{"id":"alj-H206756-2023-05-09","awcc_number":"H206756","decision_date":"2023-05-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jeremy Grigg","employer_name":"Intregated Stair Systems","title":"GRIGG VS. INTREGATED STAIR SYSTEMS AWCC# H206756 MAY 9, 2023","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","lumbar","thoracic","shoulder","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GRIGG_JEREMY_H206756_20230509.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GRIGG_JEREMY_H206756_20230509.pdf","text_length":26749,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H206756 \n \nJEREMY E. GRIGG, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nINTREGATED STAIR SYSTEMS, EMPLOYER        RESPONDENT \n \nOHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, \nCARRIER/LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, TPA           RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 9, 2023 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 15\nth\n day of March \n2023, in Mountain Home, Baxter County, Arkansas. \nClaimant  is  represented  by  Mr.  George  H.  Bailey,  Attorney-at-Law,  of  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \nRespondent  is  represented  by  Mr.  Jason  M.  Ryburn,  Attorney-at-Law,  of  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 15\nth\n day of March, 2023, to determine the issues \nof compensability for a claimed work-related injury; plus medical; temporary total disability \nfrom August 29, 2022, to a date to be determined; and attorney fees.   All other issues \nwere reserved. The respondents contended that the claim was not compensable.  At the \ntime  of  the  hearing  the  parties  stipulated  the  claimant  earned  an  average  weekly \nwage of $520.00, entitling him to temporary total disability and permanent partial disability \nrates of $347.00 / $260.00, respectively.   A copy of the Prehearing Order was marked \n“Commission  Exhibit  1”  and  made  part  of  the  record  without  objection.    The  Order \nprovided  that  the  parties  stipulated  that  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation \nCommission  has  jurisdiction  of  the  within  claim  and  that  an  employer/employee \nrelationship  existed  on  or  about  August  29,  2022,  the  date  of  the  claimed  injury  in \nquestion.        \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n2 \n \n The  claimant’s  and  respondent’s contentions were  all  set  out  in  their  respective \nresponses  to  the  prehearing  questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection.  The  sole  witness was Jeremy E. Grigg, the claimant.  From a review of the \nrecord  as  a  whole,  to  include  medical  reports  and  other  matters  properly  before  the \nCommission, and having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of \nthe witness, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance \nwith Arkansas Code Annotated §11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this  \nclaim. \n \n2.  That an employer/employee relationship existed on August 29, 2022, the date \nof the claimed injury.  At the time, the claimant earned an average weekly wage \nof $520.00 a week, sufficient for temporary total disability and permanent partial \ndisability rates of $347.00 / $260.00, respectively, per week. \n \n3.  That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show he \nsustained a compensable work-related injury on August 29, 2022. \n \n4.  That based upon the above finding, all remaining issues are moot. \n \n5.  If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents  are  ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of the \ntranscript forthwith. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The Prehearing Order, along with the prehearing questionnaires of the parties and \nthe claimant’s amended response to the prehearing questionnaire were admitted into the \nrecord  without  objection.    The  claimant  submitted  two  (2)  exhibits  that  were  admitted \nwithout  objection:  (1) 26  pages  of  medical  reports;  and  (2)  the  earning  records  and \nArkansas Form-AR-N which consisted of four (4)  pages.  The respondents also submitted \ntwo (2) exhibits: (1) 80 pages of medical reports which were allowed to be proffered; and \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n3 \n \n(2)  the  deposition  of  the  claimant  taken  on  March  2,  2023,  which  consisted  of  twenty-\nseven (27) pages. \n In addition, both parties voluntarily submitted briefs which were blue-backed and \nmade a part of the record herein.   \n The  claimant,  Jeremy E.  Grigg,  testified  he  graduated  from  Calico  Rock  High \nSchool in 2002, and since that date, has taken on-line classes.  