{"id":"alj-H207576-2024-08-22","awcc_number":"H207576","decision_date":"2024-08-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Willie Hinton","employer_name":"B H I Energy Inc","title":"HINTON VS. B H I ENERGY INC. AWCC# H207576 August 22, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HINTON_WILLIE_H207576_20240822.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HINTON_WILLIE_H207576_20240822.pdf","text_length":19946,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H207576 \nWILLIE HINTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nB H I ENERGY INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED AUGUST 22, 2024 \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 July 31, 2024, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Russellville, Arkansas. \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on June 6, 2024, and a pre-hearing order was filed on that \nsame date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made \na part of 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.  All prior Opinions are res judicata. \n            3.  The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on or about October 10, 2022.  \n            At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n            1.  Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 20, 2023  \n               to a date to be determined. \n            2.  Whether claimant is entitled to additional medical benefits. \n\nHinton-H207576 \n2 \n \n            3.  Whether claimant is entitled to reimbursement of past medical benefits. \n           4.  Whether claimant is entitled to payment of unpaid medical from last Order. \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n The   claimant   contends that  “He worked   night   shift   10/10/22   6pm-6am.   Was   off \nloading/staging camera/communication equipment was near end of shift. Felt a pull-on right hand. \nCompleted shift. Told coworker (James Patrick) what happened, left work. Woke 1 ½ hours later with \nswollen arm/wrist/fingers. Called Bob Dow and reported accident at that time.” \n The respondents contend that “The healing period ended February 22, 2023. That issue is res \njudicata as it was decided in the previous hearing. There is no proof of a new condition or a new reason \nfor additional temporary total disability. Additional medical treatment is not reasonable or necessary \nand has not been identified by any physician.” \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 \nwitnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.  The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing conference conducted on June \n6, 2024 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. Claimant has met his burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits beginning December 20, 2023. \n 3. Claimant has met his burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to \nbe reimbursed for medical expenses incurred since the date of the previous opinion that are related to \nhis  compensable  right  arm  injury,  both  those  that  he  paid  out  of  pocket  and  those  that  are  still \n\nHinton-H207576 \n3 \n \n \noutstanding upon presentation to respondent of an itemized statement.   \n 4.  Claimant is not entitled to his travel expenses to and from the hearing of this matter.  \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n This is the second hearing on this claim.  As recited above, the opinion issued on September \n29, 2023, is res judicata.  Because it will be referred to in the adjudication section of this opinion, it is \nblue backed to the record in this case.   \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant testified that he worked for respondent BHI Energy Inc. until December 15, 2023, \nwhen his previous injury “regenerated itself and swelling even to the capacity of I couldn’t deal with \nit,  so  I  asked  for  medical attention, and it was denied.”  He sought temporary total disability from \nDecember 20, 2023, to a date to be determined because his doctor removed him from work at that \ntime and he has not been released to return. He requested reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, \npayment for unpaid medical bills related to his injury, an award of future medical benefits, as well as \nexpenses associated with coming to court.  \n When questioned on whether a particular incident happened on December 15, 2023, claimant \nsaid he couldn’t pinpoint anything specific but that it flared back up.   \n On cross-examination, claimant testified that he had not worked for any employer other than \nrespondent BHI since the last hearing.  He explained that his work for that company was not a straight \nforty hours a week but was rather on location as a nuclear refueling technician.  