{"id":"alj-H204285-2024-01-25","awcc_number":"H204285","decision_date":"2024-01-25","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Norman Swope","employer_name":"Baptist Health System","title":"SWOPE VS. BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM AWCC# H204285 JANUARY 25, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["ankle","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SWOPE_NORMAN_H204285_20240125.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"SWOPE_NORMAN_H204285_20240125.pdf","text_length":13179,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H204285 \n \nNORMAN R. SWOPE, EMPLOYEE       CLAIMANT \n \nBAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, EMPLOYER             RESPONDENT \n \nBAPTIST HEALTH, CARRIER/TPA                 RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 25 JANUARY 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative  Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 1 November 2023 in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant appeared pro se. \n \nMr.  Jarrod S. Parrish,  of  Worley,  Wood  &  Parish,  PA, Attorneys-at-Law  of  Little  Rock,  \nappeared for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 1 November 2023 in Little Rock, Arkansas, after \nthe  parties  participated  in  a  prehearing  telephone  conference  on 5  September 2023.   The \nsubsequent Prehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s \nExhibit No 1, was entered on the day after the conference.  The Order stated the following \nISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: \n1.  Whether the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his right ankle and left knee. \n2.  Whether the respondents received notice of a claimed injury prior to 4 May 2022. \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their prehearing questionnaire responses, \nwere incorporated into the Prehearing Order. The claimant contends: \n1.   That a second injury was not assessed by a doctor, and his claim was denied by the \ncarrier multiple times. \nThe respondents contend: \n\nSWOPE- H204285  \n2 \n \n1. That the claimant did not sustain compensable injuries to his right ankle or left knee\n on or about 31 March 2022. \n \n2. That the medical documentation does not support objective findings or the need for \ntreatment associated with an incident on the alleged date of injury. \n \n3. That  medical  documentation  does  not  support  off-work  status  as  a  result  of  any \nincident. \n \n4. That  they  did  not  receive  notice  of  a  claimed  injury  until  4  May  2022  and  that  if \ncompensability is found, then they should not be liable for benefits prior to receipt of \nactual notice of a claimed injury. \n \nThat Order also set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. An  employee/employer/carrier  relationship  existed  on 31 March  2022, and  the \nclaimant was entitled to the maximum compensation rates at that time\n1\n. \n \n3. The respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \nThe  following  WITNESSES  testified  at  the  hearing:  the  claimant  testified  on  his  own \nbehalf, and Ms. Isobel Louise Balch testified on behalf of the respondents. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the witnesses \nand observing their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nunder Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The previously noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n3. The  claimant  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  evidence  that  he suffered  a \ncompensable injury. \n \n4. His claims for benefits are denied accordingly. \n \n1\n The  Prehearing  Order  stated  that  the  parties  would  be  required  to  stipulate  to  the \napplicable compensation rate.  Prior to the beginning of the hearing, and then again once on \nthe record, the parties agreed that the claimant’s earnings entitled him to the maximum \ncompensation rate. See TR at 6. \n\nSWOPE- H204285  \n3 \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY  \nClaimant Norman Swope \nThe  claimant testified  that  he  was  working  as  a  nurse  manager  at  the  respondents’ \nhospital in Little Rock at the time he claims his workplace injury occurred.  [TR at 12.]   He \nwas assigned  to  the  Oncology  Unit,  10A,  where  his  duties  included  ensuring  appropriate \nstaffing, medical equipment maintenance, and other general requirements for patient safety. \nOn the morning relevant to his claim, 31 March 2022, a crash code alerted about 6:45 AM. \nStaff initiated their code procedures and found that they did not have the correct supplies at \nhand.  Mr. Swope ran towards another unit to retrieve what was needed.  