{"id":"alj-H203788-2025-04-29","awcc_number":"H203788","decision_date":"2025-04-29","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Ronald Laslo","employer_name":"Arkansas State Police","title":"LASLO VS. ARKANSAS STATE POLICE AWCC# H203788 April 29, 2025","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["hip","back","shoulder","knee","lumbar","fracture","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LASLO_RONALD_H203788_20250429.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"LASLO_RONALD_H203788_20250429.pdf","text_length":39819,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H203788 \n \nRONALD LASLO, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \nARKANSAS STATE POLICE, EMPLOYER    RESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEES CLAIMS DIVISION, \nCARRIER/TPA        RESPONDENT \n \nAMENDED OPINION FILED APRIL 29, 2025  \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 26\nth\n day of \nFebruary, 2025, in Batesville, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Mark Alan Peoples, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nRespondents are represented by Charles McLemore, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n A hearing was conducted on the 26\nth\n day of February 2025, to determine the  \nissue of additional  medical treatment,  specifically treatment  by  Doctor Edwards  for \nevaluation of his right hip.  The Prehearing Order also listed unpaid medical and attorney \nfees,  with  all  remaining  issues reserved,  but  at  the  time  of  the  hearing,  the  issue  was \nnarrowed down to the sole issue of additional medical by Dr. Edwards.  A copy of the Pre-\nhearing Order, which was dated December 17, 2024, was marked “Commission Exhibit \n1”  and made  part  of  the  record without  objection.    The  Order  provided  the parties \nstipulated that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation has jurisdiction of the case and that \nthere  was  an  employer/employee relationship that existed  on or  about  May  10,  2022, \nwhen  the  claimant  sustained  injuries  to  his right hip  due  to  a  trip  injury,  which  the \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n2 \n \nrespondent accepted as compensable.  The claimants authorized treatment was by Dr. \nDominic  Maggio, who later referred  the  claimant  to  Dr.  Paul  Edwards  for  further \nevaluation.  The respondents have not controverted this claim in its entirety.  They are \nproviding  treatment  to  the  claimant  and  continuing  to  pay  TTD  to  the  claimant.    The \nrespondents  have  denied  authorization to see Dr. Edwards.   The claimant’s average \nweekly wage on or about May 10, 2022, was $1224.67, with a corresponding temporary \ntotal disability rate of $790.00 and a permanent partial disability rate of $593.00.  \n The Prehearing Order along with the claimant’s and respondent’s contentions are \nset out in their respective responses to the Pre-hearing questionnaire and made a part of \nthe record without objection.  The sole witness to testify was the claimant, Ronald Laslo.  \nThe claimant submitted two exhibits without objection.  Claimant’s Exhibit One consisted \nof twenty-six pages of medical with index and Exhibit Two consisted of five pages of non-\nmedical  with  index.  The  respondents  submitted three exhibits  without  objection,  with \nRespondent’s  Exhibit  one  consisting of  medical  records consisting  of 220 pages, \nRespondent’s   Exhibit   Two   consisting   of 40 pages   of documentary records,  and \nRespondents Exhibit three consisting of twenty-two pages, and four CD’s of surveillance \nvideo.  From  a  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole, to  include  medical  reports  and  other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to observe the \ntestimony and demeanor of the witness, the following findings of fact and conclusions of \nlaw are made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n3 \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. That the claimant has proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that \nthe  medical  treatment  requested, consisting of a  referral  and additional \nevaluation, consultation, and treatment by Dr. Paul Edwards, is causally related \nto and reasonably necessary for the treatment of the stipulated compensable \nwork-related right hip injury.    \n4. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents are ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n At the start of the hearing, the issues were clarified by the representative of the \nclaimant who contended that that the sole issue before the Commission at the time of the \nhearing was the referral from the claimant’s authorized doctor to a different doctor for an \nadditional evaluation, consultation, and treatment.  The representative for the Respondent \nresponded that their position was that the claimant had refused treatment due to the fact \nthe  claimant  was  offered a return visit to  Dr. O’Malley, that the  claimant  already  had a \nChange  of  Physician  to  Dr.  Maggio,  and that the  referral  to  Dr.  Edwards was  not \nreasonable and necessary. \n The claimant, Ronald Laslo, testified that he was working as a state trooper back \nin  May  of  2002,  when he  was called  out  in  the  middle  of  the  night  to  work  a  highway \naccident.  