Claimant also stated \nthat on December 15, 2023, the job he was working for respondent BHI had ended. After December \n15, 2023, claimant received a call back for the remaining portion of the job and did not return because \nof the situation he was in. Claimant stated that while he was released to return to work in February \n2023, he was still injured and that what he was complaining of at the present hearing was the same \n\nHinton-H207576 \n4 \n \n \ninjury. Claimant was questioned about his medical treatment from February 2023 until the date of the \nhearing, and that portion of the evidence will be covered in a review of those exhibits. \n When asked if claimant was asking that respondents be ordered to send him to a doctor, he \nstated that he did not want that because he had to choose doctors in order to be treated due to the \ndenial of care from respondent Sedgwick.  Claimant conceded that he did not submit his carrier with \na 6-UB or a HCFA Form. \n After the close of testimony, claimant made closing remarks which it was his position that he \nshould have been sent to medical providers for his injury. In its closing comments, respondent made \nit  clear  that  it  was  relying  on  the  previous  decision  of  this  Court  that  said  the  healing  period  for \ntemporary total disability benefits ended and that nothing in the medical evidence would change the \nend of the healing period. \nREVIEW OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS \n \n Claimant submitted the June 20, 2023, record from Dr. John Wing which was summarized in \nthe previous Opinion. Because it is brief and germane to the issues in this case, it reads as follows: \n“Mr.  Willie  Hinton  is  currently  a  patient  at  the  Hampton  Veteran’s \nAdministration Medical Center. Mr. Hinton has been followed for a right wrist \ninjury since October 11, 2022. He was given a rest cure along with a Cortisone \nshot. MRI  indicated  diffuse  synovitis  along  with  a  tear  in  the  bolar band  of \nscapholunate ligament. Mr. Hinton was released to work on February 22, 2023. \nPatient continues to have right wrist pain and stiffness; treatment is pending \northopedic reevaluation.  Any consideration you might give this veteran would \nbe greatly appreciated.” \n \n On  December  20, 2023, Dr.  Wing  issued  another  short  statement  regarding  claimant’s \ncondition: \n“Mr. Willie Hinton is currently a patient of Hampton Veteran’s Administration \nMedical Center. Mr. Hinton continues to be unable to work due to a right wrist \ninjury  and  is  advised  not  to  work  until  further  treatment  is  given. Any \nconsideration you can give this veteran would be greatly appreciated.”  \n \n\nHinton-H207576 \n5 \n \n \n Claimant  was  next  seen  by  Dr.  Jude  Kotsko  on  January  2,  2024  at  the  Riverside  Regional \nMedical Center Emergency Room.  The chief complaint was “patient is coming in with a right arm \npain history. The same is currently on workers’ compensation for a torn ligament in the right arm. \nExacerbated with  movement,  no  alleviation,  this  is  a  chronic  injury. He  is  wanting  something  for \npain.”  He was released back to his primary care physician and his workers’ compensation physician. \n On  February  5, 2024, claimant’s right hand was x-rayed at  the request  of Dr.  Andrea  Lese.  \nThe report showed “no acute osteo abnormality. Mild to moderate osteoarthritic change in the first \nCMC joint. No significant soft tissue findings.”  The next day, he was seen by Dr. Lese. Claimant gave \na history of his current condition, and Dr. Lese performed a physical examination in which she noted:  \n“Right wrist and forearm; there is dorsal swelling. There is tenderness over \nthe swelling dorsal wrist and forearm with tenderness. Pain with resisted wrist \nextension. Tenderness  over  the  distal  radius,  SL  interval,  snuff  box,  ECU. \nThere   is   pitting   and   nodules   over   the   right   palm   consistent   with \nDupuytren’s.”  \n \n Dr. Lese’s assessment and plan was a right wrist and forearm tenosynovitis for which she did \nnot  have  a  surgical  solution. Dr.  Lese  thought  claimant  might  have  a  seronegative  systemic \ninflammatory condition. She referred claimant to physical therapy.  \n Claimant  began  physical  therapy  on  February  9,  2024, at  Riverside  Outpatient  Therapy.  \nTherapist Elizabeth Gray noted swelling to claimant’s right hand; she also recorded that claimant’s \nright hand was warm to touch and may have a slight red color. (Claimant is African American, which \nwould make discoloration harder to determine.) \n Claimant continued with physical therapy throughout the remainder of February through May \n3,  2024. At  that  last  session,  claimant  stated  his  wrist was  not  better; nonetheless, Occupational \nTherapist Steve Hermann recommended that he continue with physical therapy. \n On May 23, 2024, claimant returned to Dr. Lese upon the referral by Occupational Therapist \n\nHinton-H207576 \n6 \n \n \nHermann. Claimant reported that while he was taking physical therapy, he felt some soothing of the \npain in his wrist during the treatment, but the pain in his dorsal wrist radiating up the forearm returned \nafter his therapy session. There was minimal swelling noted in the right wrist and forearm. Dr. Lese \nagain stated that she did not have a surgical answer to his issue. \n Claimant  was  seen  by Dr.  