He thought he went to \nwork for the respondent  on or about August 17, 2022, and then hurt his lower back on \nAugust 29, 2022, while stacking platforms.  The platforms looked like an aluminum table \nwith four (4) legs and were stacked after turning the first one upside down, the second \none was then stacked right side up, and then the third one would be stacked upside down.  \nHe stated they were instructed to obtain assistance when stacking the fourth one, but he \nattempted to stack the fourth one by himself, lifting it from about twelve (12) inches high \nat  the position  where he  grabbed  hold  of  it  to  chest  high.    He  stated  he  picked  up  the \nplatform about halfway and felt a pop in his back.  He reported the injury to Timmy Sutton, \nwho had seniority at the work site at the time.  The claimant stated the pain was “pretty \nsevere pain in my lower left side here, and I mean, it got so bad I had to leave.  I had to \ngo to the doctor.” (Tr. 7-10) \n The claimant went to his primary care provider that day and saw Thelma Owens, \nAPRN.  He received a shot he thought was Tylenol 4 and was placed on work restrictions.  \nHe returned to see Ms. Owens on or about September 6, 2022, and she ordered an MRI.  \nHe stated he was in unbelievable pain between the dates of August 29 and September \n6, 2022, with pain running down his legs which was the worst pain in his life.  After the \nMRI, the claimant was referred to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Gocin, in Mountain Home.  He had \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n4 \n \nto  return  to  Ms.  Owens  prior  to  seeing  Dr.  Gocin,  due  to  the  pain,  and  obtained  work \nrestriction slips which he presented to his employer. (Tr. 11-12) \n The claimant thought he  saw Dr. Gocin on October 24, after seeing  Ms.  Owens \nthree (3) times and obtaining the MRI.  He was given hydrocodone, a muscle relaxer, and \nsent to physical therapy.  He returned to Dr. Gocin a second time where it was determined \nhe  would  need  surgery,  which  occurred  on  December  29,  2022,  and  consisted  of  a \ndiscectomy.    He  stated  he  was  not  doing  much  better,  that  another  MRI had  been \nscheduled in two (2) weeks, and he had not been released.  Currently, he was not able \nto do much, spending his time  in bed or in a chair.  He had only improved a little.  He \nadmitted  he  had  trouble  with  his  spine  when  he  received  an  x-ray  at  the  Izard  County \nMedical  Clinic  in  2014  and  had been  seeing  Ms.  Owens  during  that  time  period.    He \nthought she told him he had a deep deformity at T12--L1.  He was then referred to Dr. \nGreen, a specialist in Mountain Home, for a steroid epidural and someone told him he \nhad  a  compression  deformity  at  T12–L1.    He  received  additional  injections  from  Ms. \nOwens because he was hurting in the small of his back and did not have pain running \ndown  his  legs  at  that  time or  pain  in  his  hips.  (Tr.13-16)  He  remembered  receiving \nadditional shots in his hip in May of 2016, because he was hurting at the same spot in his \nlower back.  He testified he did not hurt below the waist in 2016.  When he received shots \nin 2017, he was suffering from pain in the middle of his back.  The claimant admitted he \nhad  an  opportunity  to  review  his  medical  records  which  provided  for  low  back  pain  as \nopposed  to mid-back pain.    He admitted  receiving  shots  in  2020 and  being prescribed \nXanax and  Tylenol  4 during  that  time  period.  (Tr.17-18)    The  claimant  testified  that  he \nwas  hurting  in  the middle  of  his  back  at  that  time,  with  no  pain  running  down his  legs.  \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n5 \n \n“There’s a lot of pain increase after August 29\nth\n from the part that was in my middle back, \nbut  it  was  just  kind  of  a,  it  was  dull  ache  here  (indicating)  and  this  was  a  sharp pain, \nshooting pains down my legs after the 29\nth\n.”  He had not experienced pain in his legs or \nhips prior to August 29\nth \nand had not experienced conditions where he could not work.  \nHe  stated  he  was  doing  pretty  well  from  June  of  2020  up  until  August  29,  2022. \n(Tr. 19-20)   He had been working in landscape work and foundation repair and had not \nhad Tylenol back in 2020. (Tr. 21)   The claimant thought his next appointment was on \nMarch 27\nth\n.\n  .\n  \n Under  cross-examination,  the  claimant  testified  he  injured  the  lumbar  section  of \nhis spine on August 29, 2022, and not the thoracic section.  He also admitted his condition \nwas pre-existing and he had suffered low back pain since 2009  where a 2014 medical \nreport referenced a 2009 x-ray of the lumbar spine.  