While walking back to his vehicle to get his tape measure and paperwork to \nwork the accident, he stepped off the pavement where a shoulder should have been, and \nwhich  had  been washed  out on  the  side  of  the  highway.   This  caused the  claimant to \nalmost fall down the hill resulting in him twisting, and hearing a loud pop.  His car kept \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n4 \n \nhim from falling.  He suffered shooting pain from his toe to the top of his head.  He went \nto his car and waited until he felt better, and then worked the wreck.  After working the \naccident, he was off work a couple of days and he thought he would get better, but after \nthe time off, he still had half the original pain and was then sent to Sherwood Urgent Care.  \nHe was 55 or 56 at the time of the incident. While there, he stated that his knee hurt a \nlittle but then pointed to his right hip and buttocks.  He saw Dr. O’Malley, who treated him \nand released him. (Tr. 7 – 10) \n He   then   obtained   a   Change   of   Physician   and   then   saw   Dr.   Maggio,   a \nneurosurgeon, who provided injections.  The claimant’s understanding of his injuries was \nthat he was suffering from a labrum tear which caused his hip problems and that he had \nadditionally damaged his SI joint, which was causing his back pain.  The claimant was \nthen questioned about some surveillance videos.  He stated that he had watched them, \nand they more or less showed him engaged in his day to day activities, except the one \nwhich showed him doing more than he normally did.  That particular video showed him \nlifting a box and a mattress or box springs.  He stated that he tipped it up and slid it into \na dumpster.  He went on to testify that he had good and bad days, and was having a good \nday  that  day  due  to having  received  an injection  that  morning.    He  finished  his  direct \ntestimony by stating that Dr. Maggio had referred him to Dr. Edwards for an additional \nevaluation. (Tr. 11 - 13) \n Under cross examination, the claimant stated that when he stepped down off the \nhighway, he felt pain from head to toe and it was like a shooting pain which just hurt.  He \nadmitted he had personally filled out Form N and his signature was at the bottom of the \npage and also on the back of Form N.  He also agreed that the writing on Form PECD – \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n5 \n \n1 was his and that he also signed that one.  The claimant agreed he had received a lot of \ntreatment.    He  admitted  that  Dr.  Ron  Bates  was his family  doctor.    The  claimant  also \nadmitted seeing Dr. Wesley Greer for his hip. (Tr. 15 – 18) \n The claimant admitted receiving two MRI’s.  He then stated as follows: \n“After Dr. Greer had said it was my back, it was - - I mean, it - - it - - they \nwere trying to figure out whether it was both or if it was - -  what was - - I \nguess    what  was  more  significant,  if  it  was - - if  I  was  having  more  back \nproblem  than  hip problem  or  if  I  was having more  hip  problem  than  back \nproblems.  And I know that each doctor pointed fingers back at the opposite \nback and forth, and that’s why it  kept - - or why  they  kept  sending  me  to \ndifferent places. (Tr. 19) \n \n The claimant remembered seeing Dr. O”Malley, a hip doctor, a couple of times and \nreceiving an EMG nerve study and also receiving two MRIs of the right hip and seeing \nDr. Angel.  He also remembered a functional capacity exam where he performed the best \nthat he was capable of. (Tr. 20, 21) \n The claimant was also questioned about his duties as the Fire Chief in a volunteer \nfire department.  He admitted that he did in fact respond to fires after his injury.  He also \nadmitted to resigning from the State Police on August 11, 2022, when he retired. (Tr. 22, \n23)    He  also  admitted  he  had  attempted  to  return  to  work  as  a  police  officer  against \nmedical advice because they needed the money. (Tr. 24)  He admitted going to work for \nthe Bald Knob Police Department.  He was then questioned about obtaining a document \nfrom Dr. Bates which provided for “No restriction” as a release.  The claimant was then \nquestioned about the Functional Capacity Exam on November 6, 2023, and he responded \nthat he thought that he had stopped working for the Bald Knob Police Department by then, \nbut he was  not  sure.    He  also  admitted  driving  a  pickup  and  sometimes  performing \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n6 \n \nmaintenance  on  his  home  and  his  swimming  pool.  (Tr.  25 - 28)    The  claimant  was \nquestioned about bush hogging his 80 acres and he responded that he had probably done \nthat 10 years ago.  His tractor was 25 years old and only had 200 hours on it. (Tr. 29)  \nThe claimant was then questioned about the sticker on his pickup back window and what \nwas required in regard to that position.  He responded that he didn’t do anything.  He went \non to state that they had problems in their area with Constables doing things that they \nshouldn’t be doing, and he was a placeholder. (Tr. 30)   The claimant also admitted that \nhe was still with the fire department and went to a fire a while back where he had just \ndriven and that his wife did everything. (Tr. 31) \n The  claimant  was  questioned  about  a  video  that  showed  him  loading  some \nfurniture onto a trailer.  