{"id":"alj-H207039-2024-03-15","awcc_number":"H207039","decision_date":"2024-03-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Billy Wright","employer_name":"Reynolds Consumer Products","title":"WRIGHT VS. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS AWCC# H207039 MARCH 15, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","hip","knee","fracture","lumbar","strain","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WRIGHT_BILLY_H207039_20240315.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WRIGHT_BILLY_H207039_20240315.pdf","text_length":40035,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION  \n \n CLAIM NO. H207039  \n  \n \nBILLY WRIGHT,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT   \n \n                                                                                                           \nREYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT. SERVICES, INC., \nCARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                    RESPONDENT                                                                                            \n  \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 15, 2024    \n  \n \nA hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, Pulaski County, Little \nRock, Arkansas.  \n  \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Aaron L. Martin, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.     \n  \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Michael E. Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas.  \n   \n                                                 STATEMENT OF THE CASE  \n  \nA hearing was held in the above-styled claim on October 24, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  \nA prehearing telephone conference was held in this matter on August 30, 2023.  A prehearing order \nwas entered on that same day.  This prehearing order set forth the stipulations proposed by the \nparties, their contentions, and the issues to be litigated.  \n                  STIPULATIONS \nThe parties submitted the following stipulations, either pursuant to the prehearing order, or \nat the start of the hearing.  I hereby accepted the following stipulations as fact:  \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n2  \n  \n2. That the employee-employer-carrier relationship existed at all relevant times including \non or about May 20, 2022, when the Claimant allegedly sustained a compensable injury \nto his lower back. \n \n3. The Claimant is entitled to the maximum weekly compensation rates for his alleged \n2020 low back injury if found to be compensable.  His weekly rate for temporary total \ndisability (TTD) benefits is $790.00; and his rate for permanent partial disability (PPD) \ncompensation is $593.00. \n \n4. The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n5. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct.  \n     \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing were as follows:  \n1. Whether the Claimant sustained a compensable low back injury on May 20, 2022.  \n  \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical benefits for his \nback condition.  \nContentions \n \n  The respective contentions of the parties are as follows:       \n  \nClaimant:  \n  \n  The Claimant contends that he sustained a compensable injury to his lower back on May \n20, 2022.  The Claimant further contends that he is currently entitled to medical treatment for his \nback injury and reserves his rights to all additional benefits.     \nRespondents:  \n  \nRespondents will assert the following defenses: The Claimant has no objective medical  \n \nfindings of an injury due to the May 20, 2020, incident.  Also, his lower back is a pre-existing  \n \ncondition.  The MRI taken before the accident is the same as the MRI taken after the accident.    \n   \n \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n3  \n  \n                     FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \nhear the testimony of the witness and observe his demeanor, I hereby make the following findings \nof fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (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 Claimant failed to establish by medical evidence supported by objective  \n \nfindings that he sustained a compensable injury to his low back on May 20, \n \n 2022, while performing his employment duties for the respondent-employer. \n            \n          4.          The remaining issue pertaining to reasonable and necessary medical treatment has \n    \n                        been rendered moot and not addressed herein this opinion. \n            \n \nSummary of Evidence \nMr. Billy B. Wright (referred to herein as the “Claimant”), was the only witness to testify \nduring the hearing.  \n            The record consists of the October 24, 2023 hearing transcript and the following exhibits: \nSpecifically, Commission’s Exhibit 1 comprises the Commission’s Prehearing Order filed on \nAugust 30, 2023 and the parties’ responsive filings; Claimant’s Medical Exhibit consisting of \nseventy pages was marked Claimant’s Exhibit 1; and Respondents’ Medical Exhibit includes \neleven numbered pages and it has been marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 1. \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n4  \n  \n                 Testimony  \n   As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant continued to work for Reynolds Consumer \nProducts, in Malvern.  