{"id":"alj-H206280-2025-10-08","awcc_number":"H206280","decision_date":"2025-10-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jacqueline Langford","employer_name":"De Wafelbakkers, Inc","title":"LANGFORD VS. DE WAFELBAKKERS, INC. AWCC# H206280 October 08, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["neck","back","cervical","lumbar","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Langford_Jacqueline_H206280_20251008.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Langford_Jacqueline_H206280_20251008.pdf","text_length":14513,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H206280 \n \nJACQUELINE LANGFORD, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nDE WAFELBAKKERS, INC., EMPLOYER   RESPONDENT \n \nCHUBB INDEM. INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 8, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, Steven Porch, on September 9, 2025, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Mr. Rick Behring, Jr., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  full  hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on September  9,  2025.  A  prehearing  telephone \nconference  took  place  on June  18,  2025.  A  prehearing  order  was  entered  on the  same  day, and \nsubsequently  entered  into  evidence  as  Commission  Exhibit  1,  without  objection  or  amendment. \nThe parties confirmed the stipulations and the issues at the hearing. The parties’ stipulations are \nset forth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim.   \n \n2. An  employer/employee/carrier  relationship  existed  on August  17,  2022, \nwhen Claimant sustained compensable injuries to her neck and back. \n \n3. Respondents  accepted  the  Claimant’s  claim  as  compensable  and  certain \nbenefits have been paid. \n \n4. Respondents have controverted any other alleged injuries.  \n \n\nLANGFORD H206280 \n \n2 \n \n5. The parties stipulate to Claimant’s average weekly wage of $620.00, entitling \nher to temporary total disability (TTD) benefit rate of $414.00 weekly, and \nher permanent partial disability (PPD) benefit rate of $311.00 weekly.  \n \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be presented at the hearing are as follows: \n1. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of physical \ntherapy for her compensable neck injury. \n \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to any additional Temporary Total Disability (TTD) \nbenefits from September 9, 2022, to July 1, 2025.\n1\n \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \nClaimant contends: \nOn the day of her injury, the facility was conducting sanitation procedures, \nand all employees were expected to wear non-slip boots provided by the job.  \nHowever, she was unaware of this policy and slipped on the stairs while \ncoming down, sustaining injuries to both hands, shoulders, upper and lower \nspine and right leg, causing her to have bulging disc in her neck and back as \nshe tried to break her fall. \n \nRespondent contends: \n1. To date, all benefits to which the Claimant is entitled have been paid and \nhave not been controverted. \n \n2.  The Respondents accepted as compensable injuries to the neck and back \narising from a specific incident.  The Respondents have controverted any \nother alleged injuries. \n \n3. To date, the Respondents have paid for all reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment. \n \n4. Dr. Edward Saer released the Claimant at MMI with no impairment on or \nabout February 13, 2023.  Following that, the Claimant requested a change \nof physician to Dr. Mike Umerah (A pain management specialist).  The \nRespondents authorized recommended treatment for the compensable \ninjuries from Dr. Umerah. \n \n \n1\n The Claimant stated during the full hearing that she was seeking additional TTD benefits from September 9, \n2022, to July 1, 2025. Therefore the issue was amended to make the issue concise. \n\nLANGFORD H206280 \n \n3 \n \n5. On April 24, 2024, Dr. Saer reaffirmed his opinion that the Claimant was \nMMI with no impairment. \n \n6. On April 18, 2025, Dr. Wayne Bruffett reaffirmed Dr. Seale’s finding that \nthe Claimant was MMI.  Dr. Bruffett opined that the Claimant needed no \nadditional medical treatment, had no permanent anatomical impairment, \nand needed no work restrictions related to the compensable injuries \nsustained on August 17, 2022. \n \n7. The Respondents contend the Claimant is entitled to no additional benefits \n– medical or indemnity – related to this claim. \n \n8. The Respondents reserve the right to supplement and/or amend their \ncontentions prior to the Full Hearing. \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and the \nevidentiary  record,  I  hereby  make  the  following  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The Claimant has failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  in  the  form  of  physical  therapy  for  her \ncompensable neck injury.  \n \n4. The  Claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  is \nentitled to additional TTD benefits. \n \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Respondents’ Exhibit 1, medical records, consisting of 32 pages; \nRespondents’  Exhibit  2, unemployment  records,  accident  injury,  consisting  of 28 pages; \nCommission Exhibit 1, Pre-Hearing Order filed June 18, 2025, consisting of 6 pages. The Claimant \n\nLANGFORD H206280 \n \n4 \n \ndid not enter any exhibits into the record. The Claimant was the only witness testifying at the full \nhearing.  \nThe Claimant was employed as a production packer for the Respondent/Employer. Her job \ninvolved packing pancakes in label boxes. On August 17, 2022, while at work the Claimant fell \ndown a wet staircase injuring her neck and back. The claim was accepted by the Respondents and \nmedical, as well as TTD benefits were paid. Dr. Edward Saer determined that Claimant had reached \nmaximum medical improvement from her work-related injury on February 13, 2023. Resp. Ex. 1, \np. 26. Claimant received a second opinion by Dr. Wayne Bruffett on April 18, 2025. Resp. Ex. 1, \npp. 27-31. Dr. Bruffett noted that the Claimant has a history of chronic fibromyalgia. Id. Dr. \nBruffett further noted that he reviewed both her cervical and lumbar x-rays and MRI scans. Id. His \nreview found that Claimant had some disc degeneration at L5-S1 and some endplate Modic \nchanges but no evidence of acute fracture or specific disc herniation or objective evidence of injury \nbecause of her work-related injury. Id. Dr. Bruffett concluded that he felt that no additional medical \ntreatment was necessary, and that Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement. Id. \nThe Claimant testified that she has been in pain every day and feels that physical therapy \non her neck will help her with her pain. TR 15-17. But did admit that when she last underwent \nphysical  therapy  on  her  neck  that  it  helped  her  on  some  days  and  not  on  others. TR  17. \nNevertheless, the Claimant feels that the machines at the physical therapist’s office will help her \nwith her pain.  \nThe Claimant also requested TTD benefits from September 9, 2022, to July 1, 2025. The \nClaimant testified that she received TTD benefits for two weeks after her work-related incident. \nThe Claimant testified that she was allowed to come back to work on light duty but refused to do \nso because she felt she was not physically able to do so. TR 30-31. The Claimant did not testify as \n\nLANGFORD H206280 \n \n5 \n \nto how many days she was off work from September 9, 2022, to July 1, 2025, due to her work-\nrelated injury. But she feels entitled to those days.   \nAdjudication \nA. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment, including surgeries by unauthorized physician, Dr. David M. Rhodes, \nand related expenses, including mileage and out of pocket expenses. \n \n Arkansas Code Annotated Section 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012) states that an employer shall \nprovide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may be necessary in connection with \nthe injury received by the employee.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d \n153 (2003).  But employers are liable only for such treatment and services as are deemed necessary \nfor the treatment of the claimant’s injuries.  DeBoard v. Colson Co., 20 Ark. App. 166, 725 S.W.2d \n857 (1987).  The Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment \nis reasonable and necessary for the treatment of a compensable injury.  Brown, supra; Geo \nSpecialty Chem. v. Clingan, 69 Ark. App. 369, 13 S.W.3d 218 (2000). The standard “preponderance \nof the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, \n2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d \n442 (1947).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for \nthe Commission.  White Consolidated Indus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); \nWackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). \n A claimant’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 much \nweight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through \nconflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \n\nLANGFORD H206280 \n \n6 \n \nto believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into \nfindings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \nThe Claimant has a compensable neck injury and desires physical therapy. However, Dr. \nSaer determined that Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement from her work-related \ninjury on February 13, 2023. Resp. Ex. 1, p. 26. Dr. Wayne Bruffett, on April 18, 2025, concluded \nin his second opinion that Claimant needed no additional medical treatment, and that Claimant had \nreached maximum medical improvement. Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 27-31. I credit the opinions of Dr. Saer \nand Dr. Bruffett. Thus, I find by the preponderance of evidence that Claimant’s healing period \nended February 13, 2023.  \n Nevertheless, as the Arkansas Court of Appeals has held, a claimant may be entitled to \nadditional treatment, even after the healing period has ended, if said treatment is geared toward \nmanagement of the injury.  See Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d \n31 (2004); Artex Hydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983).  Such \nservices can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the nature and extent of the compensable \ninjury; reducing or alleviating symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; maintaining the \nlevel of healing achieved; or preventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the \ncompensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, \nsupra.  A claimant is not required to furnish objective medical evidence of her continued need for \nmedical treatment.  Castleberry v. Elite Lamp Co., 69 Ark. App. 359, 13 S.W.3d 211 (2000). \n The Claimant is seeking relief from her symptoms, pain in her neck. The question is \nwhether physical therapy is a reasonable treatment. The Claimant has not presented any reliable \nevidence that this treatment is reasonable. Rather Dr. Bruffett has opined that additional medical \ntreatment is not necessary. And as stated previously, I credit this opinion. Thus, I find by the \n\nLANGFORD H206280 \n \n7 \n \npreponderance of the evidence that Claimant has not proven she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment in the form of physical therapy for her neck.  \nB. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits from \nSeptember 9, 2022, to July 1, 2025. \n \nIn  this  proceeding,  Claimant  has  also  claimed  entitlement  to additional temporary  total \ndisability benefits from September 9, 2022, to July 1, 2025.  Respondents stipulated that they did \npay some benefits under the claim but maintained that Claimant was not entitled to any temporary \ntotal disability benefits. \n The alleged injuries to Claimant’s back and cervical spine are unscheduled.  See Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-521 (Repl. 2012).  An employee who suffers a compensable unscheduled injury is \nentitled to temporary total disability compensation for that period within the healing period in \nwhich she has suffered a total incapacity to earn wages.  Ark. State Hwy. & Transp. Dept. v. \nBreshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  The healing period ends when the underlying \ncondition causing the disability has become stable and nothing further in the way of treatment will \nimprove that condition.  Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Parker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 (1982). \n The Claimant testified that she is requesting TTD benefits from September 9, 2022, to July \n1, 2025. I have previously found that the Claimant’s healing period ended on February 13, 2023. \nThe Claimant has not presented any reliable evidence demonstrating that she has entered another \nhealing period after February 13, 2023. Therefore, she does not qualify for benefits after that date, \nso my analysis will be from September 9, 2022, to February 13, 2023. The Claimant must prove \nthat she suffered a total incapacity to earn wages during this period. The Claimant has not produced \nany reliable evidence that she suffered a total incapacity to earn wages. The Claimant testified that \nshe did receive TTD benefits at the beginning of her claim. TR 30. And she acknowledged during \nthe hearing that around the time she was receiving TTD benefits she was placed on light duty but \n\nLANGFORD H206280 \n \n8 \n \nrefused to return to work based on her own feelings. TR 30-31. The Claimant has failed to meet \nher burden. Therefore, the Claimant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that she \nis entitled to TTD benefits from September 9, 2022, to July 1, 2025.  \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, the parties \nshall act consistent with this opinion.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ___________________________________  \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H206280 JACQUELINE LANGFORD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DE WAFELBAKKERS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CHUBB INDEM. INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 8, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Steven Porch, on September 9, 2025, in Little Rock...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:21.728Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H206280-2025-10-08","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Langford_Jacqueline_H206280_20251008.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}