{"id":"alj-H208579-2026-02-19","awcc_number":"H208579","decision_date":"2026-02-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Kathy Carrothers","employer_name":"Southern Arkansas University","title":"CARROTHERS VS. SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY AWCC# H208579 February 19, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","dismissed:1","granted:2","denied:7"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","knee","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CARROTHERS_KATHY_H208579_20260219.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CARROTHERS_KATHY_H208579_20260219.pdf","text_length":29764,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H208579 \n \nKATHY L. CARROTHERS,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                  CLAIMANT \n \nSOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY,  \nEMPLOYER                                                    RESPONDENT \n \nSTATE OF ARKANSAS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE                                \nCLAIMS DIVISION,    \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                  RESPONDENT \n                                                                                                                                  \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, November 21, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission), Administrative  Law  Judge  (ALJ)  Mike  Pickens  in  Texarkana, \nMiller County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by the Honorable Gregory R. Giles, Moore, Giles & Matteson, LLP, \nTexarkana, Miller County, Arkansas.  \n \nThe  respondents  were  represented  by  the  Honorable  Charles  H.  McLemore,  State  of  Arkansas, \nPublic Employee Claims Division (PECD), Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nINTRODUCTION \n \nIn the amended prehearing order filed October 3, 2025, the parties have agreed to the \nfollowing stipulations which they affirmed on the record at the hearing: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \njurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The  employer/employee/carrier-TPA  relationship  existed at  all  relevant  times \nincluding June 7,  2022, when the  claimant sustained an  admittedly compensable \ninjury to her right shoulder for which the respondents paid only medical benefits, \nbut no indemnity benefits. \n \n3. The claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) is $510.24,  which  is  sufficient  to \nentitle her to weekly compensation rates of $340.00 for temporary total disability \n(TTD), and $255.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. \n \n4. The claimant has not missed any time from work as a result of the June 7, 2022, \ncompensable injury. \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n2 \n \n \n5. The  claimant  requested and  by  Commission  order  filed  November  12,  2024,  the \nCommission granted, her one (1)-time-only change of physician (COP) request to \nDr. D’Orsay Bryant. \n \n6. The respondents controvert the claimant’s claim for additional medical treatment \nand any PPD benefits for alleged permanent anatomical impairment. \n  \n7. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation and/or \ndetermination. \n \n(Commission Exhibit 1 at 1-2; Reporter’s Transcript at 4). Pursuant to the parties’ mutual \n \nagreement the issues litigated at the hearing were: \n \n1. Whether  the  claimant was entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  in  the  form  of  an \nMRI, as well as any and all of Dr. Gati’s medical treatment obtained before and/or after \nthe date of the MRI. \n \n2. Whether and to what extent, if any, the claimant is entitled to PPD benefits based on \nalleged permanent anatomical impairment. \n \n3. Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted fee on these facts. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 4).  \nThe claimant contends she is entitled to the payment of the MRI she underwent, as well as \nany and all additional medical treatment and expenses Dr. Gati rendered  to her both before and \nafter  the  date  of  the  MRI,  as  they  constitute  related  and  reasonably  necessary  treatment  for  her \ncompensable  injury.  The  claimant further contends she  is  entitled  to  PPD  benefits  based  on  a \npermanent anatomical impairment rating of five percent (5%) to the body-as-a-whole associated \nwith  her  compensable  right  should  injury,  and  that  her  attorney  is  entitled  to  a  controverted \nattorney’s fee. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 4; 42-43; 45).  \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n3 \n \n      The respondents  contend  they  have  paid  the  claimant  all  medical  benefits  to which  she  is \nentitled based upon her “medical only”, no-lost-time claim and that she cannot meet her statutory \nburden of proof on either of the two (2) issues to be litigated herein. They contend that both the \nsubject MRI as well as any and all medical treatment Dr. Gati provided to the claimant both before \nand/or  after  the  MRI  are  unrelated  to  and  not  reasonably  necessary  for  treatment  of  her \ncompensable  injury.  