{"id":"alj-H205301-2023-04-12","awcc_number":"H205301","decision_date":"2023-04-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Paula Stuhan","employer_name":"Tyson Poultry, Inc","title":"STUHAN VS. TYSON POULTRY, INC. AWCC# H205301 APRIL 12, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STUHAN_PAULA_H205301_20230412.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"STUHAN_PAULA_H205301_20230412.pdf","text_length":16429,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO.  H205301 \n \nPAULA STUHAN, Employee                                                                           CLAIMANT \n \nTYSON POULTRY, INC., Self-Insured Employer                                     RESPONDENT                         \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED APRIL 12, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Fort Smith, \nSebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant appearing pro se. \n \nRespondents represented by JEREMY SWEARINGEN, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On March 27, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Fort Smith, \nArkansas.    A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on  January  18,  2023  and  a  pre-\nhearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date.    A  copy  of  the  pre-hearing  order  has  been \nmarked as Commission’s Exhibit #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 the \nwithin claim. \n 2.   The employee/employer relationship existed between the parties at all relevant \ntimes, including August 4, 2020. \n Subsequent  to  the  pre-hearing  conference  the  parties  agreed  to  stipulate  that \nclaimant  earned  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $580.14  which  would  entitle  her  to \ncompensation at the rate of $387.00 per week for total disability benefits. \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n2 \n \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Compensability of injury to claimant’s eyes. \n2.  Payment of medical. \n The claimant contends that as a result of her having to wear a mask she developed \nspasming in her eyes which resulted in the need for medical treatment. \n The  respondent  contends  the  claimant  cannot  prove that  her  alleged  symptoms \nconstitute  a  compensable  injury  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act.  \nRespondent  contends,  in  the  alternative,  that  the  medical  benefits  claimed  are  neither \nreasonably necessary not related to any compensable injury or condition.  Respondent \ncontends, in the alternative, that if the claimant incurred medical expenses or temporary \ntotal  disability  prior  to  the  time  she  gave  notice  of  an  alleged  work related  injury  or \ncondition to respondent, then any pre-notice benefits incurred would not be the liability of \nrespondent (if the claim were even compensable). \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nstipulated testimony, and other matters properly before the Commission, and having had \nan  opportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the witness  and  to  observe her  demeanor,  the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-\n9-  704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1.  The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted  \non January 18, 2023 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby \naccepted as fact.    \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n3 \n \n2.     The parties’ stipulation that claimant earned an average weekly wage of \n$580.14 which would entitle her to compensation at the rate of $387.00 per week for total \ndisability benefits is also hereby accepted as fact. \n 3.   Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence  that  she  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  eyes  while  employed  by \nrespondent. \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The claimant is 62 years old and she began working for respondent as a bagger \noperator approximately sixteen years ago.  Claimant’s job duties included maintaining the \nbagger so that product was put into the bag in the correct  amount and with the proper \ndate.  Claimant testified that while running a particular product the employees were given \nthe option of whether to wear a mask or not.  As for her decision, she stated: \n  Sometimes I would wear one, sometimes I wouldn’t \n  because sometime it would give me trouble.  Some- \n  times it wouldn’t.  It would be a burning, stinging, \n  kind of a puffy type of feeling, but nothing bad.  Go \n  home, you’re good again the next day. \n \n \n At  some  point  during  the  Covid  pandemic  all  employees  were  required  to  wear \nmasks.  Claimant testified: \n  But when the rule was you couldn’t wear the N95 \n  and you had to wear the regular mask, that’s when \n  I started having problems.  I didn’t know what it was, \n  but it was an annoyance.  It wasn’t that bad.  You go \n  home.  Problems went away.  Come back the next    \n  day, troubles again.  Not bad. \n \n  As time grew, so did the problem.  I would go home  \n  and it would take longer for my eyes to recover.  I \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n4 \n \n  would go back to work, seemed a little more of a \n  problem, so this just kept increasing. \n \n  \nClaimant testified that as time progressed her condition worsened and that at some \npoint  she  was  informed  that  she  needed  cataract  surgery  and  she  underwent  that \nprocedure on both eyes.  After the cataract surgery her eye condition again worsened.   \n The  medical  records  submitted  into  evidence  are  somewhat  sporadic  but  do \nindicate that claimant was seen by Dr. Aniket Sakharpe at Mercy Clinic on June 23, 2021.  \nDr. Sakharpe noted that claimant had been diagnosed as suffering from blepharospasm \nby  Dr.  