He testified that when he pulled through the gate, the items were \nalready on the trailer, which had been loaded by his wife, daughter, and her boyfriend.  \nThe  claimant  was  then  specifically  questioned  about  a  console  television,  and  he \nresponded that they didn’t lift it but pivoted it he guessed.  “We didn’t lift it.” The claimant \nadmitted to disposing of a box spring and mattress. (Tr. 32, 33) \n The  claimant  also  admitted  to  owning  two  rental  properties.    He  denied  owning \nHillside Bayou, LLC, explaining that it was his father’s mobile home park.  He admitted to \nbeing the agent for service for the LLC. (Tr. 34) \n The claimant was then questioned again about the medical.  The claimant admitted \nthat the last time he saw Dr. Bruffett and Dr. O’Malley, they had released him with no \nrestrictions and were through treating him. He admitted that he then used his change of \nphysician and chose Dr. Maggio. (Tr. 37, 38)  The claimant went on to state that when he \ntalked to the office of the respondent’s representative, and when he saw the last hip \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n7 \n \ndoctor, Dr. O’Malley, “he said that I have a tear and so on and that it would have to be \naddressed, but when I went to seen him the last time, he thought most of my problems \nwere coming from my back which needed to be resolved and he was releasing my hip so \nthe last doctor that they sent me to was for my back which could have been Dr. Bruffett, \n‘whatever the one that released me on my back.’” (Tr. 39) \n The claimant went on to testify as follows: \n “So I went and saw Dr. Bruffett, and he said, - - he said, yeah, you’ve got \nsome back issues and you’ve got this and whatever, he said, but all your \nproblems are coming from your hip.  You need to go see a hip doctor, \nand I’m going to release you on your back.  So each one released me on \nthat particular body part and then pointed the finger the other way, which \nis what’s been going on the entire time.”  “Then your office called me and \ntold me that I was done with treatment, and I’m like - - I told her that I still \nhurt,  that  what  do  I  do,  and  she  got  a  little  angry  at  me  and  said  that, \n‘Well, that’s not our problem.’” (Tr. 40) \n \n The claimant went on to testify in regard to the Change of Physician that all of the \nhip doctors thought that he was having more problems with his back, so he had to make \na choice and he picked treatment for his back, and that’s how he saw Dr. Maggio, who \ntreated his back and provided injections in the SI joint.  Dr. Maggio then wanted an MRI \nof the hip, and the claimant admitted he received one on September 10, 2024.  He was \nthen supposed to return to Dr. O’Malley to review the MRI but felt that Dr. O’Malley had \nprovided  a  disservice  to  him.    He  went  on  to  state  that  all  of his hip  doctors  were  in \nagreement that he had a problem but due to his age, “it would be a bad time to get it.”  \n“Most of my pain’s coming from my back, so I just felt like he did me, I guess, wrong.  I \nmean that’s the only way I can say it.” The claimant also admitted to seeing a chiropractor \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n8 \n \nfor  a  couple  of  months  and  paying  for the  treatment himself since “at that point, I was \ngrasping at straws.” The claimant denied seeing Dr. Edwards. (Tr. 42 - 45) \n On redirect, the claimant clarified that he had actually contacted the Workers’ \nCompensation Commission and not the office of the attorney for the Respondents.  He \nalso  denied  refusing  treatment  for  his  hip.    He  admitted  that  his  treating  doctor  had \nrecommended that he see Dr. Edwards and that’s what he wants to do. (Tr. 48, 49)  \n Claimant’s Exhibit One of medical records provided that the claimant presented to \nDr. Maggio on May 1, 2024.  The report provided that the claimant’s chief complaint was \nback pain radiating to the right hip and buttock.  The report went on to provide that the \nclaimant stated that the back pain was worse than the leg pain.  There was tenderness \nto the SI Joint upon palpation.  The finding of a partial labrum tear discovered by a hip \nsurgeon was mentioned.  An EMG/nerve conduction study demonstrated no evidence of \nradiculopathy.  Right sided SI joint injections were recommended. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 1 – 7) \n The claimant presented to Dr. Bates on May 7, 2024, with the chief complaint of \nlumbar back pain and right hip pain.  Dr. Bates opined that the claimant would be unable \nto  perform  the  job  requirements  of  an  Arkansas  State  Trooper  and  although  he  had \nreturned to a sedentary position, he would be a danger to himself, others, or the public, if \nhe was placed in a position to defend the public. (Cl. Ex 1, P. 8)  Dr. Magio placed the \nclaimant on light duty on May 10, 2024. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 9) \n Dr.  Sheffield  Kent, on  June  12,  2024,  provided  a  sacroiliac  joint  injection  to  the \nclaimant at the Legacy Surgery Center. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 10, 11).  Later on June 20, 2024, \nthe claimant presented to Dr. Maggio of Legacy Spine and Neurological Specialists with \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n9 \n \nthe chief complaint of lower back pain radiating to the right hip and buttocks.  