The claimant also admitted he had \nsuffered a work injury in 2014 when he stepped in a hole while lifting trusses and had hurt \nhis  lower  back  and  right  leg.  (Tr.  25-26)    He  had  forgotten  about  that  injury  when \nquestioned  in  his  deposition.    The 2014 work injury was not a workers’ compensation \nclaim because he was only out of work maybe a day or two.  He admitted that after the \n2014  work  injury, he suffered  lower  back  spasms  and  was  treated  with  hydrocodone, \nTylenol 4, and Flexeril. (Tr. 27)    He also admitted that from time to time, he had been \nreferred to Dr. Green, a surgeon in Mountain Home, who he thought ordered an MRI in \n2014, but he had not obtained the MRI report either.  The claimant was also questioned \nabout  presenting  to  the  Clinic  of  Calico  Rock  on  January  2,  2017,  with a  complaint  of \nacute  lower  back  pain  and  was  asked what happened.  He responded, “I’m not sure \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n6 \n \nanything.  I believe it was just around the middle of my back was hurting.  I’m not sure \nwhy it’s acute.” (Tr. 28) \n In  regard  to  the  respondent  employer,  the  claimant  stated  he  had  worked there \nthree (3) times and when asked if he had complained to his employer  about back pain \nprior to the date of the August 2022 injury, he responded “Not that I know of, I haven’t.”  \nThe  claimant  was  then  asked  about  his  deposition  where  he  indicated  the  pain  was \nbetween his shoulder blades and he responded, “Yes in between my shoulder blades” \nand now was pointing to his lower back and he responded, “It would be considered my \nlower back, yes.  I didn’t realize at the time that it would be considered lower back –.\"  He \nagreed  that  at  the  time  of  his  deposition,  he  pointed  to  a  spot  between  the  shoulder \nblades, and stated, “I couldn’t really see where I was pointing at, I guess, and yes, I just \nagreed with you, that you said shoulder blades, that’s what I was thinking.” (Tr. 29-30)  \nThe claimant was then specifically asked if there was a reason he did not describe his \nprevious  lower  back  complaints  when  he  was  deposed  just  a  short  time  ago  and  he \nresponded, “I just, I didn’t, I thought they were before I got my epidural.  I just had my \ndates and memory wrong on that part.”  He went on to state he had remembered his \nprevious back problems, just not the dates. (Tr. 31)  The claimant was  also questioned \nabout relating his back symptoms to his T-12 deformity and a tackle back in high school \nfootball and he responded  that the pain was in his lower back and lower part of his rib \ncage. (Tr. 32)   He had never had pain, “in between my shoulder blades, I guess.  I was \nthinking about the epidural they gave me, and it felt like it went all the way up my back.” \n(Tr. 33) \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n7 \n \n The claimant admitted he had been self-employed for three (3) years immediately \nprior to working for the respondent.  He admitted having Obamacare/Medicaid during that \nperiod of time, but no workers’ compensation insurance,  while  doing  foundation  work \nlaying blocks under a house.  (Tr. 33-34)  The discrepancies in his deposition testimony \nand today’s hearing were due to “mis-remembrance.” (Tr. 35) \n           In  regard  to  medical  records,  the  claimant  submitted  twenty-six  (26)  pages  of \nmedical  records.  The  initial  report  dated  August  29,  2022,  by  Thelma  Owens, APRN, \nprovided the claimant presented with lower back pain due to lifting something and was \ngiven Toradol in the left hip, Kenalog and Triamcinolone in the right hip, a prescription for \nTylenol 4 and Prednisone, and an off-work slip which provided the claimant could return \nto work on September 6, 2022. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 1-3)  The claimant returned to Ms. Owens \non September 6, 2022, and an MRI was scheduled along with a referral to Dr. Gocio, and \nan off-work slip providing the claimant could return to work on September 26, 2022. (Cl. \nEx. 1, P. 4-6)  \n The MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine dated September 17, 2022, provided for a \nchronic appearing mild T12 compression deformity with a  five percent (5%) height loss \nand no acute fracture or dislocation seen.  Degenerative endplate changes were seen at \nthe T12 and L1 and L5-S1 levels.  Under impression, the report provided for moderate \nsubacute degenerative spondylosis of the lumbar spine that was most prominent at the \nL5-S1.  No acute fracture dislocation was seen, but chronic appearing T12 compression \ndeformity was noted. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 7-8) \n The  claimant  returned to  Ms.  Owens  on  October  14,  2022,  for  continued  lower \nback  pain  and  prescription  renewal.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  9-10)      On  October  24,  2022,  the \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n8 \n \nclaimant presented to Dr. Gocio, with the complaint of low back pain, left hip pain, and \nleft  sciatica,  with an  assessment of  displacement  of the  lumbar  intervertebral  disc  with \nradiculopathy and acute left-sided low back pain and left sided sciatica.  Another off-work \nnote till November 28, 2022, was issued. (Cl. Ex. 1, P.11-15)  On November 28, 2022, \nthe  claimant  again returned  to  Dr.  Gocio.    The claimant’s  symptoms  and  the  clinical \nfindings were reviewed and the report provided the original assessment had not changed.  \nAnother off-work slip was issued which provided for no lifting over fifty-one (51) pounds \nand further stated the claimant could not return to work until after surgery. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. \n16-19)   Surgery  occurred  on  December  29,  2022.   A  paramedian  disc  herniation  \nat L5-S1 left, with compression of the thecal sac and spinal nerve along with  foraminal \nstenosis and spondylosis were found. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 20-21)  The claimant was then seen \nby Brandy Anderson, APRN, on February 14, 2023, who provided that the claimant went \nfor one session of therapy and stated that he had severe worsening of back hip and leg \npain  and  then  did  not continue  the physical  therapy.   The  report provided the  claimant \nhad some improvement, but still maintained significant complaints. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 22-24) \n Claimant’s  second  exhibit  was  the  schedule  of  his  weekly  earnings  and an \nArkansas Form AR – N, which provided he had lifted a platform to stack and felt a small \npop in his back while bending over them. (Cl. Ex. 2) \n The  respondents  Exhibit  One  consisted  of  eighty  (80)  pages of medical  records \nand most of the records came from Ms. Owens, APRN.   A summary of the visits provided \nthat an x-ray of the lumbar spine dated May 29, 2014, was compared to a previous x-ray \nstudy  on  October  16,  2009,  and  it  was  noted  that  the  earlier  x-ray  report could  not  be \nfound,  based  upon  the  testimony.  The  report  provided  that  no  acute  fracture  and  no \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n9 \n \npedicle destruction were seen.  Degenerative disc space narrowing of moderate severity \nwith mild end-plate osteophyte spurring was noted at the T12-S1 level.  This had slightly \nworsened from the earlier study. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 2-4)   \nThe claimant again returned to Ms. Owens, APRN, on May 29, June 5, and June \n17, 2014, with low back pain specifically mentioned; the claimant then returned on June \n30, July 23, and August 29, 2014, for anxiety and insomnia;  later on November 25, 2014, \nJanuary 24, 2015,  and April 21, 2015, the claimant returned for insomnia, anxiety and \nother health issues.  The record also provided the claimant again returned multiple times \nfor Xanax, Ambien, and other refills. \nOn  August 10  and  September  8,  2015,  the claimant again  presented  with  lower \nback pain, muscle spasms, and other health issues.  On November 17, 2015, the claimant \nobtained a prescription for Tylenol #4 for chronic pain, and again returned on December \n18,  2015,  for  chronic  pain.    On  December  22  and  December  31  of  2015,  the  claimant \npresented  with anxiety and other health care issues.  On January 11, 2016, the claimant \nagain  returned  for  lower  back  pain  and  anxiety.    On  January  26,  2016,  the  claimant \npresented with muscle spasms and other health issues.  The claimant then returned on \nFebruary 9, 12, and 29; March 5 and 28; April 5 and 26; May 3, 12, and 27; June 28; July \n12;  August 25;  September  24;  October  22;  November  21;  and  December  21,  2016, \npresenting at various times with anxiety, chronic pain, and lower back pain.  On January \n2, and 19; March 18; April 18; May 18; June 16; July 17, 18; August 18; September 16; \nOctober 14; November 14; December 14, 2017, the claimant presented at various times \nwith lower back pain and chronic pain on various visits and obtained numerous refills.  It \nappeared the first visit in 2018 was on June 14 with multiple visits following that year, with \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n10 \n \ncomplaints  of  chronic  pain  and  anxiety,  plus  additional  health  issues.  