Stephanie  Giammittorio  at  Riverside Orthopedic and  Sports \nMedicine on June 11, 2024.  (This physician is referred to as Dr. G during the hearing.) The objective \nfindings on the physical examination were that claimant had tenderness in his right hand at the radial \ncarpal  joint,  first  dorsal  compartment. Claimant’s range of motion with extension and flexion was \nnormal with pain, and it was noted that he had normal right wrist strength.  Dr. Giammittorio noted \nthat claimant had a negative Tinel’s sign, and a positive Finkelstein’s test. The Watson’s test was also \npositive and the TFCC grind was negative. Dr. Giammittorio recommended rest, ice, compression, \nand  elevation  therapy, and  prescribed claimant  a  brace  to  provide stabilization  to help  improve  his \nfunction. She ordered an EMG and scheduled a follow up after that test was performed. Claimant’s \nright forearm was x-rayed again on June 11, 2024, with a report as follows:  \n“There is no new fracture, dislocation or sublocation. There is no bone lesion \nor periosteal reaction. Soft tissue is unremarkable.”  \n  \nThe impression was “normal study.”  \nADJUDICATION \n \n Claimant has four separate components of the claims that he presented at his hearing.  These \nwill be addressed individually below.  \n     1.  Is claimant entitled to additional medical treatment for his compensable injury?  \n Claimant testified that in December, 2023, his request for additional medical treatment for his  \ncompensable  injury  was  denied.  Respondents’ position was that since it was determined in  the \nprevious  order  of  this  court that  claimant  had  reached  the  end  of  his  healing  period,  no  further \n\nHinton-H207576 \n7 \n \n \ntreatment was reasonable and necessary.  In discussing the temporary total disability (TTD) portion \nof this claim, there was the following ruling in the September 29, 2023, opinion: \n A  claimant  who  suffers  a  scheduled  injury  is  entitled  to  temporary  total \ndisability benefits until they reach the end of their healing period or until they \nreturn to work, whichever occurs first. Wheeler Construction Co. v. Armstrong, 73 \nArk.  App.  146,  41  S.W.  3d  822  (2001).  Dr.  Wing's  records  support  the \ncontention that claimant had not reached the end of his healing period until \nFebruary 22, 2023, and I am satisfied that it began on October 11, 2022.   \n \n Reviewing again what Dr. Wing said in his June 20, 2023, report, I am convinced I awarded \nthe  appropriate  amount  of TTD  but should  have  said  it  ended because claimant  returned  to  work \nrather than how it was phrased.\n1\n   Regardless, though, the next paragraph of that order addressed past \nmedical expenses, concluding with this sentence: \n“Claimant  is  entitled  to  be  reimbursed  for  any  payments  he  made  toward \ntreatment of his compensable injury, and for any future treatment as may be \nreasonable and necessary.”   \n \n Dr. Wing was clear in June, 2023 that claimant would likely need additional medical treatment.   \nClaimant’s testimony was that his injury “regenerated itself and swelling even to the capacity of...I \ncouldn’t deal with it, so I asked for additional medical attention and like I say, it was denied.”   I find \nthe  claimant  to  be  a  credible  witness  that medical  treatment  for  his  compensable  injury is again \nnecessary.  “Once it has been established that a claimant has sustained a compensable injury, he is not \nrequired to offer objective medical evidence to prove entitlement to additional benefits, Ark. Health \nCtr. v. Burnett, 2018 Ark. App. 427, at 9, 558 S.W.3d 408, 414. As I had already ruled that claimant had \nobjective evidence to support his initial claim, it was unnecessary for him to provide new objective \nfindings  for  the  treatment  he  sought  at  this  hearing.\n2\n I  find  he  reentered his  healing  period  on \n \n1\n While  I  recognize  my  mistake  in  the  wording  of  that  opinion, res  judicata prevents  me from  correcting  it  at  this \npoint.  \n2\n This is not to say the records claimant presented lacked objective medical findings; Dr. Lese noted swelling among \nher findings, some of which were subjective in nature.  \n\nHinton-H207576 \n8 \n \n \nDecember  20,  2023,  and  respondent has failed  to  provide  him  with  the reasonable  and  necessary \nmedical services to which he was entitled under Ark. Code. Ann.§11-9-508.   \n2.  Is claimant entitled to temporary total disability from December 20, 2023 until a date to be \ndetermined?  \n“The  healing  period  is  that  period  for  healing  of  the  injury  which  continues \nuntil the employee is as far restored as the permanent character of the injury \nwill permit. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). \nIf the underlying condition causing the disability has become more stable and \nif  nothing  further  in  the  way  of  treatment  will  improve  that  condition,  the \nhealing period has ended. Id.” \n \nBecause  respondent  refused  to  provide  medical  services,  claimant has  been  forced  to  seek \ntreatment at his own expense. Thus, there were not extensive medical reports available.  However, \nbased on the medical records that were introduced, I see nothing to indicate that claimant has reached \nthe end of this current healing period, and I am also convinced that he has not returned to work. It \nwould be to the respondents’ advantage to expedite  the  medical  treatment  rather  than  resisting  it, \nbecause until claimant returns to work or reaches the end of this healing period, he is entitled to TTD, \nwhich is at the maximum rate as per §11-9-518(a)(1) and the previous opinion.  \n 3.  Is claimant entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses and for payment \nof unpaid expenses?  \n Commission Rule 099.30, Part 1, Section J, states the following: \n“Reimbursement  for  Employee-Paid  Services. Notwithstanding any  other  provision \nof this rule, if an employee has personally paid for a health care service and at a later \ndate a carrier is determined to be responsible for the payment, then the employee shall \nbe fully reimbursed by the carrier.” \n \n Claimant provided both statements of medical bills that he had paid and invoices for unpaid \nservices, and respondent is responsible for any expenses for medical treatment claimant has sought \nsince December 20, 2023. Except as noted below, the exhibits appear to correspond to the medical \n\nHinton-H207576 \n9 \n \n \nrecords introduced by claimant. However, I believe it would be reasonable for respondents to obtain \nitemized statements from the providers before making payments to those providers or reimbursement \nto claimant.  Claimant is directed to provide those itemized statements to respondent, and respondent \nwill have 10 days after receipt to address these expenses.  \n Claimant said there were charges that were covered by my previous order that had not been \npaid.    All  I  saw  in  his  exhibit  was  a statement  of  account  from  Hampton  Roads  Ortho  Spine  and \nSports Med for visits on September 26 and 27, 2023, which took place between the first hearing of \nthis  matter  and  the  date  of  the  opinion. I  do  not  see  any  corresponding  medical  records  for  this \ntreatment. Without those records, I have no evidence that claimant had reentered his healing period \nduring this time; consistent with my finding above that claimant’s evidence shows he reentered his \nhealing period on December 20, 2023, I find he is not entitled to reimbursement for charges before \nthat date.   \n 4.   Is claimant entitled to reimbursement for his expenses in traveling to the hearing?  \n \nClaimant sought reimbursement for his expenses of traveling to the hearing. Commission \nAdvisory Opinion 89-2 addresses such claims:  \nMileage Reimbursement Rates \nThe  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (AWCC)  approves \nmileage reimbursement rates as medical expenses related to an injury or illness \nout of and in the course of employment. \n \n For actual miles driven to and from medical providers on and after May 18, \n2022, the reimbursement rate will be a floating rate which corresponds with \nthe rate Arkansas State employees are authorized for mileage reimbursement. \n \n As of May 19, 2022, the current rate paid to Arkansas state employees by the \nState of Arkansas for mileage reimbursement is 52¢ ($0.52) per mile. \n \nTravel must be as a result of job-related injuries and meet all reasonableness \nrequirements established by law, the AWCC, and the courts. \n \n\nHinton-H207576 \n10 \n \n \n I see nothing in this advisory opinion that allows for reimbursement for any travel expenses \nother than to and from doctor’s appointments, nor was I able to locate any statute, Commission Rule \nor court opinion that allows for such reimbursement. Therefore, this portion of this claim is denied.  \n \nORDER \n \n Respondents  are  directed  to  pay  benefits  in  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  set  forth \nherein this Opinion. \n All 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. \n Respondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \ntranscript in the amount of $533.15. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","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 AUGUST 22, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Russellville, Pope County, A...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:50:25.817Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207576-2024-08-22","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HINTON_WILLIE_H207576_20240822.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}