{"id":"alj-H207786-2023-09-12","awcc_number":"H207786","decision_date":"2023-09-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Clarence Elliott","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock (self-Insured)","title":"ELLIOTT VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK (SELF-INSURED) AWCC# H207786 SEPTEMBER 12, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["hernia","back","strain","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ELLIOTT_CLARENCE_H207786_20230912.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ELLIOTT_CLARENCE_H207786_20230912.pdf","text_length":33481,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.: H207786 \n \nCLARENCE ELLIOTT, EMPLOYEE                                                                   CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK (SELF-INSURED),                \nRESPONDENT                                                                                                         EMPLOYER   \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES/ THIRD PARTY  \nADMINISTRATOR/TPA                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 \n  \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant  represented  by  the  Honorable B.  Norman  Williamson,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  the  Honorable  Melissa  Wood,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn  June  14,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing telephone conference was conducted on March 15, 2023, from which a \npre-hearing order was filed that same day.  A copy of the said order and the parties’ responsive \nfilings have been marked as Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without \nobjection. \nStipulations \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or during the hearing the parties agreed \nto the following stipulations: \n 1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim. \n \n2. That the employee-employer-carrier relationship existed at all relevant times including \non or about September 7, 2022. \n\nElliott – H207786 \n2 \n \n3. The Claimant’s average weekly wage was $1,146.48,  which  entitles  the  Claimant  to \nweekly compensation rates of $764.00 and $573.00. \n4. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct. \n5. The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues litigated at the hearing were as follows: \n1.   Whether the Claimant sustained a compensable hernia injury.\n1\n \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment.  \n3.    Whether the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits for two and    \n       a half months.  \nContentions \n \nThe respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant: The Claimant contends that he sustained a hernia injury while working for the \nrespondent-employer on September 7, 2022.   He also contends that he is entitled to reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment for his hernia repair surgy and two and a half months of temporary \ntotal disability compensation.       \nRespondents:  \nRespondents contend that Claimant did not suffer a compensable injury hernia injury under \nthe Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act.  There was no notice of an alleged injury until October \n5, 2022. \n                                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \n \n1\n The medical records show that the Claimant suffered bilateral inguinal hernias.  \n\nElliott – H207786 \n3 \n \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  and  observe  their  demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this     \n \n           claim. \n \n      2.   I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n3.  The Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained work-  \n     related hernias on September 7, 2022, while performing his employment duties for the City \n           of Little Rock Fleet Services.  \n     4.  The remaining issues have been rendered moot by the above finding.  Therefore, said issues   \n          are not addressed in this Opinion.   \nSummary of Evidence \nThe following witnesses testified: Mr. Clarence Elliott (the Claimant), Mr. Tony Lee Allen, \nJr. (Claimant’s coworker), and Mr. Douglas Meiggs (the Claimant’s supervisor).      \n           The  record  consists  of  the  June  14,  2023  hearing  transcript,  comprising  of  the  following \nexhibits:  Specifically, Commission’s Exhibit 1 includes the Commission’s Prehearing Order of \nMarch 15, 2023 and the parties’ responsive filings; Claimant’s Exhibit 1 is a Medical Exhibit and \nencompasses  thirty-six  (36)  numbered pages;  Claimant’s  Exhibit 2  is  Non-Medical  Exhibit \nconsisting of one page;  and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 is a Medical Exhibit,  consisting of  ten (10) \nnumbered pages; and Respondents’ Exhibit 2 is a Non-Medical Exhibit encompassing eight (8) \ntotaled numbered pages.  \n \n \n \n \n\nElliott – H207786 \n4 \n \n                                                                     Testimony \nMr. Clarence Elliott  \n \n The Claimant, age 56, testified that he works as an occupation technician II, for the City  \nof Little Rock Fleet Services.  He testified that he was at work, and he and Mr. Allen (a coworker) \nwere  doing  a  brake  job  on  a  truck  when  he  sustained  a  hernia  injury.    The  Claimant  gave  the \nfollowing account of the incident: \n A:  ... I was on one side - - I was doing one side and he was doing the other side.  \nAnd now, as we were doing the brake job, I got to – we got the tire off.  As I went to take \nthe drum off, I felt something like a pull or something.  So when I pulled, I dropped it – I \nended up -- I dropped the drum because it – because of the pain.  And once I drop the drum, \nI can’t -- Mr. Allen came over, like “Hey, what’s going on?   \n        \n            *** \n A: Okay.  After I dropped the drum, I set back – I sat down for a while because -- \nbecause of the pain.  My supervisor was happening to be coming through at the time, and \nI told -- him, I said, “Man, I think I hurt -- I think I pulled something.”  He made a joking \nremark, which we always doin, “Oh it’s just old age.” \n \n The Claimant’s supervisor at that time was Douglas Meiggs.  According to the Claimant, \nhe told his supervisor he strained or pulled something, but it should be  all right.  The Claimant \ncontinued working that day.  Per the Claimant, he completed his shift that day but could hardly lift \nanything.   The Claimant testified that the drum weighed roughly 70-80 pounds.  He denied that at \nthe time of his alleged injury, management provided equipment assistance to lift heavy objects. \nHowever, now they provide equipment to help with lifting heavy objects.   \nOn further direct examination, the Claimant confirmed that at the point of being engaged \nin pulling on the drum, the pain hit him instantly and he dropped it.  The Claimant testified he did \nnot start the steps to file a claim because he thought it was just a strain.  He further testified that \nthe pain became unbearable.  So, the left work on October 4, and went to the emergency room.  \n\nElliott – H207786 \n5 \n \nThe  Claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  the  Emergency  Department  of  the  VA  Hospital.  \nThere, they examined the Claimant and did x-rays and a CT scan.   \nThe Claimant denied having ever sustained a prior hernia from lifting heavy objects.  He \nalso denied ever having a hernia.  According to the Claimant, after lifting the wheel he felt a sharp, \npulling pain on his testicles.  He further described the pain, among other things, as being the most \nexcruciating, and nothing like what he had dealt with before.  The Claimant confirmed that after \nthe  incident,  the  pain  caused  him  to  immediately  stop  working.    According  to  the  Claimant,  he \ndropped everything and sat down.   Per the Claimant, he had pain throughout the day, but he kept \nmoving although it limited his work, particularly his ability to lift.  The Claimant testified that he \ntried to make it day by day, but after the third week, the pain was just too much to bear.  Between \nthe time of the incident and filing his workers’ compensation claim, the Claimant went home every \nevening after work and soaked in Epsom Salts.  He denied having engaged in any sort of activities \noutside of work that required heavy lifting or strenuous effort prior to his indent at work.   \nRegarding the medical treatment he has sought for his hernia condition since the filing of \nhis workers’ compensation claim, the Claimant testified he sought medical treatment from the VA \nin Little Rock.  His first medical visit was around October 4 or 5.  Next, the Claimant had a follow-\nup visit, and then they scheduled the surgery for two weeks later because he did not have a bulge.  \nHowever, according to the Claimant, they ended up bringing him in a week later because the hernia \nbegan to open.   \nThe Claimant confirmed that he sought treatment at Concentra because the night after he \nhad gone to the ER, he was telling his supervisor, Doug Meiggs, about it and he had him fill out \nthe paperwork for a workers’ compensation claim.  He confirmed that company policy mandated \nthat  he  go  to  Concentra  because  he  had  allegedly  sustained  a  workplace  injury.    The  Claimant \n\nElliott – H207786 \n6 \n \nagreed  that  he  is  familiar  with  the  medical  records.    His  attention  was  directed  to  page  33  of a \nmedical  record  from  October  12,  2022.    Per this  medical  record  of  October  12,  the  Claimant \nprovided the doctor with a statement under the section of History of Present Illness, that reflected \nhe started having symptoms on September 7, 2022.   