{"id":"alj-H206533-2024-11-27","awcc_number":"H206533","decision_date":"2024-11-27","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Timothy Patterson","employer_name":"M. E. Transport, LLC","title":"PATTERSON VS. M. E. TRANSPORT, LLC AWCC# H206533 November 27, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:2","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["knee","ankle","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Patterson_TIMOTHY_H206533_20241127.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Patterson_TIMOTHY_H206533_20241127.pdf","text_length":23852,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n CLAIM NO.: H206533 \nTIMOTHY PATTERSON, \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nM. E. TRANSPORT, LLC, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2024 \n \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant presented by the Honorable Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Karen H. McKinney, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn April 10, 2024, the above-captioned claim came on for a hearing in Little Rock, \nArkansas. A Prehearing Telephone Conference was conducted in the above-styled claim on \nApril 10, 2024, from which a Prehearing Order was filed on that same day. A copy of said \norder and the parties’ responsive filings have been marked as Commission’s Exhibit 1 and made \na part of the record without objection. \nStipulations \nDuring the prehearing telephone conference, and/or hearing, the parties agreed to the \nfollowing proposed stipulations: \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n2 \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n2. That the employee-employer-carrier relationship existed at all relevant times, \nincluding on or about August 24, 2022, when the Claimant alleges to have \nsustained compensable injuries because of a work-related motor vehicle \naccident. \n3. The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n4. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Act. \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing included the \nfollowing: \n1. Whether the Claimant sustained multiple compensable injuries because of a \nwork-related motor vehicle accident, or if the Claimant sustained idiopathic \ninjury. \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment. \n3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability compensation from \nAugust 25, 2022, to a date in the future. \n4. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to controverted attorney’s fee. \nContentions \n The respective arguments of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant: At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Claimant stated that the \nprimary injuries were to the Claimant’s foot, leg, and the knee mostly on the left. \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n3 \n \nThe Claimant contends that he sustained multiple compensable injuries on or about \nAugust 24, 2022. The Claimant contends that he is owed temporary total disability benefits \nbeginning with the last date of compensation and continuing through a date yet to be \ndetermined. Medical expenses have been incurred and remain outstanding. The Claimant was \nalso scheduled for a hardware removal from his foot July 18, 2023, but has not yet received \nauthorization. These matters have been controverted for purposes of attorney’s fees. \nRespondents: \nRespondents contend that the Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury under the \nWorkers’ Compensation Act for which he is entitled to benefits. Specifically, the Respondents \ncontend that Claimant’s injuries are idiopathic from a condition that is personal in nature to the \nClaimant and therefore did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. \n FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned \ndocumentary evidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an \nopportunity to hear the testimony of the Claimant and observe his demeanor, I hereby make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \n \nclaim. \n \n2. I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n3. The preponderance of the evidence proves that the Claimant’s work related \n \n incident of August 24, 2022, was the result of an idiopathic condition, and did \n \n not arise out of and in the course of his employment. \n \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n4 \n \n4. All other issues have been rendered moot and not discussed in this opinion. \n \nSummary of Evidence \nMr. Timothy Patterson (referred to herein as the “Claimant”), was the only witness to \ntestify during the hearing. \nThe record consists of the June 19, 2024 transcript and the following exhibits: \nSpecifically, Commission’s Exhibit 1 includes the Commission’s Prehearing Order filed on \nApril 10, 2024; Claimant Medical Exhibit consisting of one hundred and nine(109) pages was \nmarked as Claimant’s Exhibit 1; Claimant’s Supplemental Documentary Exhibit consisting of \nfifteen(15) pages was marked as Claimant’s Exhibit No. 2; and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 \ncomprises of Respondents’ Medical exhibit consisting of eighty-one (81) pages. \nThe following exhibits were proffered by the parties have not been considered in this \nopinion: Claimant proffered Exhibit 3 is the Claimant’s Deposition taken on September 6, 2023. \nIt is retained in the Commission’s files; and Respondents proffered Respondents’ Exhibit 2, the \nTraffic Crash Report consisting of twelve (12) pages. \nThe parties’ respective responsive filings were inadvertently left out of the hearing \ntranscript, these pleadings have