He has worked for the Respondents for eighteen years.  His current position \nas of late entails employment duties as a roll grinder.  The Claimant testified that he has a lot of \ndifferent job duties, but his main job function is to bring in rolls and operate a machine lathe.  \nAccording to the Claimant, they grind and turn rolls in his department.  Specifically, the Claimant \nexplained: \n   Q Okay.  When you say roll, what do you mean? \n   A I mean a castor roll is probably about eight, nine, ten feet long.  It’s a big shell.  It’s \n36 inches in diameter, and we have to bring those in and take the old metal off after they run ‘em \nout in the plant, and we put a new finish on ‘em and send ‘em back out  - - \n   Q Okay. \n   A  -- to make the product with them.     \n   According to the Claimant he has worked as a roll grinder for sixteen years.  The Claimant \nagreed that he sustained a back injury on May 20, 2022, while picking up a 0-ring plate.  Per the \nClaimant, when he picked it up, he felt his back get stiff, and a pain went down his leg.  He testified \nthat an O-ring is a giant piece of metal, and the entire roll weighs approximately 30,000 pounds.  \nAccording to the Claimant, the rolls are about 36 inches in diameter.  He testified that the roll bolts \non, and it slides over a neck into the roll, and it holds the O-ring in place, which is a piece of rubber.   \nThe Claimant provided the following description of the O-ring: \n   Q Okay.  Describe that for us. \n   A Okay.  It’s probably four or five inches wide around.  It’s – it’s round.  It’s got \nprobably 50 bolt holes on – in it that holds the – which bolts to the caster roll, which holds the O- \nring in place.  It weighs about 140 pounds.         \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n5  \n  \n   Q Okay.  And you testified that you were lifting this at the time?  \n   A Yes.  Me and – me and another guy, there were two of us doin’ this.  \n   According to the Claimant, normally they would use a crane to pick this plate up because \nit is very heavy.  He testified that management had them trying something completely new this \nday, they wanted them to put a gasket on the roll.  The Claimant stated that they could not place \nthe gasket on it, so they had to pick it up by hand, and that is when he got hurt. \n   Regarding his symptoms, the Claimant essentially testified that he had an immediate onset \nof symptoms that included tightness in his back and pain going down into his left leg.  He \nconfirmed that he stayed at work until the end of his shift, but he did not continue to work.  The \nClaimant testified that he went and sat in the office of the roll shop department for the remainder \nof the day.  He further testified that his coworker and another guy finished the job that they had \nstarted.   \n   According to the Claimant, he reported his injury within the first hour that it happened.  \nThe Claimant testified that he reported his injury to his supervisor, Iteima Allen.  Per the Claimant, \nhe told his supervisor that he hurt his back picking up the 0-ring plate.  The Claimant also testified \nthat he told Mr. Allen about the pain he felt going down into his left leg. \n   The Claimant first sought medical treatment for his back from CHI St. Vincent.  They \nreferred the Claimant for an MRI and neurosurgical consultation with Dr. Shahim.  He testified \nthat Dr. Shahim ordered some medications, physical therapy, and injections for his back pain and \nrelated symptoms.  The Claimant denied that he got any benefit from either the medications, \nphysical therapy sessions, or the injections.  He confirmed that he must have surgery for his \nsymptoms because they are getting worse, and he must have this fixed. \n   Specifically, the Claimant testified that he currently has the following symptoms associated \nwith his May 20, 2022, work-related accident: \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n6  \n  \nQ What are your symptoms? \n \nA. Stiffness in the back.  I have pain from my lower back, I’d call it right above my \nhip, and it goes down into my leg, my hamstring, into my knee, into the calf area of my leg, into \nmy toes.  I have a constant pain - -I have pain all the time, but a lot of the times I’m having sharp, \nshooting pains.  I’m having tingling, pins and needles sensations in my feet and toes.                    \nThe Claimant denied having any symptoms in his right leg.  He agreed that he currently he   \nhas weakness in his leg, and sometimes when he is walking, he drags his leg because he is not able \nto pick it up all the time.  According to the Claimant, he must be careful because he drags his left \nleg, and this causes him to stumble.  The Claimant confirmed that he does not have any work \nrestrictions.  However, the Claimant agreed that his symptoms affect his ability to do his job.  \nSpecifically, the Claimant explained: “How I do my job is that I -- I take it real easy, real slow, \nvery careful.”  The  Claimant confirmed that he told Dr.  Shahim  that  if  he  gave  him work \nrestrictions, they would not allow him to return to work at Reynolds.   \nHe acknowledged that his symptoms also affect his daily activities outside of work.  The \nClaimant has problems with performing his duties as a deacon at his church when serving the \nLord’s Supper.  He must be careful so that he does not trip and fall.  The Claimant stated that he \nhas problems at home when he needs to pick up something heavy.  As a result, his son helps him \nto lift heavy objects and does the weed eating for him.  The Claimant stated that his son also helps \nhim with the mowing of his lawn.  He testified that he has not been able to do any gardening work \nsince his injury happened because it is too hard on his back.   \nRegarding his prior injury to his lower back in 2011 or 2012, the Claimant admitted he \ninjured his back at work taking a water jacket off.  He testified that he had to pry the bar off, and \nit slipped off and fell on the ground and hurt his back.   The Claimant testified that from that injury, \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n7  \n  \nhe had symptoms of pain in his back, and left leg down to his knee.  However, the Claimant denied \nthat his pain ever went below his knee, or into his feet.  The Claimant verified that he underwent \nsurgery for his prior 2012 back injury.  He confirmed that he received significant relief from the \nsurgery after a period of recovery time of about a year.  The Claimant testified that this prior \nsurgery resolved all his back problems, and he did not have any more pain or stiffness in his back.  \nHe confirmed that he returned to work after he recovered from his surgery in 2011.  The Claimant \ndid not recall whether he had any physical restrictions or limitations when he returned to work on \nfull duty.   \nThe Claimant was shown a copy of the medical records from Respondents’ Exhibit 1.  This \nexhibit includes an MRI from June of last year (2023), but before that the records go through until \nabout November of 2012.  He maintained that he did not see any doctors for his back from \nNovember of 2012 until his accident on May 20, 2022.  The Claimant denied having any problems \nfor which he did not see a doctor during that time limit.      \nUnder further questioning, the Claimant was asked if he believes that the accident on May \n20, 2022, is the cause of his current symptoms and need for surgery.  He replied, “Definitely, yes.” \nThe Claimant specifically maintained that he has never experienced these symptoms before.  He \nfurther maintained that he never had a similar prior problem with his leg.  The Claimant testified \nthat previously his pain stopped at the knee.  He went on to clarify that what is going on now is \nnumbness and tingling in his knee, calf, and feet. \nOn cross-examination, the Claimant testified that he does not recall if his prior surgery \noccurred in 2011 or 2012.  He confirmed that he has had two previous back surgeries.  One of his \nsurgeries was performed by Dr. Schlesinger and his second surgery was performed by Dr. Mason.  \nHe confirmed that he had back surgery years ago by Dr. Mason because he was having problems \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n8  \n  \nwith his back.  The Claimant verified that his surgery by Dr. Mason did not involve a work-related \ninjury.  According to the Claimant, Dr. Schlesinger performed his second surgery. \nThe  Respondents’  attorney  presented  the  Claimant  with  a  report  authored  by  Dr. \nSchlesinger, which is Respondents’ Exhibit at page 4.  The Claimant did not recall having problems \nafter his second surgery.  Although an MRI was ordered of the Claimant’s back following his \nsurgery, the Claimant continued to maintain he did not recall having problems after surgery.  \nDr. Mason\n1\n  reviewed the MRI and said that there was nothing he could do to help the \nClaimant from a surgical standpoint.  As a result, Dr. Schlesinger released the Claimant from \nsurgical care since there was nothing he  could do for the Claimant in terms of a  rating or \nlimitations.   The Claimant admitted that he testified earlier that he got better after back surgery \nand was fine between 2012 and 2022.  \nThe following exchange took place with the Respondents’ attorney and the Claimant:  \nQ But you had been to Dr. Schlesinger just following the surgery to see if something \nelse could be done? \nA I don’t remember that. \nQ Okay.  And then that – that MRI from 2012 that he relied on showed that you had \na post-surgical change at L4-5, disc displacement, and a small annular tear at L5-S1 level.  Is that \n– which of those sites are the site of your surgery?  Do you recall? \n A Oh, I don’t even know what any of that means. \n  Q Okay. \nA I don’t know. \nThe Claimant was questioned about the report on page 10 of the Respondents’ exhibit. \n \n1\n  Although the transcript reads Dr. Mason, this is a clerical error.  