The  respondents  further contend  the  claimant  is  not  entitled  to  any  PPD \nbenefits based on alleged permanent anatomical impairment as she has a preexisting condition of \narthritis in her right shoulder that is the “major cause” of her disability and/or need for medical \ntreatment. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 4; 43-45). \n     The record consists of the reporter’s transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein or \nattached thereto.    \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n       The claimant, Ms. Kathy L. Carrothers, was 72 years old at the time of the hearing and was \n69 years old at the time of her June 7, 2022, admittedly compensable “medical only”, no-lost-time \nright  knee  injury.  On  June  7,  2022,  the  claimant  was  working  as  an  assistant  specialist in  the \nStudent Activities Office at Southern Arkansas University (SAU) in Magnolia, a job that is light \nduty in nature as the claimant described it. On June 7, 2022, the claimant was working at a student \ncasino night when she picked-up a box of faux gambling chips which she described as “heavy” \nwhen she felt pain and discomfort in her right shoulder and she knew “that something had \nhappened.” (T. 10; 7-13). She continued to work but she did go to see the SAU nurse. When her \nright shoulder continued to hurt on the evening of June 7, 2022, the claimant testified the next day \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n4 \n \nshe went to the SAU Health Office and initiated the workers’ compensation claim process. (T. 10-\n11). \n     The respondents accepted the June 7, 2022, work injury as a temporary aggravation of her \npreexisting arthritic condition and a “medical-only” claim. (T. 13-39). As stipulated the claimant \nnever lost any time from work as a result of the June 7, 2022, work incident. (Stipulation 4, supra). \nMedical records show the claimant first sought medical treatment for her right shoulder on June \n28, 2022, with Dr. Rodney Griffen. (Claimant’s Exhibit 2 at 1-7). Since then she has undergone a \nnumber  of  diagnostic  tests  and  various  conservative  treatment  modalities  including  taking \nmedications and undergoing physical therapy (PT). (T. 11-41; CX 1 at 1-8; Claimant’s Exhibit 2 \nat 1-140; Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 1-12).     \n     As a result of her continued complaints of pain in her right shoulder the claimant eventually \ncame  under  the  care  of  Dr.  Kenneth  G.  Gati,  an  orthopedic  surgeon at  South  Arkansas \nOrthopaedics & Sports Medicine. She first saw Dr. Gati on September 13, 2022. The clinic note \nfor  this  date  indicates  the  claimant  was  taking many prescription  medications  for  various \nconditions,  including  Amytryptiline,  a  tricyclic  antidepressant  commonly  used  for  treatment  of \nchronic pain, nerve pain and fibromyalgia, among other complaints; Methylprednisone, a strong \ncorticosteroid used to treat arthritis, inflammation and other conditions; and Tramadol, a narcotic \npain  relief  medication.  (CX1  at  43).  X-rays taken on this date of the claimant’s right shoulder \nshowed “no acute bony abnormality”, and Dr. Gati’s initial “Diagnostic Code” was, “Complete \nrotator  cuff  tear  or  rupture  of  right  shoulder,  not  specified  as  traumatic...  .”  (CX1  at  44). \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n5 \n \nConsequently, Dr. Gati ordered an MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder which was conducted on \n9/15/2022. \n     The “IMPRESSION” section of the radiologist’s interpretation of the 9/15/2022 MRI results \nof the claimant’s right shoulder states the study revealed in relevant part, “1. High-grade interstitial \ntearing  of  the  supraspinatus  tendon  at  and  near  the  footprint  on  a  background  of  severe \ntendinosis...2. High-grade  delaminating  tear  extends  into  the  infraspinatus  musculotendinous \njunction, on a background of severe tendinosus...5.  Moderate  glenohumeral  osteoarthritis  with \ndegenerative labral  tearing  greatest  posteriorly...6. Severe  acromioclavicular osteoarthrosis. \nSmall marginal osteophytes and possible subacromial enthesophyte may contribute to the clinical \ndiagnosis  of  extrinsic  impingement.”  (CX2  at  49;  48-49).  Dr.  Gati’s  9/20/2022  clinic  note \nsummarizes the claimant’s right shoulder problems under the heading “DIAGNOSTIC  TEST \nFINDINGS:  MRI  shows  high-grade  tendinosis  to  the  rotator  cuff.  There  was  also  bicipital \ntendinitis  There  are  [sic]  degenerative  tearing  of  the  labrum.  There  is  [sic]  also  degenerative \nchanges  to  the  glenohumeral  joint  and  also  the  acromioclavicular  joint.  There  is [sic]  findings \nconsistent with impingement.” (CX2 at 52;  51-53)  (Emphasis  in  original;  Bracketed  material \nadded).  \n     Thereafter,  Dr.  Gati  treated  the  claimant’s  pain  with  injections  and  other  conservative \ntreatment  modalities such  as medications  and  PT.  (CX2  at  51-115).  The  claimant  testified  she \ncurrently takes over-the-counter (OTC) medication to manage her pain complaints, and that she \ndid not want to undergo the Dr. Gati had recommended in 2022 the June 2022, and she does not \nwant to undergo any surgery at this time. (T.20-41). \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n6 \n \n     The  claimant  next  treated  with  Dr.  