been blue-backed and marked as Commission’s Exhibit 2. \n Testimony \nMr. Timothy Patterson, Claimant \n The Claimant is 61 years of age. He has a high school education. The Claimant has \nbeen a truck driver for approximately 30 years. Most of his trucking career has entailed over-\nthe-road truck driving. The Claimant confirmed that he was employed with M.E. Transport \nwhen he was involved in an accident on August 24, 2022. His accident happened in California. \nHe confirmed that his left foot, ankle, leg, and knee were injured in the accident. However, the \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n5 \n \nClaimant denied having any problems with his upper extremities/arms. He confirmed that all \nthe injuries were to his left lower extremity. The Claimant further confirmed that he underwent \ntwo surgeries while in California. \n Following his surgeries, the Claimant came under the care of Dr. Ardoin at \nOrthoArkansas. The Claimant confirmed that Dr. Ardoin performed surgery as well. As of the \ndate of the hearing, the Claimant had not been released to return to work by Dr. Ardoin or any \nother doctor. He confirmed that he has not received medical treatment from any other doctors. \nHowever, the Claimant was transported to the Loma Linda Hospital immediately following his \naccident. Per the Claimant, he was in Baker California going through a construction zone on I-\n5 when his accident occurred. The Claimant testified that he had cleared the construction zone \nand the next thing he recalls is a lady saying to him, “Just stay still. I gotta strap you up to a \ngurney and life-flight you to Loma Linda.” He specifically testified that he had cleared the \nconstruction zone but does not remember anything else. According to the Claimant, the next \nthing he remembers is being strapped on the gurney. \n The Claimant confirmed that he has been treated for health issues prior to this accident \ndating back to 2014 and continuing thereafter. He admitted that he has continued to follow up \nwith his doctor once or twice a year to receive medications for high cholesterol and high blood \npressure. The Claimant admitted that he has undergone some testing on his carotid arteries to \ndetermine whether he has plaque or blockage of his arteries. Dr. Thaxton is the Claimant’s \nprimary treating physician in this regard. The Claimant admitted that he had been receiving \ntreatment for TIA’s before his accident happened. This treatment occurred in May 2022, and \ncontinued into June 2022. \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n6 \n \n He confirmed that to drive a truck, he must pass a DOT physical. The Claimant admitted \nthat typically he would have to do a physical every two years to drive before having to do \nanother physical. However, due to the Claimant’s conditions, his physical examinations were \ndone yearly. He agreed that within the time frame of his accident in August of 2022 and August \n2021, he had a DOT physical. The Claimant testified that he had worked for ME Transport for \nabout two years before his accident took place. \n Regarding his treatment for his accident, the Claimant agreed that he is continuing to \nsee Dr. Ardoin. The Claimant last underwent evaluation by Dr. Ardoin three months ago. He \nconfirmed that he continues to have problems with his left leg. The Claimant testified that he \nhas symptoms of numbness and swelling in his foot. He testified that under his current \ncondition, he could possibly drive an automatic truck. However, the Claimant agreed that he \nhas not been released to return to work. \n On cross-examination the Claimant confirmed that the Respondents took his deposition \nabout a year ago. At that time, the Claimant had just recently had surgery with Dr. Ardoin to \nremove some hardware. The Claimant agreed that after his surgery he had some follow-up \nappointments with Dr. Ardoin and/or his nurse practitioner. \n Under further examination, the Claimant was questioned about an exhibit starting at \npage 105, which shows he was seen at the midtown clinic at OrthoArkansas under the care of \nDanielle Lindley, the nurse practitioner. Per this document, the Claimant was seen on February \n2, 2024. At that time, after the nurse examined the Claimant, she stated that he had healed from \nthe arthrodesis. The nurse also stated that the Claimant was doing well. However, the nurse \nrecommended that the Claimant continue to massage his heal and showed him how it should be \ndone. The nurse also told the Claimant to continue to perform activities as tolerated. The \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n7 \n \nClaimant admitted that he was not given any restrictions and was told to return to the clinic as \nneeded. \n The Claimant was asked about what he had been doing on the day of the accident. He \nconfirmed that he was in Salinas, California. He confirmed that he traveled from Salinas to \nEast Los Angeles/LA because he had some work to do there. Per the Claimant, his truck was \nloaded up, but he did not have to do the physical part of this work. However, once this was \ntaken care of in LA, the Claimant started heading back home. The Claimant admitted that it \nwas his intention to stop in Barstow, but he never made it there. He admitted that his accident \noccurred around 1:30 a.m. or 1:45 a.m., while going through a construction zone. The Claimant \nadmitted that he was driving at night, into early morning. He further admitted that during his \ndeposition, he was asked, “What do you think happened?” The Claimant confirmed that he \nreplied, “I blacked out.” \n The Claimant admitted that he testified during his deposition