He said, “When I \nturned  the  first  corner,  my  ankle  collapsed,  which  caused  me  to  slam  my  other  leg  down, \nwhich  in  turn  popped,  lost  my  balance,  hobbled  to  that  unit,  obtained  the  equipment  we \nneeded, returned, passed it off, and went and sat in my office.” [TR  at  13.]   The  claimant \ntestified that he reported the injury to his supervisor that morning. \nMr. Swope said that he later felt his ability to do recovery exercises for an ankle injury \nnot related to this claim was limited by his knee trouble.  [TR at 15.]  So, he began seeking \nattention for his knee around the time he became aware of those limitations.  \nThe  claimant  stated  that  there  were  no  witnesses  to  his  fall  and  concluded  his  direct \ntestimony.  He offered no documentary evidence in support of his claim. \nOn  cross-examination  the  claimant  confirmed  that  he  experienced  a  previous  work-\nrelated injury to his ankle and that he was familiar with the process for lodging a workers’ \ncompensation claim.  [TR at 16.]  He agreed that he did not request treatment from Baptist \nrelated  to  this  claim  until  after  he  stumbled  in  his  driveway  picking  up  debris  after  a  31 \nMarch 2023 tornado hit Little Rock.  [TR at 20.]  The claimant went on to confirm that during \nhis deposition he testified that “the only reason we’re sitting here  is  because  I  need  to  be \ncovered by light-duty to have my knee worked on or I’ll be off until I’m released.”  [TR at 21.] \n\nSWOPE- H204285  \n4 \n \nThe testimony reflected the claimant’s understanding or belief that a light-duty assignment \nwould only be available if treatment for his knee was related to a workplace injury.  [TR at \n21-22.] \nThe claimant testified further, in a general response to the questioning from respondents’ \ncounsel,  that  everyone  at  work  knew  he  had  a  knee  injury  and (acknowledging  his  ankle \ninjury that is separate from this claim) that he did not want to try treating both legs at the \nsame time.    [TR  at  24.]   He  acknowledged  again  that  he  did  not  have  medical  evidence  to \nsupport his claim and “the exacerbation from a tornado and they’re going to use that as an \nexcuse.”  Id.    When  asked  if  he  wished  to  draw  attention  to any  of  the  medical  evidence \noffered into the record as supportive of his claim, he responded, “No, Your Honor.”  [TR at \n25.] \nIsobel Louise Balch \nMs. Balch testified that she is an administrator and case manager for the respondents’ \nEmployee Health Division.  [TR at 26.]  She stated that she worked with the claimant on an \nearlier  workplace  injury  claim  and  that  she  assisted with or  coordinated  doctor  visits, \nprovider notes, work restrictions, and the like.  According to Ms. Balch, she first learned of \nthe  alleged  workplace  injury  related  to  this  claim  via  physician  notes  she  received  in  the \ncourse of managing his other claim.  [TR at 28.]  She received visit notes in May of 2022 from \nan  appointment  a  month  earlier.   She  then  asked  Mr. Swope  via  email  if  he was  claiming \nthat  his  injury  or  reinjury  happened  at  work.   He  responded  in  the  affirmative  and  then \ncompleted an injury report at her request.  \nShe testified that Mr. Swope did not claim to have made an earlier report of an incident \nor  injury  because  he  did  not  need  treatment for  his knee  and  his  ankle was  already  being \ntreated.  [TR at 29.]  Ms. Balch testified that she did not receive a request for treatment or \nany other request for benefits on this claim until about a year later, after she was made aware \n\nSWOPE- H204285  \n5 \n \nof his stumbling outside of his home cleaning up after the tornado.  [TR at 30.]   Her testimony \nconcluded without any questions from the claimant. \nSummations \nMr.  Swope  concluded  the  hearing  by  saying  that  he tried to be “up front” with his \nemployer, that his supervisor was aware of his attempt to make a timely report of an injury, \nand that although she was not there to offer evidence in support of his claim, his supervisor \nhad been his “biggest advocate.”  [TR  at  31.]   He  also  said  that  he  did  the  therapy  and \nrehabilitation work necessary for his previous ankle injury and that he has “done everything \nthey’ve asked and I don’t really want anything from them.   I  just  want  my  protections  in \nplace....”  [TR at 32.]  He went on, “It doesn’t matter if I’m hurt, if I’ve got a job to do, I’ve got \na  job  to  do.   I don’t want their money.   I don’t want them dictating how I get my care or \ntreatment, but it happened at work.  I told my boss.  She’s been aware of it the entire time. \nAgain, unfortunately she’s not here, and as far as testimony from our representative from my \nhospital, she’s entitled to her opinion, as am I.  