Charles  E.  Pearce. In  a  report  dated  October  18,  2022 \n(which  also  contains  an  addendum  dated  November  8,  2022), after  having  both  examined  the \nclaimant in  person and reviewing  all  her medical  records  and diagnostic  studies  including  the \n9/15/2022, MRI, Dr. Pearce attributed  the  claimant’s  right  shoulder  pain  to  a  “probable \nexacerbation [sic] pre-existing arthritis.” (RX1 at 3; 3-4) (Bracketed material added). Dr. Pearce \nwent  on  to  state  as  follows: “I  suspect  rotator cuff  findings  or  [sic]  age-related. I  do  not  see \nevidence of a full thickness tear.” (RX1 at 3) (Bracketed material added).  \n     On November 2, 2022, the claimant underwent a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) at \nFunctional Testing Centers, Inc., which was interpreted as reliable and indicated she had reached \nmaximum medical improvement (MMI) and was able to work in the LIGHT classification based \non the United States Department of Labor Guidelines (the DOL Guidelines). The FCE report does \nnot indicate the claimant sustained any percentage of permanent anatomical impairment as a result \nof the June 7, 2022, work incident. (CX2 at 84-104). Again, the claimant continued to work at her \nregular job at SAU after the June 7, 2022, work incident and again, as stipulated, she has never \nmissed any time from work as a result of the June 7, 2022, work incident. (Stipulation 4, supra). \n     Dr. Pearce reviewed the FCE results and issued a November 8, 2022, addendum to his initial \n10/18/2022, report. (RX1 at 4). In this addendum Dr. Pearce opines as follows:  \n          Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) was completed on November 2, 2022. \n          The patient gave a reliable effort and was placed in the light category of work. \n          This is secondary to her pre-existing arthritis and not an on-the-job acute injury. \n          This is stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Further, there is \n          no impairment rating related to the reported injury date of June 7, 2022. The \n          only objective findings are those of a glenohumeral acromioclavicular arthritis. \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n7 \n \n \n        Additionally, I have revied radiographs from June 28, 2022, and July 20, 2022, \n        of the patient’s right shoulder. There is no acute abnormality. She has preexisting \n        arthritis. Patient was under the impression that she had AC separation but that is not \n        shown. Again, this is stated within a [sic] degree of medical certainty. \n \n        The patient has reached maximum medical improvement as it pertains to the on-the- \n        job injury.    \n \n(RX1 at 2) (Bracketed material added). Moreover, two (2) detailed and thorough reports – one (1) \ndated December 19, 2022, and a second dated January 17, 2023 – of orthopedic specialists from a \nthird-party peer review company, Medical Review Institute of America, LLC, also in agreement \nwith Dr. Pearce’s opinions regarding the issues litigated at the subject hearing. (RX1 at 9-12).  \n     The claimant did not pursue or actively prosecute her workers’ compensation claim, and it \nappears  her  employer- sponsored  health  insurance  was  paying  her  bills,  not  the  workers’ \ncompensation  carrier.  (T.  25-41).  Consequently,  the  respondents  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  this \nclaim without prejudice for lack of prosecution (MTD). On August 8, 2024, a hearing was held on \nthe respondents’ MTD and the ALJ decided to hold a final opinion on the respondents’ MTD in \nabeyance. (T. 18-19).  \n     Soon  thereafter  the  claimant  requested  and by  an order  filed  November  12,  2024  (and \napparently an amended order filed November 19, 2024) the Commission granted her one (1)-time-\nonly COP request to see Dr. D’Orsay Bryant. Dr. Bryant ordered a new, updated MRI apparently \nto confirm or corroborate or update the condition of the claimant’s right shoulder; however, he did \nnot articulate in detail his reason for requesting the new MRI. (Stipulation 5, supra; CX2 at 117-\n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n8 \n \n119). In a clinic note dated April 22, 2025, Dr. Gati also suggested the claimant undergo an updated \nMRI  to  ascertain the  current  condition  of her right  shoulder.  (CX2  at  121;  120-121).  The \nrespondents denied payment for this MRI as constituting unrelated treatment that is not reasonably \nnecessary in light of the June 7, 2022, work incident, so the claimant’s employer-sponsored health \ninsurance paid for it.  \n     None of the medical doctors who served as the claimant’s treating physicians – Dr. Russell, \nDr. Gati, or Dr. Bryant – ever issued her a permanent anatomical impairment rating. But in a report \ndated  July  22,  2025, a  chiropractor,  Joe  Hugghins,  of  Academy  Rehab  in  Longview,  Texas, \nprepared  a  document in  which,  among  other  things,  he  cites  Texas  law in  support  of  his  MMI \nopinion. (CX2 at 130-140). It appears Texas Chiropractor Hugghins examined the claimant and \nher medical records for  35 minutes on July 22, 2025, and, thereafter, he  wrote his report of the \nsame  date  opining  the  claimant  is  entitled  to  a  permanent  anatomical  impairment  rating  of  five \npercent  (5%)  to  the  body-as-a-whole  (BAW). It is unclear from Chiropractor Hugghin’s report \nwhether he was familiar with or qualified to render such an opinion, and whether he either applied \n(or appropriately applied) the 4\nth\n Edition of the AMA Guides. (CX2 at 136-137). \n     The claimant testified she continues to experience subjective complaints of pain in her right \nshoulder, and to date none of the conservative treatment she has been offered has alleviated those \ncomplaints. She has also made it clear she does not want to undergo surgery on her right shoulder. \n(T. 12-41).  \n \n    \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n9 \n \nDISCUSSION \nThe Burden of Proof \n      When deciding any issue, the ALJ and the Commission shall determine, on the basis of the \nrecord as a whole, whether the party having the burden of proof on the issue has established it by \na  preponderance  of  the  evidence. Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2)  (2025 Lexis  Replacement). \nThere is no presumption that a claim is compensable, that an injury is job-related, or that a claimant \nis entitled to benefits. Crouch Funeral Home v. Crouch, 262, Ark. 417, 557 S.W.2d 392 (1977); \nOkay  Processing,  Inc.  v.  Servold,  265  Ark.  352,  578  S.W.2d  224  (1979). The  claimant  has  the \nburden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to benefits. Stone v. Patel, \n26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). In determining whether the claimant has met \nhis burden of proof, the Commission is required to weigh the evidence impartially, without giving \nthe  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  either  party. Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-704(c)(4); Gencorp  Polymer \nProducts v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, \n22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). The ALJ, the Commission, and the courts \nshall strictly construe the Act, which also requires them to read and construe the Act in its entirety, \nand  to  harmonize  its  provisions  when  necessary. Farmers’ Coop. v. Biles, 77  Ark.  App.  1,  69 \nS.W.2d 899 (Ark. App. 2002). \n     All claims for workers’ compensation benefits must be based on proof. Speculation and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Correc. v. Glover, 35 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, \n595 S.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n10 \n \nof the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardee’s, 51 Ark. App. 116, \n912 S.W.2d 14 (Ark. App. 1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s \nor any other witness’s testimony but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions \nof the testimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 \n(Ark. App. 1989); and Farmers’ Coop., supra. The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical \nevidence just as it does any other evidence, and  to resolve conflicting medical opinions; and its \nresolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Williams v. Pro Staff \nTemps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999); Hill v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 74 Ark. App. 250, 57 S.W.3d \n735 (Ark. App. 2001). Although it is within the Commission’s province to weigh conflicting \nevidence,  it  may  not  arbitrarily  disregard  medical  evidence  or  the  testimony  of  any  witness. \nPatchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (Ark. App. 2004).  \nRelated, Reasonably Necessary Medical Care and Treatment \n     Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-508(a)(1)  (2025  Lexis Replacement)  requires  an  employer  to \npromptly provide an injured worker with, among other modalities, such medical treatment “as may \nbe reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.” The burden of \nproof is on the claimant to prove the medical treatment he requests is reasonable and necessary for \ntreatment of her compensable injury. Lankford v. Crossland Constr. Co., 2011 Ark. App. 416, 384 \nS.W.3d  561  (Ark.  App.  2011).  What  constitutes  reasonably necessary  medical  treatment  is  a \nquestion  of  fact  for  the  Commission  and  turns  on  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence. Wright \nContracting Co. v. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W.2d 750 (Ark. App. 1984); Gansky v. Hi-\nTech Eng’g, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n11 \n \n     While  injured  employees  must  prove  that  medical  services  are  reasonably  necessary  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence, Arkansas law is well-settled that such services may include those \nnecessary  to  accurately  diagnose  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  compensable  injury;  to  reduce  or \nalleviate  symptoms  resulting  from  the  compensable  injury;  to  maintain  the  level  of  healing \nachieved; or to prevent further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3); Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51  Ark.  