{"id":"alj-H205003-2023-04-27","awcc_number":"H205003","decision_date":"2023-04-27","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Charliej Clark","employer_name":"Tyson Poultry Inc","title":"CLARK VS. TYSON POULTRY INC. AWCC# H205003 APRIL 27, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","dismissed:1","denied:5"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","shoulder","repetitive","fracture","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CLARK_CHARLIEJ_H205003_20230427.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CLARK_CHARLIEJ_H205003_20230427.pdf","text_length":20061,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H205003 \n \nCHARLIE J. CLARK, Employee                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nTYSON POULTRY INC., Self-Insured Employer                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED APRIL 27, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by J. MATTHEW MAULDIN, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On March 16, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Springdale, Arkansas.  \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on November 17, 2022, and a pre-hearing order was filed \non that same date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 \nand made a part of the record without objection. \n At the hearing, the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2.   The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on or about April 3, 2022. \n 3.   The claimant’s compensation rate is $683.00 for temporary total disability, based on an \naverage weekly wage of $1024.00. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n 1.   Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury on or about April 3, 2022. \n 2.    If compensable, whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from \nSeptember 2, 2022, through October 23, 2022, medical benefits, and an attorney’s fee. \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n \n 3.   Respondents raise lack of notice before July 6, 2022. \n The  claimant  contends that “he is entitled to treatment for his left wrist, and to temporary \ntotal disability benefits from his date last worked to a date yet to be determined. Claimant reserves all \nother issues.”  \n The respondents contend that “claimant cannot prove an accidental injury, caused by a specific \nincident and identifiable by time and place of occurrence, which caused internal or external physical \nharm to the body, arising out of and in the course of employment, which required medical services or \nresulted in disability or death, and established by medical evidence supported by objective findings. \nAlternatively, regarding the notice defense, claimant first notified respondents of an alleged left wrist \ninjury on July 6, 2022; accordingly, respondents contend that they are not liable for benefits prior to \nJuly 6, 2022 when they received notice of the alleged injury. Respondents contend that claimant is not \nentitled  to  medical  benefits.  Respondents  contend  that  claimant  is  not  entitled  to  temporary  total \ndisability   benefits.  Respondents   respectfully   reserve   the   right   to   supplement   this   prehearing \nquestionnaire at a later date.” \n From a review of the entire record, including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the claimant \nand  to  observe  his  demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  are  made  in \naccordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.      The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  a  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nNovember  17,  2022  and  contained  in  a  pre-hearing  order  filed  that  same  date,  as  well  as  the \nannouncements prior to the hearing, are hereby accepted as fact. \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n3 \n \n 2.   Claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  suffered  a \ncompensable injury to his left wrist on or about April 3, 2022. \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The pre-hearing order in this matter asserted that the claimant was injured on or about April \n3, 2022.  The testimony of the claimant makes that date impossible, as March 21, 2022 was the first \ndoctor’s visit for his alleged injury.  While somewhat confusing, the summary of the testimony will \nreflect what was said at the hearing; claimant did admit that he wasn’t positive of the date of his alleged \ninjury, but was clear that it was before his first examination of his left wrist injury.    \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant testified that he was employed in the maintenance department at Tyson’s in March \nand April 2022. He said on or about April 3, 2022, he “weaved a belt and turned my wrist, you know, \nwhile I was pulling on the wire. It just felt like a heat flash in my wrist.” When asked to describe the \ninjury in more depth claimant said “it’s like a stainless-steel belt, and you got to weave it together, you \nknow, it’s continuous around the machine, and you have to weave that together, and each side you \nhave to pull. It’s hard to do. It’s a technique. It’s more finesse than it is strength, but when you are \nfirst doing it, it’s pretty aggravating when you are pulling it hard, but that’s the gist of it.” Claimant \nsaid the injury was to his left wrist and did not believe it was serious at the time, but it started hurting \nand  claimant  wanted  to  go  to  the  doctor.  