Renner  and  had  been  asked  to  provide  an  evaluation  from  a  plastic  surgeon \nperspective.  Dr. Sakharpe noted that claimant’s twitching became more apparent when \nshe was exposed to bright lights and suggested that claimant use tinted lenses to see if \nthat relieved any of her symptoms.  Dr. Sakharpe agreed with Dr. Renner that claimant \nwould not be a good candidate for Botox injections.   \n On August 12, 2021, claimant was evaluated by Dr. Daniel Sines at Boozman-Hof \nRegional Eye Center.  Dr. Sines noted that claimant has had blepharospasm for over a \nyear and that claimant indicated that it had gotten worse after cataract surgery in March \n2021.  Dr. Sines recommended and scheduled Botox injections, but on August 13, 2021 \nclaimant called and canceled the scheduled injections.   \n On December 2, 2021, claimant was evaluated by Dr. Timothy Booker, neurologist.  \nDr.  Booker  noted  that  claimant  did  not  wish  to  undergo  Botox  injections and  he \nrecommended an MRI scan of the brain.  The MRI was performed on December 18, 2021, \nand was read as showing: \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n5 \n \n  IMPRESSION: \n   \n1.   Scattered areas of increased inguinal in the white \n matter bilaterally compatible with age related white \nmatter disease.  No acute abnormalities are seen. \n \n \n Claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Booker  on  April  14,  2022,  and  he  noted  that  the  MRI \nrevealed  scattered  white  matter  consistent  with  aging,  but  no  acute  findings.    He also \nnoted that claimant no longer had to wear a  mask at work and since that time claimant \nno longer had any symptoms. \n Claimant has filed this claim contending that she suffered compensable injuries to \nher eyes as a result of wearing a mask at work.  She requests payment of medical benefits \nfor that condition. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant contends that wearing a mask while working for respondent  resulted in \nblepharospasm in her eyes.  Claimant does not attribute this condition to a specific injury, \nbut rather to the ongoing wearing of a mask.  Documentary evidence submitted by the \nclaimant indicates that Benign Essential Blepharospasm is “a movement disorder of the \neyelids affecting an estimated 5 out of every 100,000 people.  BEB is a condition in which \nuncontrolled  blinking,  squeezing,  and  eyelid  closure  occur  in  both  eyes without  an \napparent environmental cause.  ‘Benign’ indicates the condition is not life-threatening and \n‘essential’  means  that  it  occurs  on  its  own  without  outside  stimulation.”  Claimant’s \ndiagnosis of blepharospasm is in the nature of an occupational disease.  \n An “occupational disease” is defined as any disease that results in disability and \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n6 \n \n“arises  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  the  occupation  or  employment  of  the  employee  or \nnaturally  follows  or  unavoidably  results  from  an  injury.”  A.C.A.  §11-9-601(e)(1)(A).  \nClaimant  has  the  burden  of  proving by  a preponderance  of  the  evidence  that a  causal \nconnection exists between the occupation or employment and the occupational disease.  \nA.C.A. §11-9-601(e)(1)(B).   \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the  benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof.   \n In order to prove a compensable injury claimant must show, by the greater weight \nof   the   credible   evidence,   the   presence   of   a   causal   relationship   between   her \nblepharospasm and the wearing of a mask at work.  Basically, claimant relates her eye \nsymptoms  to  the  wearing  of  a  mask  at  work  because  her  symptoms  began after  she \nbegan wearing a mask and the symptoms went away when she no longer wore the mask.  \nI also note that based on stipulated testimony from various witnesses, that at some point \nclaimant  complained  to  her  supervisors  about  her  eye  spasms  and  that  she attributed \nthose problems to the wearing of a mask.   \n It is unclear exactly when the claimant’s problems with eye spasms began.  The \nhistory and the medical report of Dr. Sines dated August 12, 2021 indicates that claimant \nstated that she had suffered from blepharospasm for over a year and that it had worsened \nafter  cataract  surgery  in  March  2021.    This  would  indicate  that  her  problems  began  in \nearly 2021 or sometime in 2020.   \n The first medical report submitted into the record is dated June 23, 2021, from Dr. \nAniket Sakharpe who saw claimant for a plastic surgical evaluation.  That report contains \nthe following history: \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n7 \n \n  According to the patient she has been having the \n  symptoms for long [periods] of time she had this \n  cataract repair done after which this symptoms (sic) \n  have become much worse.  She initially noticed a \n  worsening of her some symptoms which was \n  described by the patient has (sic) pain in the eyes \n  after the cataract surgery when she used which \n  she will with a bright light reflecting into the eye. \n  Ever since that time the patient continues to have \n  the symptoms where she starts suddenly having \n  the bilateral eyes kind of twitch and close up on \n  her where she is now bumping into people.  These \n  twitching of the eyes and inability to see has been \n  bothering the patient there is no specific trigger \n  that she can remember.  There is no specific time \n  of the day that these symptoms are worse at \n  sometimes it is early in the morning sometimes \n  at night.  She denies any weakness of the eyes \n  [or] weakness in the eye at the end of the day. \n  She denies specifically that the bright light causing \n  more symptoms.   She denies any specific triggers \n  or alleviating factors.  