App. 100, 911 S.W.2d \n593 (Ark. App. 1995).  \n     Our court of appeals has noted that even if the healing period has ended, a claimant may be \nentitled to ongoing medical treatment if the treatment is geared toward management of problems \nemanating from his compensable injury. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark App. 230, 184 \nS.W.3d 31, (Ark. App. 2004). A claimant is not required to support the alleged need for continued \nmedical  treatment  with  objective  findings. Chamber  Door  Industries,  Inc.  v.  Graham,  59  Ark. \nApp. 224, 956 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. App. 1997). \n     Reasonably  necessary  medical  services  include  those  necessary  to  reduce  or  alleviate \nsymptoms resulting from the compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3); and Jordan, \nsupra. Also, reasonably necessary medical services include those necessary to reduce or alleviate \nsymptoms resulting from the compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3); and Jordan, \nsupra.     \n     The  preponderance  of  the  credible  medical  evidence  of  record  conclusively  reveals  the \nclaimant  sustained  a  minor injury  which  resulted  only  in  a temporary  aggravation  of  her long-\nstanding preexisting arthritic condition in her right shoulder which was readily apparent to all of \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n12 \n \nher authorized treating physicians, and to Dr. Pearce, as of – at the latest – November 8, 2022, the \nfull extent of the condition of the claimant’s right shoulder, as well as the cause of her pain: the \ndegenerative changes naturally associated with the aging process. Both the claimant’s diagnosis \nand  the  etiology of  it  were  readily  apparent  to  all  her  authorized  treating  physicians  and  to  Dr. \nPearce long before the claimant returned to Dr. Gati on her own initiative on April 22, 2025, the \ndate he suggested the second MRI.  \n     Moreover, the peer review reports of a medical doctor (MD) and orthopedic specialist, Dr. \nKim Sloan, dated December 19, 2022, and January 7, 2023, are thorough, independent, and reflect \na knowledge of the claimant’s medical history, treatment, and diagnostic testing following the June \n7, 2022, minor work incident. I find Dr. Sloan’s reports to be credible and highly persuasive on \nthese facts, especially when considered in light of the medical records of the claimant’s treating \nphysicians, and Dr. Pearce’s opinions stated above which . (RX1 at 2). When considering all of \nthe  medical  evidence  as  a  whole,  I  find  Dr.  Pearce’s  opinions  to  be  well  informed,  highly \npersuasive, independent, clear and the most credible on these facts. And, again, note that Dr. Pearce \nfinds that the claimant’s objective medical findings are all degenerative in nature, and are neither \nacute or the result of trauma. \n     The  preponderance  of  the  credible  medical  evidence  of  record  reveals  the  claimant’s right \nshoulder problems were related to age-related degenerative changes which were only temporarily \naggravated by the minor June 7, 2022 work incident (for which the claimant did not seek medical \ntreatment until June 28, 2022 (CX2 at 3-7)); that she reached MMI from her June 7, 2022, injury \nas of November 8, 2022; and that no further diagnostic tests or medical treatment from that point \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n13 \n \nforward could be related to, or reasonably necessary in light of, the obviously minor June 7, 2022, \nwork incident. Indeed, even the claimant herself admitted that none of the medical treatment she \nhas undergone for the last period of almost four (4) years, has alleviated her pain. And it is also \ninteresting the claimant returned to see Dr. Gati only after the respondents filed their MTD. \n    Therefore, the claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating that either the \nadditional MRI Dr. Gati suggested in April 2025, or any and all treatment – which the claimant \nhas failed to specify at the hearing or in the record – is either related to or reasonably necessary in \nlight of her minor injury of June 7, 2022, for which she reached MMI on November 8, 2022.    \nPermanent Anatomical Impairment \n     The claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to an award \nof   permanent physical   impairment. Ark.   Code   Ann. §   11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a)   (2025   Lexis \nReplacement) states that: \"Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the \ncompensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.\" \"Major cause\" is defined \nas more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause, and the claimant must prove the compensable injury \nwas the “major cause” of his disability or impairment by the preponderance of the evidence. Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-102(14). In addition, any determination of the existence or extent of physical \nimpairment  shall  be  supported  by  objective  and  measurable  findings. Ark. Code  Ann. § \n11-9-704(c)(1)(B). Finally,  pursuant  to Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-522(g),  the  Commission  has \nadopted  the American  Medical Association’s (AMA) Guides  to  the  Evaluation  of  Permanent \nImpairment (4\nth\n Edition 1993) (the AMA Guides), for assessing anatomical impairment, “exclusive \nof any sections which refer to pain and exclusive of straight leg raising tests or range of motion \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. 208579 \n \n14 \n \ntests when making physical or anatomical impairment ratings to the spine.” And see, 11 C.A.R. \nSection 25-129 (Code of AR Regulations, 2025 Lexis Repl.), former cited as Commission Rule \n099.34.  \nOf course, the Commission is required to weigh the medical evidence and to translate this \nmedical  evidence  into  an  appropriate  finding  regarding  permanent  impairment  using  the AMA \nGuides. Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (Ark. App. 2001). Consequently, \nthe Commission may assess its own impairment rating using the Guides rather than relying solely \non its determination of the validity of ratings assigned by physicians.   Id. \nAmong  the  other  criteria  governing the  assessment  and assignment  of  a permanent \nanatomical  impairment  rating, the  Commission must  be  determined  when  the  condition – \nparticularly when the condition is a soft tissue injury – becomes “permanent.” The AMA Guides \ndefine a “permanent impairment” as an “impairment that has become static or well stabilized with \nor without medical treatment and is not likely to remit despite medical treatment.” See AMA \nGuides, 4\nth\n Ed., page 315. Pursuant to the AMA Guides, 4\nth\n Ed., page 9: “An impairment should \nnot be considered ‘permanent’ until the clinical findings, determined during a period of months, \nindicate that the medical condition at issue is static and well stabilized.” \nFor all the same reasons cited above and in the “Statement of the Case”, I also find the \nclaimant has failed to prove she has sustained any percentage of permanent anatomical impairment \nas a result of the minor, June 7, 2022, work incident. Once again, it is significant to note that none \nof the claimant’s treating physicians as well as Dr. Pearce – and Arkansas orthopedic specialist \nwell known to this ALJ and the Commission – did not find the claimant sustained any percentage \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. H208579 \n \n \n \n15 \nof permanent anatomical impairment resulting from the minor June 7, 2022, work incident. I find \nDr. Pearce’s opinion stating and explaining that the degenerative condition as well as the objective \nmedical findings of the claimant’s right shoulder are not acute nor the result of any trauma, and \nthat she has not sustained any percentage of permanent anatomical impairment as a result of the \nminor  June  7,  2022,  work  incident  to  be  well  informed  and  highly  credible.  I  find  Texas \nChiropractor Hugghin’s opinion assigning  a  5%  permanent  anatomical  impairment  rating  to  be \nuninformed and   not   credible.   The   preponderance   of   the   medical   evidence   conclusively \ndemonstrates the claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating that the subject \nminor work injury is the “major cause” of any degree of impairment she may or may not have. See \nGoyne v. Crabtree Contr. Co., 2009 Ark. App. 200, 301 S.W.3d 16 (Ark. App. 2009), rehearing \ndenied, ___ Ark. App. ___ , ___ S.W.3d ___ , 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 874 (Ark. App., April 22, \n2009).   \nTherefore, for all the aforementioned reasons I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The  stipulations  contained  in  the  amended  prehearing  filed  October  3, \n2025, which the parties affirmed on the record at the hearing, hereby are \naccepted as facts.  \n \n3. The claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating she \nis entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of the second MRI \nat issue herein and unspecified treatment by Dr. Gati.  \n \n4. The claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating she \nsustained any permanent anatomical impairment as a result of her “medical \nonly”, no-lost-time admittedly compensable right shoulder injury of June \n7, 2022.  \n\nKathy L. Carrothers, AWCC No. H208579 \n \n \n \n16 \n \n5. The claimant’s attorney is not entitled to a fee on these facts. \n  \n     Therefore,  for  all  the  aforementioned  reasons this  claim  is  denied  and  dismissed  with \nprejudice subject only to the parties’ statutory appeal rights.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n                                              \n \nMike Pickens \nAdministrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208579 KATHY L. CARROTHERS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STATE OF ARKANSAS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2026 Hearing conducted on Friday, November 21, 20...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:13.319Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208579-2026-02-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CARROTHERS_KATHY_H208579_20260219.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}