{"id":"alj-H207258-2024-08-06","awcc_number":"H207258","decision_date":"2024-08-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Antwaun Perkins","employer_name":null,"title":"PERKINS VS. CENTRAL MALONEY, INC.AWCC# H207258August 6, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:4","denied:8"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck","strain","cervical","back","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PERKINS_ANTWAUN_H207258_20240806.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"PERKINS_ANTWAUN_H207258_20240806.pdf","text_length":22949,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H207258 \n \nANTWAUN R. PERKINS, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nCENTRAL MALONEY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER        RESPONDENT \n    \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR           RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 6 AUGUST 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 9 May 2024 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nTolley & Brooks, Ms. Evelyn Brooks, for the claimant. \n \nFriday, Eldridge & Clark, Mr. Guy Wade, for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 9 May 2024 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The \nparties participated in a pre-hearing telephone conference on 27 February 2024. A \nPrehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1, \nwas entered on 5 March 2024. This claim involves a right shoulder injury that was accepted \nas compensable. \nThe Order stated the ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: \n1. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional medical benefits for right shoulder \nsurgery and other past treatment. \n \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for \nthe dates between his last date worked and return to work after right shoulder \nsurgery. \n \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n \nAll other issues were reserved. \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n2 \n \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their Prehearing Questionnaire \nResponses, were incorporated into the Prehearing Order.  \nPer the claimant’s CONTENTIONS, he is entitled to medical benefits associated with \nsurgery on his right shoulder and TTD benefits for the time off work for and around that \nsurgery. \nPer the respondents’ CONTENTIONS, the claimant was treated for an accepted \ninjury and released on 5 December 2022 at maximum medical improvement (MMI), full \nduty without restrictions. The claimant later sought unauthorized treatment for an injury \nnot related to work. That later treatment was for a degenerative condition that did not exist \nat the time of the testing or treatment for the compensable injury. \nThat Order also set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  An employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on or about 27 September 2022, \nwhen the claimant sustained a compensable and accepted right shoulder injury. \n \n3.  The claimant earned an average weekly wage at the time relevant to this claim that \nentitled him to a TTD rate of $519 per week and a Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) \nrate of $389 per week. \n \nThe claimant was the sole WITNESS to testify at the hearing. The transcript \nreflects that Mr. Michael Bryant was sworn as a witness for the respondents at the \nbeginning of the proceedings, but he was not called to testify.  \nThe EVIDENCE presented consisted of the testimony along with Commission’s \nExhibit No 1 (the 5 March 2024 Prehearing Order), Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (43 pages of \nmedical records), and Respondents’ Exhibit No 1 (45 pages of medical records). \n \n \n \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n3 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the \nwitness, observing his demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of \nlaw under ACA § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The previously noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nadditional medical benefits related to his right shoulder surgery. \n \n4.  The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nTTD benefits for the time between his date last worked and return to work after \nright shoulder surgery. \n \n5. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nan attorney’s fee. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY & MEDICAL EVIDENCE \nClaimant Antwaun R. Perkins \nThe claimant began working for Respondent Central Moloney, Inc. on a permanent \nbasis in December of 2019, after starting there sometime earlier as a temporary employee. \nHe works as a coil winder, producing components for electrical transformers.  \nMr. Perkins testified that in the evening of 27 September 2022, he was moving a coil \nup onto a mandrel when it started to slip from the machine. When he caught it, he felt a \npain in his right shoulder. He reported his injury to his supervisor Mr. Michael Bryant, \ntelling him that he felt a “pull” in his shoulder. [TR at 16.] The respondents subsequently \nconnected the claimant with care for his injury from Dr. Charles Pearce. X-ray and MRI \nimaging was performed, and the claimant was ordered to participate in physical therapy. \n The claimant testified that he was placed on light-duty restrictions during the six \nweeks or so that he participated in physical therapy. Upon completion of physical therapy, \nhe returned to work without any restrictions. The claimant stated that his shoulder was not \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n4 \n \n“a hundred percent” and that he experienced “a little pain,” but that he went on working \nwithout complaint. [TR at 19.] \n Then, the following September, the claimant explained, “One night when I raised \nthe hammer to hit [a coil], that’s when it – I had excruciating pain in that shoulder and it \nwas just a sharp pain. I almost dropped the hammer, and I went to the supervisor’s office \nand told him again. I said, ‘The shoulder’s giving me problems again.’” Id. The claimant was \nreturned to Dr. Pearce’s care; he stated that Dr. Pearce declined to offer further treatment \nafter ordering additional imaging.  \n The claimant testified that he remained off work and sought unauthorized care from \nhis physician Dr. Timmothy Reece, who ordered additional imaging and then referred him \non to see Drs. Roy Burrell and Gordon Birk. During his course of treatment, the claimant \nreceived at least one injection before undergoing shoulder surgery. He utilized Family \nMedical Leave Act time while out for his treatments until returning to work on the 15\nth\n or \n16\nth\n of January 2024. Since returning to work, his shoulder has been “a lot better, a lot \nbetter” and “not hurting nearly as bad.” [TR at 25.]  \n According to the claimant, his shoulder pain was the same in 2023 as it was in 2022: \nQ:  And was that the same location or a different location that was hurting \nwhen you lifted the hammer? \nA:  Same location. \nQ:  Has the pain been in the same area from the first coil injury in September \nof 2022? \nA:  Yes. \nQ:  And the joint, could you describe how it felt, how it bothered you? \nA:  I could raise my arm and I could feel like a ship [sic] pain shoot through it \nor certain kind of movements, I could feel the pain. \nQ:  Before the accident in September of 2022, had you had any trouble with \nthat right shoulder? \nA:  None. \nQ:  And between the time of that accident with the coil, and then, lifting the \nhammer in September of 2023, had you had any other injuries to that right \nshoulder? \nA:  No, I hadn’t. \n \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n5 \n \n[TR at 26.] \n On cross examination, the claimant confirmed that he reported his injury in 2022 to \nhis supervisor and that he returned to his shift after they completed some paperwork. He \nconfirmed being directed to treatment after experiencing some trouble with his shoulder the \nnext day. He recalled Dr. Pearce ordering imaging and sending him for physical therapy. \nThe claimant acknowledged that Dr. Pearce found him to be at MMI on 5 December 2022, \nreturned him to work without restrictions, and assigned him a zero percent impairment \nrating. [TR at 32-33.] \n The claimant testified that in September of 2023, he was seen by Dr. Pearce again \nafter reporting an injury to his supervisor (again). He said that Dr. Pearce examined him, \nordered X-rays of his neck and both shoulders, and then stopped treating him (after the \nrespondents denied his claims for additional treatment). The claimant then sought \nunauthorized treatment with Dr. Reece and, eventually, other providers using his \nemployer’s group insurance plan. He recalled undergoing an arthroscopic shoulder \nprocedure in November of 2023 before Dr. Birk returned him to work without restrictions in \nthe middle of January 2024. While he recalled undergoing MRI scans of his right shoulder \nin October of 2022 and then again in October of 2023, the claimant said that he had not \nexamined those reports.  \n Having testified earlier that he still experienced pain after his full-duty release in \n2022, the claimant acknowledged that he did not make any complaints of shoulder pain or \ntrouble working in the time between his first return to work and then reporting another \ninjury in September of 2023. \nQ:  Okay. During the ten months that you worked between your release in \nDecember of 2022, until the complaints in September of 2023, did you ever \nreport to Mr. Bryant or to the plant nurse or anybody else that you were \nhaving problems with your right shoulder? \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n6 \n \nA:  No, I didn’t, because I thought that it – that it—it wasn’t worth—I mean, \nbad enough to complain about it. \nQ:  So you didn’t tell anybody, didn’t report anything, and you continued to do \neverything that was required of your job during that time? \nA:  Right. \n \n[TR at 39-40.] Mr. Perkins concluded his testimony by confirming that he did not consider \nthe pain he felt in 2023 as a new injury.  \nMedical Records \n The claimant first sought treatment the day after his 27 September 2022 shoulder \ninjury. His X-rays were reported as normal. He was assessed with a shoulder strain, \nprescribed Naproxen for pain, and given no-lifting restrictions. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 8-9.] \n At his 3 October 2022 return appointment, the claimant reported little \nimprovement. He was referred to physical therapy three times per week, for the next two \nweeks. Work restrictions remained in place, and a follow-up was scheduled for three weeks \nout. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 15-16.] \n The claimant followed up on 18 October 2022 after completing his ordered physical \ntherapy; he stated that his range of motion was improved, but that his pain was worse. His \nwork restrictions remained while an MRI was ordered. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 21-22.] \n The MRI report from 24 October 2022 states: \n CONCLUSION: \n1.  Moderate degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular joint. There is also \ncapsular edema, which could be reactive/degenerative in nature or indicative of a \nsuperimposed low-grade capsular injury. AC alignment is maintained. \n \n2.  Mild tendinopathy of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons without \ndiscrete tear. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 23.] \n On 31 October 2022, the claimant saw Dr. Pearce at UAMS. The MRI report was \nreviewed, and the clinic notes from that visit include an X-ray report stating, “FINDINGS \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n7 \n \nAND IMPRESSION: Moderate AC Joint degeneration is seen.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 24.] He was \nprescribed a Medrol Dosepak and diclofenac. His work restrictions were continued, with the \nnote also stating that, “[w]e feel that his shoulder pain is related to an acute injury related \nto the on-the-job injury as described above.” He was expected to return in a month’s time. \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 25-26.] \n The claimant returned to care on 5 December 2022, and Dr. Pearce charted: \nIMPRESSION:  Essentially resolved right shoulder pain [with] possible \nunderlying mild AC joint arthrosis. \n \nPLAN: 1.  The patient has reached maximal medical improvement as of \ntoday’s date December 5, 2022. \n 2.  The patient can return to regular work duties without restriction. \n 3.  We will provide the patient with Thera-Bands for home use. \n 4.  Continue home stretching daily. \n5.  The patient has sustained a 0% permanent impairment set forth by \nthe American Medical Association, 4\nth\n Edition. \n 6.  Recheck as needed. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 30.] \n After more than nine months without incident, the claimant reported pain to his \nsupervisor again in September of 2023. The claimant presented again to Dr. Pearce. The \nnote from that visit states: \nINJURY DATE:  Original injury date was September 27, 2022. \n \nHPI:  The patient was last seen by me on December 5, 2022 and released \nfrom care. He had essentially resolved symptoms. He tells me that he has had \nsome continued intermittent trouble and points to his trapezius as the area of \nconcern. No new injury. He does a lot [of] lifting at work. He works at Central \nMaloney. He does not have referred pain. He has been taking some ibuprofen \nas needed for pain. \n \nRIGHT SHOULDER:  Appears Normal. Mild generalized tenderness in his \ntrapezius. Full glenohumeral motion. Good strength all planes. No \ninstability. \n \nIMAGING:  X-rays of his right shoulder ordered and interpreted by me show \nno bony abnormality. X-rays of his cervical spine show... some narrowing at \nC5-C6. \n \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n8 \n \nIMPRESSION:  Right shoulder girdle pain possibly cervical in nature. \n \nPLAN: 1.  The patient is not at maximal medical improvement. \n2.  Either MRI scan cervical spine or referral to 1 of our spine \nsurgeons for further evaluation and care. \n 3.  Continue regular work duties. \n  4.  Recheck with me as needed. \n5.  No change in impairment rating as it pertains to the shoulder. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 30.] \n According to the claimant’s testimony, he then began seeking unauthorized \ntreatment and saw Dr. Roy Burrell on 10 October 2023, after undergoing an MRI scan on 3 \nOctober 2023. The note from the encounter with Dr. Burrell states that the claimant sought \nearlier care for a 2022 injury and that “it was not completely debilitating and [he returned \nto work] still having some pain in the shoulder. Patient states now it is back.” The radiology \nimpression from that visit included, “Degenerative change AC joint. Degenerative signal \nsuperior labrum. This is suspicious for SLAP tear. Lack of joint distention on this \nevaluation. No paralabral cyst. Mild tendinosis infraspinatus.” He was referred for a \npossible labral tear repair. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 34.] \n The MRI report showed the following findings: \nAC Joint: There is mild degenerative spurring. Moderate soft tissue \nthickening and mild reactive marrow edema. No joint effusion. No fluid seen \nwithin subacromial/subdeltoid bursa. \n \nThe biceps tendon is intact. No joint distention. Degenerative signal superior \nlabrum is suspicious for SLAP tear. Consider further workup with \narthrogram as clinically warranted. No paralabral cyst. \n \nThe rotator cuff is intact. Mild tendinosis infraspinatus. No muscle edema or \natrophy. No marrow abnormality. \n \nIMPRESSION: Degenerative change AC joint. Degenerative signal superior \nlabrum. This is suspicious for SLAP tear. Lack of joint distention on this \nevaluation. No paralabral cyst. \n \nMild tendinosis infraspinatus. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 32.] \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n9 \n \nThe claimant then saw Dr. Reece on 16 October 2023, who noted that the claimant \nhad received an injection in his shoulder, but that it had only helped him temporarily. The \ndiagnosis plan states, “His right shoulder MRI shows AC joint DJD [degenerative joint \ndisease] and findings consistent with a labral tear. I have discussed options with him this is \nsomething this been ongoing now for quite some time he wants to go ahead and proceed \nwith right shoulder arthroscopy possible debridement of the versus repair of the labrum \nand then possible AC joint DCE.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 37.] An operative report dated 9 \nNovember 2023 records that some fraying around the labrum was addressed, but no tears \nwere observed. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 39-40.] \nA clinic note dated 17 January 2024 provided for the claimant’s return to work \nwithout restrictions on 16 January 2024. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 43.] \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted as fact. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of the witnesses and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 \n(1999).   \nA.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL MEDICAL BENEFITS. \n \nThe claimant is not entitled to additional medical benefits for his right shoulder \nsurgery. In September of 2022, he sustained a compensable workplace injury that was \naccepted by the respondents, who began providing benefits accordingly. He was treated for \na right shoulder strain, with imaging revealing some tendinopathy and moderate \ndegenerative changes. The claimant remained off work until December of 2023, when Dr. \nPearce released him at MMI to full duty, without restrictions, and without any permanent \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n10 \n \nimpairment rating. The claimant then continued working without any report of difficulty \nuntil September of 2023, when he informed his supervisor that his shoulder was suddenly \n“giving [him] problems again.”  \nUpon examination by Dr. Pearce on 18 September 2023, the claimant was found to \nhave some tenderness, but his shoulder appeared normal, with good strength and no \ninstability. Dr. Pearce reviewed updated imaging and thought that the pain could be \nrelated to some observed cervical disc narrowing. He continued the claimant’s full-duty \nwork status without restrictions and indicated no change in the assigned (zero percent) \nimpairment rating for the claimant’s shoulder. A referral for pain generating from a \npossible spine issue was recommended. \nNearly a month later, on 10 October 2023, the claimant presented to another \nprovider for unauthorized care, where he reported several months of pain. He provided an \nMRI report from the previous week that showed some tendinosis and degenerative changes. \nThe radiologist was suspicious of a possible SLAP tear. The physician referred him to a \npractice partner for further evaluation of the possible SLAP tear. During the eventual \nsurgery, it was found that the claimant, in fact, had not suffered a tear, and the surgeon \nonly addressed the degenerative issues he observed during the procedure. \nAt issue is whether the claimant is entitled to benefits for the shoulder treatment \nreceived after his 18 September 2023 visit to Dr. Pearce. An employer is required to provide \ntreatment that may be reasonably necessary in connection with a compensable injury. ACA \n§ 11-9-508(a). Reasonable and necessary medical services may include those necessary to \ndiagnose a compensable injury, to reduce or alleviate symptoms, to maintain healing, or to \nprevent further deterioration of damage. Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 \nS.W.2d 593 (1995). The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n11 \n \nArk. App. 260, 209 S.W. 3d 445 (2005). In so doing, he must also establish that the \ntreatment is causally related to his stipulated compensable right shoulder injury of \nSeptember 2022. Pulaski Cty. Spec. Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, 2013 Ark. App. 569, 2013 WL \n5592602. \nI find Dr. Pearce’s December 2022 opinion placing the claimant at MMI at that time \nto be credible. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002) (the \nCommission may accept or reject a medical opinion and determine its probative value). I \nfurther credit his findings in September of 2023, when he found the claimant’s shoulder to \nappear normal, continued his full-duty work without restrictions, and referred him for \npossible investigation of cervical issues creating his pain. Dr. Pearce did not assess a new \nshoulder injury or believe additional treatment was necessary, as related to the \ncompensable shoulder injury. Degenerative changes were consistent across the 2022 and \n2023 MRI findings, and the surgery that claimant ultimately underwent did not reveal a \ntear that he could relate back to his compensable injury. \nAccordingly, I do not find the course of treatment that the claimant undertook \naddressing the degenerative issues in his shoulder to be reasonably necessary treatment \nrelated to his compensable injury. His claim for medical benefits is, therefore, denied. \nB.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO TTD BENEFITS RELATED TO HIS \nTIME OFF FOR SHOULDER SURGERY. \n \nThe next issue in this litigation is whether the claimant is entitled to additional TTD \nbenefits associated with his time off from work for unauthorized treatment of his shoulder. \nA claimant must prove his entitlement to TTD benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3). Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having \ngreater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. \n269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). For an unscheduled injury such as the one to the claimant’s \n\nA. PERKINS- H207258 \n12 \n \nshoulder injury, temporary total disability (TTD) is a period within the healing period in \nwhich the employee suffers a total incapacity to earn any wages. Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. \nBreshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981). A “healing period” is “that period for \nhealing of an injury resulting from an accident.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(12). The healing \nperiod ends when the underlying condition has become stable and nothing further in the \nway of treatment will improve that condition. Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Partker, 4 Ark. App. 124, \n628 S.W.2d 582 (1982).  Whether a healing period has ended is a question of fact for the \nCommission. Dallas County Hospital v. Daniels, 74 Ark. App. 177, 47 S.W.3d 283 (2001). \nHere, the claimant presented for reevaluation nine months after his release at MMI \nwithout restrictions. I credit Dr. Pearce’s opinion that the claimant’s healing period ended \nin December of 2023. The claimant failed to provide a preponderance of evidence in support \nof his claim that he either remained in or started a new healing period relating to his \ncompensable shoulder injury after December of 2023. He is not entitled to benefits \nassociated with his time off from work for treatment of his degenerative shoulder condition. \nHis claim for TTD benefits is, therefore, denied. \nC.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY’S FEE. \n \nBecause the claimant failed to meet his burden on the issue above, he is not entitled \nto an attorney’s fee. \nV.  ORDER \n     Consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, this claim for \nadditional benefits is denied and dismissed.  \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H207258 ANTWAUN R. PERKINS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CENTRAL MALONEY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 6 AUGUST 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:50.105Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207258-2024-08-06","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PERKINS_ANTWAUN_H207258_20240806.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}