Instead, this should read Dr. Schlesinger.  \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n9  \n  \nHowever, the Claimant did not recall the radiologist having opined that the MRI in 2022 did not \nreveal an acute fracture and that only degenerative changes were revealed.  The Claimant admitted \nthat he discussed the findings of the MRI with Dr. Shahim.  He maintained that he did not \nunderstand any of what all that stuff means.  The Claimant confirmed that he went to the company \ndoctor, Dr. Larey.  Although Dr. Larey referred the Claimant to Dr. Zachary Mason, he did not see \nhim.  The Claimant was unsure of how he got to see Dr. Shahim.   \n  Under further questioning, the Claimant admitted that his need for surgery is because he is \nhaving problems with the same leg, except the now the problem goes all the way down to his toes.  \nThe Claimant stated that he was not sure if back in 2012 after his surgery, he had the same thing \ngoing on with the same two levels (L4-5 and L5-S1) that he has involved now.  The Claimant \nmaintained that he was not sure of what Dr. Shahim meant when he stated in his medical report \nthe Claimant the radiologist misread the MRI, or his problems are degenerative in nature and \nnothing acute.  However, Dr. Shahim went on to opine that if the MRI was misread by the \nradiologist, then the Claimant already had L5-S1 issues going as reflected in the previous MRI’s. \n The Claimant denied he understood what Dr. Shahim meant when he said the Claimant most likely \nhas a new facet injury.  Dr. Shahim also stated, “He has either a combination of facet cysts from a \nfacet injury and subligamentous disc herniation.”    \nThe Claimant admitted that he has worked the whole time since May 20, 2022.  The \nClaimant admitted that he has not missed any time from work since his alleged back injury.   He \ndid not recall asking Dr. Shahim to tell Reynolds he had no restrictions and could work full duty.  \nThe Claimant admitted that he did tell Dr. Shahim he probably would not be allowed to return to \nwork if he had restrictions.  However, the Claimant denied that his employment duties are heavy \nmanual labor all the time.   \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n10  \n  \n  He confirmed that the Reynolds plants that he works at do not make aluminum foil.  The \nClaimant testified that they make “cash metal,” which is turned into aluminum foil somewhere \nelse.  As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant continued to work his scheduled shift at Reynolds.  \nHe confirmed that he plans to work up until his surgery.  The Claimant again denied that his current \nsymptoms are the same as those he experienced previously. \n        Medical Records  \n  A review of the medical records demonstrates that on September 28, 2011, the Claimant \nunderwent an MRI of the lumbar spine without contrast due to lower back pain/lumbar strain, \nauthorizing provider was Dr. Mark Larey.  The reviewing radiologist, Dr. Stephen Penor, rendered \nthe following Result Impression: \n1. There is central disc protrusion with a larger left paracentral disc protrusion at L4-5.  \nThere is moderate to severe left paracentral spinal canal stenosis with mass effect on \nthe left L-5 and sacral nerve roots. \n      2.    There is mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing at L4-5. \n     3.    There has been a laminectomy at L4-5. \n     4.    Central annular tear at L5-S1.  There is no stenosis that this level. \n \nOn October 4, 2011, the Claimant underwent a lumbar MRI due to low back pain since \nAugust 1, 2011.  The patient has a history of low back surgery in 2003 with pain in the lower left \nextremity.  Dr. Andrew Finkbeiner rendered the following Conclusion: \nNo  enhancing 8mm  left  paracentral  disc  protrusion  at  the  L4-5  level  results  in  mild \ncompression of the descending left L5 nerve.  There is a left-sided hemilaminectomy defect \nwith enhancing granulation tissue in the left lateral recess.  Small soft central protrusion \nwith associated enhancing annular tear at the L5-S1 level. \n \nDr. Scott Schlesinger referred the Claimant for an MRI of the lumbar spine, which was \nperformed on April 2, 2012.  Specifically, the Claimant underwent an MRI of his low back without \ncontrast due to ongoing complaints of low back pain associated with lower left extremity pain with \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n11  \n  \na history of low back surgery in October 2011.  Direct comparison was made with preop MRI of \nthe lumbar spine from October 4, 2011.  Accordingly, the radiologist opined, in relevant part: \nFINDINGS: L4-5:  There  is  a  shallow  disc  displacement  most  pronounced  in  the \nbioforaminal positions with enhancement along the left paracentral/foraminal portion of \nthe  disc  with  an  adjacent  left-sided  hemilaminectomy  defect.   There  is  enhancing \ngranulation tissue in the left lateral recess surrounding the descending left L5 nerve.  In \naddition, there is facet hypertrophy at this level contributing to mild to moderate bilateral \nexiting neural foraminal stenosis.  