{"id":"alj-H204178-2023-01-06","awcc_number":"H204178","decision_date":"2023-01-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Mckenzie Thompson","employer_name":"Blue Ribbon Industries","title":"THOMPSON VS. BLUE RIBBON INDUSTRIES AWCC# H204178 JANUARY 6, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:5"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","fracture","cervical","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOMPSON_MCKENZIE_H204178_20230106.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"THOMPSON_MCKENZIE_H204178_20230106.pdf","text_length":29341,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H204178 \n \nMCKENZIE THOMPSON, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nBLUE RIBBON INDUSTRIES, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nACCIDENT FUND, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JANUARY 6, 2023 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in   Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by LAURA J. PEARCE, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On  October  11,  2022,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Springdale, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on July 13, 2022, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas  filed  on  July  13,  2022.   A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked  Commission's \nExhibit No. 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 this claim. \n 2. The relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties on April 28, \n2022. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n 4.  The  claimant’s  weekly  compensation  rates  are  $492.00  for  temporary  total  disability \nand $369.00 for permanent partial disability. \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-2- \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his low back on April 28, 2022. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for his work-related injury. \n 3. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from May 10, 2022, \nto a date yet to be determined. \n 4. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee. \n 5. Respondents raise lack of notice as an affirmative defense. \n Claimant’s contentions are: \n“Claimant   contends   he   is   entitled   to   medical   treatment   and \ntemporary  total  disability  benefits  as  a  result  of  his  work  injury. \nClaimant reserves all other issues.” \n \n Respondents’ contentions are: \n \n“Respondents  contend  that  the  Claimant  did  not  sustain  a  work-\nrelated  injury  on  April  28,  2022.  Respondents  contend  that  the \nClaimant’s  lower  back  injury  does  not  meet  the  definition  of  a \ncompensable  injury.  Furthermore,  Respondents  contend  Claimant \nfailed to report any work-related injury alleged to have occurred on \nApril 28, 2022, thereby preventing Respondents the opportunity to \ndirect any treatment provided to Claimant.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a  26-year-old  male  who  alleges  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable  low  back  injury  on  April  28,  2022,  while  employed  by  the  respondent.  The \nclaimant  testified  at  the  hearing  that  his  job  duties  included  running  a  water  truck,  a  roller,  and \nbuilding pad sites for buildings. This work required the claimant to operate bulldozers and a tract \nexcavator, but it also required the use of a hand shovel.  \n The  claimant  gave  direct  testimony  at  the  hearing  in  this  matter  about  the  events \nsurrounding his alleged compensable back injury as follows: \nQ What happened on April 28\nth\n of this year? \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-3- \n \nA So  on  April  28\nth\n  of  this  year,  we  were  out  at  a  job  site  we \nhad in Pinnacle Village and I was trying – every time we had to lay \ngravel in the ditch, we would have to move the dirt out of the way \nso that the gravel  could set right. And it’s red dirt so it’s got a lot \nof rocks in it and it’s very hard dirt so I was trying to shovel that, \nthe dirt and the rock out of the way,  and when  I  did that I tripped \nover my shovel and kind of leaned forward and twisted, and that’s \nwhen I could hear it pop. \n \nQ And what did you hear pop? \n \nA My back. \n \nQ And how did that feel? \n \nA It felt very bad. It was stabbing and excruciating pain. \n \nQ Were  you  on  level  ground?  