injury. \n 4.   Respondent has controverted claimant’s entitlement to permanent partial \ndisability benefits in the amount of 7% to the body as a whole. \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The claimant is a 73-year-old woman with a radiology certification who has worked \nfor  various  health  providers  over  the  years.    In  2006  she  was  hired  as  the  Director  of \nImaging for Washington Regional Medical Center and held that position until she retired \nin 2014.  After not working for six years, claimant began working parttime for respondent \nin  2020 as  a  radiologic  technologist  performing  x-rays;  lab  work;  triage;  patient \nassessment; et cetera.   \n The parties have stipulated that claimant suffered a compensable injury to her right \nhip,  low  back,  and  cervical  spine  on  April  4,  2022.    On  that  date  the  claimant  was \nperforming a shoulder x-ray on a patient when the patient fainted.  Claimant grabbed the \npatient’s head so it would not hit the floor but both she and the patient hit the floor.  \nClaimant testified that she landed on the right side of her body. \n Claimant’s  supervisor  was  present and  claimant  completed  workers’ \ncompensation  paperwork  before  continuing  to  perform  her  job  for  the  rest  of  the \nafternoon.  Since the time of her injury, the claimant has received various treatment for \nher  compensable  injury.    The  cervical  treatment has primarily  consisted of medication, \ninjections, physical therapy, and work restrictions. \n Although respondent has paid for claimant’s medical treatment, respondent has \nnot accepted liability for a 7% impairment rating to the body as a whole assigned by Dr. \n\nPederson – H202890 \n \n4 \n \nKnox for the cervical spine injury.  As a result, claimant has filed this claim contending \nthat she is entitled to payment of permanent partial disability benefits for the 7% rating. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant contends that she is entitled to payment of permanent partial disability \nbenefits based upon a 7% impairment rating assigned for her compensable cervical spine \ninjury which was assigned by Dr. Knox.  Respondent alleges that claimant’s cervical spine \ncondition was preexisting and that claimant cannot prove that the compensable injury was \nthe major cause of her permanent impairment. \n The relevant statutory law is codified at A.C.A. §11-9-102(4)(F)(ii) which states: \n   (a)  Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a \ndetermination that the compensable injury was the major \ncause of the disability or impairment.  \n    (b)  If any compensable injury combines with a pre- \nexisting disease or condition or the natural process of \naging to cause or prolong disability or a need for treat- \nment, permanent benefits shall be payable for the resultant  \ncondition only if the compensable injury is the major cause \nof the permanent disability or need for treatment. \n \n \n A.C.A. §11-9-102(14)(A) defines “major cause” as more than fifty percent (50%) of \nthe cause.   \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has met her burden of proof. \n Initially,  it  should  be  noted  that  claimant  has  a  history  of  cervical  spine  issues.  \nMedical records from Dr. Beemer, a chiropractic physician, were introduced into evidence \nand date back to July 26, 2011.  Medical records from Dr. Beemer indicate that claimant \n\nPederson – H202890 \n \n5 \n \nwas  seen  a  total  of  189  times.   Since  claimant’s  claim  is  for  an  impairment  rating \nassociated with her cervical spine injury, only those medical reports relating to her cervical \nspine will be discussed.  A review of the various medical records from Dr. Beemer indicate \nthat many of claimant’s complaints involve her thoracic and lumbar spine.  However, there \nare certainly notations of complaints involving claimant’s cervical spine as well.  Those \nnotes  describe  claimant’s  neck  complaints  as  “moderately  severe”,  “intermittent”, \n“nominal” or “resolved”.  The medical records indicate that claimant did not always receive \nmanipulation  to  her  cervical  spine.   On  multiple  occasions claimant  complained  of \nrestricted neck motion involving both sides of her neck.  Furthermore, although claimant \ntestified  that  she  did  not  remember  having  muscle  spasms  in  her  cervical  spine,  the \nmedical  records  from Dr.  Beemer  contain  multiple  references  to muscle  spasms  in  the \nclaimant’s cervical spine. \n In addition to Dr. Beemer, claimant also received medical treatment prior to April \n4,  2022, from  Dr.  Weilert,  a  pain management  physician.    In  a  report  dated  March 15, \n2016, Dr. Weilert indicated that claimant’s active problems included:  “bulge of cervical \ndisc without myelopathy” and cervical spondylosis.  On May 14, 2020, Dr. Weilert noted \nthat  claimant  had  some  neck  issues  six  years  ago  but  that her  neck  pain  had become \nsevere two weeks earlier and he provided claimant trigger point injections on that date.  \nSubsequent medical records from Dr. Weilert indicate that he continued to treat claimant, \nbut those treatments primarily included claimant’s lumbar spine and left hip pain. \n Medical records from Dr. Beemer indicate that claimant continued to seek medical \ntreatment for various complaints including neck pain as late as March 2022, just before \nher compensable injury on April 4, 2022. \n\nPederson – H202890 \n \n6 \n \n Significantly,  in  her  report of  March  7, 2022,  Dr.  Beemer  indicated  that  claimant \nrated her neck pain as a 3; however, on April 5, 2022, the day after her injury, claimant \nrated her neck pain as an 8.  I also note that Dr. Beemer indicated that at the time of her \nlast visit claimant’s muscle spasms in her cervical spine were noted as mild whereas on \nApril 5, 2022, the muscle spasms were noted as severe. \n Claimant’s initial medical treatment from Dr. Weilert after the injury  occurred  on \nApril 18, 2022.  In his report of that date he noted: \n  Neck has mostly been manageable until a fall at \n  work.  Now having severe left neck. \n \n \n In  addition  to  Dr.  Weilert,  claimant  also  sought  medical  treatment  for  her \ncompensable  injury  from  Dr.  Hoover who ordered an MRI scan of claimant’s cervical \nspine.  