The Claimant admitted that he only told the \ndoctor about his surgery being scheduled but did not tell him about his workplace incident.      \nHowever,  at  page  26  of  the  medical  records,  the  Claimant  denied  telling  the  doctor  his \nsymptoms had been going on for three to four months.  Instead, the Claimant maintained that he \nreported that his symptoms and pain had been going on for only three or four weeks.   \nThe  Claimant  testified  that  his  injury  affected  his  ability  to  work.    According  to  the \nClaimant, he was limited in his ability to lift tools, such as the impact guns, which weigh around \n30  to  40  pounds.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  experienced  these  problems  until  his  hernia \nsurgery was performed.  \n He admitted that he has returned to work and is able to perform majority of his job duties.  \nThe Claimant testified that now he uses the safety equipment to lift heavy objects.  Following his \nincident with the drum, and prior to his surgery, the Claimant received help from his co-workers.  \nAccording to the Claimant, Lucas Bruner helped him a lot with lifting heavy objects.  He testified \nthat Tony Allen, or just anyone also helped him to lift heavy tools. \n The  Claimant  stated  that  the  main  detail  to  his  claim  is  that  he  has  worked  for “these \npeople,” and never lied to them.  He has also been a minister over the last twenty (20) years.    \n On cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed his deposition was taken on March 7, 2023. \nHe began working for the City of Little Rock in May 2012.  The Claimant admitted he has had a \nfew injuries while working for the city.  He confirmed that he stated in his deposition that he had \nan  injury  when  something  fell  into  his  eye.    The  Claimant  agreed  that  his  deposition  testimony \n\nElliott – H207786 \n7 \n \nshows that he has previously gotten something in his eye two or three times.  He confirmed that \neach time, management sent him to Concentra for medical treatment. \n Regarding  his   employment  with  the   city,  the  Claimant  started  in   the  automotive \ndepartment.    After  two  or  three  years,  he  moved  to  the  heavy  trucks  department,  where  he  has \nremained since then.   His job duties on the heavy trucks side entail lead tech, which include but \nis not limited to the training of the newly hired technicians and diagnostic-type work on the brakes.  \nThe Claimant also performs work as a second roll call guy, which means he goes out to repair the \ntrucks on the side of the road.  He confirmed that he testified during his deposition that he saw his \nsupervisor, Doug Meiggs, in the shop on a regular basis.  His office is near the shop.  He went on \nto explain that he acts as a lead person and others treat him that way, but he is not paid for these \nduties. \n The  Claimant  testified  during  his  deposition  that  his  injury  occurred  about  three  weeks \nbefore  Thanksgiving  2022.    However,  the  Claimant  also  testified  during  his  deposition  that  he \nreported his injury on October 13, but it happened on September 8 or so.  The Claimant further \nadmitted that he had a calendar with him at his deposition.  Per the Claimant, he testified that he \nreported his injury to Doug that day.  He also testified that he worked at least three to four weeks \nbefore he went to the doctor.  The Claimant confirmed that Tony Allen is a technician II as well \nas Lucas Bruner, but at that time he was a technician I. \n He  confirmed  that  he  was  doing  a  brake  job  on  a  truck  when  his  injury  occurred.    The \nClaimant explained that he had taken  off the tire, slack adjuster, and lugs because it was a dual \ntire.  After that, he had to pull off the drum and it was during this process that the Claimant was \ninjured.  He confirmed he was on one side and  Mr. Allen was on the other side.  The Claimant \ntestified during his deposition that the drum weighs 100 to 110 pounds, as opposed to his earlier \n\nElliott – H207786 \n8 \n \ntestimony.  He confirmed that when replacing the brakes, he follows the same procedure in reverse \nto put everything back on.  The Claimant testified that the brake shoes weigh about 20-30 pounds.  \nHe confirmed that he had to lift two drums back on the truck to complete the job.   \n According to the Claimant, it takes an hour for them to complete a brake job.  He admitted \nthat it  took  them  another  hour  to  complete  the  brake  job  after  his  injury.    The  Claimant  also \nadmitted  that  his  injury  occurred  somewhere  around  lunchtime.    However,  per  his  deposition \ntestimony, he testified his injury occurred that morning.   \n During  his  deposition,  the  Claimant  testified  he  probably  needed  treatment  the  day  the \nincident occurred but just figured it was a little strain and would just pass.  