Were  you  in  a  ditch?  Where \nwere you? \n \nA I was in a ditch. \n \nQ And about how deep was the ditch? \n \nA I’d say three to four foot. They weren’t super tall. \n \nQ Were you able to get out on your own? \n \nA I was. \n \nQ And was there anyone working with you that day? \n \nA There  were  people  out  on  the  job  site,  but  nobody  was \nactually with me. \n \n The  claimant  testified  that  he  reported  his  injury  to  his  on-jobsite  supervisor,  Sean \nGalloway. The claimant gave direct examination testimony about his reporting of the injury and \nhis request to go see a doctor as follows: \nQ And when you reported it to Sean, what did he do? \n \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-4- \nA He told me that he would let Nathan know, which was our \nin-office supervisor. \n \nQ And  at  that  point,  did  you  feel  like  you  needed  to  see  a \ndoctor? \n \nA I did, but I decided that I was gonna just go home and ice it, \nfinish out my workday and ice it, and try that. \n \nQ Were you able to finish out the day? \n \nA I was able to finish out the day. It was tough to get through \nit, but I was able to finish it out. \n \nQ And did you ice your back later? \n \nA I  did.  I  went  home  and  laid  on  the  couch,  flat  on  my \nstomach, and my wife put an ice pack on my back. \n \n On cross examination, the claimant was asked about his request to go to the doctor on the \nday  he  alleges  the  low  back  injury  to  have  occurred  and  his  decision  not  to  go  see  a  doctor  as \nfollows: \nQ And did you ask to go to the doctor at that point in time? \n \nA I did. I told them that I may need to go to the doctor, but I \ndecided I was going to stay home and ice it. \n \nQ So there’s a difference between my question. My  question \nwas did you ask the employer to send you to the doctor? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ You did? You asked them to send you to a doctor? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And what was their response? \n \nA They said that they would. \n \nQ Okay. But then subsequent to that, you decided to just stay \nhome and rest it? \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-5- \nA Yes. \n \nQ And what made you make that decision? \n \nA I just needed the money so I decided to stay at work and ice \nit. \n \nQ Okay. So let me take a step back. So you didn’t –  what \nmade you – I’m sorry, the answer wasn’t what I thought it was.  \n So  you  said  you  asked  to  go  to  the  doctor,  they  said  they \nwould send you to the doctor, and you decided to stay? \n \nA I decided to finish out my workday –  \n \nQ Okay. –  \n \nA – and then go home and ice it. \n \nQ Okay. And then the next day when you went back to work \nand it was still giving you problems, did you say, “Hey, I decided I \nneeded to go to the doctor”? \n \nA No. I decided I was gonna wait. \n \n On  direct  examination,  the  claimant  testified  that  he  continued  to  work  after  the  alleged \ninjury until May 10, 2022, when he first sought medical treatment. The claimant testified that he \nmanaged  his  pain  by  using  ice  packs  from  his  lunchbox  on  his  back  during  his  lunch  break. \nStrangely, the claimant did not request for the respondent to send him to the doctor as he testified \nthey had previously offered, was told by the respondent he could go to the doctor, and then the \nclaimant  decided  not  to  go.  Instead,  the  claimant  went  to  see  his  primary  care  physician,  Dr. \nGregory Henson. Following is a portion of the claimant’s cross examination testimony: \nQ Okay.  And  when  you  decided  to  go  to  your  primary  care \ndoctor,  had  you  since  that  day  of  injury  of  May –  sorry,  of  April \n28\nth\n,  until  you  went  to  see  Dr.  Henson,  did  you  ask  to  go  to  the \ndoctor? \n \nA I did not. \n \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-6- \nQ And  so  you  made  the  decision  to  see  your  primary  care \ndoctor? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And how long have been with Dr. Henson? \n \nA Dr. Henson; no very long. \n \n On May 10, 2022, the claimant was seen by Dr.  