{"id":"alj-H203260-2025-07-14","awcc_number":"H203260","decision_date":"2025-07-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Librado Martinez","employer_name":"Russellville School District","title":"MARTINEZ VS. RUSSELLVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H203260 July 14, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","ankle","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MARTINEZ_LIBRADO_H203260_20250714.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MARTINEZ_LIBRADO_H203260_20250714.pdf","text_length":25264,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H203260 \n \nLIBRADO MARTINEZ, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nRUSSELLVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JULY 14, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE GREGORY   K.   STEWART in \nRussellville, Pope County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by MICHAEL L. ELLIG, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents   represented   by JARROD   PARRISH,   Attorney   at   Law, Little   Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On May  22,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at \nRussellville,  Arkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on November  13, \n2024,  and  a pre-hearing  order  was  filed on that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing \nOrder  has  been  marked  Commission's  Exhibit  No.  1  and  made  a  part  of  the  record \nwithout objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The  Arkansas  Workers'  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  this \nclaim. \n 2.  Claimant  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his  right  hand,  right  knee,  low \nback and left ankle on July 21, 2022. \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-2- \n At the time of the hearing, the parties agreed to stipulate that claimant earned an \naverage weekly wage of $543.12 which would entitle him to compensation at the rates \nof  $362.00  for  temporary  total  disability  benefits  and  $272.00  for  permanent  partial \ndisability benefits. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n 1. Claimant’s  entitlement  to  medical  treatment  from  Dr.  Ahmad  Rafi  and  Dr. \nGautam Ghandi. \n 2. Temporary total disability benefits from date of last payment through a date yet \nto be determined. \n 3. Attorney fee. \n The  claimant  contends he  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his  low  back,  right \nhand, left foot/ankle as well as his right knee in the employment related accident of July \n21, 2022. He further contends that he has continued to require medical services for his \nback  injury,  from  which  Dr.  Rofi  and  Dr.  Ghandi  directed.  He  has  continued  to  be \ntemporarily totally disabled by this back injury. Finally, he contends that the respondents \nhave controverted his entitlement to any benefits for these injuries. \n The  respondents  contend that  all  appropriate  benefits  have  been  paid  with \nregard to this matter. The claimant has sought and received unauthorized medical care \nunbeknownst  to  respondents.  It  is  respondents’  position  that  they  are  not  liable  for \nmedical care that was not approved.  \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 \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-3- \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted on November 13, 2024, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same \ndate are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. The parties’ stipulation that claimant earned an average weekly of $543.12 \nwhich  would  entitle  him  to  compensation  at  the  rates  of  $362.00  for  temporary  total \ndisability benefits and  $272.00  for  permanent  partial  disability  benefits  is  also  hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 3.  Claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \nentitled  to  payment  of  medical  treatment  provided  by  Dr.  Rafi  and  Dr.  Gandhi.  The \nmedical   treatment provided by   those   physicians   was   unauthorized;   therefore, \nrespondent is not liable for payment. \n 4.  Claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \nentitled  to  additional  temporary  total  disability  benefits  for  his  compensable  low  back \ninjury. \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant  is  a  50-year-old  man  with  one  year  of  college  education.  