He admitted that he did \nnot say anything to Doug (Meiggs) about needing treatment that day.  The Claimant explained the \nprocedure for reporting an injury.  He admitted he has known the procedure for a long time.  Per \nthe Claimant, he has this knowledge from being the union president for the last eight years.  He \nadmitted that he testified during his  deposition that Doug did not know he had gone to the VA.  \nThe Claimant also went to the ER on his own and no one knew he was going.  \n Under  further  questioning,  the  Claimant  admitted  that  he  has  no  symptoms  whatsoever \nsince the surgery.  He returned to work for the city on January 3, 2023.  The Claimant confirmed \nhe received the same pay while he was off due to his surgery.  He admitted that his treatment at \nthe VA did not cost him anything.  His only out-of-pocket expenses have been for his medications. \n The Claimant confirmed that he did not receive any treatment until October 4, which was \nthe ER visit.  During this visit, the Claimant reported that he noticed swelling in his groin area one \nweek ago, along with some pain.  The Claimant also confirmed that he had worsening pain for a \nlong time and needed to have it addressed.  He confirmed that initially it was painful with only \ncertain maneuvers, but it became painful all the time.   \n\nElliott – H207786 \n9 \n \nDefense  counsel  asked  the  Claimant  about  his  relationship  with  his  coworkers.    Per  the \nClaimant, he is a friendly person and is friends with Doug Meiggs, Tony Allen, and Lucas Bruner. \nMr. Tony Allen, Jr. \n \n Tony Lee Allen, Jr., testified on behalf of the Claimant.  Mr. Allen admitted that he is one \nof the Claimant’s coworkers.    He  confirmed  that  he  worked  with  the  Claimant  on  or  around \nSeptember 7.   Mr. Allen testified that the Claimant strained himself taking of the rotors from a \ntruck.  He explained that the rotors are hard to remove because they sometimes have salt around \nthem from the winter months and they get stuck.       \n Mr. Allen testified that a drum weighs around 80 pounds.  He confirmed that he observed \nthe  Claimant  after  the  incident,  and  he  appeared  to  be  fatigue.    According  to  Mr.  Allen,  the \nClaimant told him he might have pulled something.  He gave inconsistent and confusing answers \nconcerning  the  Claimant  having  reported  the  incident.    While  testifying  at  one  point  in  his \ntestimony,  Mr.  Allen said  the  Claimant  reported  the  incident  that  day.    At  another  point  in  his \ntestimony, he was not sure the Claimant talked to a supervisor soon after the completed the task.  \n(Tr. 057-058) \n On cross-examination, Mr. Allen confirmed that he testified earlier about an incident with \nthe rotors.  He admitted that the Claimant got injured trying to take the rotors off the truck.  Mr. \nAllen  said  the  incident  occurred  around  9:00  a.m.  or  10:00  a.m.  he  admitted  that  the  Claimant \ncompleted  the  brake  job  and  put  everything  back  together.    Mr.  Allen  also  confirmed  that  the \nClaimant  continued  to  work  several  weeks  after  the  incident.    He  confirmed  that  he  and  the \nClaimant are friends. \nMr. Douglass Meiggs \n Mr. Meiggs was called as a witness for the Respondents.  He testified that he works for the \n\nElliott – H207786 \n10 \n \nCity  of  Little  Rock.    He  confirmed  that  he  has  been  with  the  city  for  eleven  (11)  years.    His \nemployment duties involve the heavy equipment, the dump trucks, backhoes, dozers, salt dozers, \nand equipment of that nature.  According to Mr. Meiggs, he is responsible for maintaining and the \nrepair  work  on  these  machines.    He  confirmed  that  he  is  the  Claimant’s direct supervisor.    Mr. \nMeiggs gave an overview of the process for an employee to report an injury.  (Tr.  077) \n He was shown a copy of the Forn AR-N for this claim, which is dated October 5,2022.  Mr. \nMeiggs stated that prior to that date, he did not have any idea that the Claimant was claiming an \ninjury.  The first Mr. Meiggs heard of a hernia injury was one morning while standing around the \nclock, when the Claimant came in and said he was going to have to fill out a sheet because he had \na doctor’s appointment.  Per Mr. Meiggs, the Claimant said he had a hernia, and that was all he \nsaid.  However, he denied that the Claimant said anything about it being a work injury.  Per Mr. \nMeiggs, the Claimant did not say anything about it being a work injury or anything of that nature.   \n Mr. Meiggs denied that he was aware of an alleged injury before October 5.  He confirmed \nhearing the Claimant’s testimony about an injury having been reported on September 7.  Mr. \nMeiggs did not recall walking by and seeing the Claimant sitting down as he claims.  