Henson at MANA Medical Associates. \nFollowing is a portion of that medical record: \nReason for Appointment \n1. Back pain x 2 wks, now unable to work due to pain. \n \nHistory of Present Illness \nNew/Follow-up Patient Consult: \n Patient here with complaints of lower back pain that started \nabout  2  or  3  weeks  ago.  He  has  been  taking  ibuprofen  as  well  as \nTylenol,  using  lidocaine  patches  which  was  helping  but  does  not \nseem to be helping much anymore. He does have some Zanaflex he \nwas doing at home as well but this is not helping either. Per patient \nreport he does have a history of a lumbar  fracture in the past, this \nwas around 2 years ago. He did have an x-ray done at that time and \nit   did   note   an   anterior   superior   endplate   fracture   of   the   L5 \nvertebrae.  He  was  supposed  to  have  an  MRI  done,  thinks  he  had \none done of the lower back but he is somewhat unsure. Thinks he \nhad  this  done  at  Arkansas  medical  imaging.  He  was  also  post  to \nhave  physical  therapy  and  see  an  orthospine  doctor  but  he  never \ndid  this  as  he  was  afraid  of  having  to  have  surgery.  He  stated  his \nback  did  improve  a  lot  and  was  not  having  any  issues  until  a \ncouple  weeks  ago  or  so.  He  denies  any  specific  event  that  caused \nthis  pain  but  he  does  do  manual  labor  at  his  job  and  around  the \nhouse  when  he  is  off  work  to  so  he  thinks  this  could  potentially \nhave done it. He denies any numbness in the legs at this time. \n \n*** \nAssessments \n1.   Acute   midline   low   back   pain   without   sciatica –   M54.50 \n(Primary) \n2.   Closed   nondisplaced   fracture   of   fourth   cervical   vertebra, \nunspecified fracture morphology, initial encounter – S12.301A \n \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-7- \nPt  still  with  apparent  anterior  superior  endplate  fx  of  T4,  he  did \nhave  previous  x-ray  about  2  yrs  ago  which  was  resulted  by \nradiology  as  superior  anterior  endplate  fx  of  T5,  I  assume  they \nmisspoke on this previous, T5 looks good at this time. I did speak \nwith pt about x-ray. Discussed with pt about possibilities, he would \nlike to try medication first, if pain continue will try PT and referral \nto ortho spine if desired. He  was referred previously but ended up \nnot going. \n \nThe claimant was prescribed hydrocodone-acetaminophen tablets and baclofen tablets at his visit \nwith Dr. Henson. \n Given  the  claimant’s  testimony  regarding  how  his  back  pain  began  as  a  result  of  the \ncompensable  injury  he  alleges  on  April  28,  2022,  the  above  medical  report  undercuts  the \nclaimant’s  credibility  severely.  In  the  report  there  is  no  mention  of  the  incident  the  claimant \nalleges  to  have  occurred  regarding  shoveling  on  April  28,  2022.  In  fact,  the  report  states “he \ndenies any specific event that caused this pain but he does do manual labor at his job and around \nthe house when he is off work so he thinks this could potentially have done it.” It is perplexing as \nto  how  the  medical  record  does  not  reflect  any  information  about  the  incident  the  claimant \nalleges, particularly considering the fact that the claimant testified that he was told that he could \ngo  to  the  doctor  by  the  respondents  because  of  the  incident  and  he  turned  that  offer  down  and \nthen  went  to  see  his  own  primary  care  physician.  On  direct  examination,  the  claimant  testified \nthat  he  told  Dr.  Henson  about  the  April  28,  2022,  incident. On  cross  examination,  the  claimant \nwas asked about his interaction with Dr. Henson about the alleged incident as follows: \nQ Okay. So you go to see Dr. Henson, and do you recall when \nyou went to go see him how you described your injury? \n \nA No. \n \nQ I   am   going   to   show   you   the   record   that   is   in   our \nrespondents’ exhibits, page 163 to 164. \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-8- \n Are  you  familiar  with  this  record?  Have  you  seen  this \nbefore? \n \nA I am. I have one at home. \n \nQ Okay. And this is dated  what date? Can you read that date \non there? \n \nA 5-10-22. \n \nQ Great.  So  when  you  went  to  go  see  Dr.  