He  was \nemployed by respondent to perform janitorial work at various schools in respondent’s \ndistrict. He testified that on July 21, 2022, he opened the door on a truck to remove an \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-4- \nindustrial  floor  machine.  The  machine  had  not  been  strapped  down,  and  when  he \nopened the door, the machine rolled down the ramp; clipping his foot and knocking him \nover. The machine then ran over a portion of his body. \n Claimant immediately reported the accident to his supervisor and was instructed \nto  call  a  hotline  number  and  an  appointment  was  made  for  medical  treatment.  The \nparties have stipulated that as a result of the accident, claimant suffered compensable \ninjuries to his right hand, right knee, low back, and left ankle. \n After some initial medical treatment, claimant filed a Change of Physician request \nwith  the  Commission.  A  Change  of  Physician  Order  was  filed  by  Jay  O.  Howe  on \nOctober 26, 2022, approving a change of physician from the Millard-Henry Clinic to Dr. \nVictor Vargas, an orthopedic surgeon in Little Rock. \n Claimant’s initial evaluation with Dr. Vargas occurred on December 13, 2022. \nWith respect to claimant’s low back complaints, Dr. Vargas noted that claimant stated \nthat  his  back  pain  was  exacerbated  by  physical  therapy.  Dr.  Vargas  ordered  an  MRI \nscan and prescribed medication. The lumbar MRI scan was performed on January 18, \n2023,  and  indicates a disc  protrusion  at  L5-S1. This protrusion is interpreted  as a \ndegenerative change according to the MRI report.  \n Claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Vargas  on  February  6,  2023,  and  in  his  report  of  that \ndate, Dr. Vargas stated that he discussed the MRI findings with claimant and his wife: \nI  explained  the  findings  are  considered  a  chronic  pathology \nat  L5-S1  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  acute  events  or \nrelationship  with  the  patient  accident  that  he  sustained  on \n7/21/2022. \n \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-5- \n Nevertheless,  Dr.  Vargas  prescribed  lumbar  spine  physical  therapy  with  core \nmuscle strengthening and trunk stabilization. This therapy was to be performed at River \nValley Therapy and Sports Medicine. The documentary evidence contains a letter to Dr. \nVargas from River Valley stating: \nI  attempted  to  schedule  Mr.  Martinez  several  times  with  no \nsuccess. \n \n Claimant returned to Dr. Vargas on March 7, 2023, and Dr. Vargas again noted \nthat there was no evidence of acute events or fractures of the lumbar spine. He stated \nthat   since   there   were   no   objective   findings   he   had   recommended   symptomatic \ntreatment  in  the  form  of  physical  therapy.  He  noted  that  claimant  reported  physical \ntherapy  was  not  helping  but  that  according  to  the  physical  therapist,  claimant  was  not \nattending physical therapy sessions. He also noted: \nThe patient also was recommended to take NSAIDS that he \nhas declined to take. \n \n Dr.  Vargas  agreed  to  limit claimant  to  sedentary  work  but  stated  that  he  would \neventually be releasing claimant to work without restrictions. \n Before  he  was  released  by  Dr.  Vargas,  claimant  sought medical  treatment  from \nSavannah  Bradbury,  PA-C  for  Dr.  Gallaher  on  March  9,  2023,  for  his  low  back \ncomplaints.  She  noted  that  the  MRI  scan  revealed  degenerative  changes  that  could \nhave been exacerbated by an acute accident. She also prescribed physical therapy. \n On April 10, 2023, Dr. Vargas indicated claimant had reached maximum medical \nimprovement  and  no  further  treatment  would  be  necessary.  He  released  claimant  to \nreturn  to  work  with  no  restrictions  and  0%  impairment.  Claimant  did,  in  fact,  return  to \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-6- \nwork for respondent for approximately a month before terminating his employment with \nrespondent.  \n Thereafter, for his low back, claimant sought medical treatment from Dr. Ahmad \nRafi and  Dr.  Gandhi.  Dr.  Rafi  provided  a  lumbar  epidural  steroid  injection  along  with \npain  medication.  Dr.  