{"id":"alj-H300194-2025-01-30","awcc_number":"H300194","decision_date":"2025-01-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Tammy Craig","employer_name":"Arrow Workforce Solutions","title":"CRAIG VS. ARROW WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS AWCC# H300194 January 30, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","hip","cervical","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Craig_Tammy_H300194_20250130.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Craig_Tammy_H300194_20250130.pdf","text_length":22155,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H300194 \n \n \nTAMMY T. CRAIG, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nARROW WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, \n UNINSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 30, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on December  13,  2024,  in \nForrest City, St. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant pro se. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. R.  Scott  Zuerker,  Attorney  at  Law, Fort  Smith, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On December  13,  2024,  the  above-captioned  claim  was  heard  in Forrest  City, \nArkansas.  A prehearing conference took place on October 14, 2024.  The Prehearing \nOrder  entered on  October  15,  2024, pursuant  to  the  conference  was  admitted  without \nobjection  as  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the \nstipulations, issues, and respective contentions, as amended, were properly set forth in \nthe order. \nStipulations \n At  the  hearing,  the  parties  discussed  the  stipulations  set  forth  in  Commission \nExhibit 1.  Following an amendment of Stipulation No. 4, they read as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n2 \n2. The  employee/employer  relationship  existed  between  the  parties  on  July \n11, 2022, and at all other relevant times. \n3. Respondent has controverted this claim in its entirety. \n4. Claimant’s average weekly wage of $989.18 entitles her to compensation \nrates of $659.00/$494.00. \nIssues \n At  the  hearing,  the parties  discussed the  issues  set forth  in  Commission  Exhibit \n1.  The following were litigated: \n1. Whether  Claimant  sustained  compensable  injuries\n1\n to her  head,  hips, \nbuttocks, and right knee by specific incident. \n2. Whether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment of her alleged compensable injuries. \n3. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties read as follows: \n \n \n1\nDuring  her  testimony,  Claimant  made  references  to  injuring  her  lower  back  as \nwell.  Informed that her back had not been made a subject of the hearing, she moved to \namend  the  compensability  issue  to  include  an  alleged  lower  back  injury.    After \nRespondents objected due to a lack of adequate notice, the motion was denied.  Thus, \nthe  issue  of  whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  lower  back  by \nspecific incident is reserved and is not addressed herein. \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n3 \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant  contends  that  she sustained  compensable  injuries to her  head, \nhips,  buttocks,  and  right  knee  as  the  result  of  a  work-related  fall  on  July \n11, 2022, and that she is entitled to medical and temporary total disability \nbenefits as a result. \n Respondent: \n1. Respondents contend that they have controverted this claim in its entirety. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documents, and \nother  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear \nthe  testimony  of the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the \nfollowing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant  has not proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that she \nsustained a compensable injury to her head by specific incident. \n4. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she \nsustained a compensable injury to her hips by specific incident. \n5. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she \nsustained a compensable injury to her buttocks by specific incident. \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n4 \n6. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she \nsustained a compensable injury to her right knee by specific incident. \n7. Because of Findings/Conclusions Nos. 3-6 supra, the remaining issues—\nwhether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment of her alleged compensable injuries and whether she is entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits—are moot and will not be addressed. \nADJUDICATION \nSummary of Evidence \n The witnesses at the hearing were Claimant, Marica Pettway, and Cedric Paxton, \nSr.  