That’s all I have to say.”  [TR at 33.] \nCounsel for the respondents began his summation by noting that the claimant’s ankle \ninjury  was  listed  in  the  prehearing  questionnaire  as  a  potential  issue  if  the  claimant  was \narguing a new injury tied to the alleged knee injury.  As he did not testify in that regard, he \nstated  that  the  issue  could  be  disregarded.   On  the  claim  of  a  compensable  knee  injury, \ncounsel argued that no objective medical evidence was presented to support such a finding. \nHe also argued that the lapse of time between the alleged injury and the seeking of treatment, \nalong with the yard or driveway stumbling incident, cut against a finding of a compensable \ninjury.  [TR at 34.]  \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts, as agreed during the prehearing conference, are outlined above.  It \nis settled that the Commission, with the benefit of being in the presence of the witness and \n\nSWOPE- H204285  \n6 \n \nobserving his or her demeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight \nto accord their statements.  See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 \nS.W.2d 522 (1999).   \nUnder Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation laws, a worker has the burden of proving, by a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence, that  he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a \nworkplace  incident.   Ark. Code  Ann.  §11-9-102(4)(E)(i).   A  compensable  injury  must  be \nestablished  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings.   Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-\n102(4)(D).   Objective  medical  findings  are  those  findings  that  cannot  come  under  the \nvoluntary  control  of  the  patient.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(16)(A)(i).   Causation  does  not \nneed to be established by objective findings when the objective medical evidence establishes \nthat an injury exists and other nonmedical evidence shows that it is more likely than not that \nthe injury was caused by an incident in the workplace.  Bean v. Reynolds Consumer Prods., \n2022 Ark. App 276, 646 S.W.3d 655, 2022 Ark. App. LEXIS 276, citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. \nv. VanWagner, supra. \nThe claimant  alleges  that  his  injury  occurred  by a specific  incident.   The  claimant \nmust establish four (4) factors, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove a specific incident \ninjury: (1) that the injury arouse during the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused \nan  actual  harm  that  required  medical  attention;  (3)  that  objective  findings  support  the \nmedical evidence; and (4) that the injury was caused by a particular incident, identifiable in \ntime and place.  See Cossey v. G. A. Thomas Racing Stable, 2009 Ark. App. 666,5, 344 S.W.3d \n684, 689. \nBased  on  the  evidence  presented,  I  find  that  Mr.  Swope  fails  to  meet  his  burden  for \nestablishing a compensable injury.  Even accepting as true that he fell during the 31 March \n2022 incident, he has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim with regard to the \n\nSWOPE- H204285  \n7 \n \nother required elements.  To put it plainly, he offered no evidence to link a fall to an actual \ninjury sustained in the workplace. \nAs noted in the testimony above, Mr. Swope provided no documentary evidence or witness \ntestimony in support of his claim.  He conceded that the respondents’ witness was “entitled \nto her opinion” on this matter as to her relaying what he reported  and  when.   He  did  not \nactually dispute her narrative nor did he cross-examine her as to why the claim was denied. \nHe relied, instead, on his insisting that his supervisor was aware of a fall and injury and if \nshe  had  been  present  to  testify,  she  would  have  supported  his  cause.   That  is  simply  not \nenough  to  meet  his  burden  of  proving  that  it  is  more  likely  than  not  that  he  suffered  any \ncompensable injury in this claim. \nVI.  ORDER \n Consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim \nis denied and dismissed. \nSO ORDERED. \n \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H204285 NORMAN R. SWOPE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BAPTIST HEALTH, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 25 JANUARY 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law Judge JayO. Howe o...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:58:48.683Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204285-2024-01-25","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SWOPE_NORMAN_H204285_20240125.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}