{"id":"alj-H207687-2023-08-29","awcc_number":"H207687","decision_date":"2023-08-29","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Scott Jackman","employer_name":"Gnc Holdings,","title":"JACKMAN VS. GNC HOLDINGS, AWCC# H207687 AUGUST 29, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//JACKMAN_SCOTT_H207687_20230829.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JACKMAN_SCOTT_H207687_20230829.pdf","text_length":8315,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H207687 \n \nSCOTT JACKMAN, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nGNC HOLDINGS, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nSENTRY INS., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED AUGUST 29, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in  Fort  Smith, \nSebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant unrepresented and appearing PRO SE. \n \nRespondents represented by JARROD S. PARRISH, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On  June  8,  2023,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Fort  Smith, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on April 17, 2023, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas filed on April 18, 2023.   A copy of the Pre-hearing Order has been  marked Commission's \nExhibit No. 1 and made a 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. The relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties on October \n17, 2022. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n\nJackman – H207687 \n \n-2- \n 4.  The  claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  him  to  compensation  at  the \nweekly rates of $600.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $450.00 for permanent partial \ndisability benefits. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his back on or about October 17, \n2022. \n 2.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  October  18, \n2022, to March 6, 2023. \n Claimant’s contentions are: \n“I  was  denied  for  the  claim  I  submitted  and  I  was  hurt  while \nworking.” \n \n Respondents’ contentions are: \n \n“Respondents have not been presented with evidence establishing a \ncompensable injury to any part of Claimant’s back.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a  45-year-old  male  who  alleges  to  have  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to his back on or about October 17, 2022. The claimant  gave the following \ntestimony about his alleged injury on direct examination: \nMR. JACKMAN: So on October 17\nth\n, I was at work. I reached \nup  over  our  cash  wrap  wall  to  grab  something  for  a  customer,  a \nVitapak, and when I did, I twisted and went to grab it. When I did, \nI felt a sharp pain in my back, my middle back. It hurt really bad, \nkind  of  made  me  hunch  over.  The  rest  of  the  day  I  was  feeling \nawful from it. \n \nThat  night  I  went  home.  I  had  a  hard  time  sleeping.  Called  my \ndistrict manager in the morning and told him what had happened. I \ntold him that I was going to my doctor. I went to my doctor and my \ndoctor had taken me out of work. He told me to come back and see \nhim within  I think it was  three days. He made an  appointment for \n\nJackman – H207687 \n \n-3- \nme to go back. I went back. It was still hurting. He did some x-rays \nand looked at my back and said I had –  \n \nMR. PARRISH: Your Honor, I am going to object to hearsay. \n \nTHE COURT:  You can’t tell us what the doctor said. \n \nMR. JACKMAN: Okay. \n \nTHE COURT:  You  can  tell  us  what  the  doctor  did,  what \nyou experienced, but you can’t tell us what the doctor said. \n \nMR. JACKMAN: Okay. Can I say the doctor diagnosed me? \n \nTHE COURT:  I will allow you to tell me what you say the \ndoctor diagnosed you with. \n \nMR. JACKMAN: The  doctor  diagnosed  me  with  a  slipped \ndisc,  bulging  disk,  and  he  referred  me  that  I  could  not  go  back  to \nwork until I completed the physical therapy. \n \nMR. PARRISH: And Your Honor, I object to that as hearsay \nfor the record as well. \n \nTHE COURT:  Thank you. Go ahead. \n \nMR. JACKMAN: So  he  said  that  I couldn’t  go  back  to  work \nuntil I did physical therapy. He scheduled me for physical therapy. \nI waited about two and a half weeks before I was finally able to get \ninto physical therapy. I went through physical therapy for about 12 \nweeks. \n \nUpon   completion,   I   went   back   to   my   doctor.   He   evaluated \neverything from the physical therapist, asked me how I was doing, \nand allowed me to come back to work. And that was on the 21\nst\n. \n \nThen  I  called  my  district  manager  and  I  kept  him  in  the  loop  the \nwhole  time  of  what  was  going  on.  Then  I  called  him  on  the  21\nst\n \nand  let  him  know  that  I  was  now  released.  Sent  him  the  work \nrelease  and  he  said  he  would  get  me  back  to  work  as  soon  as \npossible. He had me start back on March 6\nth\n. \n \n  In  order  to  prove  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a  specific  incident  that  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \n\nJackman – H207687 \n \n-4- \nevidence:  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath;   (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an injury;   and (4) the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs \nand More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \n The claimant must prove the existence of objective medical findings regarding his alleged \nback  injury.  The  claimant  submitted  five  pages  of  documentary  evidence,  all  of  which  were \nadmitted into the record. The  respondents submitted six pages of medical records  and 10 pages \nof  non-medical  records,  all  of  which  were  submitted  into  the  record.  Upon  review  of  all  the \nevidence submitted, including testimony of the claimant, I find no objective medical evidence to \nsupport  the  claimant’s  allegation  of  a  compensable  back  injury  on  or  about  October  17,  2022. \nAfter a review of the medical evidence, it is clear the claimant was taken off work for a period of \ntime;  however,  objective  medical  evidence  of  a  back  injury  on  about  October  17,  2022,  or  any \nother date, simply does not exist inside the record in this matter. As such, the claimant has failed \nto prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable back injury on or \nabout October 17, 2022. \n The  claimant  has  also  asked  the  Commission  to  consider  whether  he  is  entitled  to \ntemporary  total  disability  benefits  from  October  18,  2022, to  March  6,  2023.  The  claimant  has \nnot been able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a compensable back \ninjury as he has alleged. As such, he is unable to prove entitlement to temporary total disability \nbenefits for that alleged injury. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \n\nJackman – H207687 \n \n-5- \nthe  witness  and  to  observe  his  demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nApril 17, 2023, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed April 18, 2023, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n 2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a \ncompensable injury to his back on or about October 17, 2022. \n 3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits from October 18, 2022, to March 6, 2023. \n ORDER \nPursuant  to  the  above  findings  and  conclusions,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  deny  this \nclaim in its entirety. \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                                ____________________________                                              \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H207687 SCOTT JACKMAN, Employee CLAIMANT GNC HOLDINGS, Employer RESPONDENT SENTRY INS., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 29, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. Claimant unrepresented ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:04:26.783Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207687-2023-08-29","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//JACKMAN_SCOTT_H207687_20230829.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}