Along  with the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  the  exhibits admitted  into \nevidence were Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of her medical (one index page and \n71 numbered pages thereafter) and non-medical records\n2\n (three index pages and eight \nnumbered  pages  thereafter); Claimant’s Exhibit 2, non-medical  records,  consisting  of \neight  numbered  pages; Respondent’s Exhibit  1,  a  compilation  of Claimant’s medical \nrecords,   consisting   of three   index   pages   and   212   numbered   pages   thereafter; \nRespondents’ Exhibit 2,  non-medical  records,  consisting  of  one  index  page  and 17 \nnumbered pages thereafter. \nA. Compensability \n Standards.   Arkansas Code  Annotated  § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012),  which  I \nfind applies to the analysis of Claimant’s alleged injuries, defines “compensable injury”: \n \n \n2\nThese are simply a duplicate of Claimant’s Exhibit 2. \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n5 \n(i) An  accidental  injury  causing  internal  or  external  physical  harm  to \nthe  body  .  .  .  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment  and \nwhich requires medical services or results in disability or death.  An \ninjury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident and is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those \nfindings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16). \n If  Claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence any of  the \nrequirements  for  establishing  compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.   Mikel  v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 \nArk.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415; Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove  Barium  Corp.,  212  Ark.  491,  206 \nS.W.2d 442 (1947). \n Discussion.  The evidence shows that on the alleged date of injury, Claimant was \nan employee of Respondent Arrow Workforce Solutions (“AWS”), which is a temporary \nstaffing agency.  AWS had assigned her to the Marion, Arkansas plant of Hino Motors \nManufacturing USA, Inc. (“Hino”).  That facility manufactures Toyota automotive parts.  \nClaimant worked on the carrier case production line there during the period at issue. \n The following exchange took place: \nQ. You had said that you got hurt on July 11, 2022? \n \nA. Correct. \n \nQ. All right.  What happened on that day? \n \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n6 \nA. Well,  I  went  into  work  on  that  day.    The  line  was  short-staffed.    It \nwas myself on that line by myself.  Usually it’s three to four workers \non that line, but a lot of people didn’t come in that day.  It’s—it’s a \nline that goes from this part to this end, end to end . . . [t]he carrier \ncase  consists  of  a  line  that  goes  from  A—A [L]ine  all  the  way \nthrough  I  think  D.    A,  B,  C,  D,  E  is  different  sections  of  the  area.  \nSection A is where a group of workers work, B, C, and D. \n \nQ. Okay.  And you were in what section again? \n \nA. I think I was in C. \n \nQ. All right.  So what were you doing working in C on July 11, 2022? \n \nA. I  was  working  making  carrier  case  parts.    I  went  to  load  the  line \nbecause I ran out of carrier cases.  Carrier cases are the parts that \nwe put in the machine to file them down and drill holes in them.  We \nran out of parts for that machine.  There was nobody to load them, \nand usually when there is nobody to load them on there, we have to \nload them our[s]elf.  I went down to the back of the line to get ready \nto load a carrier case on the line.  I slipped in some product and fell \nbackwards with the part. \n \nQ. All right.  Let’s stop for a second, and let’s go back and kind of flesh \nthis out. \n \nA. Okay. \n \nQ. You  were  putting  a  carrying  case  yourself  on  the  line,  you  were \nhanging it, is that correct? \n \nA. On the loading line. \n \nQ. On  the  loading  line.  What does  that  mean to put  it on  the  loading \nline? \n \nA. The loading line is in the back of the carrier case line.  It’s where we \nload the parts on the conveyor belt to load and go up the ramp and \ncome down the line to us. \n \nQ. All right.  And you said you slipped in a product? \n \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n7 \nA. Yes.  I don’t know what the product consists of, oil mixed with some \nother  solution.    