Gandhi  performed  a  laminectomy  infusion  procedure  at  L5-S1  on \nApril 22, 2024.  \n Respondent  has  not  accepted  liability  for  payment  of  the  medical  treatment \nprovided  by  Drs.  Rafi  or  Gandhi.  As  a  result,  claimant  has  filed  this  claim  requesting \npayment  for  medical  treatment  provided  by  Drs.  Rafi  and  Gandhi  and  requesting \npayment of additional temporary total disability benefits for his low back injury. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Initially, it should be noted that although the parties have stipulated that claimant \nsuffered compensable injuries to his right hand, right knee, left ankle, and low back; only \nmedical treatment for claimant’s low back from Drs. Rafi and Gandhi and temporary \ntotal  disability  benefits  related  to  the  back  injury  are  being  litigated.  In  addition,  I  note \nthat   after   the   laminectomy   infusion   procedure   on   April   22,   2024,   claimant   was \ndiagnosed  with  sacroiliac  dysfunction  and  underwent  a  second  procedure  by  Dr. \nGandhi.  In  his  post-hearing  brief,  claimant  notes  that  he  is  not  alleging  that  the \nsacroiliac issues are related to his accident. Because the issue being litigated involves \nclaimant’s compensable low back injury, medical reports addressing other conditions \nare not discussed unless they are deemed relevant to the low back issue.  \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-7- \n Pursuant to Arkansas Workers’ Compensation law, an employer is to promptly \nprovide  for  an  injured  employee  such  medical  treatment  as  may  be  reasonably \nnecessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. A.C.A. §11-9-508(a). \nThe employer has the right to select the initial treating physician; however, an employee \nmay request a one-time change of physician. A.C.A. §11-9-514. Treatment or services \nfurnished  or  prescribed  by  any physician  other  than  the  one  selected  according  to  the \nchange  of  physician  rules,  except  emergency  treatment,  shall  be  at  the  claimant’s \nexpense. A.C.A. §11-9-514(b). \n A.C.A. §11-9-514 provides in pertinent part: \n(c)(1) After being notified of an injury, the employer or \ninsurance carrier shall deliver to the employee, in person or \nby  certified  or  registered  mail,  return  receipt  requested,  a \ncopy of a notice, approved or prescribed by the commission, \nwhich  explains  the  employee’s  rights and  responsibilities \nconcerning change of physician. \n(2)  If,  after  notice  of  injury,  the  employee  is  not \nfurnished a copy of the notice, the change of physician rules \ndo not apply. \n(3) Any unauthorized medical expenses incurred after \nthe employee has received a copy of the notice shall not be \nthe responsibility of the employer. \n \n In  this  case,  respondents  submitted  into  evidence  a  copy  of  Commission  Form \nAR-N dated July 21, 2022, signed by the claimant acknowledging that he had received \na  copy  of  the  front  and  back  of  the  form.  In  addition,  at  the  hearing  claimant \nacknowledged that his signature appeared on Form AR-N. Based upon this evidence, I \nfind that notice of the change of physician rules was provided to claimant as required by \nA.C.A.  §11-9-514  and  any  unauthorized  medical  expenses  after  that  date  are  not  the \nresponsibility of the respondent.  \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-8- \n As previously noted, after some initial medical treatment, claimant filed a Change \nof  Physician  request  with  the  Commission.  A  Change  of  Physician  Order  was  filed  on \nOctober 26, 2022, approving a change of physician to Dr. Victor Vargas, an orthopedic \nsurgeon.  Dr.  Vargas  ordered  an  MRI  scan  which  interpreted  as  showing  degenerative \nchanges  only.  Based  upon  claimant’s  complaint,  Dr.  Vargas  referred  claimant  to \nphysical  therapy  at  River  Valley  Therapy.  Although  claimant  had  informed  Dr.  Vargas \nthat  physical therapy did  not  help  his  condition,  there  is  no  indication  that  claimant \nactually  received  physical  therapy  from  River  Valley  based  upon  the  recommendation \nby  Dr.  Vargas.  There  is  evidence  that  claimant  had  received  physical  therapy  at  River \nValley prior to his accident on July 21, 2022. \n As  noted,  the  documentary  evidence  contains  a  letter  to  Dr.  