According to the patient she \n  is used solar glasses but it did not seem to help \n  her as much.  Symptoms are present in a dark \n  room and at night as well as during bright part \n  of the day.  There is no specific time of the day \n  they are worse that.  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n The report also contains the following observations: \n  The patient also has some chorionic twitching or \n  movement of the upper part of the face which is \n  bilateral.  This becomes more apparent when the \n  patient is exposed to bright lights.  Patient was  \n  wearing a [?] When we remove the cap and had \n  corrected her brow ptosis by fixing her brows her \n  symptoms of this chorionic movement started.   \n  There was nothing that we could [do to] make the \nsymptoms go away.  At this point we also took a  \npicture where she is having extreme spasm of all the \n  depressors of the brow as well as the upper eyelid. \n  There was no specific trigger for this.  (Emphasis \n  added.) \n \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n8 \n \n [It  should  be  noted  that  the  above  quotes  from  Dr.  Sakharpe’s  report  contain \nnumerous grammatical errors.  However, I do not  believe these errors materially affect \nthe significance of the history and observation as discussed immediately hereafter.] \n The history and observations of Dr. Sakharpe are significant for several reasons.  \nMost notably, there is no mention of the problems being caused by wearing a mask at \nwork or that the symptoms were worse when claimant was wearing a mask at work.  In \nfact,  the  history  in  Dr.  Sakharpe’s  report  indicates  that  claimant  denied  any  specific \ntriggers.  This  matches  the  definition  of  Benign  Essential  Blepharospasm  that these \nconditions occur “on its own without outside stimulation.”  This history is also important in \nnoting that at times claimant’s symptoms were worse early in the morning and other times \nat night.  Thus, there would have been no correlation with claimant’s wearing a mask at \nwork.  The observation portion of the report indicates that claimant developed symptoms \nwhile in the doctor’s office and there “was no specific trigger for this.” \n The next medical report is from Dr. Sines at Boozman-Hof Regional Eye Center.  \nHis report contains the following history: \n  Pt states she has had blepharospasm for over a \n  year.  Pt states blepharospasm it (sic) got worse \nafter cataract surgery in 3/2021.   \n \n \n Dr. Sines went on to indicate that claimant’s findings were consistent with Benign \nEssential Blepharospasm.  Again,  it is notable that Dr. Sines’ medical report contains no \nmention of claimant’s eye problems being related to wearing a mask at work. \n The first mention of a mask in the medical records is from Dr. Booker’s report of \nDecember 2, 2021 which states: \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n9 \n \n  Symptoms are as stated intermittent not particularly \n  related anything although in the beginning she thought \n  it may have been related to wearing her mask. \n  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n Given Dr. Sines’ history in his report of August 12, 2021 that the blepharospasm \nhad been present for over a year, Dr. Booker’s report of December 2, 2021 would indicate \nthat the first medical report mentioning a mask would have been more than a year after \nthose symptoms began. \n In finding that claimant has failed to prove a causal connection, I also note that no \nphysician has opined that the blepharospasm was caused or could have been caused by \nthe  wearing  of  a  mask.    While  claimant  is  not  required  to  offer  medical evidence \nestablishing a causal connection, the lack of a treating physician’s opinion is a factor that \nmay be considered in determining whether claimant has met her burden of proof. \n In  summary,  while  claimant  believes  that  her  blepharospasm  is  related to  her \nwearing a mask at work, she has the burden of proving that a causal connection exists \nbetween  the  wearing  of  the  mask  and  her  blepharospasm.    Here,  claimant  has  been \ndiagnosed  as  suffering  from  Benign  Essential  Blepharospasm  and  according  to  the \ndefinition  submitted by  the  claimant  it  occurs  on  its  own  without  outside  stimulation.   It \napparently  can  be  a  normal  reaction  to  very  bright  lights  and  this  was  noted  in  Dr. \nSakharpe’s report of June 23, 2021.  In short, I find insufficient evidence of record proving \nthat there is a causal connection between claimant’s wearing of a mask at work and her \nBenign Essential Blepharospasm.   Therefore, I find that claimant has failed to meet her \nburden of proof.   \n \n\nStuhan – H205301 \n \n10 \n \nORDER \n \n Claimant  has  failed  to  meet  her  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence  that  she  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  eyes  while  employed  by \nrespondent.    Therefore,  her  claim  for  compensation  benefits  is  hereby  denied  and \ndismissed. \n Respondent is liable for payment of the court reporter’s charges for preparation of \nthe hearing transcript in the amount of $341.45. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n      _____________________________________ \n       GREGORY K. STEWART \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205301 PAULA STUHAN, Employee CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., Self-Insured Employer RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 12, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. Claimant appearing pro se. Respo...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:08:26.839Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205301-2023-04-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STUHAN_PAULA_H205301_20230412.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}