There is metallic artifact seen with the surgical site best \nnoted on image #13 of series #7.   \n \nL5-S1: There is enhancement along the posterior central margin of the disc at this level \npossible representing annular tears along with shallow disc displacement contributes to \nmild to moderate bilateral exiting neural foraminal stenosis with abutment of bilateral \nexiting L5 nerves.       \n  \nCONCLUSIONS: There is interval left-sided hemilaminectomy defect without evidence \nof residual or recurrent soft herniation or protrusion.  Enhancing granulation tissue in the \nleft lateral recess surrounds the descending left the L4-5 nerve.  There also remains shallow \ndisc  displacement  and  associated  facet  hypertrophy contributing  to  mild  to  moderate \nbilateral exiting neural foraminal stenosis and associated facet atrophy contributing to mild \nto  moderate  bilateral  exiting  neural  foraminal  stenosis  without  definite  nerve root \ncompression.  Please see report for level-by-level description. \n \nOn November 13, 2012, Dr. Scott Schlesinger, a neurosurgeon, saw the Claimant in clinic  \nfor  a  consultative  neurosurgical  work-up.   At  that  time,  by  written account Dr.  Schlesinger \nprovided an updated report with details of a development of a management and treatment plan for \nthe Claimant’s continual complaints of chronic lower back pain that radiated down his left leg, to \nthe foot associated with numbness and tingling. \n  History of Present Illness \n This 44-year-old male presents with lower back pain that radiates down the left leg to the \nfoot with numbness and tingling.  He has a history of lumbar surgery done about ten years \nago by Dr. Mason and an additional lumbar surgery done by me in 2011.  He also underwent \na series of post-operative epidural steroid injections in April and May of 2012 with no \nrelief.  He is now here in follow up with a new MRI of the lumbar spine.   \n \n                      *** \n   \n \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n12  \n  \nNeurological Surgeries  \n  Lumbar Surgery X 2: \n            L4-5 Lumbar decompression and discectomy done in 2002 by Dr. Zachary Mason. \n  L4-5 Redo lumbar discectomy done on October 11, 2011, by me. \n \n  *** \n \n   \nMedical Decision Making  \n   \n Interpretation of Data: Mr. Wright’s MRI scan of the lumbar shows postoperative changes \nand degenerative changes only. \n \nA decision was made to made to request the medical records pertinent for the current \nproblem.  I have reviewed these records and have incorporated this information into the \nmedical decision making.  \n \nDifferential Diagnosis  \n \nLow Back Pain \nLow back pain has many etiologies.  The back pain may come from facet joint arthritis, \ndegeneration  of  discs,  musculoskeletal  symptoms,  rheumatologic  disorders, \nmusculoskeletal  symptoms,  rheumatologic  disorders,  herniated  discs,  spinal  stenosis, \nfracture, spinal tumors, etc. \n \nDiagnosis:     \nThe patient’s diagnosis is: \nLow Back Pain. \n \nPlan: \nThere is nothing further I can do for him neurosurgical.  I will release him from further \nneurosurgical care.  The only thing I might suggest to him is attempting medication \nmanagement with anti-inflammatory agents such as Celebrex.  There is nothing further to \ngive him in terms of limitation or disability.   \n \nThank you once again for allowing me to provide this neurosurgery consultation for this \npatient. \n \nThe Claimant underwent an MRI of his lumbar spine on November 13, 2012, without \ncontrast, pursuant to recommendation by Dr. Schlesinger.  Specifically, Dr. Andrew A. Finkbeiner \nrendered the following Conclusion: \nNo significant interval changes from the prior examination of April 2, 2012.  Postsurgical \nchanges again were noted at the L4-5 level with a left-sided hemilaminectomy/facetectomy \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n13  \n  \ndefect with multiple small metallic artifacts seen with the surgical site.  There is enhancing \ngranulation tissue in the posterior central and left paracentral portion of disc the as well as \nthe  left  lateral  recess  surrounding  the  descending  the  left  L5  nerve.    Shallow  disc \ndisplacement most pronounced in the central position with suggestion of a small posterior \nannular tear at the L5-S1 level. \n \nOn June 2, 2022, the Claimant sought medical treatment for his back condition from CHI  \nSt. Vincent’s Corporate Health, in Hot Springs.  At that time, the Claimant underwent evaluation \nby   Dr. Mark Eugene Larey.  Per these notes, the Claimant began having problems with his back \non June 1, 2022.   Nevertheless, the Claimant reported to Dr. Larey that he injured his back while \nhandling a ring plate with a coworker.  He also reported that he felt a twinge in his left lower back \narea.  The Claimant continued to work and began to have pain/tingling go down the back of his \nleg into the lateral side of his left foot.  Dr. Larey stated that the medical cause of the Claimant’s \nproblem was related to his work activities.  He assessed the Claimant with “Lumbago with sciatica, \nleft side (M54.42).”   