According \nto Mr. Meiggs, Tony Allen was assigned repairs on that truck, and he was not aware the Claimant \nwas assisting him with the repair. \n He confirmed that he was aware they had an older model dolly in the shop to help with \nlifting heavy equipment.  Mr. Meiggs confirmed that after the Claimant reported this incident, their \nfleet manager bought a newer dolly.   \n Mr. Meiggs confirmed that from September 7, 2022, until when the Claimant went to the \nemergency room, he performed his regular duties.  According to Mr. Meiggs, he was not aware of \nanything going on.  Mr. Meiggs agreed he saw the Claimant on a regular basis.  He testified that \n\nElliott – H207786 \n11 \n \nif he had just blown the Claimant off as he alleges, the Claimant should have gone to his supervisor, \nthe fleet manager.  However, this did not happen.  Per Mr. Meiggs, neither Lucas Bruner or Tony \nAllen is the Claimant’s supervisor, they are just coworkers and friends. \n On cross-examination, Mr. Meiggs denied that the Claimant reported any sort of strain or \ndiscomfort prior to reporting his alleged workers’ compensation claim.  Nor did he recall the \nClaimant  having  engaged  in  a  conversation  about  an  injury  or  lack  of  equipment.    Mr.  Meiggs \ntestified  that  although at the time of the Claimant’s workplace injury they had a drum dolly \nmachine  to  help  with  the  lifting  of  drums,  it  did not  malfunction  because  it  was  a  two-wheeled \nmachine.  It was an older machine, but there was nothing that was malfunctioning or not usable \nabout it.  \n Under further questioning, Mr. Meiggs explained: \n Q: Do you know the reason that you -- you guys replaced it was with -- with a \nnew one if it was completely adequate to do the job? \n A: Well, it is my understanding after the – the incident was brought up, they \nsaid that the -- I guess they felt the one we had was not sufficient. \n Upon  being  questioned  by  the  Commission,  Mr.  Meiggs  was  asked  if  he  had  any \nknowledge of any activities that the Claimant could have been engaged in that would have caused \nhim to have a hernia injury.  He answered: “You know, when I see the guy on or about that time \nwith a motor on the back of his truck, it makes you wonder but...”      \n On redirect examination, Mr. Meiggs said that the Claimant had the motor in the back of \nhis personal vehicle.  He confirmed that he had heard the Claimant had his own business called \nPhase One Auto.  This business was something outside of the Claimant’s work for the city.   \n\nElliott – H207786 \n12 \n \n Upon recross examination, Mr. Meiggs testified that he does not have a clue as whether \nthe Claimant is engaging in any heavy lifting or strenuous activities with Phase One Auto.    \n        Medical Evidence \n  \n On  October  4,  2022,  the  Claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  the  Emergency \nDepartment/ED, at the Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care System.  He reported shooting pain \nfrom his groin to his shoulder.  Initially his pain was only with certain movements, but now painful \nall the time.  At that time, the Claimant reported that the pain had been worsening for “a long time” \nand needed to be addressed.  The Claimant underwent a COMPLETE CT OF THE ABDOBMEN \nAND  PELVIS  WITH  CONTRAST  due  to  right  lower  quadrant  abdominal  pain.    Dr.  Robert \nJimmerson II, was the referring physician.  A Preliminary Report with full report to follow was \ninitially generated.  The following findings were provided to the care team:  \nRight  sided  moderate  sized  fat  containing  inguinal  hernia  with  fat  stranding,  fluid  and \nthickening of the hernia sac. Correlate for clinical signs of irreducibility due to concern for \nstrangulation.  Uncomplicated left fat containing inquial hernia.   \n \nA final report was provided which showed comparison of a CT of the ABDOMEN done \n12/7/2019;  ABDOMEN  6/19/2019.    The  primary  interpreting  radiologist  was  Dr.  Thomas  N. \nDavis.  His final impression was: “Bilateral fat-containing inguinal hernias, potential associated \ninflammation  on  the  right  as  noted  in  the  preliminary  report.”  No  indication  for  acute  surgical \nintervention was indicated at that time.   \nNext, the Claimant underwent evaluation at Concentra Health Center, on October 5, 2022, \ndue to continued abdominal pain.  The Claimant reported that he had been seen at the VA and a \nCT scan confirmed bilateral inguinal hernias.  He stated that he had an appointment with a surgeon \nscheduled, which he planned to attend. Clinton Bearden, PA, evaluated the Claimant and assessed \n\nElliott – H207786 \n13 \n \nhim  with  bilateral  inguinal  hernias,  for  which  he  prescribed  medications  and  placed  physical \nrestrictions on him.  \n On  November  9,  2022,  the  Claimant  underwent  his  first  postoperative  visit  with  Dr. \nKimberly Jackman at the VA’s General Surgery  Center.  