{"id":"alj-H204677-2025-10-14","awcc_number":"H204677","decision_date":"2025-10-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Natasha Onick","employer_name":"Jacksonville School District","title":"ONICK VS. JACKSONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H204677 October 14, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:2","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","knee","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ONICK_NATASHA_H204677_20251014.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ONICK_NATASHA_H204677_20251014.pdf","text_length":13572,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H204677 \n \nNATASHA ONICK, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nJACKSONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT,  \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                   RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC.,  \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR           RESPONDENT \n  \n \nOPINION FILED 14 OCTOBER 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 30 July 2025 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe Davis Law Firm, Mr. Gary Davis, appeared on behalf of the claimant. \n \nWorley, Wood & Parrish, Ms. Melissa Wood, appeared on behalf of the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n This claim relates to a compensable back injury sustained on 24 September 2021. Its \nprocedural history was most recently noted in a 19 July 2024 ALJ Opinion. A Prehearing \nOrder was filed on 4 June 2025 and admitted to the record as Commission’s Exhibit No 1. \nFor this litigation, and consistent with that Order, the parties agreed to the following: \nSTIPULATIONS \n \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \n  jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n 2. The employee/employer/administrator relationship existed on 24 September  \n  2021 when the claimant suffered a compensable back injury. \n \n 3. The Law of the Case Doctrine applies to previous rulings in this claim. \n \nISSUE TO BE LITIGATED \n \n 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment since  \n  exercising her right to a Change of Physician. \n \n All other issues are reserved. \n\nN. ONICK- H204677 \n2 \n \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nThe Prehearing Order incorporated the following contentions from the parties’ \nrespective prehearing questionnaire responses: \nClaimant \n The claimant contended that she obtained a Change of Physician to Dr. Noemi \nRamsay and that she is entitled to ongoing pain treatment consistent with Dr. Ramsay’s \nrecommendations. \n Respondent \n \n The respondents contended that all appropriate benefits have been provided and \nthat additional medical treatment was included as an issue that was decided in earlier \nlitigation. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized below, \nand having heard testimony from the witness, observing her demeanor, I make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over these claims. \n \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nis entitled to any additional medical benefits since exercising her right to a \nChange of Physician. \n \nADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). A \n\nN. ONICK- H204677 \n3 \n \nclaimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \nThe claimant was the only witness. The record consists of the hearing transcript and \nthe following exhibits: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 4 June 2025 Prehearing Order); \nClaimant’s Exhibit No 1 (one index page and seven pages of medical records); and \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1 (two index pages and 86 pages of medical records). \nHearing Testimony \n The claimant is 46 years old with a high school education. At the time relevant to \nthis matter, she was working as a bus aide for the respondent-employer. On 24 September \n2021, the bus she was riding in lost control and went into a ditch. The respondents accepted \na back injury that she claimed was a result of the accident. Some treatment, including \nphysical therapy, was provided in connection with her claim before the claimant was \nreleased to full-duty work without restrictions on 7 October 2021. The respondents have \nsince denied additional treatment. Despite her release from treatment, the claimant denied \nreturning to work after the accident. \n She was treated for chronic pain at the Pain Treatment Centers of America (PTCA) \nbefore her workplace incident and now seeks ongoing treatment with PTCA in relation to \nher claim. She confirmed that she currently treats at PTCA for chronic pain, knee pain, \n\nN. ONICK- H204677 \n4 \n \nmultiple joint pain, lower back pain, and neck pain. She also confirmed on cross-\nexamination that she has applied for Social Security Disability three times without success. \n The claimant exercised her right to a Change of Physician and was subsequently \nseen by Dr. Noemi Ramsay at PTCA. The clinic note from her 10 December 2024 visit with \nDr. Ramsay was introduced as Claimant’s Exhibit No 1. She conceded that the note from \nthat visit makes no reference to her workplace accident. \nMedical Evidence \n The claimant introduced the progress note from her 10 December 2024 visit at PTCA \nwith Dr. Ramsay. That note included the following: \nCHIEF COMPLAINT: Chronic Pain \nOTHER COMPLAINTS: Knee Pain, Multiple Joint Pain, Lower Back Pain, \nNeck Pain \n. . .  \nASSESSMENT and PLAN \nChronic pain syndrome \nKnee pain \nJoint pain \nNeck pain \nLow back pain \nMyalgia, other site \nCramp and spasm \nOther reduced mobility \nOther long term (current) drug therapy \nLong term (current) use of opiate analgesic \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1.] The note does not include any reference to the claimant’s workplace accident \nor what pain medication is being prescribed in connection with any assessed condition. \n The respondents provided a number of other clinic notes from PTCA. A review of the \nnotes predating the claimant’s workplace accident indicates that she was seen on various \noccasions for the following complaints: neck pain, head pain, mid-back pain, arm pain, leg \npain, abdominal pain, and low-back pain. The claimant was referred by PTCA to another \nprovider for further evaluation on 16 August 2021 (more than a month before her workplace \n\nN. ONICK- H204677 \n5 \n \nincident). Chronic low back pain and chronic pain syndrome were among the conditions for \nwhich she was being referred at that time. [Resp. Ex. No 1.] \n A note from MedExpress shows that the claimant presented to that clinic on the day \nof her workplace accident and that she was released with no restrictions the same day. \n Another note shows that the claimant was then seen by PA-C Clint Bearden on 7 \nOctober 2021. That note indicates that “subjective pain complaints exceed objective \nfindings. Release and return prn.” It further states that “Ms. Onick can return to work \nwithout limitations and follow up as needed.” Id. \nDISCUSSION \n The claimant in this case suffered a stipulated compensable back injury. She argues \nthat she is entitled to additional treatment beyond what the respondents have already \nprovided. She specifically argues that since obtaining a Change of Physician to a provider at \nPTCA, the respondents should be liable for her ongoing pain-related treatment regimen.  \n Employers must promptly provide medical services which are reasonably necessary \nin connection with compensable injuries. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). However, injured \nemployees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical \ntreatment is reasonably necessary. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 \nS.W.3d 31 (2004). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a fact \nquestion for the Commission, and the resolution of this issue depends upon the sufficiency \nof the evidence. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). A \nclaimant may be entitled to additional treatment even after her healing period is ended, if \nthat treatment is geared towards management of a compensable injury. Patchell, supra. An \nemployee who has sustained a compensable injury is not required to offer objective medical \nevidence in order to prove that he is entitled to additional treatment. Ark. Health Ctr. v. \nBurnett, 2018 Ark. App. 427, 558 S.W.3d 408.  \n\nN. ONICK- H204677 \n6 \n \n The parties disagree as to whether the treatment currently sought is barred by the \nLaw of the Case Doctrine and res judicata. The purpose of the res judicata doctrine is to put \nan end to litigation by preventing a party who had one fair trial on a matter from \nrelitigating the matter a second time. Cox v. Keahey, 84 Ark. App. 121, 133 S.W.3d 430 \n(2003). Res judicata applies where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of the \nissue by a court of competent jurisdiction on all matters litigated and those matters \nnecessarily within the issue which might have been litigated. Beliew v. Stuttgart Rice Mill, \n64 Ark. App. 334, 987 S.W.2d 281 (1998). Res judicata applies to decisions of the \nCommission. Harvest Foods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996). The \nrelevant Commission decision here is the Full Commission’s 8 February 2024 Opinion that \nunanimously affirmed and adopted the Chief Administrative Law Judge’s 22 August 2023 \nOpinion. When the Full Commission adopted the CALJ’s findings and conclusions, it made \nthose findings and conclusions its own. See, e.g., SSI, Inc. v. Cates, 2009 Ark. App. 763, 350 \nS.W.3d 421. \n The claimant, on the one hand, argues that the treatment requested here escapes \nthe res judicata bar because the claimant saw Dr. Ramsey with the Commission’s approval, \nthrough exercising a Change of Physician, after the Commission’s Opinion was issued. She \npresses that, “there is no reference in that Opinion that the treatment was not reasonable, \nthat it wasn’t reasonably necessary, that it wasn’t related to the accident. The only \nreference [...] has to do with authorization....” The respondents, on the other hand, argue \nthat while the Opinion did discuss treatment authorization at length, the CALJ’s finding \nincluded additional treatment not being reasonable or necessary beyond the MedExpress \nvisit explicitly noted in the Opinion. \n In relevant part, the CALJ’s findings and conclusions state: \n\nN. ONICK- H204677 \n7 \n \n3. Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence her \n entitlement to additional treatment of her stipulated compensable \n lower back injury in the form of her visit to MedExpress Clinic on \n September 24, 2021. \n \n4. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence her \n entitlement to any other treatment of her stipulated compensable \n lower back injury other than that set out in Stipulation No 3 and \n Finding of Fact/Conclusion No 3, supra. \n \n[CALJ Opinion, 22 August 2023, 2023 AR WRK. COMP. LEXIS 267.] \n Assuming, arguendo, that the treatment now being sought is not barred by res \njudicata, the claimant has still failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nis entitled to the same. The claimant has the burden of proving that the treatment sought is \nreasonable and necessary. Patchell, supra. The only medical evidence she presented in \nsupport of her claim was a clinic note from PTCA after she obtained a Change of Physician \nauthorizing her to be seen by one of its providers. The note from that visit states that the \nclaimant was seen for, “Chief Complaint: Chronic Pain; Other Complaints: Knee Pain, \nMultiple Joint Pain, Lower Back Pain, Neck Pain.” The note provides no specific reference \nto any mechanism of injury related to this claim; and it makes no reference to any \ntreatment prescribed specifically for the claimant’s stipulated back injury.  \n Instead, the clinic note simply shows that the claimant was seen for a number of \ncomplaints and that long-term opioid prescriptions were being recommended. The note is \nnot dissimilar from other notes dating back as early as 16 September 2020 and 15 October \n2020, long before the claimant’s workplace accident and the initiation of this claim. She \nattempted in her testimony to attribute ongoing back pain-- and a corresponding need for \ntreatment-- to her workplace accident and stipulated compensable injury. But she was not \ncredible or persuasive in so doing. \n The claimant has failed to produce any credible evidence that the requested \ntreatment is reasonably necessary in relation to her accepted back injury—an injury for \n\nN. ONICK- H204677 \n8 \n \nwhich she received a full-duty release without restrictions back on 7 October 2021. Because \nshe has clearly failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any additional \ntreatment is reasonable or necessary, I will not address whether res judicata should operate \nas a bar to the same. \nCONCLUSION \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to additional medical benefits. Accordingly, this claim for additional benefits is \nDENIED and DISMISSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H204677 NATASHA ONICK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT JACKSONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 14 OCTOBER 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commissi...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:30.106Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204677-2025-10-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ONICK_NATASHA_H204677_20251014.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}