XR LUMBAR SPINE 2 or 3 VW taken of the Claimant’s back were \ninterpreted by Dr. Larey as “Normal alignment.  Moderate disc space narrowing L3-4 and marked \nnarrowing of L4-5 with associated facet arthropathy.”       \n  An MRI of the Claimant’s lumbar spine without contrast was performed on June 21, 2022 \n \ndue  to  lumbago  with  sciatica,  left  sided.   Per  this  diagnostic  testing, Dr.  Sorayo  Ong,  the \nradiologist, rendered in applicable part, the following: \n  Findings:  \nL4-5 severe disc bulge, asymmetric towards the right, bilateral arthropathy cause moderate \nneural canal stenosis bilaterally.   \n \nL5-S1, mild disc bulge slightly asymmetric towards the left causes mild right and moderate \nleft neuroforaminal stenoses.  There are lobulated annual stenoses.  There are lobulated \nannular fissures also seen in the posterior midline portion of the disc. \n  \nImpression:  \n1. No acute fracture. \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n14  \n  \n2. Degenerative changes.  The worst levels are L4-5 and L5-S1, where there are bilateral \nneuroforaminal stenosis as noted above.  \n \nThe Claimant underwent evaluation by Dr. Reza Shahim on July 28, 2022, due to a chief \ncomplaint of chronic low back pain.  Dr. Shahim opined: “The Claimant has a combination of facet \ninjury and degenerative disc disease.  I think he mostly has a new facet injury of left L4-5 annular \ntear at L5-S1 this is a work-related injury with radicular pain on the left side.  At that time, Dr. \nShahim stated that he would put the Claimant through a course of physical therapy treatment and \nspinal injections.   \nOn September 21, 2022, Dr. Shahim recommended that the Claimant undergo surgical \nintervention  since  physical  therapy and  injection did  not  provide him  with any significant \nimprovement of his back pain and related symptoms.  At that time, Dr. Shahim noted that he \nreviewed the Claimant’s MRI, and he stated that he believes the radiologist stated that the Claimant \nhas either a combination of a facet cyst from a facet injury and a subligamentous disc herniation \nat left L4-5 causing nerve root compression, which failed conservative management.  Therefore, \nDr. Shahim recommended surgical treatment including a redo discectomy or he may require a \nfusion.  Dr. Shahim assessed the Claimant with lumbar radiculopathy which was located on the \nleft L4 left posterior dermatome.  \n  The Claimant returned to Dr. Shahim for a follow-up evaluation on October 12, 2022, for \nreevaluation of his lumbar spine pain.  He recommended surgery for the Claimant since he failed \nconservative treatment.  Per these clinical notes, Dr. Shahim stated that the Claimant’s accident \nwas the cause of his new onset of symptoms, which entailed back, hip, and left leg pain.   At that \ntime, Dr. Shahim stated that the radiologist misread the MRI.  Specifically, Dr. Shahim opined that \nthe Claimant does have a combination of facet hypertrophy disc herniation left L4-5 causing severe \nnerve root compression on the left side contributing to his symptoms.  Dr. Shahim further stated \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n15  \n  \nthat he would submit a request to workers’ compensation for authorization of a left L45 redo \ndiscectomy.  The Claimant was scheduled for a follow-up visit with Dr. Shahim after he finished \nhis physical therapy treatment.  He diagnosed the Claimant “Herniated disc, lumbar.  Intervertebral \ndisc disorders with myelopathy, lumbar region (M51.06) Pain intensity was a 7.0 - 7/10.” \n  On January 12, 2023, Dr. Shahim saw the Claimant for follow-up evaluation of his chronic \nback pain and related symptoms.  Dr. Shahim noted that he reviewed the Claimant’s previous MRI \nwith him in detail that shows “spondylosis with stenosis L4-L5.”  Per this medical report, the \nClaimant reported to Dr. Shahim that he was not having any symptoms prior to his work-related \naccident in May of last year.  Dr. Shahim opined in relevant part: \nHe is having radicular pain in the left leg associated with what appears to be either a \nrecurrent disc herniation or a facet cyst associated with inflammation of the joint at L4-5 \non the left side this not read well by radiologist.  I do believe that his injury is directly \nrelated to the workers’ compensation accident are directly related too the pinched nerve at \nleft L4-5 he is already fell more than six months of conservative management including \ninjections which were not effective medical activity modification.  I do not believe he had \na pre-existing condition so I would recommend at this point for the insurance to approve \nredo discectomy left L4-5 if they do not agree with my opinion they can send him for a \nsecond opinion. \n \n  On April 3, 2023, Dr. Shahim authored an amendment to his March 13, 2023, clinic notes.  \nPer this amendment, Dr. Shahim stated that he was releasing the Claimant from care because they \nhad received multiple denial by workers’ comp for his treatments due to the Claimant’s condition \nbeing pre-existing.      \n                        ADJUDICATION  \nCompensability  \n  The Claimant has asserted that he sustained a compensable accidental work-related back \ninjury while performing his employment duties for his employer, Reynolds Consumer Products, \non May 20, 2022.   \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n16  \n  \nSpecifically, the Claimant contends that he sustained a back injury in the course and scope \nof his employment at Reynolds while working with a coworker during a lifting incident involving \nan O-ring plate.   \nThe Respondents contend that the Claimant has no objective medical findings of an injury \ndue to the May 20, 2022, incident because his low back condition is a pre-existing condition.  They \nfurther contend that the MRI taken before the accident is the same as the MRI taken after the \naccident.   \nThe burden of proving a specific incident compensable injury is the employee’s and must \nbe proved by a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i).  If the \nClaimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of the  evidence  any  of  the  requirements  for \nestablishing the compensability of a claim, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).   \n   \"Compensable injury\" means an accidental injury causing physical harm to the body, \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services or results in \ndisability or death.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i).  A compensable injury must be established \nby medical evidence supported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Supp. \n2019).  “Objective findings” are those findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the \npatient.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  Complaints of pain are not considered objective \nmedical findings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(ii)(a).    \n   After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party, I find that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence \nthat he sustained a work-related back injury on May 20, 2022.  More specifically, I cannot find the \nexistence of a causal connection between the Claimant’s May 20, 2022, employment related \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n17  \n  \nincident/activities, and the medically documented objective findings for his alleged back injury as \ndemonstrated on his June 2022 lumbar MRI.  \n   In the case at bar, the Claimant worked for Reynolds Consumer Products for over eighteen  \nyears.  His most recent employment duties entailed those of a roll grinder.  The claimant has an \nextremely extensive history of significant back problems dating back to 2002.  The Claimant has \nundergone two prior back surgeries at L4-5.  Beginning in 2002, the Claimant underwent lumbar \ndecompression and discectomy at L4-5 by Dr. Zachary Mason.  His testimony demonstrates that \nafter a lengthy recovery time he returned to work with no physical limitations or restrictions.  \nAccording to the Claimant, his back did well until 2011.  At that time, the Claimant sustained a \nsecond injury at the same level.  In October 2011, Dr. Schlesinger performed back surgery at the \nsame level.  The medical records show that Dr. Schlesinger performed “a redo lumbar discectomy \nat L4-5.” \n   Although the Claimant initially maintained he did well after his second back surgery, he \nadmitted that he obtained an MRI of his lumbar spine after his 2011 surgery due to continued \ncomplaints of back pain and related symptoms.  On direct examination, the Claimant further \nmaintained that he complained of back pain and left leg symptoms, but his leg symptoms stopped \nat the knee.  However, on cross-examination, after being presented with a medical exhibit by the \nRespondents’ attorney that showed he previously complained of pain all the way down to his left \nfoot, the Claimant admitted that his prior symptoms extended into his left foot with associated \nnumbness and tingling.  In fact, the Claimant’s back symptoms and leg problems were severe \nenough for him to seek a lumbar MRI in 2012. Although I am convinced that the Claimant is a \ndiligent and valuable employee of Reynolds, I found his testimony to be less than forthcoming \nregarding his prior identical symptoms.    \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n18  \n  \n  Nevertheless, I am persuaded that there was a work-related incident on May 20, 2020, \ninvolving the Claimant’s back as he attempted to lift a 140 pound 0-ring with a  coworker.  \nHowever, I am not convinced that the Claimant has met his burden of proof of a compensable back  \ninjury resulting from the May 20 incident by objective medical evidence to establish the existence \nof a work-related injury.  Our case law is clear on this issue.  A compensable injury must be \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings. In that regard, although the \nClaimant complained of pain after his work incident and now attributes his back condition and \nneed for surgery to the May 20 incident, there are no objective findings in support of that \nconclusion- only the maintain sequence of events and the alleged new symptoms.   \nHere, the medical evidence presented by the Claimant from his lumbar MRI of June 2022  \ncontains only pre-existing degenerative changes, in the form of the following:  \nFindings:  \nL4-5 severe disc bulge, asymmetric towards the right, bilateral arthropathy cause moderate \nneural canal stenosis bilaterally.   \n \nL5-S1, mild disc bulge slightly asymmetric towards the left causes mild right and moderate \nleft neuroforaminal stenoses.  There are lobulated annual stenoses.  There are also lobulated \nannular fissures seen in the posterior midline portion of the disc. \n \nImpression: \n3. No acute fracture. \n4. Degenerative changes.  The worst levels are L4-5 and L5-S1, where there are bilateral \nneuroforaminal stenosis as noted above.  \n \nIt is well-established in workers’ compensation law that a pre-existing condition may be \naggravated by a work-related and be found compensable as a new injury.  However, I do not find \nthat to be the case here.  I reached this conclusion based on the following probative evidence. \n  Here, the Claimant’s complaints and related symptoms are identical to those he complained \nof in 2012, which included back pain, and pain and tingling and numbness down into his left leg.  \nThe Claimant’s current complaints of back pain and related symptoms are at the same level that \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n19  \n  \nresulted in his prior two back surgeries.  There are no new objective findings of an injury to his \nback.  In fact, the findings on the 2012 lumbar MRI are identical to Claimant’s most recent lumbar \nMRI in 2022, which was performed after this May 20 work-related incident.  Most significantly, \nall of the objective medical findings on the 2022 MRI are degenerative in nature and pre-existed \nhis work incident.        \nUnder  these  circumstances, I  am  convinced it  would  require  sheer  conjecture  and \nspeculation to attribute the Claimant’s back condition to his work activities with this respondent-\nemployer/Reynolds on May 20, 2022.  Conjecture and speculation, however plausible, cannot \nsupply the place of proof.  Dena Construction Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 575 S.W. 2d 155 \n(1979).  Therefore, I must find that the Claimant failed to establish by medical evidence supported \nby objective medical findings that he sustained a compensable back injury in the course and scope \nof his employment within the meaning of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.  \nI realize that Dr. Shahim opined that the Claimant’s current back complaints are caused by \nhis work-related incident of May 20, 2022.  I have attached minimal weight to this expert opinion \nbecause it was based on an incomplete/inaccurate history of no continual back symptoms by the \nClaimant, namely that his 2011 surgery resolved his problems.  It also appears that Dr. Shahim did \nnot  review  the  Claimant’s  prior  lumbar  MRI  from  2012  and  because  both  MRIs  revealed \nessentially  the identical degenerative changes,  including  the  annular fissures.   Also, when \ncomparing the 2012 lumbar MRI to the lumbar MRI from 2022, I am unable to find the Claimant \nsustained new facet injury or that the radiologist misread the 2022 MRI, considering that the \nrelevant objective medical findings  (all of which are pre-existing degenerative changes) are \npresent on both diagnostic exams.  Most notably, the Claimant has continued working since his \n\nWRIGHT – H207039  \n  \n  \n20  \n  \nMay  20  work-related  incident  without  any  modification  of  his  work  duties  or  any  special \naccommodation being made by his employer.   \nAdditionally, for all of the same aforementioned reasons, minimal weight has been assigned \nto Dr. Larey’s expert opinion stating that the Claimant’s current back symptoms are related to his \nemployment duties on May 20, 2022, primarily because Dr. Larey was provided an inaccurate \nhistory of the Claimant’s  prior ongoing chronic back problems and complaints dating back to  \n2012, which existed at the time of his May 20, 2022 work-related incident.    \n      Having found that the Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, the issue pertaining \nto medical benefits for this injury is rendered moot and therefore has not been addressed herein \nthis opinion.     \n                               ORDER   \n  \nIn accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim \nfor a back injury is hereby respectfully denied and dismissed in its entirety.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n                            _______________________________  \n              CHANDRA L. BLACK       \n           ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207039 BILLY WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT. SERVICES, INC., CARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 15, 2024 A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandr...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:56:32.678Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207039-2024-03-15","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WRIGHT_BILLY_H207039_20240315.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}