Henson,  it  is \npossible that you had explained to him that you denied any specific \nevent that caused the pain, but that you do manual labor at your job \nand  around  the  house  when  you  are  off  work,  and  you  think  that \ncould potentially have caused your injury? \n \nA No, ma’am. I told him exactly what happened. \n \nQ Okay.  Any  reason  why  Dr.  Henson  would  have  reported \nsomething different than what you had told him? \n \nA I think he forgot. \n \nQ Okay.  So  you  are  denying  the  fact  that  you  ever  told  him \nthat it potentially could have been caused from something else? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ And that you don’t remember a specific incident? \n \nA No. \n \n In   direct   examination   testimony   the   claimant   alleges   that   he   gave   notice   to   the \nrespondents  about  going  to  Dr.  Henson,  but  it  is  again  perplexing  that  he  would  give  notice  of \ngoing to his primary care physician for what he alleges is a work-related injury instead of asking \nto  see  a  doctor  through  the  respondent  as  they  have  offered  to  do,  according  to  his  own \ntestimony.  Regardless,  Dr.  Henson  placed  the  claimant  on  light  duty  and  the  claimant  provided \nthe light-duty note to the respondent on May 11, 2022.  \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-9- \n The  claimant  gave  direct  examination  testimony  about  his  conversation  with  Nathan \nLopez, a supervisor for the respondent, about his light-duty restrictions as follows: \nQ And did you go to work that next day? \n \nA I did not. I went to the office and gave them the  light-duty \nnote, and they said they didn’t have any light-duty for me. \n \nQ Who specifically told you that? \n \nA Nathan Lopez. \n \nQ And at some point after that conversation, were you offered \nsome light-duty? \n \nA I was. It was later than I normally get texted about work the \nnext  day,  and  I  had  already  taken  my  pain  medication  and  my \nmuscle  relaxer,  so  I  knew  that  I  was  supposed  to  have  the  light-\nduty  the  next  day,  but  I  fell  asleep  and  was  supposed  to  be  in \nFayetteville by 5:00 am, and I was late. I didn’t wake up until like \nnine o’clock. \n \nQ And so what happened when you were late? \n \nA I was let go. \n \nQ And who let you go? \n \nA Nathan Lopez. \n \nQ And since that time, have you been able to work? \n \nA I have not. \n \nQ And why not? \n \nA Just can’t – can’t do it. Can’t stand for a  very  long  time, \ncan’t sit for very long. Moving certain ways, hurts. \n \n After  the  claimant’s  employment  with  the  respondent  ended,  he  continued  to  seek \nmedical  treatment  and  was  referred  by  Dr.  Henson  to  Ozark  Orthopedics.  The  claimant  was \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-10- \ninitially seen by Thurman Smith, PA-C, on June 15, 2022. Following is a portion of that medical \nrecord: \nChief Complaint \nLower back/L-spine problem \n \n*** \nPM&R Spine \n*** \nMr.  Thompson  Pleasant  25-year-old  male  with  acute  onset  low \nback  pain  after  a  work  accident  while  he  was  working  for  Blue \nribbon  ground  services  in  April  2022.  He  was  working  a  shovel \nand  had  some  degree  of  strain  about  the  low  back  and  had  acute \nonset pain which eventually saw a provider at the recommendation \nof  his  employer  who  placed  some  work  modifications  which \nprovided  some  degree  of  relief  but  his  pain  persisted  and  he \nultimately  went  to  the  emergency  room  where  x-rays  were  taken \nand  there  was  some  concern  for  an  L4  bone  injury.  His  pain  has \npersisted and he presents clinic today for initial evaluation. He also \nnotes  a  remote  injury  to  his  back  in  2020  after  a  JetSki  accident. \nThis was self-limited. \n \n*** \nAssessment/Plan \nImage/Record Review: \n-  X-ray  of  the  lumbar  spine  reviewed  from  medical  Associates  of \nNorthwest  Arkansas  dated  5/10/2022  showing  deformity  of  the \nanterior  superior  endplate  of  L4  vertebra  and  could  be  related  to \nprevious  trauma  or  injury.  There  is  levoscoliosis  of  the  lumbar \nspine. There is posterior fusion anomaly of S1 noted. \n \nPertinent Medications: \n- Arkansas PMP reviewed \n- Hydrocodone 7.5/325 mg \n \nAssessment: \n1.  Acute  onset  low  back  pain  after  a  work  accident  in  April  2022 \nwith  recent  lumbar  pain  radiograph  evidence  showing  L4  bone \ninjury, age indeterminate. \n \nPlan: Mr. Thompson is a pleasant 25-year-old male with acute low \nback  pain  after  work  accident  in  April  2022.  