They got mixed together.   But  it’s milky-looking, \nit’s—I don’t know what it is. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. Tell  us  what  happened.    You  hit—did  you  hit  anything?    Where—\nhow did you land?  Go into detail on this. \n \nA. I  land  on—I  land  backwards  on  my  butt,  and  I  hit  my  head \nbackwards.    And  I  threw—the  part  was  in  this  right  hand,  and  I \nthrew it over my head so it wouldn’t fall on my head. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. You said you head hit something.  What did your head hit? \n \nA. The ground. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. What’s the ground made of? \n \nA. Concrete. \n \nLater, Claimant elaborated that she injured her right leg in the fall as well. \n Per  Claimant,  she  immediately  reported  the  incident  to  Antonio  Moore,  her \nsupervisor.    She  was  instructed  to  continue  working.    But  after  she  later  requested  to \nleave because she was hurting, Moore allowed her to do so. \n The next day, July 12, 2022, she was informed that she had to work because no \none from AWS was present at the jobsite.  However, on July 14, 2022, she was given \nan  appointment  at  Coast  to  Coast  Medical (“Coast to Coast”).  The  record  of  that  visit \nreflects that Claimant informed treating personnel at the clinic that she slipped at work \non July 11, 2022, and “landed on [her] rear . . . .”  She presented with pain in her lower \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n8 \nback,  right  hip,  and  the  back  of  her  thigh.    Claimant  was  diagnosed  as  having  lower \nback pain as a result of a fall, was allowed to return to work without restrictions on July \n18,  2022,  and  was  prescribed Ibuprofen.    After  a  follow-up  visit  to  Coast  to  Coast  on \nJuly 20, 2022, Claimant was assessed by Lance Harrell, NP, as having right lower back \nand gluteal pain; and she was informed that she could return to work without restrictions \nas of July 25, 2022. \n The foregoing records are devoid of objective findings of an injury to Claimant’s \nhead,  hips,  buttocks, and  right  knee.   As  for  the  remaining  medical  records  that are  in \nevidence, the first and only reference to her head is a report of an MRI of her head that \ntook  place  on March  18,  2023—and  which  was  compared  to  another  that  she \nunderwent  on  April  29,  2020.  The  stated  reason  for  the  MRI  was  that  Claimant  was \npresenting with “vascular headaches.”  The Coast to Coast records do not show that \nshe reported striking her head in the alleged fall at Hino.  It is noteworthy that this MRI \noccurred eight months after the alleged fall.  Questioned at the hearing about her head, \nClaimant acknowledged that her headaches were a pre-existing condition, and that her \nproviders  had  posited  that  her  use  of  narcotics  was  the  source  of  them.    She  agreed \nthat  in  2019,  she  was  complaining  of  headaches  and  dizziness,  and  reported  having \nfalls, a motor vehicle accident, and suffering a head injury.  The following exchange took \nplace: \nQ. So  whatever  happened  with  the  looking  into  the  traumatic  brain \ninjury? \n \nA. When they looked into that, they found nothing.  To my knowledge, \nthey found nothing because they never discussed it with me. \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n9 \n \n. . . \n \nQ. So you’re having problems out of the right eye? \n \nA. Correct.  That’s the eye that I wear the glasses for.  I actually wear \nthe glasses for both, but the right eye is they eye with the problem, \nand this side of the head where I hit my head is where the scarring \nthe brain is. \n \nBut the MRI report by Dr. Scott Didier reads in pertinent part: \nFindings \nThere  is  no  diffusion  abnormality.    There  is  no mass  effect extra-axial \ncollection.    There  is  no  hydrocephalus.    There  are  a  few  scattered \npunctate  T2/FLAIR  hyperintensities  in  the  supratentorial  white  matter \nbilaterally,  nonspecific  and  unchanged.    This  may  represent  sequela  of \nmigraine headaches  or  minimal  microangiopathy  among  other  less  likely \netiologies.    The  intracranial  internal  carotid  arteries  and  basilar  artery \ndemonstrate signal void implying gross patency.  The orbits and skull base \nare   grossly   unremarkable.      Minimal   cerebellar   tonsillar   ectopia   is \nunchanged.    There  is  no  mass  effect  on  the  brainstem  or  upper  cervical \nspine. \n \nImpression. \nMinimal  supratentorial  white  matter  T2  hyperintensities,  nonspecific,  as \ndiscussed.  