The Claimant  said that he was having \nsome pain and discomfort in his scrotum and his lower abdomen with movement.  Per this post-\nsurgery note, Dr. Jackman discussed with the Claimant that this was normal postoperative course \nand that it would resolve over time.  However, the Claimant said that he was improving daily.    \n The  Claimant  underwent  a  follow-up  evaluation  on  December  14,  2022,  at  the  VA \nfollowing  his  surgery.    Per  this  surgery  note,  the  Claimant  underwent  robotic  repair  of  bilateral \nhernias on October 27, 2022.  The Claimant reported that he was feeling better than he was duirng \nthe last visit.  At that time, his swelling and pain had improved.  He continued to have pain “here \nand there,” and around the testicles.  The Claimant described his pain as a pinching pain, which \nwas relieved by him making certain manual adjustments.  On physical examination the Claimant’s \nsmall mass was palpated  by Dr. Jackman but no  noticeable inguinal hernias demonstrated.   His \npain remained the same since surgery with slow and mild improvements.  The Claimant’s FMLA \nwas extended to January 3, 2023.  His restrictions were continued which included no lifting of any \nheavy objects until he was cleared to go back to work. \n                    Adjudication \n \nCompensability \n \nHere, the Claimant has essentially asserted that he sustained hernia injuries during and in \nthe scope of his employment with this respondent-employer on September 7, 2022.  A CT scan \nperformed on October 4, 2022, at the VA demonstrates that the Claimant suffered “Bilateral fat-\n\nElliott – H207786 \n14 \n \ncontaining inguinal hernias.” The burden rests on the claimant to prove all the elements necessary \nto establish his alleged bilateral inguinal hernias injuries.   \nThe requirements for the compensability of this injury are set forth in Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-523(a).  Specifically, this subsection provides:  \nIn all cases of claims for hernia, it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Workers’ \nCompensation Commission:  \n(1) that the occurrence of the hernia immediately followed as the result of sudden \neffort, severe strain, or the application of force directly to the abdominal wall; \n(2) that there was severe pain in the hernial region;  \n(3) that the pain caused the employee to cease work immediately;  \n(4) that notice of the occurrence was given to the employer within forty-eight (48) \nhours thereafter; and  \n(5) that the physical distress following the occurrence of the hernia was such as to \nrequire  the  attendance  of  a  licensed  physician  within  seventy-two  (72)  hours  after  the \noccurrence.  \n The  record  shows  that  the  Claimant  sustained  bilateral  inguinal  hernias.    Therefore,  the \nrequirements of the foregoing hernia statute will apply. \nAfter considering all the evidence presented, I am persuaded that the Claimant’s testimony \nconcerning the sequence of events surrounding his alleged work-related incident of a workplace \ninjury on September 7, 2022, is not credible and does not set forth an accurate account of these \nevents.  I have reached this conclusion because among other things, the Claimant’s testimony is \nnot corroborated by the medical evidence of record, or his own witness, Mr. Allen’s narration of \nthe sequence of the events nor by Mr. Meiggs’ testimony.  \nHere, the Claimant alleges he had a work-related accident on September  7,  2022, which \nresulted in bilateral hernia injuries.  However, he did not seek medical attention until some twenty-\nseven (27) days later, which was on October 4, 2022.  Clearly, any workplace activity the Claimant \nwas  involved  in  on  September  7,  did  not  require  the  attendance  of  a  licensed  physician  with \n\nElliott – H207786 \n15 \n \nseventy-two (72) hours as mandated by the statute.  To the contrary, medical report dated October \n4 shows that the Claimant had been experiencing problems for three to four months before seeking \nmedical attention.  Although the Claimant maintained that this medical record is not accurate and  \nshould have reflected three to four weeks, instead of three to four months, I am not persuaded that \nthis is not a clerical error considering further down in this report, there is a notation of the Claimant \nreported that the problem had been worsening for a long time and needed to be addressed.   \nWhile  the  Claimant  maintained  he  was  removing  a  drum  from  a  wheel  when  his  injury \noccurred,  Mr.  Allen  testified  that  they  had  been  taking  turns  hammering  to  remove  a  rotor.    Of \ngreat  significance,  is  the  fact  that  the  Claimant  continued  working  from  September  7  until  his \nsurgery in late October.  