Dr. Maggio \nfelt the majority of the claimant’s pain was coming from the SI Joint and he recommended \nanother SI Joint injection.  Dr. Maggio also issued a work note that provided the claimant \nremains off work while undergoing interventional treatment. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 12 – 19)  The \nclaimant was admitted to the Legacy Surgery Center on June 20, 2024, for another SI \njoint injection on the right side. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 20)  On August 8, 2024, Dr. Maggio made a \nreferral to Dr. Edwards at Bowen Hefley for a hip evaluation. He also issued a work note \nstating  the  claimant  should  refrain  from  lifting,  twisting,  or  sitting  or  standing  for  long \nperiods of time. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 21, 22) \n The claimant received an MRI of the right hip on September 10, 2024, with findings \nof  an anterosuperior  labral  tear  and  with  high  grade  cartilage  loss  from  the  anterior \nacetabulum  with  associated  cysts.    No  significant  hip  joint  effusion  and  no  hip fracture \nwas noted. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 24) Two days later, on September 12, 2024, a chart note was \nissued by Dr.  Maggio,  who  stated the  hip  MRI  demonstrated extensive  changes  in  the \nbilateral  hip  and  that  the  claimant  was  scheduled  to  see  Dr.  Paul  Edwards  for  further \nevaluation. (Cl. Ex 1, P. 25). \n Claimant’s  nonmedical  exhibits  consisted  of  five  pages  of  emails  between \nattorneys.  An email from the respondent’s attorney timestamped 8:12 a.m. stated he \nwould let his client know the claimant was refusing treatment.  An email response from \nthe  claimant’s  attorney  addressed  to  the  respondent’s  attorney  shortly  thereafter, \nprovided that  the  claimant  was  not  refusing  treatment,  just  the  opposite,  and  that  he \nwanted to go forward with the treatment. (Cl. Ex. 2, p. 1 – 5) \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n10 \n \n The respondents submitted 220 pages of medical records.  On October 7, 2021, \nthe  claimant saw Dr.  Bates,  and  the  office  note  provided that the  claimant  presented \nneeding  paperwork  to defer  his physical  exam  for  the  state  police due  to  experiencing \nbilateral knee pain.  A Physical Fitness Assessment Medical Release Form provided that \nit was not recommended that the claimant participate in the physical fitness assessment \nat that time. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1, 2)  On March 21, 2022, Dr. Bates issued another deferment \nin regard to the physical fitness assessment due to tendonitis of both knees. (Resp. Ex. \n1, P. 3)   \n On  March  16,  2022,  the  claimant  presented  to  Sherwood  Urgent  Care  and  was \nseen by Lesli Ashten, APRN, in regard to his treatment for pain in the right hip, knee and \nlumbar spine.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 4 – 12)  The claimant returned to Lesli Ashten, APRN, on \nMay 23, 2022, for continued right hip pain and was referred to physical therapy. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 13 – 15)  The claimant then again returned to Lesli Ashten, APRN, on May 30, \n2022, with continued pain in the right hip and knee, a tear of an unspecified meniscus per \na differential diagnosis, along with right hip and knee pain. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 16 – 18)  The \nclaimant again returned to Lesli Ashten, APRN, on June 6, 2022, for right hip and knee \npain and an ortho referral was mentioned.  A request for an MRI was made on June 7, \n2022. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 19 – 22) \n   On June 13, 2022, the claimant was seen by Dr. Jeff Angel for an injury of the right \nhip due to his hip pain.  An MRI of the right hip to check for soft tissue abnormalities was \nmade. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 23 – 32) The MRI of the hip dated June 21, 2022, provided for \nmoderate  arthrosis  of  the  right  hip  joint  without  acute  bone  marrow  edema,  fracture, \ndislocation or joint effusion.  There was an intermediate to high signal undercutting the \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n11 \n \nanterior/superior portion of the labrum. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 33)  On June 27, 2022, Dr. Angel \nissued an assessment and plan referring the claimant to Dr. Greer for an evaluation and \nan assessment for a labral tear verses osteoarthritis.  A note to the patient provided that \nthe claimant could return to work pending his July 7, 2022, appointment. (Resp. Ex. 1, \nP.34 – 39) \n On  July  7,  2022,  the  claimant  was  seen  by  Dr.  Wesley  Greer.    The  MRI  was \nreviewed, and it provided for a labral tear along with osteoarthritis of the right hip along \nwith low back pain.  The claimant was placed on desk duty only. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 40 – 49)  \nThe claimant returned to Dr. Greer on August 11, 2022, and the report provided that the \nphysical  therapy  had helped  considerably, and  the  claimant  could return  to  work.    The \nreport went on to provide that there was a full range of motion of the right hip but with \npain. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 50 – 54)  The claimant was later discharged from physical therapy \nand a report provided he could return to work on August 22, 2022, with the report dated \nAugust 18, 2022. (Resp. Ex.1,  P. 55 – 57)  A report by Dr. Bates, dated August 23, 2022, \nprovided  the  claimant  was  doing  well  and he was  there  to review  lab  results.    On \nSeptember  15,  2022,  the  claimant  again returned  to Dr.  Greer, who  provided  that  the \nclaimant’s pain was better but that it does get somewhat irritated by the end of the day, \ndue to getting in and out of his car and wearing his gun belt.  The knee pain seemed to \nhalve resolved. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 59 – 63)    \n On  September  19,  2022,  the  claimant saw Dr.  Bates, who  examined him and \nplaced him on no restrictions. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 64, 65)  The next physician’s visit occurred \non  November  7,  2022,  when  the  claimant again returned  to  Dr.  Greer.    The  report \nprovided  the  pain  was  still  bothering  the  claimant, but he  could  work  under his  current \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n12 \n \nrestrictions, but that he was starting to have pain in his anterior hip and that his back had \nimproved. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 66 – 72)  Later on November 21, 2022, an MRI of the lumbar \nspine  was  provided  to  the  claimant.    Under  impression,  the  report  provided  that \nspondylosis was noted at the L3-4 through L5-S1 with mild disc bulges resulting in mild \nto moderate foraminal narrowing that was greatest on the right at L3-4 and on the left at \nL4-5.  Mild narrowing of the thecal sac was seen at these levels.  A small broad-based \ncentral disc protrusion was seen at L5-S1, superimposed on a mild disc bulge. (Resp. Ex. \n1, P. 73 - 76) \n The  claimant  then  returned  to  Dr.  Greer  on  December  1,  2022,  and  the  report \nprovided the back was the biggest issue, and claimant was released to full duty. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 77 – 85)  The claimant then again returned to Dr. Greer on January 5, 2023, and \nthe report provided that the injection helped considerably, and at this point, the back was \nthe major issue, and the claimant was then referred to Dr. Wayne Bruffet.  The claimant’s \nMRI was reviewed by Trent Tappan PA-C who opined that the low back looked stable, \nand he did not think there was a specific objective injury and placed the claimant at MMI \nand released him without restrictions. The letter provided for no restrictions pertaining to \nthe lumbar and was signed by Dr. Bruffet. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 93 – 99) \nNearly  a  month  later,  the  claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Greer  on  February  20,  2023, \nwho stated that the pain in the hip was mild and was not keeping him from being able to \nwork,  but  there  was  continued  pain  in  his  lower  back.  (Resp.  Ex.  1, 100 – 106)    The \nclaimant then returned to Dr. Bates on July 10, 2023, and the report provided the claimant \nwas  doing  well,  with  the  chief  complaint  being  body  weight,  with  no  other  complaints. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 107) \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n13 \n \n On August 1, 2023, the claimant presented to Dr. John Larson for chronic low back \npain.  Increased home exercise and core musculature strengthening was recommended. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 108 -113)  The claimant then followed up with Dr. Greer on August 31, \n2023, and the report provided there was still some hip pain, but the back seemed to be \nthe  main  problem,  but  that  it  could  be  a  variable  presentation  for  the  hip.    The  report \nfurther  mentioned  that  the  claimant  had  lost  a  significant  amount  of  weight  which  had \nlikely helped the situation. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 114 – 119) \n On October 18, 2023, a second opinion was obtained from Dr. Barry Baskin.  Dr. \nBaskin opined that he felt the claimant’s biggest problem was his hip and it was likely the \nhip was the pain producer.  He stated that the claimant’s hip arthritis does not look severe \non imaging studies but “his pain is quite severe, I believe.”  He recommended an FCE.  \nHis impression was that the claimant’s issues were degenerative in nature and not clearly \npost-traumatic. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 120 – 122)  \n A functional capacity evaluation occurred on November 6, 2023, and the claimant \nprovided a reliable effort in 48 of 48 categories and demonstrated the ability to work in \nthe medium classification of work. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 123 – 141)  Dr. Baskin then added to \nhis original second opinion and opined that the claimant could resume work based on his \nFCE and perform up to medium duty. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 142 – 143)  On December 4, 2023, \nthe claimant presented to Dr. O’Malley who  recommended  a  nerve  study  along  with  a \nlumbar MRI. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 144 – 154)  The lumbar MRI of December 12, 2023, provided \nfor  mild  to  moderate  spondylosis  from  L3-4  through  L5-S1  with  disc  bulges  and  facet \narthropathy.  