At  the  time  he  determined  he  wanted  to  seek  medical \nattention—which was weeks after the alleged injury—claimant stated that he told his supervisor, Eddie \nColeman, that he had hurt his wrist. He first went to Marathon Clinic, and the records were dated \nMarch 21, 2022. Claimant testified that he was sent to Berryville to have x-rays. He did not remember \nwhat he told the first doctor he saw.   As claimant continued to have pain in the wrist, he eventually \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n4 \n \nfiled a formal report with the nurse at Tyson after he had seen Dr. Lewis. (The records show the first \nvisit with Dr. Lewis was on June 21, 2022, and claimant’s report to the nurse was July 6, 2022.) \n Claimant said that after he filed the report with the nurse, he had surgery on his left wrist and \nwas off work for a period of time, but workers’ compensation did not pay for his treatment or time \noff  work.  Claimant  acknowledged  that  he  had  a  shoulder  injury  at  Tyson  that  predated  his  alleged \nwrist injury which was accepted by respondent. When asked how his wrist was doing as of the date of \nthe hearing, claimant stated that it was still sore, and that he had restricted movements. However, he \nwas still doing physical therapy on it, and he reported that it was getting better each time that he went. \n On cross-examination, claimant admitted that he reported his shoulder injury on June 2, 2021, \nwhich  was  the  day  that  it  occurred.  Claimant  confirmed  that  his  wrist  injury  was  not  a  gradual \noccurrence but something he related to a specific moment in time. Claimant denied any problems with \nhis left wrist prior to the alleged injury in April 2022. Claimant conceded that it was Tyson’s policy to \nreport all work-related injuries immediately, but that he did not report his alleged left wrist injury until \nhe told his supervisor Eddie Coleman. Claimant was unclear when he made the report to Mr. Coleman, \nstating that it could have been within a week or more than a week. When pressed for when the report \nto Mr. Coleman was made, claimant said that it was when he saw Dr. Bei He, which was on March \n21, 2022. When it was pointed out to him that the visit with Dr. He was earlier than he had previously \ntestified, claimant admitted he was unsure of the date. Claimant said he reported the injury to Tyson \non July 6, 2022, because he was going to be off work in a cast, and he wanted to file with UNUM to \nbe paid while he was off work. \n Claimant stated he moved from the maintenance department to the refrigeration department \nshortly after the alleged injury. Once claimant moved to the refrigeration department, Eddie Coleman \nwas no longer his supervisor. \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n5 \n \n Claimant was asked about the injury as described in Dr. He’s records, and said he did not tell \nDr. He that the issues with his wrist were not work related. Claimant also disputed the entry in Dr. \nBrady Luttrell’s records that indicated that his left wrist issues were not due to an injury. Claimant was \nthen asked about the records from Dr. Natasha Lewis, and specifically this entry on June 21, 2022 “he \ndenies any particular injuries that initiated his symptom onset.” Claimant said “I told them all I hurt it \nat work, but I don’t understand why they are not...” He did not know that the short-term disability \nform that Dr. Lewis completed for him described his left wrist condition as neither an injury related \nnor work related. \n Claimant  was  shown  the  team  member’s  statement  of  injury  or  illness  and  agreed  that  he \ncompleted the report on July 6, 2022. Claimant agreed that he had answered “none” on the section \nthat asked about the date the injury was reported to his supervisor. He said that he had not formally \nreported it. He disputed what Elaine Snyder, LPN, recorded on her narrative of her encounter with \nclaimant on July 6, 2022: “reports that he is unsure how it happened but feels that on 4/3/22 he hurt \nit here.” \n On redirect-examination, claimant said that while he was working in refrigeration in July, he \nput on the team member statement of injury or illness that his supervisor was Eddie Coleman because \nhe was referring to when the injury happened. Claimant clarified that he put “none” on that form \nwhere it asked the day it was reported to the supervisor, that he meant “formally I hadn’t filled out no \npaperwork or nothing.” Claimant was clear that the day he went to a clinic called “Bright Blue”, which \nis also known as Marathon Health, was the same day that he told Eddie Coleman about his injury. \n On re-cross examination, claimant was definite that he was claiming a specific instance injury \nas opposed to a gradual onset injury. Claimant disputed the entry on Dr. He’s March 21, 2022, record \nthat said he had progressive problems in his left wrist for at least three months.  \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n6 \n \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n Because it is the cause of the injury, rather than the existence of it, that is in question in this \ncase, an exhaustive look at the medical records is unnecessary. The parties duplicated several records \nin their submissions, and this review will be done in chronological order. \n Claimant first saw Dr. Bei He on March 21, 2022. Dr. He’s note begins “claimant denies injury \nat work, report pain gradually increased over time, report formation of nodules on the dorsal aspect \nof the wrist. Patient reports that it has been progressive in the past three months, worse in the past \ntwo weeks. Patient works maintenance and would need to use tools that require repetitive motion with \nhis hands. Patient reports his workload has increased. Patient denies previous injury to his left wrist \nand also reports the decline of his general health.” Claimant’s left wrist was x-rayed during that visit \nand the impression was “no acute fracture with mild to moderate degenerative disease and borderline \nwidened scapholunate interval.” While there was no chart entry submitted for a visit with Dr. He on \nApril 5, 2022, a limited sonography of the left wrist was performed on that date, listing Dr. He as the \nordering provider. The impression of that test was “questionable 2.1-centimeter focus on transverse \nimaging in the area of interest is not confirmed on longitudinal imaging. No definite cyst identified. If \nof significant clinic concern, consider MRI without and with contrast.”  \n Dr. He’s records show a visit with claimant on April 15, 2022, in which he terms the problem \nwith claimant’s left wrist as a ganglion cyst: “chronic, unchanged. Likely the cause of his left wrist pain, \ntold him this likely from nature of his work and repeated trauma”. \n While  claimant  did  not  remember  seeing  both  Dr.  He  and  Dr.  Luttrell  the  same  day,  the \nrecords show that he saw Dr. He around 10:00 a.m. and Dr. Luttrell at 2:06 p.m. on April 15, 2022. \nClaimant saw Dr. Luttrell for more than just his wrist pain, as the chief complaint  for this visit was \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n7 \n \nhypertension. As noted above, Dr. Luttrell in the patient’s active problem list, the only thing listed \nthat relates to the present workers’ compensation claim is “synovial cyst of the left wrist.” Regarding \nthat  synovial  cyst,  Dr.  Luttrell  determined  that  claimant  needed  to  be  referred  to  an  orthopedic \nsurgeon for further evaluation. \n Claimant  next  saw  Dr.  Natasha  Lewis,  an  orthopedic  surgeon,  on  June  21,  2022.  She \ndetermined that the left wrist x-rays from March 2022 demonstrated a stage III scapholunate advanced \ncollapse of the left wrist; that surgery was performed on September 2, 2022. In that visit, Dr. Lewis \nasked  claimant  about  the  cause  of  the  injury  and  recorded “He denies any particular injuries that \ninitiated his symptom onset.” On October 18, 2022, claimant was released to return to work on one-\nhanded duty only.  \nIn the record from Mercy Physical Therapy on October 19, 2022, physical therapist Jodie Hill \nrecorded “patient reports he initially injured left wrist at work while pulling on the belt. I felt a bit of \na burn, thought I had maybe sprained it.” Claimant had a course of physical therapy treatment which \nbegan  in  October  2022  and  continued  through  December  30,  2022,  but  nothing  in  this  physical \ntherapy reports are germane to the issues of this case.    \n \nADJUDICATION \n \nIn order to prove a compensable injury as the result of a specific incident that is identifiable \nby time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence (1) an \ninjury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm \nto  the  body  which  required  medical services  or  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  medical  evidence \nsupported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific \nincident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs and More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n8 \n \n384 S.W. 3d 630.  I believe the medical records provide objective findings that claimant had a problem \nwith his wrist that required medical services to remedy.  Claimant was unsure of the precise date that \nthe alleged injury occurred, but that is not fatal to a claim, Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 346 Ark. \n487, 492, 58 S.W.3d 369, 373 (2001) “Although the inability of the claimant to identify the exact date \nof an injury might be considered by the Commission in weighing the credibility of the evidence, the \nstatute does not require that the exact date be identified in order for the injury to be compensable.”  \nHe testified that he wasn’t sure of the date he was hurt, but that it was before he first saw Dr. He on \nMarch 21, 2022. I’m unclear why he didn’t review his medical records to refresh his memory before \nhe testified at his deposition or at the hearing, but I don’t find his lack of clarity as to the precise date \nan impediment to his claim.   \nHowever, claimant failed to meet his burden of proof that his wrist issues arose from the \ncourse of his employment.  I find similarities between this matter and Luster v. Ben E. Keith Co., 2012 \nArk. App. 197, which included these two paragraphs:  \n“In  this  case,  the  objective  medical  evidence  indicated  a  three-month  gap \nbetween  the  date  of  the  accident  and  the  report  of  the  injury,  calling  into \nquestion whether Mr. Luster's back injury was indeed a result of the work-\nrelated  accident.  Although  the  Commission  emphasized  the  conflicting \ntestimony regarding the exact date of the incident, it was undisputed that Mr. \nLuster fell from a ladder while working sometime in March 2010. Mr. Luster's \ninability   to   identify   a   certain   date   does   not   bar   him   from   receiving \ncompensation; however, it was within the Commission's province to consider \nthis  confusion  about  the  date  as  a  matter  of  credibility.  The  Commission \nclearly weighed the conflicting evidence against Mr. Luster, finding his entire \ntestimony to be suspect. \n \nBecause the medical records make no mention of the ladder incident until the \nback injury was discovered in June 2010, Mr. Luster's testimony was the only \nevidence linking the injury to the March 2010 fall. Given  the span of three \nmonths, reasonable persons might disagree as to the actual cause of the injury. \nOur  standard  of  review  requires  that  we  defer  to  the  Commission  on  such \nquestions of fact and credibility. The Commission noted that the following \nmedical  evidence  contradicted  Mr.  Luster's  testimony:  medical  records  of \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n9 \n \nMarch 10, 2010, indicated that he related his back pain to slipping and falling \non ice the previous February; and the medical records had no mention of any \nincident involving the ladder until June 14, 2010, when he sought emergency \ntreatment for a kidney stone and was told that he had additional problems. \nThe Commission further noted that, at the time of the fall, Mr. Luster told \nMs.  Grant  and  Mr.  Shutes  that  he  was  fine.  Based  on  this  evidence,  the \ndecision of the Commission displays a substantial basis for the denial of Mr. \nLuster's claim. Therefore, we must affirm.” \n \nMuch like Mr. Luster’s claim, there was not only a delay in claimant reporting in this matter,\n1\n \nbut there are also contradictory statements in the medical records.  For me to find claimant’s testimony \nwas credible, I’d have to find: \n1.  Dr. He misreported what claimant said on March 21, 2022, when he denied the wrist issue \nwas work related.  \n2. Dr. Luttrell erred when the question about if claimant had suffered an “injury” was marked \n“no.”  \n3. Dr. Lewis misheard claimant when she wrote that he denied any specific incident caused \nhis injury.    \n4. Elanie Snyder, the LPN that took the report of injury from him on July 6, 2022 didn’t \naccurately record what he said when she wrote: “reports that he is unsure how it happened \nbut feels that on 4/3/22 he hurt it here.” \n5. Claimant asked Dr. Lewis to assist him in filing for UNUM benefits in September 2022 \nand she was mistaken that his condition was due to an illness as opposed to an injury.  \n I find it is more likely that these records are accurate.  Mr. Clark’s testimony was insufficient \n \n1\n  To  be  clear,  I  am  not  convinced  that  claimant  reported  the  injury  to  Eddie  Coleman  as  early  as  he  said  he  did.  \nClaimant filled out a Statement of Injury/Illness on July 6, 2022, and wrote “none” in the box that asked: “Date Injury \nReported To Supervisor.”  While Mr. Coleman’s testimony might have supported claimant’s testimony on that point, \nthe absence of it did not decide this matter.  \n\nClark-H205003 \n \n \n10 \n \nto explain why the records before he made the formal report are uniformly contrary to his testimony \nabout the time and nature of his injury, why the initial report of injury said he wasn’t sure how he hurt \nhis wrist, and why the UNUM form filed after surgery did not classify his left wrist condition as an \ninjury.  As such, I find claimant failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.  \n \nORDER \n \nClaimant has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsuffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  left  wrist  on  or  about  April  3,  2022.  Therefore,  his  claim  for \ncompensation benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \nhearing transcript. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205003 CHARLIE J. CLARK, Employee CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY INC., Self-Insured Employer RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 27, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by EVELYN E...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:08:56.239Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205003-2023-04-27","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//CLARK_CHARLIEJ_H205003_20230427.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}