{"id":"alj-H207576-2023-09-29","awcc_number":"H207576","decision_date":"2023-09-29","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Willie Hinton","employer_name":"B H I Energy Inc","title":"HINTON VS. B H I ENERGY INC. AWCC# H207576 SEPTEMBER 29, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","back","strain","sprain","carpal tunnel"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HINTON_WILLIE_H207576_20230929.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HINTON_WILLIE_H207576_20230929.pdf","text_length":16086,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H207576 \n \nWILLIE HINTON, Employee                                                                                    CLAIMANT \n \nB H I ENERGY INC., Employer                                                                         RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Carrier           RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Russellville, Pope \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant appearing pro se. \n \nRespondents represented by MICHAEL E. RYBURN, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On June 1, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Russellville, Arkansas.  A \npre-hearing conference was conducted on June 1, 2023 and a pre-hearing order was filed on that same \ndate.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made a part \nof the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2.   The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on or about October 11, 2022. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury on or about October 11, 2022. \n2. Compensation rate. \n            3.   Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n            4.   Whether claimant is entitled to medical benefits. \n\nHinton-H207576 \n2 \n \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n The claimant contends that “Worked night shift 10/10/22 6pm-6am. Was off loading/staging \ncamera/communication equipment was near end of shift. Felt a pull-on right hand. Completed shift. \nTold  coworker  (James  Patrick)  what  happened,  left  work.  Woke  1  ½  hours  later  with  swollen \narm/wrist/fingers. Called Bob Dow and reported accident at that time.” \n The respondents contend that “Claimant does not have a compensable injury. All tests \nrevealed no new objective medical findings. Strains are not compensable.” \n From a review of the entire record, including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the claimant \nand  to  observe  his  demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  are  made  in \naccordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.  The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on June 1, \n2023, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.  The stipulations set forth above, as well as the one announced at the hearing, are reasonable, \nand are hereby accepted. \n3.  Claimant has met his burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits beginning October 11, 2022, and continuing through February 22, \n2023. \n4.  Claimant has met his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto reasonable and necessary medical benefits for his right upper extremity injury. \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n During the hearing, the parties stipulated that claimant was earning wages sufficient to entitle \n\nHinton-H207576 \n3 \n \n \nhim to the maximum rate for temporary total disability benefits.  That issue was removed from those \nrecited in the prehearing order.  \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant was  the  only  witness at  the  hearing.  He stated  that  on  October  10,  2022,\n1\n  he  was \nworking for respondent B H I Energy at Arkansas Nuclear One power station in Russellville, moving \nvarious equipment, hoses, and things of that nature. He had felt a pop in his hand and notified his co-\nworker, James Patrick, of the injury. He finished the shift and went to the hotel to sleep before his \nnext shift. He awoke with his fingers, hand, and arm swollen and hurting, at which time he contacted \nhis direct supervisor, Robert Dow. Because he is a veteran, he went to the VA Hospital in Little Rock, \nArkansas where he was x-rayed but no broken bones were found. Claimant took off that night and \nthe following night. When he went back to work, his condition was not any better, so he went back \nto the hospital for more treatment. Around this time, there was a small break in the job, and he was \nallowed to go home. He went to the VA again and sought treatment. He was contacted by his employer \nand sent to a doctor that had been provided to him by the workers’ compensation carrier. After he \nhad  gone  two  times,  he  was  informed  that  the  claim  had  been  denied.  Claimant  then  went  to  his \nprimary care doctor and was treated for his injury. There was an MRI performed, and after the results \nof the MRI, he received a cortisone shot.  \n Claimant  explained  that  he  was  off  work  from  October  11,  2022,  until  February  22,  2023, \nbecause  of  the  injury  that  he  sustained,  for  a  total  of  eighteen  weeks.  He  requested  that  he  be \nreimbursed for his time off work and for any medical expenses that he submitted. \n On cross-examination, claimant was asked if he knew how he injured his right wrist and he \n \n1\n As noted in claimant’s contentions, his shift began on October 10, 2022, but his injury occurred in the morning \nhours of October 11, 2022.  \n\nHinton-H207576 \n4 \n \n \nresponded that he did so while he was lifting camera equipment. He was asked about Respondent’s \nExhibit #1, which was a handwritten letter that included, “I contacted Bob Dow and informed him I \nhad  injured  myself  at  work  but  did  not  know  the  exact  [sic]  it  happen during the shift.” (Claimant \napparently omitted the word “time” in this sentence.) When asked to explain when he was injured and \nhow  it  happened,  claimant  said  that  he  was  lifting  camera  equipment  and  denied  that  it  happened \ngradually; he knew it was toward the end of his shift when he hurt his wrist. Claimant was shown a \nletter that he had written several days after the injury, and which was admitted as Respondent’s Exhibit \n#1. He testified that he knew all along when he was injured. Claimant was asked about the Employer’s \nFirst Report of Injury but had not seen it and did not know where the information came from that \nwas included in that document. Claimant agreed that he had not noticed that his hand was swollen \nuntil after he left work and got up the next morning. When asked how he associated the swelling with \npacking some equipment the night before, claimant said he had informed James Patrick that he had \nhurt it that night. He hurt himself at the end of the shift, then went to the hotel to rest up a bit and \nwoke up to see the swelling. Claimant denied that he hurt himself anywhere other than at work.  \n Claimant was asked about the third impression on the MRI that said, “There is degeneration \nand a possible tear.” Asked if he had been treated for a tear, claimant responded that he  had been \nwearing a splint.  He said initially he was given pills, and the injury wasn’t treated as a tear. As of the \ndate of the hearing, claimant had not had surgery. Claimant did not know why the initial medical report \nsaid there was no trauma because the swelling shown in the pictures indicates that there was trauma. \nClaimant said there weren’t many minutes left in his shift and he finished it, and called in the next \nnight when he went to the hospital. He was scheduled to be off the following night, which gave him \ntwo days to recover and return to work on the third night. He was put on light duty status on that day. \nHe did not go back to work at Nuclear One after one day of light duty. He testified he did not work \n\nHinton-H207576 \n5 \n \n \nagain until February 26, 2023, when he returned to work for respondent BHI. When claimant is not \nworking for BHI, he can work for other companies but did not because he was injured, nor did he \ndraw unemployment.  \n When asked what was wrong with his right hand as of the date of the hearing, he said it is not \nas strong as it was before October 11, 2022, and remains painful. Claimant denied that he had injured \nhis wrist before that injury.  \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n Claimant was first seen in the emergency room at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare \nSystem in Little Rock on October 11, 2022. The diagnosis was that he had soft tissue swelling in his \nright wrist. He was excused from work for one day.  \n Consistent with his testimony, claimant was next seen on October 19, 2022, by a physician’s \nassistant (whose signature is illegible) at an occupational medicine facility called I & O Medical Centers. \nThe diagnosis from that visit was that claimant had a right-hand strain and a right flexor sprain. His \nphysical restrictions were no lifting or pulling more than five pounds, no overhead work with his right \nhand, no climbing, no operation of hazardous machinery or power tools, no commercial driving, no \nworking heights, and no tight gripping with his right hand. He returned to I & O Medical Center on \nOctober 21, 2022. The attending physician or assistant (signature again is illegible) made a referral to \nphysical therapy and continued to restrict claimant’s activities to no lifting or pulling more than ten \npounds,  no  operation  of  hazardous  machinery  or  power  tools,  no  commercial  driving,  no  working \nheights. He was scheduled to return to this provider on November 1, 2022, but according to claimant’s \ntestimony the workers’ compensation carrier refused to continue to pay for his treatment. As such, he \nwas  next  seen  at  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  in  Hampton,  Virginia  by  Dr.  John  Wing. \nClaimant first saw Dr. Wing on October 26, 2022, and Dr. Wing ordered an MRI and initiated therapy \n\nHinton-H207576 \n6 \n \n \nfor his wrist. Dr. Wing also recorded “For the foreseeable future he is not able to work. It is unclear \nwhen he will be released to return to work.”  \n An MRI was performed on November 13, 2022, with the following impressions: \n 1. MRI of right wrist demonstrates moderate diffuse synovitis. \n 2. Diffuse mild tenosynovitis of the flexor tendons of the carpal tunnel, and \n mild tenosynovitis of the fourth extensor compartment. \n 3.  Degeneration  and  possible  tear  of  the  volar  band  of  the  scapholunate \n ligament. \n 4. Degeneration and likely full-thickness perforation of the central disc of the \n TFCC.  \n \n Claimant next saw Dr. Wing on January 12, 2023. Dr. Wing recorded the following: \n“The patient was discovered to have marked synovitis of his right wrist along \nwith a possible tear of one of the ligaments. Patient was seen by a specialist \nand is currently undergoing a rest cure. Patient continues to be disabled from \nthe wrist.”  \n \n The final entry from Dr. Wing is dated June 28, 2023. It appears that Dr. Wing saw claimant \non February 22, 2023, because his note of June 28, 2023, stated that claimant had been released to \nreturn to work on February 22, 2023. Claimant’s treatment was rest along with a cortisone shot. Dr. \nWing also recorded “Patient continues to have right hand pain and stiffness treatment is pending \northopedic reevaluation.”  \n NON-MEDICAL EXHIBITS \n \n            Claimant  submitted  two  photographs  from  October  11,  2022,  of  his  right  wrist  positioned \nalongside his left arm; the swelling in the right arm is evident. The remaining non-medical records that \nclaimant submitted included a bill for services performed at Hampton Roads Ortho Spine and Sports \nMedicine in Newport News, Virginia for the MRI on November 13, 2022, and services rendered at \nthat facility from a subsequent visit on December 13, 2022. It appears the total charges were $2,063.00 \nbut  there  were  adjustments  and  refunds  in  the  amount  of  $1,498.62  and  an  insurance  balance  of \n$290.00. Payments in the amount of $274.38 were made, but the source of the payment is not clear; \n\nHinton-H207576 \n7 \n \n \nthere are references to “commercial payment”. Claimant also submitted pay records to establish his \ncompensation rate. \n Respondents submitted only the handwritten letter referred to in claimant’s testimony. \nADJUDICATION \n \nTo  prove  a  compensable  injury,  the  claimant  must  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence:  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  that  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external  harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; \n(3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16) \nestablishing the injury; and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident and identifiable by time \nand place of occurrence. If the claimant fails to establish any of the requirements for establishing the \ncompensability of the claim, compensation must be denied. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. \nApp. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  A claimant's testimony is never viewed as uncontroverted, but the \nCommission need not reject the claimant's testimony if it finds that testimony worthy of belief. Ringier \nAmerica v. Combs, 41 Ark. App. 47, 849 S.W.2d 1 (1993).  \nHaving had the benefit of seeing claimant testify, I found him to be credible in all aspects of \nhis  testimony.    As  such,  I  believe  he  suffered  an  injury  to  his  right  wrist  in  the  course  of  his \nemployment, and that it was a specific incident that caused it. Contrary to respondent’s contention, \nthe  medical  records  and  the  photographs  of  his  swollen  wrist  provided  objective  evidence  that \nclaimant  had  internal  harm  to  his  body.      Therefore,  claimant  met  his  burden  of  proof  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence on all four elements that he suffered a compensable injury on October \n11, 2022.     \nClaimant  requested  18  weeks  of  temporary  total  disability,  from  October  11, 2022,  until \nFebruary 22, 2023.   A claimant who suffers a scheduled injury is entitled to temporary total disability \n\nHinton-H207576 \n8 \n \n \nbenefits until they reach the end of their healing period or until they return to work, whichever occurs \nfirst. Wheeler Construction Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W. 3d 822 (2001).  Dr. Wing’s records \nsupport the contention that claimant had not reached the end of his healing period until February 22, \n2023, and I am satisfied that it began on October 11, 2022.    \nRegarding past medical expenses, there was no bill from the VA for services it rendered to \nclaimant  for  this  injury.  The  I&O  Medical  Clinic  bills  were  paid  by  respondents.  The  only  bill \nsubmitted  by  claimant  is  the  one  from  Hampton  Road  Ortho  Spine  and  Sports  Med.    Claimant  is \nentitled to be reimbursed for any payments he made toward treatment of his compensable injury, and \nfor any future treatment as may be reasonable and necessary.\n2\n      \n \nORDER \n \n Respondents  are  directed  to  pay  benefits  in  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  set  forth \nherein this Opinion. \nAll accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest \nat the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809.  \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \ntranscript in the amount of $471.5 0. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE \n \n \n2\n Neither the VA nor any private health insurance company was a party to this action.  Nothing about this order is to \nbe understood to absolve respondents from any responsibility it may have to make a reimbursement to either; I simply \ndon’t have the necessary information before me, and as such, that issue is among those that are reserved.","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207576 WILLIE HINTON, Employee CLAIMANT B H I ENERGY INC., Employer RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Russellville, Pope County...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:03:21.427Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207576-2023-09-29","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HINTON_WILLIE_H207576_20230929.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}