Foraminal  narrowing  was  moderate  on  the  right  at  L3-4.    Mild  foraminal \nnarrowing was noted bilaterally at L4-5 and L5 – S1, asymmetrically worse on the left at \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n14 \n \nL4-5.  Thecal sac narrowing was mild at these three levels. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 155, 156)  A \nnerve  conduction  study  occurred  on December  14,  2023,  which  provided  for  no \nelectrophysiologic evidence suggestive of a Sciatic nerve axon loss process on the right, \na common Fibular nerve compromise at the knee on the right, a Tibial nerve compromise \nat  the  posterior  tarsal  tunnel  on  the  right,  and  a  Sural,  superficial  Fibular  sensory  or \nSaphenous N axon loss on the right. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 157 – 160)  \n On January 29, 2024, the claimant returned to Dr. O’Malley who opined that the \nclaimant’s right hip had pre-existing  arthritis,  and  he would not  recommend  that  a  hip \narthroscopy  could  be  beneficial for the patient.  Dr. O’Malley issued a note that the \nclaimant  could  return  to  work  full  duty  without  restrictions  in  regard  to  his  right  hip.  \nHowever, with  regard  to  his  back,  he  may  return  to  work  with  the  restriction  of  seated \ndesk duty. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 161 – 167) \n   On March 25, 2024, a progress note, from Dr. Bruffett provided that on his review \nof  the  MRI  and  x-rays  of  the  claimant, the claimant had not  sustained  any  objective \nevidence of injury, and he was at MMI in regard to his back. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 168 – 172)  \nLater on May 1, 2024, the claimant returned to Dr. Maggio with a chief complaint of lower \nback pain radiating to the right hip and buttock. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 173 – 179)  A few days \nlater, office notes from Dr. Bates on May 7, 2024, provided the claimant presented with a \nchief  complaint  of  lumbar  pack  pain  and  right  hip  pain  and  Dr.  Bates  opined  that  the \nclaimant would not be able to perform the job requirements.  Two days later on May 9, \n2024, Dr. Vadera opined that a proposed right SI joint injection was indicated. (Resp. Ex. \n1. P. 180 -185)  On June 12, 20, and 31, 2024, the claimant again received SI injections \non  the  right.  (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  185,  186)    On  August 8,  2024,  a decision  was  made  for \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n15 \n \nfurther diagnostic testing and the ordering of an MRI. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 200 – 209)  On \nSeptember  10,  2024,  an MRI  of  the  right  hip  occurred  which  provided  for  right  hip \nosteoarthropathy with   a   worn   and   flattened   labrum   and   intermediate   grade \nchondromalacia acetabulum roof.  No acute ten osseous injury was noted. (Resp. Ex. 1, \nP. 210) \n An authentic 4D report dated October 16, 2024, provided for a high-grade cartilage \nloss  from  the anterosuperior  acetabulum, associated  with  subchondral  cysts  and  an \nanterosuperior  labral  tear.    The  report  further  mentioned that the  labral tear  could  be \nrelated to chronic and related arthritis but went on to state that an acute labral tear would \nbe difficult to exclude. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 211, 212.) \n Finally, an IME from Dr. O’Malley dated January 13, 2025, provided that based on \na certain degree of medical certainty, he still did not believe that the patient’s hip arthritis \nwas related to his work injury. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 213, 214)  \n The respondents also submitted multiple pages of documentary evidence without \nobjection.  On  February  21,  2022,  the  claimant  showed  interest  in  a  promotion  to  the \nposition of Sergeant in the Arkansas State Police (Resp. Ex. 2, P 1 – 4)  An article with \npictures in Firewire, dated February 22, 2022, pictured the claimant with some vehicles \nand provided that the claimant was the Fire Chief of the Cord Fire Department. (Resp. \nEx. 2, P. 5).  The respondents also submitted a form entitled Workers’ Compensation \nIncident  Report  signed  by  the  claimant which provided  that  no  medical  treatment  was \nrequired  and  included  the  Arkansas  N  Form  in  regard  to  the  accident  and  the \nacknowledgement  signed  by  the  claimant,  as  well  as  Form  PECD  1  which  was  the \nemployee’s report of the accident. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 6 - 10) \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n16 \n \n The claimant resigned from the Arkansas State Police effective August 21, 2022, \nby a letter dated August 11, 2022, which was accepted by a letter from Colonel Bryant \ndated  August  16,  2022.  (Resp.  Ex.  2,  P.  11 - 14)    A  Memorandum  dated  October  10, \n2022, provided that the claimant was interviewed by the Office of Professional Standards \nregarding an alleged policy violation involving working with the Cord Fire Department after \nbeing  injured  in  a  crash  investigation  and  while  on  workers’  compensation  for  the \nArkansas State Police.  