The  claimant \nappeared to present to Ms. Owens significantly less in 2019, but was still being prescribed \nTylenol  4  and  Xanax  for  lower  back  pain  and  anxiety.    On  June  1,  2020,  the  claimant \nreturned with a complaint of lower back pain.  The claimant again returned on March 27 \nand  July  26,  2021,  requesting  refills  for  hypertension  and  anxiety.    On  December  21, \n2021, the claimant presented with complaints of headaches and additional health issues \nand  then  returned  on  June  21,  2022,  for  refills  in  regard  to  hypertension  and  anxiety. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 5-79) \nThe  respondents  also  submitted  the claimant’s deposition which was taken on \nMarch 2, 2023, less than two (2) weeks prior to the hearing.  The claimant admitted that \nat   the time of his deposition, he was on probation for a felony. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 6)  He also \nadmitted he had received an epidural four (4)  years earlier for his upper back  from Dr. \nGreen  in  Mountain  Home  and  was  provided  an  MRI,  probably  back  in  2016,  and  his \nsymptoms at the time were pain in his upper back.  When he lifted anything, he suffered \npain, “in between his shoulder blades.”  He also stated that his primary care provider was \nMs. Owens, who treated him primarily for depression. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 10)  When asked \nabout the time period between 2016 or 15, whenever it was, and 2022, and did he have \nany treatment for his spine, he responded “no.” (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 11)  He admitted he had \ninjured  his  back  in  2015  or  16  when  he  got  tackled  in  high  school  and that  was  what \ncaused his upper back problem.  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 16) \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn regard to the primary issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of \nproving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to compensation benefits \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n11 \n \nfor  the  injury  to  his  lower  back under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.    In \ndetermining  whether  the  claimant  has  sustained  his  burden  of  proof,  the  Commission \nshall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 \n(1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty to translate evidence on all issues before \nit into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 \nS.W.2d 179 (1996). \nAn objection was made in regard to the admission of the medical records submitted \nby the respondents and the respondents were allowed to proffer the exhibit.  The Workers’ \nCompensation Commission has wide discretion in the admissibility of evidence, and after \nreviewing  the  evidence  in  the exhibit,  it  is  determined  that  the medical  evidence  in  the \nrespondent’s  exhibit  will  assist in  accurately  ascertaining  the  rights  of  the  parties  and \nconsequently, is held to be admissible.   \nUnder workers’ compensation law in Arkansas, a  compensable  injury  must  be \nestablished  by medical  evidence  supported by  objective  findings  and  medical opinions \naddressing  compensability and  must  be  stated  within  a  degree  of  medical  certainty. \nSmith-Blair,  Inc.  v.  Jones,  77  Ark.  App.  273,  72  S.W.3d  560  (2002).    Speculation  and \nconjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence.  Liaromatis v. Baxter County Regional \nHospital,  95  Ark.  App.  296,  236  S.W.3d  524  (2006).    More  specifically,  to  prove  a \ncompensable injury, the claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) \nan injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal \nor external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n12 \n \n§11-9-102(16)  establishing  the  injury;  and  (4)  that  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific \nincident and identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  If the claimant fails to establish \nany of the requirements for establishing the compensability of the claim, compensation \nmust be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 s.W.2d \n876 (1997). \nAn  injury  for  which  the  claimant  seeks  benefits  must  be  established  by medical \nevidence supported by objective findings which are those findings that cannot come under \nthe voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann.  §11-9-102 (16).  It is also important \nto note that the claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Lambert  v. \nGerber Products Co.  14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985).  \nHere, in a deposition only about two (2) weeks prior to the hearing, the claimant \ndenied  having  any  treatment  for  his  spine  between  2015  or  2016,  through  2022,  and \ndescribed the previous issues with his back being in his upper back between his shoulder \nblades.  At the time of the hearing, he testified he didn’t realize at the time that it would \nbe considered the lower back.  In regard to his pointing to a spot between his shoulder \nblades in the deposition, he testified, “I couldn’t really see where I was pointing at, I guess, \nand yes, I agreed with you, that you said shoulder blades, that’s what I was thinking.”  He \nadditionally  testified  in  his  deposition  in  regard  to  previous  medical  treatment, that  his \nprimary care provider mainly treated him for depression in the years prior to the above \nclaimed work injury.  However, in reviewing the medical records, as provided above, it is \nclear Ms. Owens treated the claimant multiple times for chronic pain and specifically lower \nback pain, with the testimony provided by the claimant at best an aggressive improvement \non the truth.  The claimant suffered a work injury back in 2014 when he stepped in a hole \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n13 \n \nwhile  lifting  trusses.    He  also  testified  about  a  back  injury  while  playing  high  school \nfootball.  \nUnder Arkansas Workers’ Compensation law,  it  is  also  clear  that an employer \ntakes  the  employee  as it  finds  him  and  employment  circumstances  that  aggravate \npreexisting  conditions are  compensable. Heritage  Baptist  Temple  v.  Robinson,  82 Ark. \nApp. 460, 120 S.W.3d 150 (2003).  It is also noted that a claimant is not required in every \ncase  to  establish  the  casual  connection  between  a  work-related  incident  and  an  injury \nwith an expert medical opinion. See, Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, \n990 S.W.2d 522 (1999).  Arkansas Courts have long recognized that a causal relationship \nmay be established between an employment-related incident and a subsequent physical \ninjury based on evidence that the injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of \ntime following the incident so that the injury is logically attributable to the incident, where \nthere is no other reasonable explanation for the injury.  Hall v. Pitman Construction Co. \n235 Ark. 104, 357 A.W.2d 263 (1962) \nSpecifically,  a  workers’  compensation  claimant  bears  the  burden  of  proving \nthe  compensable  injury,  by   a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-\n9-102(4)(E)(i).  A compensable injury is one that was the result of an accident that arose \nin the course of his employment and that grew out of or resulted from the employment. \nSee,  Moore  v.  Darling  Store  Fixtures,  22  Ar.  App  21,  732  S.W.2d  496  (1987)    Based \nupon the available evidence in the case at bar, the only testimony or finding in regard to \nthe injury being connected to the work-related date of August 29, 2022, was the testimony \nof the claimant.  The claimant had suffered from back injuries for over a decade and had \npreviously received multiple x-rays and MRI’s in regard to his back.  He also appeared to \n\nGRIGG – H206756 \n \n14 \n \nhave forgotten about significant treatment for his back provided by Ms. Owens and had \neven  confused  the  area  between  his  shoulder  blades  with  his  lower  back  during  his \ndeposition, only a few weeks earlier.  Consequently, there is no alternative but to find that \nthe  claimant  has  failed  to satisfy  the required  burden of  proof to show the claimed  \nwork-related   lower    back   injury   and    his    lower   back   problems    were  in   fact  work  \nrelated to the injury on August 29, 2022.  Consequently, all other issues are moot. \nAfter weighing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to \neither party, it is found that the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof \nto show he suffered a compensable work-related injury to his lower back on August 29, \n2022,  and  consequently,  all  the  other  issues  are  moot.    If  not  already  paid,  the \nrespondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n  \n       ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H206756 JEREMY E. GRIGG, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT INTREGATED STAIR SYSTEMS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 9, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on th...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:07:17.946Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H206756-2023-05-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GRIGG_JEREMY_H206756_20230509.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}