Recent  x-rays  show \nL4   deformity   a   age-indeterminate.   There   is   suspicion   for \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-11- \ndiscogenic   pain   as   well.   At   this   time   we   will   proceed   with \nadvanced imaging And see him back in office to review. \n \nSummary: \n1. Lumbar spine MRI without contrast. \nAll   questions   and   concerns   addressed.   The   patient   verbally \nunderstands and agrees to the plan. \n \n I note that in this medical record the claimant asserts he had a work incident involving a \nshovel. This is in contrast to his initial visit with his own primary care physician where he denied \nany acute event causing his low back pain.  \n On  August  1,  2022,  the  claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  the  lumbar  spine  at  Ozark \nOrthopedics. Following is a portion of the diagnostic report authored by Benjamin Lowery, MD: \nFindings: \nLumbar  spine  demonstrates  normal  lordotic  curvature.  Vertebral \nbody  heights  are  well-maintained  and  demonstrate  normal  signal. \nDisc desiccation is seen at L3/L4. The conus medullaris terminates \nthe  level  of  L1.  Visualized  soft  tissues  of  the  abdomen  and  pelvis \nare unremarkable. \n \nAt T12/L1, no evidence of disc bulge, neural foraminal narrowing, \nor central canal stenosis is identified. \n \nAt  L1/L2,  no  evidence  of  disc  bulge,  neural  foraminal  narrowing, \nor central canal stenosis is identified. \n \nL2/L3,  no  evidence  of  disc  bulge,  neural  foraminal  narrowing,  or \ncentral canal stenosis is identified. \n \nAt L3/L4, mild diffuse disc bulge is seen with mild  bilateral facet \ndegenerative  changes  present.  The  central  canal  measures  9.6  mm \nin  AP  dimension  consistent  mild  central  canal  stenosis.  No  neural \nforaminal narrowing is identified. \n \nAt  L4/L5,  minimal  diffuse  disc  bulge  is  seen.  The  central  canal \nmeasures   10.1   mm   in   AP   dimension.   Mild   bilateral   neural \nforaminal narrowing is noted. \n \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-12- \nAt  L5/S1,  no  evidence  of  disc  bulge,  neural  foraminal  narrowing, \nor  central  canal  stenosis  is  identified.  Right-sided  pars  defect  is \nsuspected. \n \nIMPRESSION: \n1.  Mild  degenerative  changes  are  seen  in  the  lumbar  spine  most \npronounced at L3/L4 as described above. \n2.  Possible  right-sided  pars  defect  at  L5.  This could  be  confirmed \nwith oblique radiographs. \n \n On  August  30,  2022,  the  claimant  was  again  seen  at  Ozark  Orthopedics.  However,  this \ntime the claimant was seen by Dr. George Deimel. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nChief Complaint \nFollowup: Lumbar radiculopathy \n \n*** \nPM&R Spine \n*** \nMr. Thompson returns to clinic today for a follow up. He was last \nevaluated  on  6/15/2022.  At  that  time,  he  was  having  acute  onset \nlow back pain. Decision was made to pursue an MRI of the lumbar \nspine. He is here today to discuss further evaluation and treatment \noptions. \n \n*** \nAssessment/Plan \nImaging and Record Review: \n-  Lumbar  spine  radiographs  from  MANA  dated  5/10/2022  were \nreviewed,  showing  deformity  of  the  anterior  superior  endplate  of \nL4 vertebra, could be related to previous trauma or injury. There is \nlevoscoliosis   of   the   lumbar   spine.   There   is   posterior   fusion \nanomaly of S1 notes. \n-  An  MRI  of  the  lumbar  spine  from  Ozark  Orthopaedics  dated \n8/1/2022 shows possible right-sided pars defect. At the L3-4 level, \nthere is disc bulging with mild central canal stenosis. \n-   An   Arkansas   Prescription   Monitoring   Program   report   was \nreviewed and consistent with stated history. \n \nDiagnosis: \n1. Acute onset low back pain after a work accident, April 2022 \n2.  Lumbar  spine  MRI  evidence  of L3-4  disc  bulging,  mild  central \ncanal stenosis, possible right-sided L5 pars defect \n3. Lumbar spondylosis \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-13- \n4.   S/p   activity   modification,   medication   management   with \nimprovement in pain complaints \n \nAssessment: \nMr.   Thompson   returns   to   clinic   today   for   a   follow   up.   