{"id":"alj-H207088-2025-10-30","awcc_number":"H207088","decision_date":"2025-10-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Beverly Rice","employer_name":"Baptist Health","title":"RICE VS. BAPTIST HEALTH AWCC# H207088 October 30, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:4","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RICE_BEVERLY_H207088_20251030.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"RICE_BEVERLY_H207088_20251030.pdf","text_length":11621,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H207088 \n \nBEVERLY A. RICE, EMPLOYEE       CLAIMANT \n \nvs \n \nBAPTIST HEALTH,               RESPONDENT \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER \n \nCLAIMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVCICES, TPA         RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION & ORDER FILED 30 OCTOBER 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge \nJayO. Howe on 24 September 2025 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant appeared pro se. \nThe respondents appeared through Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., Ms. Melissa Wood. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A Prehearing Order was entered on 22 July 2025 and admitted to the record as \nCommission’s Exhibit No 1. Consistent with that Order, the parties agreed to the following \nfor this litigation: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission)  \n  has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n 2. The self-insured employer/employee/TPA relationship existed at all  \n  relevant times, including 17 January 2022, when the claimant   \n  suffered a compensable injury to the middle finger on her right hand. \n \n 3. The claimant’s average weekly wage at the time of her injury was  \n  $505.25, which would entitle her to weekly temporary total disability  \n  (TTD) and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits of $337 and  \n  $253, respectively. \n \n 4. The claimant was released to return to full-duty work with a zero  \n  percent (0%) impairment rating. \n \n\nB. Rice- H207088 \n2 \n \n 5. The claimant sought and received a Change of Physician to   \n  Dr. Bryan Head. \n \nISSUE TO BE LITIGATED \n 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment. \nAll other issues are reserved. \nCONTENTIONS \n The Prehearing Order set out the following contentions from the parties’ respective \nprehearing questionnaire responses: \n Claimant \nThe claimant contends that she sustained a compensable injury to her right \nmiddle finger while delivering a patient’s meal tray. The door to the cart \nswung open and smashed the claimant’s right middle finger. The claimant \ncontends that the injury has caused her finger to stiffen as time has gone on. \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \n Respondent \nThe respondents contend that all appropriate benefits have been paid with \nregard to this matter. The medical records do not support the need for \nadditional medical treatment nor the entitlement to indemnity benefits \nassociated with the claimant’s compensable injury. \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized below, \nand having heard testimony from the witness, observing her demeanor, I make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nis entitled to additional medical treatment of her stipulated compensable \nright middle finger injury. \n \n \n\nB. Rice- H207088 \n3 \n \nADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). A \nclaimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \n The record consists of the hearing transcript and the following exhibits: \nCommission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 22 July 2025 Prehearing Order) and Respondents’ Exhibit \nNo 1 (one index page and 17 pages of medical records). The claimant was the only witness. \nTestimony \n The claimant is 63 years old and has been working for Baptist (its varying corporate \nnames and changing facility designations notwithstanding) since 1978. She was working for \nRespondent-employer Baptist Health when she injured her right middle finger while \npassing out patient food trays. She testified that food trays are delivered to the patient \nrooms via large rolling carts and the door to the cart she was using smashed her finger. \n\nB. Rice- H207088 \n4 \n \nAfter she reported her injury, the respondents accepted the claim as compensable and \nbegan providing benefits. \n The claimant treated with Dr. Richard Wirges, who initially provided some injection \ntherapy before eventually performing trigger release surgery. Dr. Wirges put the claimant \non light duty while she recovered from surgery. The claimant disagreed with Dr. Wirges’ \nopinion when he later released her from care at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and \nreturned her to full-duty work without any impairment rating or restrictions. The claimant \nthen obtained a Change of Physician to Dr. Bryan Head. The claimant recalled Dr. Head \nproviding her two more injections that only helped with her reported pain for a few days. \nShe continues working essentially the same job duties for essentially the same pay as \nbefore her injury, although her position was recently absorbed by a third party who now \ncontracts with Baptist for various services. \n On cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged prior hand surgeries with Dr. \nWirges that were not related to her stipulated compensable injury. She testified that she \ncontinues to experience some occasional soreness and numbness that she attributes to this \ninjury.