Minimal cerebellar tonsillar ectopia. \n \nThese are not objective findings of a head injury.  And even if they were, assuming so \nonly  for  the  sake  of  argument,  they cannot be causally related to Claimant’s alleged \nwork-related fall. \n There are no objective findings in evidence with respect to her buttocks.  As for \nher hips, she underwent an MRI of her hips and pelvis on July 27, 2022—16 days after \nher  alleged  fall.    The  findings  of  that  MRI,  per  Dr.  Scott  Ferguson,  were  normal.   The \nonly  other  references—post-July  11,  2022—to  her  hips in her  medical  records are \ngeneral complaints of left hip pain that do not mention her alleged fall.  I note that these \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n10 \nsame records reflect that she was diagnosed as having osteoarthritis of the hip.  This, of \ncourse, is a degenerative condition.  Therefore, there are no objective findings of a hip \ninjury, either. \n Finally, with regard to Claimant’s alleged right knee injury, Amber Sloan, APRN, \nstated  on  January  18,  2023,  that  Claimant  had  crepitus  in  the  right  knee.    Because \ncrepitance is a condition that can be heard and/or felt—i.e., perceived with one or more \nof  the  five  senses,  per  DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 433  (30\nth\n ed. \n2003)— and is not voluntary, it can constitute an objective finding.  But it is worth noting \nnot only that Sloan found crepitus in both of Claimant’s knees—i.e., the non-injured as \nwell as the allegedly injured one—but that the records of Claimant’s July 27, 2022, (16 \ndays after the alleged incident) and September 21, 2022, visit to Sloan’s clinic make no \nmention of crepitance. \n However, more than mere crepitance was found in Claimant’s right knee.  She \nunderwent an MRI of that body part on May 3, 2023.  Dr. Dexter Witte read the MRI to \nshow: \n1. Low-grade MCL sprain. \n \n2.  Mild  sprain  of  the  proximal  fibular  collateral  ligament  without  frank \nligament discontinuity. \n \n3.  Small horizontal tear medial meniscal body. \n \n4.  Mild  articular  cartilage  loss  across  the  lateral  femoral  condyle  and \nwithin the patellofemoral joint. \n \n5.  Small  effusion  and  Baker’s  cyst  which  dissects  in  the  proximal \npopliteal fossa. \n \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n11 \nOn   September   21,   2023,   Dr.   Jay   Saenz   operated   on   Claimant,   performing   an \narthroscopic  loose  body  removal  and  arthroscopic  chondroplasty  of  the  right  knee.  \nWhile his pre-operative diagnosis was that Claimant had a “[m]edial meniscus tear,” his \ninspection during surgery revealed that the medial meniscus was “intact.”  Thus, post-\nsurgery, he assigned her the diagnoses of \n1.  Patellar chondromalacia, right knee. \n2.  Multiple loose bodies, right knee. \n Respondents consulted Dr. Theodore Hronas, a board-certified radiologist, about \nthe above.  On December 4, 2024, Dr. Hronas issued the following opinion letter: \nDear Mr. Zuerker: \n \nAt your request, the following films and reports were reviewed: \nClinical records provided. \nMRI of the right knee, 04/16/2019.  Millenium MRI. \nRadiographs of the right knee, 04/25/2023.  MSK Group PC. \nMRI of the right knee, 05/03/2023.  Midsouth Imaging. \nOperative note, 09/21/2023.  Dr. Saenz. \n \nThe  clinical  history  is  of  a  work-related  accidental  injury  on  7/11/22 \ndescribed as, “unloading the carrier case machine and slipped and fell \nbackwards.”  Two  MRI  exams  of  the  right  knee  are  presented  for  review \nthat were presented prior to, and after the date of injury.  Radiographs of \nthe  right  knee  are  also  presented.  The  exams  are  a  good  quality  and \nsufficient  for  diagnostic  purposes.  I  am  a  board-certified  radiologist  with \nadditional  training  in  body and  musculoskeletal  MRI,  and  therefore  my \nfocus will be on the imaging studies and radiographs provided. \n \nThe  MRI  of  the  right  knee,  04/16/2019,  was  performed  approximately \nthree  years  prior  to  the  date  of  injury.  This  study  demonstrates  normal \npatellofemoral  articulation  with  maintenance  of  the  articular  cartilage  and \nretinacula.  There is a small joint effusion.  The quadriceps tendon, patella \ntendon, anterior cruciate ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, and medial \nand  lateral  collateral  ligaments  are  normal.  The  lateral  meniscus  is \nnormal.  There is an oblique tear involving the posterior horn of the medial \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n12 \nmeniscus.  