Vargas  from  River \nValley  Therapy  indicating  that  the  therapist  had  attempted  to  schedule  claimant  for \nphysical therapy several times “with no success”. In addition, Dr. Vargas in his report of \nMarch  7,  2023,  indicated  that  he  had  recommended  that  claimant  take  NSAIDS  but \nclaimant had declined to take that medication.  \n Thus, while claimant stated that in his opinion Dr. Vargas’ medical treatment was \n“worthless”, the evidence indicates that Dr. Vargas prescribed claimant physical therapy \nand  recommended  that  claimant  take  NSAIDS.  However,  claimant  did  not  attend  the \nrecommended physical therapy and declined to take the NSAIDS recommended by Dr. \nVargas.  Based  upon  this  evidence,  I  do  not  find  that  Dr.  Vargas  refused  to  treat  the \nclaimant. \n Based upon the findings and claimant’s refusal to attend physical therapy or take \nthe  NSAIDS,  Dr.  Vargas  did  eventually  release  claimant  to  return  to  work  with  no \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-9- \nrestrictions. Significantly, Dr. Vargas did not indicate to claimant that he could not return \nfor further treatment if his symptoms warranted and there is no indication that claimant \nmade any effort to return to Dr. Vargas for additional medical treatment. In addition, at \nno point did claimant make any attempt to file a claim with the Commission requesting \nadditional medical treatment for his compensable low back injury. While claimant stated \nthat   respondent   did   not   offer   an   additional   medical   treatment   for   his   low   back \ncomplaints,  claimant  did  not  testify  that  he  ever  requested  any  additional  medical \ntreatment  for  his  low  back  complaints  from  the  respondent.  Instead,  claimant  chose  to \nseek  medical  treatment  for  his  low  back  complaints  on his  own. Claimant testified  that \nhe  went  to  his  primary  care  physician  who,  in  turn,  referred  him  to  Dr.  Rafi  for  pain \nmanagement. Dr. Rafi gave claimant an injection and eventually referred claimant to Dr. \nGandhi who eventually performed surgery.  \n Claimant acknowledged that he sought medical treatment on his own from these \nphysicians. \nQ Now,  after  you  initially  saw  Dr.  Vargas and got  some \ntreatment, did you seek a second opinion on your own? \n \nA Yes. \n*** \nQ And have you sought and obtained medical treatment \non your own? \n \nA Yes, I have. \n*** \nQ You agree Dr. Rafi and Dr. Gandhi were doctors that \nyou branched off and saw on your own, right? \n \nA That’s correct.  \n \nQ No  referral  for  either  of  them  from  Vargas,  Edwards, \nor anybody else that was approved by the Comp, right? \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-10- \n \nA No. \n*** \nQ These  are  doctors  that  you  went  out  and  found  and \nwent and saw on your own outside of the Workers’ Comp \nsystem, right? \n \nA That isn’t correct because I disagreed with what Dr. \nVargas had to say. \n*** \nQ Dr.  Edwards  did  not  refer  you  to  your  primary  care \ndoctors; did he? \n \nA No. \n \nQ He didn’t refer you to any other doctors; did he? \n \nA No.  \n \nQ You  went  entirely  on  you  own,  and  you  agree  you \nknew you were going outside of the Comp claim to try to get \na different or separate opinion? \n \nA That’s correct. \n \nQ Now – \n \nA Because their second opinion was not good. \n \n Claimant  contends  that  by  refusing to  provide  any  additional  medical  treatment \nfor his low back complaints, he was free to seek medical treatment on his own from Drs. \nRafi and Gandhi. However, the evidence indicates that claimant was not happy with Dr. \nVargas’ treatment and claimant considered it to be “worthless”. According to the medical \nrecords,  even  before  Dr.  Vargas  stated  that  claimant  had  reached  maximum  medical \nimprovement  and  released  him  from  his  care,  claimant  sought  a  second  opinion  from \nSavannah  Bradbury,  in  Dr.  Gallaher’s  office  for  his  low  back  complaints.  