\n1\n “I’m just wondering why my hand is still bothering me,” she said. She believes that \nshe could benefit from additional injection therapy to address some stiffening and “hard \nskin” that she still experiences. \nMedical Records \n The claimant did not introduce any medical or other documentary evidence into the \nrecord. The respondents provided medical records that showed that the claimant previously \n \n1\n At the end of her testimony, the claimant spoke about believing that she is entitled to an \nimpairment rating and the indemnity benefits associated with the same. We briefly \ndiscussed that whether she was entitled to the assignment of an impairment rating had not \nbeen anticipated as part of this litigation and that she had reserved all other available \nissues for future litigation. \n\nB. Rice- H207088 \n5 \n \nunderwent right thumb and right carpel tunnel surgeries. Regarding her compensable \ninjury, Dr. Wirges released the claimant from care and back to full duty on 18 November \n2022. He noted at the time that she had some early arthritic changes.  \n In a subsequent note, dated 11 January 2023, he confirmed that, “She will return to \nall activities with no restrictions and no limitations and she has no impairment. She is at \nMMI.” A note from Dr. Head’s office on 18 January 2024 also shows that the claimant was \nreleased to work with no restrictions. \nDISCUSSION \n The parties have stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her \nright middle finger. At issue is whether she is entitled to additional medical treatment \nsince her initial release from care at MMI and continued work-without-restrictions status \nafter obtaining a Change of Physician. For the reasons explained below, she has failed to \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment. \n Employers must promptly provide medical services which are reasonably necessary \nin connection with compensable injuries. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). However, injured \nemployees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical \ntreatment is reasonably necessary. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 \nS.W.3d 31 (2004). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a fact \nquestion for the Commission, and the resolution of this issue depends upon the sufficiency \nof the evidence. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996).  \n A claimant may be entitled to additional treatment even after her healing period is \nended, if that treatment is geared towards management of a compensable injury. Patchell, \nsupra. Such services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the nature and extent \nof the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms resulting from the \n\nB. Rice- H207088 \n6 \n \ncompensable injury; maintaining the level of healing achieved; or preventing further \ndeterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury. Jordan v. Tyson Foods, \nInc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995). An employee who has sustained a \ncompensable injury is not required to offer objective medical evidence in order to prove that \nshe is entitled to additional treatment. Ark. Health Ctr. v. Burnett, 2018 Ark. App. 427, 558 \nS.W.3d 408.  \n As noted above, the claimant relied only on her testimony to advance her contention \nthat she is entitled to additional medical treatment. Specifically, she argued that the \nrespondents should be liable for additional injection therapy which she hopes might address \nwhat she perceives as soreness and stiffness attributable to her compensable injury. But by \nher own admission, she received little pain relief in her hand after her last two injections. \n Dr. Wirges first released the claimant to full-duty work without restrictions in \nNovember of 2022. He then clarified in January of 2023 that despite some lingering \ncomplaints of pain and soreness, the claimant had achieved MMI. I find his reports to be \ncredible. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002) (The \nCommission is authorized to accept or reject a medical opinion and is authorized to \ndetermine its medical soundness and probative value). \n Since obtaining a Change of Physician to Dr. Head, the records show that the \nclaimant’s work status continues to be without restrictions. The only suggestion that she \nmight benefit from additional treatment is her unsupported opinion that more injections \ncould help with occasional soreness or stiffness that she believes (without supporting \ncredible evidence) is attributable to her compensable injury. The claimant is 63 years old \nwith some signs of arthritis are noted in the records. Her subjective complaints of \noccasional pain and stiffness in her thrice operated-on hand are not enough to support a \nfinding that additional medical treatment is reasonable or necessary. I find the claimant’s \n\nB. Rice- H207088 \n7 \n \nconcerns about her hand being sore to be sincere, but I do not find those concerns to be of \nsufficient weight to sustain her evidentiary burden. She has thus failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional medical treatment. \nCONCLUSION \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to additional medical treatment. This claim for additional benefits is therefore \nDENIED AND DISMISSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n____________________________________ \n       JayO. Howe \n       Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207088 BEVERLY A. RICE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT vs BAPTIST HEALTH, RESPONDENT SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER CLAIMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVCICES, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION & ORDER FILED 30 OCTOBER 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Ju...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:01.531Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207088-2025-10-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RICE_BEVERLY_H207088_20251030.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}