The  MRI  scan of  May  13,  2022 was  read  as  showing  multilevel  cervical \nspondylosis, worse at C3-4 through C-6 levels and a central disc protrusion at the C3-4 \nlevel.  Following the MRI scan Dr. Hoover referred claimant to neurosurgery.  It does not \nappear that claimant was seen by a neurosurgeon at that point in time, but instead she \ncontinued to receive treatment from Dr. Weilert and Dr. Hoover in the form of medication, \nphysical therapy, and injections.  Claimant underwent another MRI scan of her cervical \nspine  on  November  28,  2022.   That  scan  was  read  as  showing  a  multilevel  cervical \nspondylosis  with  moderate  canal  stenosis  at  C4-5  and  C5-6.    It  also  revealed  severe \nbilateral neuroforaminal narrowing at C3-4, severe right neuroforaminal narrowing at C4-\n5 and severe bilateral neuroforaminal narrowing at C5-6.   \n After that MRI scan, Dr. Hoover in his report of January 18, 2023 again indicated \nthat claimant should see a neurosurgeon for her ongoing neck problems. \n\nPederson – H202890 \n \n7 \n \n At some point the respondent apparently had claimant’s medical reports reviewed \nby Dr. Owen Kelly, an orthopedic surgeon.   In a report dated March 23, 2023, Dr. Kelly \nindicated that claimant had degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and that she \nmay have sustained a cervical sprain/strain at the time of the accident but no identifiable \ninjury was noted.  He further found that claimant’s degenerative findings were not related \nto  the  April  4,  2022  accident  and  opined  that  claimant  had  reached  maximum  medical \nimprovement with no impairment rating relating to the injury. \n Claimant  subsequently  obtained  a  change  of  physician  to  Dr.  Luke  Knox, \northopedic surgeon.  In a report dated August 24, 2023, Dr. Knox assessed claimant’s \ncondition  as  cervical  disc  disorder  with  radiculopathy;  cervical  spondylosis;  cervical \nstenosis  of the  spinal  canal;  and  chronic  right  shoulder  pain.    He  recommended  that \nclaimant receive physical therapy and continue following up with Dr. Weilert.   \n Apparently additional medical treatment was not approved by the respondent and \nclaimant returned to Dr. Knox on October 17, 2023.  In his report of that date, Dr. Knox \nstated: \n  October 17, 2023.  Patient 1 and half years status post \n  work comp injury continuing difficulty with cervical \n  radiculopathy.  Reviewed MRI scan demonstrating \n  significant disc herniation on the right at C4-5 C5-6. \n  I informed her that surgical options do exist.  Would  \n  like to see her go through physical therapy.  Her work \n  comp carrier refused.  She wants to settle her course \n  a filled out her paperwork recommended that she  \n  close her case she would qualify for a 7% permanent \n  partial disability.  Plan to follow up  p.r.n. we did Re  \n  up her physical therapy through Total spine I would \n  like to see her go through cervical traction. \n  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n\nPederson – H202890 \n \n8 \n \n Dr.  Knox  also  completed  responses  to  questions  from  claimant’s  attorney \nindicating  that  claimant  had  reached  maximum  medical  improvement  and  had  a  7% \nimpairment rating to the body as a whole. \n I  find  based  upon  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Knox  that  claimant  has  met  her  burden  of \nproving by a preponderance of the evidence that claimant’s compensable cervical spine \ninjury is the major cause of the 7% impairment rating assigned by Dr. Knox.  Dr. Knox is \na  neurosurgeon  and  has  reviewed  claimant’s  MRI  scans.    It  was  his  opinion  that \nclaimant’s MRI scan shows a significant disc herniation at the C4-5 and C5-6 levels.  It \nwas  also  his  opinion  that  claimant  did  have  surgical  options  available;  however,  she \nwished to settle her case.  There is no indication that claimant had been diagnosed as \nsuffering  from  a  disc  herniation  in  her  cervical  spine  prior  to  her  compensable  injury.  \nWhile it might be argued that other treating physicians and radiologists did not interpret \nclaimant’s MRI scan as showing a significant disc herniation, I find that Dr. Knox’s opinion \nas a neurosurgeon is credible and entitled to greater weight than the opinions of the other \ntreating physicians.   \n Accordingly, I find that claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance \nof the evidence that her compensable cervical spine injury is the major cause of the 7% \nimpairment rating assigned by Dr. Knox.  Therefore, respondent is liable for payment of \npermanent partial disability benefits in an amount equal to 7% to the body as a whole. \n \nAWARD \n Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe  is  entitled  to  permanent  partial  disability  benefits  in  an  amount equal  to  7%  to  the \n\nPederson – H202890 \n \n9 \n \nbody as a whole based upon the rating assigned by Dr. Knox for her cervical spine injury.  \nRespondent has controverted claimant’s entitlement to payment of permanent partial \ndisability benefits. \nPursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(1)(B), claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney \nfee  in  the  amount  of  25%  of  the  compensation  for  indemnity  benefits  payable  to  the \nclaimant.   Thus, claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney fee based upon the \nindemnity benefits awarded.   This fee is to be paid one-half by the carrier and one-half \nby the claimant.    \n All  sums herein  accrued are payable  in a  lump  sum and  without  discount.   This \naward shall bear interest at the maximum legal rate until paid. \n Respondent  is  responsible  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $1,041.45. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H202890 MARION PEDERSON, Employee CLAIMANT OPTUM CARE, INC., Employer RESPONDENT FARMINGTON CASUALTY/SEDGWICK CLAIMS, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington Cou...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:46:38.417Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H202890-2024-11-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PEDERSON_MARION_H202890_20241120.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}