We \ndiscussed  his  clinical  course.  I  reviewed  an  MRI  of  his  lumbar \nspine. He does have disc bulging with evidence of disc desiccation \nat  the  L3-4  level.  I  do  suspect  that  this  is  the  likely  source  of  his \ndiscogenic  pain.  He  also  has  some  right  low  back  pain.  An  MRI \nshowed possible pars defect. Again, he may have had exacerbation \nof  this  in  the  setting  of  his  work-related  injury.  At  this  point,  I \ncertainly  do  not  think  he  needs  any  type  of  surgical  intervention. \nHe  is  managing  with  activity  modification  and  medications.  He  is \ncurrently  taking  baclofen  and  hydrocodone  at  night.  We  will  give \nhim  a  refill  of  the  baclofen  and  a  prescription  for  hydrocodone  5-\n325mg   x   20   tabs.   He   does   understand   that   this   is   the   last \nprescription of oral systemic opioids that we will use for control of \nhis back pain.  At that point, if he needs further or escalating care, \nthen we will likely move forward with interventions. We will plan \na  follow  up  in  6-8  weeks  to  recheck.  If  he  is  doing  well  at  that \ntime, he can cancel the appointment. \n \nSummary: \n- Reviewed lumbar spine MRI \n- Continue to monitor symptoms, certainly stable \n- Refill baclofen \n-  Hydrocodone  5-325mg  x  20  tabs  to  take  at  night  as  needed  for \nbreak through pain \n- If patient calls, can arrange for bilateral L3-4, L4-5, TFESI \n- Work note for light duty \n \n It  is  the  claimant’s  burden  to  prove  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  low \nback in the incident he alleges to have occurred on April 28, 2022. In order to do so, the claimant \nmust prove the existence of objective medical findings regarding his low back and prove a causal \nconnection between those objective medical findings and the incident he alleges to have caused \nthem. \n The  MRI  report  dated  August  1,  2022,  does  show  the  existence  of  objective  medical \nfindings  regarding  the  claimant’s  low  back,  as  the  impression  section  of  that  report  revealed \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-14- \n“mild  degenerative  changes  are  seen  in  the  lumbar  spine  most  pronounced  at  L3/L4”  and \n“possible  right-sided  pars  defect  at  L5.  This  could  be  confirmed  with  oblique  radiographs.”  I \nnote that Dr. Deimel in his August 30, 2022, medical report regarding the claimant discussed the \npars defect stating “an  MRI showed possible pars defect. Again, he may have had  exacerbation \nof this in the setting of his work-related injury.” \n However,  the  claimant  must  also  prove  the  existence  of  a  causal  connection  between \nthose  objective  medical  findings  and  the  incident  he  alleges  on  April  28,  2022.  Here,  the \nclaimant is unable to prove the required causal connection. The claimant’s initial visit to his own \nprimary  care  physician,  Dr.  Henson,  on  May  10,  2022,  clearly  fails  to  indicate  any  type  of \nspecific incident the claimant associated with his low back complaints at that time. The claimant, \nin  testimony,  suggested  Dr.  Henson  simply “forgot.”  It  is  in  the  realm  of  possibility  that  Dr. \nHenson  simply  forgot,  but  unlikely,  particularly  because  Dr.  Henson’s  medical  record  provides \nthe claimant’s thoughts  on the cause of his low  back symptoms, stating “he denies  any specific \nevent that caused this pain but he does do manual labor at his job and around the house when he \nis  off  work  to  so  he  thinks  this  could  potentially  have  done  it.”  I  do  not  believe  Dr.  Henson \nforgot,  but  instead,  recorded  what  the  claimant  told  him  about  his  thoughts  on  how  his  pain \nbegan.  \n The  claimant’s  testimony  that  he  was  told  by  the  respondent  that  he  could  go  to  the \ndoctor  for  his  alleged  injury  and  then  the  claimant  decided  not  to  go,  is  in  itself,  reasonable. \nHowever, for the claimant then to later go to his own primary care physician and testify that he \ngave  notice  to  the  respondent  that  he  was  going  to  his  own  primary  care  physician  instead  of \nrequesting  for  them  to  send  him  to  a  doctor,  as  the  claimant  testified  they  had  done,  seems \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-15- \nunreasonable,  particularly  given  the  claimant  specifically  denied  any  specific  work  injury \ncausing his low back pain to Dr. Henson. \n The  claimant  does  mention  a  work-related  injury  in  his  June  15,  2022,  visit  to  Ozark \nOrthopedics,  but  this  is  after  the  claimant  was  terminated  from  his  employment.  