Notably, \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-11- \nBradbury  also  indicated  that  the  MRI  scans  showed  degenerative  changes  and  also \nprescribed physical therapy, just as Dr. Vargas had prescribed. \n There is no indication that claimant filed a claim with the Commission requesting \na hearing on his entitlement to additional medical treatment for his low back or that he \neven  asked  respondent  to provide  additional  medical treatment  for  his  low  back  injury. \nInstead, claimant simply chose on his own to seek medical treatment from Drs. Rafi and \nGandhi. Claimant  had  been  provided  notice  of  the  procedures  to  follow  in  order  to \nchange physicians by the respondent. In fact, claimant had filed a Change of Physician \nrequest  and  was  granted  a change  of physician  to  Dr.  Vargas  by  the  Commission. \nClaimant was unhappy with Dr. Vargas’ treatment and did not attend physical therapy \nsessions or take the NSAIDS recommended by Dr. Vargas. Once Dr. Vargas released \nclaimant,  claimant  simply  sought  medical  treatment  on  his  own  from  Drs.  Rafi  and \nGandhi. \n I  find  based  upon  the  evidence  presented  that  the  treatment  provided  by  Drs. \nRafi   and   Gandhi   was   unauthorized;   therefore,   pursuant   to   A.C.A.   §11-9-514, \nrespondent is not liable for payment of their medical treatment. \n The  next  issue  for  consideration  involves  claimant’s  request  for  additional \ntemporary total disability benefits for his compensable low back injury. Even though the \nmedical treatment by Dr. Rafi and Dr. Gandhi has been determined to be unauthorized, \nclaimant may still be entitled to payment of temporary total disability benefits. In order to \nbe entitled to temporary total disability benefits claimant must prove by a preponderance \nof  the  evidence  that  he  remains  within  his  healing  period  and  that  he  suffered  a  total \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-12- \nincapacity to earn wages. Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Dept. v. Breshears, \n272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W. 2d 392 (1981).  \n After reviewing the evidence, I find that claimant has failed to meet his burden of \nproof. \n Initially,  I  note  that  claimant  has  acknowledged  in  his  post-hearing  brief  that  he \nwas released to return to work at regular duty on April 10, 2023, by Dr. Vargas and he \ndid return to work for the respondent. Claimant’s brief also acknowledges: \nThe claimant’s testimony is somewhat vague about the last \nday of employment, or was the reason for the ending of the \nemployment. \n \n The  brief  also acknowledges  that  when  he  saw  Dr.  Rafi  on  August  3,  2023,  Dr. \nRafi noted that claimant was not presently working but he did not take claimant off work \nor  restrict  his  activities.  Instead,  claimant  contends  that  the  surgery performed  by  Dr. \nGandhi on April 22, 2024, would have rendered him incapable of working. \n Based upon the evidence presented, I find that claimant has failed to prove that \nhe remained within his healing period for his compensable injury as opposed to a pre-\nexisting condition. First, it should be noted that claimant had a history of low back pain \nprior  to  his  accident  with  the  respondent.  At  the  hearing,  claimant  at  times  denied \nhaving  any  prior  low  back  pain  and  at  other  times  indicated  that  he  did  not  recall  that \nback pain. With respect to this testimony, even claimant’s brief admits that contrary to \nhis  testimony  he  had  periodic  bouts  of  back  pain  and  aches.  However,  claimant \ncontends that although x-rays were taken, no further testing or treatment was provided \nor  recommended  for  those  low  back  complaints.  I  would  disagree.  The  documentary \nevidence contains a report from Dr. Stanley Teeter dated November 14, 2017, at which \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-13- \ntime  claimant  was  seen  for  various  complaints  including  “lumbar  radiculopathy”.  Dr. \nTeeter’s medical report states: \nHe  also  wants  to  talk  about  his  legs.  He  says  that  about \nJune  his  right  lower  leg  especially  has  episodes  in  which  it \nfeels numb and tingly below the knee and then the whole leg \ngets numb and tingly and then it gives way or “goes out” on \nhim.  The  tingly  sensation  sometimes  radiates  up  into  the \nright buttocks. He remembers no previous back injury. \n \n Based  upon  claimant’s  symptoms,  Dr.  Teeter  recommended  an  MRI  scan  of \nclaimant’s  lumbar  spine  and  sacrum.  