that he has no suspicion as \nto what happened, or why things just went blank. He denied having fallen asleep. However, \nthe Claimant agreed that he testified during his deposition that, “I think I probably passed out.” \nHe also admitted to having testified: “Everything just went black, blank on me.” \n He admitted he has had high blood pressure and high cholesterol dating back ten (10) \nyears. The Claimant testified that he had been seeing Dr. Dylan Thaxton for at least six or seven \nyears before they shut his office down this year. Although in 2014, the Claimant reported to \nDr. Thaxton that he had a sensation of what felt like shades/curtains coming down and a loss of \nvision with squiggly lines, he did not recall having told him that. The Claimant confirmed that \na 2014 report from Dr. Thaxton reads, “Going down -- driving down the road and then got a \nblack haze, squiggly lines, black haze.” “Black haze in my left eye and then going to the right \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n8 \n \neye.” He further confirmed having told Dr. Thaxton that this started a couple of years ago. As \na result, in 2014, Dr. Thaxton sent the Claimant for a Doppler study of his carotid arteries. The \nClaimant denied undergoing Doppler study every two thereafter although this is what is stated \nin the medical records. \n The Claimant admitted that he testified during his deposition that he had stopped \nsmoking about thirteen (13) weeks prior to his deposition. He confirmed that prior to his last \nsurgery with Dr. Ardoin, he has not smoked. The Claimant agreed that at the time of his \naccident, he was a heavy smoker (at least a pack and a half a day smoker). The Doppler studies \nshowed that the Claimant had carotid artery blockage or occlusion, but not complete blockage. \nHe admitted that he continues to need medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol. \nThe Claimant admitted that he saw Dr. Thaxton on May 16, 2022, which was three \nmonths before his work accident. The following exchange took place: \nQ All right. And you told Dr. Thaxton at that time, you were there because you \nhad an episode last week while driving, your right arm went numb, right side of face \ndrooped, and you were drooling, and you had slurred speech. Do you remember going \nto the doctor for that? \n \nA Yes. \n \nHe admitted that Dr. Hackler took him off work for thirty (30) days and had him on a \nheart monitor. However, the Claimant was given the approval to go back to work. The Claimant \nadmitted that he had told Dr. Thaxton about the experience he had back in May and that it was \nnot the first time he had experienced something of this nature. He admitted that he had a similar \nexperience on the left side about seven months before that. The Claimant admitted that he \ntestified in his deposition that he was at a truck stop when this occurred. At that time, the \nClaimant’s left arm went numb, and he was slurring his speech. He admitted that he had trouble \nwalking back to his truck but maintained everything cleared up. \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n9 \n \n Further questioning, the following exchange took place: \n Q All right. And you told me also in your deposition that you had mini strokes. \n A I have had mini strokes. \n Q And you had these before the accident in August of 2022, correct? \n A Correct. \nQ All right. And in this same report you also told Dr. Thaxton that you had \nepisodes of you’d get dizzy and see spots while you were walking. You told him \nthat was happening. Right? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ All right. And are you aware that Dr. Thaxton assessed you as having had a \ntransient ischemic attack, a T.I.A., at that point and time? \n \nA I don’t know what you call it, but yes. \n \nThe Claimant admitted that they Dr. Thaxton ordered some tests, but they do not really \n \nprovide an answer for what is going on. According to the Claimant, he would have episodes of \nnumbness in his arm, facial drooping, and slurred speech out of the blue/unexpectedly. He \nadmitted that in January of 2023, he was at home and his girlfriend had to call an ambulance \nbecause he was just “starring off” and not responsive. However, the Claimant admitted he does \nnot have any memory of what was going on while he was in his home starring off. Per the \nClaimant, all he knows is that he was having a seizure, from what he had been told. The \nClaimant admitted that he injured his left leg in the accident, foot, leg, and knee. \n Adjudication \nCompensability \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), \nprovides, in pertinent part: \n (A)\"Compensable injury\" means: \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n10 \n \n(4)(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body... \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services or \nresults in disability or death. An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific \nincident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012). “Objective findings,” are those \nfindings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-102(16)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012). \nThe Claimant has the burden of proving that he sustained a compensable injury. Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-102(4) (E)(i). Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence that has \ngreater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. \n269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \nThe Claimant must prove a compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E) \n(Repl. 2012). A compensable injury is one arising out of and in the course of employment. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). To prove a compensable injury, he must show by a \npreponderance of the evidence a causal relationship between his employment and the injury \nwith medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). \nWhen an employee sustains an “unexplained” injury at work, the injury is compensable. \nBy contrast, when an employee sustains an “idiopathic” injury at work, the injury is generally, \nnot compensable because the injury is personal in nature, and therefore does not arise out of \nand in the course of the employment. See generally, Little Rock Convention Visitors Bureau v. \nPack, 60 Ark. App 82, 959 S.W. 2d 415 (1997). \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of the \ndoubt to either party, based on the current evidence before me, I find that the Claimant did not \nprove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he sustained a compensable injury. \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n11 \n \n In the case at bar, the Claimant has an extensive medical history of episodes of seizure \nlike occurrences. He has had several mini strokes and TIA’s. His testimony demonstrates that \nthe Claimant has had events of memory loss and not being able to recall pre-seizure events. The \nClaimant has well known health issues, particularly that of known reporting by his doctors of \nischemic attacks. The Claimant admitted that he has had multiple mini strokes prior to this \naccident in August of 2022. In fact, the Claimant has a long-standing history of continuing \ntreatment for high cholesterol and high blood pressure dating back a decade prior to his accident. \nHe admitted that at the time of his accident he was a heavy smoker dating back several years \nbefore his accident. For these reasons, I am not persuaded that the Claimant’s accident is an \nunexplained injury. \n Specifically, at the time, of the Claimant’s accident, he was driving in California, \nthrough a construction zone. He was no longer within the barrels and was at the highway where \nnorth from south is divided by a concrete barrier. It is established by the Claimant’s own \ntestimony that he “blacked out.” This was a one-vehicle accident. Most specifically, there were \nother trucks or vehicles on the road in front of him, beside him, or behind him during the \naccident. The weather conditions were good, and the roads were clear. No evidence whatsoever \nhas been presented here to indicate that there was any problem whatsoever with the Claimant’s \ntruck. Something happened to the driver, which caused the accident. Such accident happened \nbecause of driver error, which resulted from the Claimant most likely having blacked out while \ndriving. As noted above, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Claimant was known to \nhave seizures. The aforementioned conditions and events have led to my conclusion the \nClaimant’s work-related accident is not unexplained. This injury was something personal in \nnature that happened to the Claimant. The Claimant was aware that he was having syncope \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n12 \n \nepisodes, wherein “everything would go black.” He also had episodes of TIA’s prior to his \naccident of August 2022. Here, the evidence clearly proves that the Claimant experienced \nidiopathic seizures and mini strokes which is not directable attributable his workplace truck \naccident. Also, just months prior to his accident, the Claimant experienced an episode of his \nleft arm going numb, accompanied by slurring his speech, but this cleared up on its own. \nAdditionally, the Claimant admitted that Doppler studies showed that the Claimant had carotid \nartery blockage or occlusion, but not complete blockage. Here, the Claimant was well aware \nof his idiopathic conditions of “blacking out” that would arise spontaneously without a direct \ncause. \nTherefore, after consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the Claimant has \nfailed to meet his burden on proof of a compensable injury. Specifically, the evidence \npreponderates that the Claimant’s injury is idiopathic and not compensable because the injury \nis personal in nature, and therefore did not arise out of and in the course of the Claimant’s \nemployment. Hence, the Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on August 24, 2022, \nwhen he was involved in a one-motor vehicle accident. Therefore, this claim is denied and \ndismissed \n ORDER \nThe Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he \nsustained a compensable work injury on August 24, 2022, while performing employment duties \nfor the respondent-employer/ME Transport as a truck driver. The Claimant sustained an \nidiopathic injury during his one-motor vehicle accident. Therefore, this claim is hereby \nrespectfully denied and dismissed in its entirety. All other issues have been rendered moot and \ndiscussed herein this Opinion. \n\nPatterson- H206533 \n \n13 \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n______________________________ \n CHANDRA L. BLACK \n ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H206533 TIMOTHY PATTERSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT M. E. TRANSPORT, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2024 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, Litt...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:46:59.355Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H206533-2024-11-27","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Patterson_TIMOTHY_H206533_20241127.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}