No probative evidence was presented showing that the Claimant’s hernias \nresulted from a sudden effort, severe strain, direct application of force to the adnominal wall, or \nthat he ceased working due to pain.  Mr. Allen’s testimony proves that they were simply fatigued \nfrom hammering to remove the rotor, which was difficult to remove due to an accumulate of salt \nand other residue.  As a result, they both rested and resumed working on the truck.  The Claimant \nwas able to complete the brake job and his shift, and as noted above he continued several weeks \nthereafter.   There is no documentation whatsoever showing that the Claimant made a request to \nmanagement  for  any  type  of  accommodations  in  performing  his  employment  duties,  which \nrequired heavy lifting and very strenuous work activities.        \nThe instant Claimant is a highly intelligent and well-read individual.  He has worked for \nthe city since 2012 and served as president of the union for the last eight (8) years.  The Claimant \nhas had more than a couple of workplace injuries with the city.  He also acts and is recognized as \na team leader among his colleagues.  Although for these reasons I found the Claimant to be very \nknowledgeable and familiar with the procedure for filing a workers’ compensation claim, in this \n\nElliott – H207786 \n16 \n \ninstance I am persuaded he did not meet the 48-hour notice requirement for reporting the injury to \nhis employer, and nor did he follow the process. In fact, Mr. Allen gave conflicting and confusing \ntestimony in this regard.  As such, I did not find him to be credible about the Claimant reporting \nof the alleged injury to his supervisor, Mr. Meiggs.  He [Mr. Allen] and the Claimant are also good \nfriends.   Nevertheless, I found Mr. Meiggs to be a credible witness.  Mr. Meiggs credibly testified \nthat the Claimant did not report an injury to him until October 5, which is significantly more than \nforty-eight hours after the alleged workplace activity.  In addition to this, Mr. Meiggs testified that \nthe Claimant was not assigned to perform the repairs on the vehicle that he allegedly got injured \non.  There was evidence proving that the Claimant was engaged in heavy lifting activities outside \nof his work with the city, which  entailed  work  for  his own personal automotive repair  business \naround the same time that he sustained the hernia injuries.  However, the denied having engaged \nin any strenuous activities outside of work.  \nI think it is noteworthy that the surgical report was not made a part of the record.  Moreover, \nno history of a workplace injury was reported by the Claimant in any the initial medical notes.   \nIn  my  opinion,  that  it  would  require  sheer  speculation  and  conjecture  to  attribute  the \nClaimant’s hernias to his employment  duties.    Conjecture  and  speculation,  however,  plausible, \ncannot be allowed to supply the place of proof.  Dena Construction Company v. Hearndon, 264 \nArk. 791, 575 S.W. 2d 155 (1979); Arkansas Methodist Hospital v. Adams, 43 Ark. App. 1, 858 \nS.W.  2d  125  (1993).    Obviously,  the  Claimant  honestly  believes  his  hernias  are  related  to  his \nemployment.  However, no matter how sincere a Claimant’s belief that  a  medical  problem  is \nrelated  to  a  compensable  workplace  injury,  such  belief  is  not  sufficient  to  meet the Claimant’s \nburden  of  proof.   Killingberger v.  Big  “D” Liquor,  AWCC  E408248  and  E408249,  Full \nCommission Opinion August 29, 1995.                     \n\nElliott – H207786 \n17 \n \nTo summarize, the Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe  suffered  compensable  bilateral  inguinal  hernias  while  performing  his  employment  duties  for \nthe city on September 7, 2022.   \nAdditionally, the remaining issues of medical treatment, temporary total disability and a \ncontroverted attorney’s fee have been rendered moot and not addressed in this Opinion.   \n                      Order \n Based on the foregoing findings of fact and  conclusions of law,  I find that the Claimant \nfailed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained workplace hernias while working on September \n7, 2022.  Therefore, this claim is hereby respectfully denied and dismissed in its entirety.       \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n          ______________________________ \n          HON. CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H207786 CLARENCE ELLIOTT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK (SELF-INSURED), RESPONDENT EMPLOYER RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES/ THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:02:41.755Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207786-2023-09-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ELLIOTT_CLARENCE_H207786_20230912.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}