The  lumbar  MRI  scan  was  performed  on \nNovember 29, 2017, and revealed a disc protrusion at the L5-S1 level. Notably, this is \nthe same level at which Dr. Gandhi performed claimant’s surgery in April 2024.  \nMedical  records  after  the  lumbar  MRI  scan  reveal  that  claimant  continued  to \ncomplain  of  neuropathy  and  lumbar  back  pain.  The  medical  report  from  Dr.  Jackson \ndated August 17, 2018, indicates that claimant has a decreased range of motion in his \nlumbar  spine and  lumbar  pain.  Likewise,  the  report  from  Dr.  Jackson  dated  November \n19,  2018,  also  notes  back  pain  and  a  decreased  range  of  motion.  Back  pain  and a \ndecreased range of motion is also reflected in Dr. Jackson’s report of June 13, 2019. \nClaimant was eventually referred to River Valley Therapy for a neuromuscular disorder \nand claimant indicated that he was suffering from back pain at this time. Claimant  also \ncompleted a form indicating that other health problems included back pain. A review of \nthe  physical  therapy  notes  indicates  that  claimant  was  making  no  progress  with  his \nphysical therapy and that he was describing his pain as a 10 on a 10-point scale. The \ntherapist  note   of   March   3,   2022,   indicates   that   claimant   was   demonstrating an \ninconsistent pain report from visit to visit. The physical therapist’s report of March 8, \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-14- \n2022, indicates that claimant did not feel like therapy was helping him but was causing \nadditional pain. According to that report: \nHe  reports  he  is  only  doing  it  because  it  is  required  by \ninsurance to get an MRI although now he doesn’t feel like an \nMRI  is  going  help  any.  He  states  he  can  tell  he  is  already \npartially disabled. \n \n Claimant  was  discharged  from  physical  therapy  on  March  17,  2022,  and  the \ndischarge summary indicates that claimant did not have any relief from his symptoms or \nmake progress toward his goals. \n All  of  this  medical  existed  prior  to  claimant’s  injury  with  the  respondent.  As \npreviously noted, Dr. Vargas was of the opinion that the changes shown on claimant’s \nMRI scan were degenerative in nature and did not show an acute injury. As a result, he \nrecommended physical therapy and the use of NSAIDS. Claimant did not appear for the \nphysical  therapy  sessions  and  declined  to  take  the  recommended  medication.  As  a \nresult, Dr. Vargas eventually released claimant to return to full duty work.  \n Although claimant subsequently came under the care of Dr. Rafi and Dr. Gandhi, \nI do not find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his low \nback complaints at that time are causally related to the injury which occurred on July 21, \n2022.  Therefore,  I  find  that  claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence  that  he  is  entitled  to  additional  temporary  total  disability  benefits  for  his  low \nback injury subsequent to his release by Dr. Vargas on April 10, 2023. \n \n \n \n\nMartinez – H206340 \n \n-15- \nORDER \n The  claimant  has  failed  to prove  by a  preponderance of  the evidence  that he  is \nentitled  to  payment  for  medical  treatment  for  his  low  back  he  received  from  Drs.  Rafi \nand  Gandhi.  Treatment  by  those  two  physicians  was  unauthorized  and  is  not  the \nresponsibility of the respondent. \n I   also   find   that   claimant  has   failed  to  meet  his  burden  of  proving   by   a \npreponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional temporary total disability \nbenefits for his compensable low back injury. Claimant has failed to prove that treatment \nby  Drs.  Rafi  and  Gandhi  is  causally  related  to  his  original  compensable  injury. \nTherefore, claimant’s claim for compensation benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \nRespondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $850.50. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H203260 LIBRADO MARTINEZ, Employee CLAIMANT RUSSELLVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 14, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Russellville, Pope County,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:29.588Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H203260-2025-07-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MARTINEZ_LIBRADO_H203260_20250714.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}