It was noted that the claimant had a Secondary Employment form \ndated  February  28,  2022.    The  claimant  was  found  to have not  violated  policy due  to \nreceiving no compensation from the Cord Fire Department and was exonerated from the \ncomplaint.    However, the  report  went  on  to  provide  that  the  claimant  was  not  in  good \nstanding with the Arkansas State Police because he resigned while under investigation. \n(Resp.  Ex.  2,  P.  15,  16)    Various  corporate  entities  were also investigated  which \napparently primarily involved the claimant’s father per the testimony taken above. \n Pages  of  emails  between  the  attorney  for  the  claimant  and  the  attorney  for  the \nState Police  were  also  made  part  of  the  record which involved requesting  information \nregarding the claimant’s treatment and the status of an appointment. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 32 \n– 37)    Finally,  there  was  a  Ballotpedia Independence  County  Constable printout  dated \nNovember of 2024, which provided that the claimant was on the ballot for Constable in \nthe Dota Township. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 38, 39) \n The respondents’ final exhibit consisted of four CD’s which contained surveillance \nvideos  from  the  date of  May  19,  2024,  through  June  14,  2024,  as  well  as  surveillance \nreports and Facebook photos.  The Facebook photos showed the claimant sitting in an \noverstuffed recliner petting and hugging his dog.  Additionally, there were photos of a pile \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n17 \n \nof logs that appeared to be in the process of becoming firewood.  The four CDs introduced \ninto evidence were viewed multiple times.  The videos contained footage of a dark colored \n(described as dark blue in the surveillance report) Ford F-150 with emblems on the rear \ncab window that apparently referred to the claimant’s status as constable and which also \ncontained  a  short  emergency  light  bar  on  the  roof.  There  was  also a  video of  a  dark \ncolored late model Ford Edge driving and parking.  Part of the video showed the claimant \ngetting out of the Ford Edge and going to a bathroom door and then to another door with \nno apparent trouble.  Another section of video, however, showed the claimant getting out \nof the Ford Edge with a stiff and hobbling gait when he walked away from the vehicle.  \nOne section of video showed a female, who appeared to be the claimant’s wife, carrying \na very large flowerpot which nearly blocked out her entire chest and abdomen from the \nvideo, while the claimant walked along side her and opened the rear hatch of the Ford \nEdge.    Another  section  showed  what  appeared  to  be  the  same  women  along  with  the \nclaimant, looking for something on the side of a street or road.  Finally, there was a video \nof the claimant’s truck pulling an empty trailer.  Testimony was taken where the claimant \nadmitted being involved in removing a box springs and mattress and moving a console \ntelevision, which was not lifted but rotated out of the trailer.  The trailer was loaded by his \nwife, daughter, and her boyfriend.   \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn  the  present  matter,  the  parties  stipulated that the  claimant  sustained  a \ncompensable work-related injury on May 10, 2022.  The claimant is therefore not required \nto establish “objective medical findings” in order to prove that he is entitled to additional \nbenefits. Chamber Door Indus., Inc. v Graham, 59 Ark. App. 224, 956 S.W.2d 196 (1997). \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n18 \n \nHowever, when assessing whether medical treatment is reasonably necessary for \nthe treatment of a compensable injury, we must analyze the proposed procedure and the \ncondition that it  is  sought  to  remedy.   The  respondent  is  only  responsible  for  medical \nservices which are causally related to the compensable injury.  Treatments to reduce or \nalleviate symptoms resulting from a compensable injury, to maintain the level of healing \nachieved, or to prevent further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable \ninjury are considered reasonable medical services. Foster v. Kann Enterprises, 2009 Ark. \nApp. 746, 350 S.W.2d 796 (2009).  Liability for additional medical treatment may extend \nbeyond  the  treatment  healing  period  as  long  as  the  treatment  is  geared  toward \nmanagement of the compensable injury. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. \n230, 180 S.W.3d 31 (2004). \nThe claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to benefits under \nthe  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act   and   must   sustain   that   burden   by   a \npreponderance of the evidence.  Dalton v. Allen Engineering Co., 66 Ark. App 260, 635 \nS.W.2d 543.  Injured employees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence  that  the  medical  treatment  is  reasonably  necessary  for  the  treatment  of  the \ncompensable injury. Owens Plating Co. v. Graham, 102 Ark. App 299, 284 S.W. 3d 537 \n(2008).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary treatment is a question of fact for \nthe Commission. Anaya v. Newberry’s 3N Mill, 102 Ark. App. 119, 282 S.W.3d 269 (2008).  \nThe claimant testified that he was injured when he stepped off the highway onto \nwhat he thought was the shoulder, which had apparently washed out, while working an \naccident one night.  He immediately felt a sharp pain from his toes to his head and heard \na pop.  His car kept him from falling.  After resting, he went ahead and worked on the \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n19 \n \naccident.  He was off work for the next two days and assumed he would recover, but was \nstill hurting when he returned to work, where he reported his injury.  The claimant was \nsent to Sherwood Urgent Care where he began navigating the labyrinth of our health care \nsystem.  Multiple well-respected physicians seemed at various times to point either to the \nclaimant’s right hip or his lower back as the primary cause of the claimant’s pain.  Issues \ninvolving the lumbar spine, sacrum, and hip, can clearly be difficult to distinguish in certain \ncases, similar to issues involving the cervical spine and shoulder.   \nThe testimony of the claimant is found to be believable and reliable.  The videos \nof record provided in one segment that the claimant appeared to have little to no problem \nambulating, but in a second segment, he appeared to have some difficulty getting out of \nthe Ford Edge and that he somewhat hobbled away.  The claimant denied loading the \ntrailer that was in one video but did admit unloading the mattress and box springs and \nrotating  a  console  television  off  the  trailer.    The  claimant  was  found  to  have  a  reliable \neffort in 48 out of 48 categories in regard to a functional capacity exam.  He testified that \nhis wife did the actual work in regard to a fire run and he only drove the truck. This would \ncorrespond with one of the videos of record where the claimant walked beside or behind \na woman who appeared to be his wife and who was carrying an enormous pot to their car \nwhile the claimant opened the hatch to the Ford Edge.    \nThe claimant was questioned about his actions as a duly elected constable, and \nhe responded that he did nothing in that position but was only a place holder.  Dr. Barry \nBaskin stated in his second opinion that although he felt the hip was the primary cause of \nclaimant’s pain, “his pain is quite severe, I believe.”    Other doctors pointed to the back \nas the primary problem.  Dr. Magio, who appears to be a back specialist and who was in \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n20 \n \nthe chain of referral, made a referral to Dr. Edwards at Bowen Hefley for a hip evaluation \non August 8, 2024.  This recommendation is the primary issue currently before us.             \nQuestions  concerning  the  credibility  of  witnesses  and  the  weight  to  be  given  to \ntheir testimony are within the exclusive province of the Commission.  Powers v. City of \nFayetteville, 97 Ark. App. 251, 248 S.W.3d 516 (2007).  Where there are contradictions \nin the evidence, it is within the Commissions’ province to reconcile conflicting evidence \nand to determine the true facts.  Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight, 99 Ark. App. 162, 258 S.W.3d \n394 (2007).  The Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions and \nto  determine their medical  soundness  and  probative  force.   Oak  Grove  Lumber  Co.  v. \nHighfill, 62  Ark.  App. 42,  968  S.W.2d  637  (1998).    However,  the Commission  may  not \narbitrarily disregard the testimony of any witness.  Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 \nArk. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004). \nIn workers’ compensation law, the employer takes the employee as he finds him \nand employment circumstances that aggravate pre-existing conditions are compensable. \nHeritage Baptist Temple v. Robinson, 82 Ark. App. 460, 120 S.W. 3d 150 (2003).  The \nparties  agreed that  the  claimant  suffered  a  compensable right  hip injury  from  a  work-\nrelated incident on May 10, 2022.  The testimony of the claimant is found to be believable \nin that he was not aware of pain and a problem in his right hip prior to the work-related \naccident.  A labrum tear was noted in some of the imaging studies involving the right hip \nafter the work-related incident on May 10, 2022, and the claimant desires to treat with Dr. \nEdwards for this. \nAfter reviewing all of the evidence, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either \nparty, there is no alternative but to find that the claimant has satisfied his burden of proof \n\nRONALD LASLO – H203788 \n21 \n \nto  prove by  a  preponderance  of  the  credible  evidence  that  the  medical  treatment \nrequested,  specifically  additional review  and treatment  by  Doctor Edwards, is causally \nrelated and reasonably necessary for the treatment of the stipulated compensable work-\nrelated right hip injury and is approved.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY  \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H203788 RONALD LASLO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT AMENDED OPINION FILED APRIL 29, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 26 th day of F...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:42:09.921Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H203788-2025-04-29","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LASLO_RONALD_H203788_20250429.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}