The  claimant \nwas  provided  light  duty  work  according  to  the  claimant’s  testimony  due  to  Dr.  Henson’s  work \nrestriction  note  that  he  provided  to  the  respondent.  However,  the  claimant  was  three  hours  late \nfor work and was terminated on May 12, 2022, for his tardiness. \n Here, the claimant is unable to prove the required causal connection between the alleged \nApril 28, 2022, incident and the objective medical findings. I simply do not believe the incident \non April 28, 2022, occurred. I do believe the claimant had low back symptoms around that time \nand told Dr. Henson about those symptoms in his May 10, 2022, visit. The lack of reporting the \nincident to Dr. Henson is substantial evidence. The claimant only reporting this alleged incident \nto  medical  providers  after  he  was  terminated  from  his  employment,  makes  those  reports  less \nreliable. \n The objective findings of low back difficulties are reasonably explained by the claimant’s \nremarks  recorded  in  his  medical  record from  his  May  10,  2022,  visit  with  Dr.  Henson, “denies \nany  specific  event  that  caused  this  pain  but  he  does  do  manual  labor  at  his  job  and  around  the \nhouse  when  he  is  off  work  to  so  he  thinks  this  could  potentially  have  done  it.”  The  objective \nfindings could also be explained by the multiple low back complaints shown in medical records \nprior to this alleged April 28, 2022, incident introduced into evidence by the respondents. I note \nthat  the  claimant  downplayed  or  did  not  have  memory  of  only  but  a  few  of  his  past  medical \nissues,  which  is  remarkable  since  the  claimant  was  seen  in  emergency  departments  at  three \ndifferent hospitals, Mercy Hospital Northwest Arkansas, Northwest Medical Center Bentonville, \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-16- \nand Eureka Springs Hospital, a total of 22 times between of February 2016 and September 2019. \nI will note that the reasons for the claimant’s emergency department visits were mostly unrelated \nto  his  low  back,  but  the  claimant  was  evasive  or  very  forgetful  about  his  past  medical  history \nwhen questioned at both deposition and the hearing in this matter. \n The  claimant  has  failed  to  prove  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  low  back  injury  on \nApril 28, 2022. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe  witness  and  to  observe  his  demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nJuly 13, 2022, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed July 13, 2022, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n 2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a \ncompensable injury to his low back on April 28, 2022. \n 3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto medical treatment for his alleged work-related injury. \n 4. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits from May 10, 2022, to a date yet to be determined. \n 5. The claimant has failed to prove entitlement to an attorney’s fee in this matter. \n 6. The respondents affirmative defense regarding lack of notice is moot. \n \n\nThompson – H204178 \n \n \n-17- \nORDER \n Pursuant  to  the  above  findings  and  conclusions,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  deny  this \nclaim in its entirety. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n                                ____________________________                                              \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H204178 MCKENZIE THOMPSON, Employee CLAIMANT BLUE RIBBON INDUSTRIES, Employer RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 6, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claima...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:11:02.489Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204178-2023-01-06","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOMPSON_MCKENZIE_H204178_20230106.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}