There  is  no  meniscal  root  injury.  There  is  diffuse  grade III \nchondromalacia of the medial and lateral tibiofemoral compartments. \n \nThe MRI of the right knee, 05/13/2023, was performed approximately ten \nmonths  after  the  date  of  injury.  The  exam  shows  areas  of  grade II \nchondromalacia  involving  the  articular  surfaces  of  the  patellofemoral \ncompartment.  The  medial  and  lateral  retinacula  are  intact.  There  is  a \nsmall  joint  effusion.  The  quadriceps  tendon,  patellar  tendon, anterior \ncruciate   ligament,   posterior cruciate   ligament,   and   lateral   collateral \nligaments are normal.  There [is] edema superficial to the medial collateral \nligament, characteristic of a recent grade I injury.  The lateral meniscus is \nnormal.  There is intermediate T2 signal intensity within the posterior horn \nof  the  medial  meniscus,  characteristic  of  granulation  tissue  or  myxoid \nchange  which  correspond  to  the  medial  meniscal  tear  seen  on  the  MRI \ndated  04/16/2019.  There  is  no  meniscal  root  injury.  There  is  diffuse \ngrade III chondromalacia  involving  the  medial  and  lateral tibiofemoral \ncompartments.  There  is  no  osteochondral  injury  or  evidence  of  bone \nmarrow edema. \n \nIn  review  of  the  operative  report,  09/21/2023,  the  surgeon  reported, \n“inspection  of  the  meniscus  revealed  it  was  intact,” confirming  there  was \nnot [a] meniscal tear related to the 7/11/22 event.  The surgeon report[ed] \nadditional   findings   of   a   few   small   loose   bodies   and   presence   of \nchondromalacia. \n \nIn  summary,  the  MRI  exam  of  the  right  knee  performed  prior  to  the  work \ninjury demonstrated findings of a nondisplaced tear of the posterior horn of \nthe  medial  meniscus,  presence  of  a  small  joint  effusion,  and  areas  of \nchondromalacia.  The   most   recent   MRI   exam   of   the   right   knee, \n05/03/2023,  performed  approximately ten months  after  the  date  of  injury, \ndemonstrates  the  same  medial  meniscal  tear  present  on  the  4/16/2019 \nMRI  and  presence  of  a  recent  grade I injury  of  the  MCL.  The  imaging \nappearance of the MCL injury is consistent with an injury occurring within \n3-4  months  of  the  study  and  is  not  related  to  an  injury  that  occurred ten \nmonths  prior.  Specifically,  there  are  no  findings  of  any  injury  of  the \nright  knee  that  would  be  related  to  a  work  injury  that  occurred  on \n7/11/2022. \n \nMy  findings  herein  are  stated  within  a  reasonable  degree  of  medical \ncertainty. \n \n(Emphasis added) \n\nCRAIG – H300194 \n \n13 \n The  Commission  is  authorized  to  accept  or  reject  a  medical  opinion  and  is \nauthorized  to  determine  its  medical  soundness  and  probative  value.   Poulan  Weed \nEater  v.  Marshall,  79  Ark.  App.  129,  84  S.W.3d  878  (2002); Green  Bay  Packing  v. \nBartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 692 (1999).  After consideration of the evidence, \nI  credit  Dr.  Hronas on  this  matter.  In  a  nutshell,  the  evidence  does  not  show  that \nClaimant  has  objective  findings  of  a  right  knee  injury—or  of  her  other  injuries  that  she \nallegedly sustained on July 11, 2022.  Because of her failure to establish this element, \nshe  has  not proven by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  any  of  these  alleged \ninjuries are compensable.  Her claim, consequently, must fail at the outset. \nB. Remaining Issues \n Because  of the  above  findings,  the  remaining  issues—whether  Claimant  is \nentitled  to  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  of  her  alleged  compensable \ninjuries and whether she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits—are moot and \nwill not be addressed. \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim for initial benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Honorable O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H300194 TAMMY T. CRAIG, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARROW WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, UNINSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 30, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on December 13, 2024, in Forrest City, St. Francis County, Arkansas. Cl...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:55.502Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300194-2025-01-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Craig_Tammy_H300194_20250130.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}