{"id":"alj-H300528-2024-11-05","awcc_number":"H300528","decision_date":"2024-11-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Scott Diederich","employer_name":"Transco Lines, Inc","title":"DIEDERICH VS. TRANSCO LINES, INC. AWCC# H300528 November 05, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","knee","hip","sprain","fracture","rotator cuff","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DIEDERICH_SCOTT_H300528_20241105.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"DIEDERICH_SCOTT_H300528_20241105.pdf","text_length":19894,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H300528 \n \nSCOTT DIEDERICH, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nTRANSCO LINES, INC., Employer RESPONDENT \n \nNATIONAL INTERSTATE INS. CO, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 5, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in Russellville, Pope \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by DANIEL E. WREN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MICHAEL E. RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On August  8,  2024,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at Russellville, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on May 20, 2024, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas  filed  on May  21,  2024.      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 January \n8, 2023. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n 4. The  claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle him to  compensation  at  the \nweekly rates of $835.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $626.00 for permanent partial \ndisability benefits. \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-2- \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  left  shoulder,  left  knee,  and \nleft hip on or about January 8, 2023. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for his left shoulder injury. \n 3.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  January  9, \n2023, to June 24, 2024, less eight weeks when the claimant worked as a truck driver. \n 4. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee.  \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“The   Claimant   was   an   over   the   road   truck   driver   for   the \nRespondent employer, Transco Lines, when on January 8, 2023, he \nwas  cleaning  out  the  cab  of  his  18-wheeler  when  he  slipped  and \nfell from the cab onto the truck stop parking lot. \n \nAs a result of the fall, the Claimant suffered injuries to his left hip, \nleft shoulder,  and left knee and has been unable to work since the \ndate of the incident.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“The  claimant  allegedly  injured  his  left  knee,  left  hip  and  left \nshoulder  on  1-8-23  due  to  his  job  as  a  truck  driver.  The  tests \nfollowing  the  incident  were  all  negative  for  an  acute  injury.  The \nclaimant had a left total shoulder replacement in April 2024 that is \nnot the result of anything that happened in January 2023.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 63-year-old  male who  alleged  to  have  sustained \ncompensable injuries to his left shoulder, left knee, and left hip on or about January 8, 2023. The \nclaimant’s  attorney  was  asked  about  the  extent  of  his  request  for  benefits  regarding  the \nclaimant’s injuries by this administrative law judge at the initiation of the hearing in this matter. \nFollowing is that exchange: \n THE  COURT:  Thank  you.  The  Respondent  Employer  is \nTransco  Lines,  Incorporated.  The  Claimant  is  represented  by  Mr. \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-3- \nWren, Mr. Daniel Wren, and the Respondent is represented by Mr. \nMike Ryburn and we are here today for a full hearing. \n \n I have before me a Prehearing Order that was filed May the \n21\nst\n of 2024. That Order was signed by myself and I have marked \nit as Commission Exhibit 1. \n \n In  talks  with  both  parties  prior  to  going  on  the  record,  we \ndetermined that an alteration needed to be made to my Prehearing \nOrder. Issue No. 3 now reads, ‘Whether the Claimant is entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits from January 9, 2023 to June 24, \n2024,  less  eight  weeks  when  the  Claimant  worked  as  a  truck \ndriver.” \n \n MR.  WREN:  Your  Honor,  the  hip  and  knee,  we  are  not \nasking for treatment on those. It’s really just the left shoulder, so \nyou can actually subtract the left hip and knee. \n \n THE  COURT:  Even  as  to  compensability  at  this  point  or \nno? \n \n MR.    WREN:    We    will    leave    them    in    just    for \ncompensability, yes. \n \n THE COURT: But you want them out for treatment? \n \n MR. WREN: Yes, That is correct. \n \n THE COURT: So just the left shoulder for treatment? \n \n MR. WREN: Yes. \n \n The  claimant  has  made  clear  he  is  not  asking  the  Commission  to  decide  any  benefits \nrelated  to  the  alleged  left  knee  or  left  hip  injury. Given  the  position that  the  claimant  has  taken \nthis  administrative  law  judge  will  not  make  any  determination  involving  those  body  parts \nbecause  a  determination  without  a  benefit  request  to  a  body  part  alleged  to  have  been  injured \nwould be advisory in nature. Going forward this administrative law judge will only consider the \nclaimant’s left shoulder injury which he alleges is compensable and, if so, he alleges entitlement \nto medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits.  \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-4- \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  was  working  for  the  respondent  as  an  over-the-road  truck \ndriver. The claimant at that time had a Class A CDL license to operate said vehicle. However, his \nmedical  card,  which  was  also  required  to  operate  a  semi  tractor-trailer,  was  set  to  expire  on \nJanuary  7,  2023.  The  claimant  testified  that  he  made  the  respondent  aware  of  this  situation  a \nweek prior to his medical card expiring. The claimant testified that he continued to drive, but on \nJanuary 7, 2023, at midnight he stopped because of his expired medical card.  \n The  claimant  stopped  driving  near  a  truck  stop  and  parked  his  semi  tractor-trailer.  The \nclaimant  testified  that  the  respondent  knew  that  he  had  to  stop  driving  because  of  his  expired \nmedical  card.  The  claimant  testified  that  he  was  to  stay  with  the  semi  tractor-trailer  until  a \nreplacement driver arrived at his location to continue his previous assignment. During that down \ntime the claimant decided to clean the truck. Following is his testimony about doing so: \nQ All right. The morning of the 8\nth\n, did you get up before the \nsun had come up? \n \nA Yes. I didn’t sleep well that night, so I was up a lot. But, \nyes, I was up early that day. \n \nQ All right. And did you start cleaning out your cab? \n \nA Yes. I started getting my things together and I was cleaning \nthe cab. \n \nQ Do you carry a little whisk broom with you? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ So tell me specifically what happened. Describe how you – \ndid you fall out of the cab? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ All right. How did you come to fall out of the cab? \n \nA Well, I was sweeping the truck out because my stop prior to \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-5- \nthat  had  a  gravel  parking  lot  so  there  is  gravel  in  the  truck.  So  I \nwas   sweeping   that   out   of   the   passenger   door   and   as   I   was \nsweeping,  I  was  backing  up  out  of  the  door  and  I  missed  the  step \nand fell. \n \nQ And did you land on your left side or your right side? \n \nA My left side. \n \nQ And did you feel pain immediately? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Where did you feel pain when you fell from the cab? \n \nA My left shoulder, my left hip, and my left knee. \n \nQ Did you notify Transco at some point of this injury? \n \nA Yes.   I   talked   to   my   dispatcher   and   told   them   what \nhappened on the phone. Saben was my dispatcher. I called him. \n \n And  then,  also,  before  I  evacuated  the  truck  on  Tuesday,  I \nsent him a text message to remind him that when I get home I am \ngoing  to  see  my  personal  doctor  to  see if anything  was  seriously \nhurt or not because I was still in quite a bit of pain. \n \nQ All  right.  So  you  had  to  wait  a  couple  of  days  until  the \nreplacement  driver  came  and  took  possession  of  the  truck  and \ntractor from you? \n \nA Yes. Company rule, you can’t abandon a load, so I had to \nstay with the trailer until a driver came and picked up the trailer, so \nthat’s why I was there until Tuesday. \n \nQ And how did you get home from Tennessee to Alabama? \n \nA I had to rent a car and drive home. \n \n When  the  claimant  returned  home,  he  went  to  his  family  physician.  He  was  asked  on \ndirect examination about his initial doctor’s visit as follows: \nQ When you got home, did you see your family physician? \n \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-6- \nA Yes, I did. \n \nQ At  some  point  did  someone  from  either  Transco  or  their \nworkers’ comp carrier call you and tell you you couldn’t see your \nfamily doctor and you had to see someone else? \n \nA Well,  they  instructed  me  that  they  wanted  me  to  see  their \ndoctor. \n \nQ Okay. So who was your family? \n \nA Dr. Shekar, Dr. Chandra Shekar with Pro-Med. \n \nQ All right. And then I have that you went to a place – well, I \ndon’t know if you remember. Do you remember what the name of \nthe place was that they sent you to, the name of the clinic? \n \nA It was Care something. \n \nQ Was it American Family Care? \n \nA Yes. American Family Care, yes, AMC. \n \nThe claimant testified that the respondent denied his claim after a second visit to his doctor who \nhad recommended an MRI of the claimant’s left shoulder.  \n Medical  records  introduced  into  evidence  show  that  the  claimant  was  seen  at  American \nFamily  Care  in  Montgomery,  Alabama,  on  January  23,  2023.  At  that  time,  the  claimant \ncomplained of left shoulder pain. The claimant was diagnosed with an unspecified sprain of the \nleft  shoulder. The  medical  record  is  signed  by  Dr.  Jesse  Austin.  On  January  27,  2023,  the \nclaimant  was  again  seen  at  American  Family  Care.  At  that  time,  Nurse  Practitioner  Edward \nMoore referred the claimant for a left shoulder MRI.  \n On September 7, 2023, the claimant was seen at Regional Medical Clinic Orthopedics in \nGreenville,  Alabama.  At  that  time,  the  claimant complained  of  left  shoulder  pain.  The  claimant \ngave a consistent history of a fall from his truck  in early January of 2023 at which time he had \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-7- \nleft  shoulder  pain.  The  medical  record  from  that  visit  includes  an “Impressions” section  that \nstates, “Cuff tear arthropathy left shoulder, neglected.” That same record is signed by Dr. Gilbert \nHolland.  \n On September 14, 2023, the claimant underwent an MRI of the left shoulder. Following \nare the findings and impressions of that diagnostic test: \nFINDINGS: \nLarge effusion is noted. No os acromiale is seen. The acromion is \ntype  2.  Advanced  degenerative  changes  are  seen  in  the  AC  joint. \nEdema is seen in the distal acromion. Fracture line is noted through \nthe  distal  acromion.  This  is  nondisplaced.  Humeral  head  is  high \nriding.  Full-thickness  tears  of  the  supraspinatus  and  infraspinatus \ntendons  are  noted.  Shoulder  effusion  is  present.  Subscapularis \ntendon  is  torn.  Abnormal  signal  is  noted  in  the  posterosuperior, \nposteroinferior,   and   anterior   inferior   labrum.   Small   marginal \nosteophyte  arises  from  the  humeral  head.  Fatty  atrophy  of  the \nsupraspinatus, infraspinatus, and subscapularis tendons is present. \n \nIMPRESSION: \n1. Full-thickness  tears  of  the  supraspinatus  tendon,  infraspinatus \ntendon, and subscapularis tendon. \n2. Nondisplaced acromion fracture. \n3. Degenerative changes of the AC joint. Joint effusion. \n4. Labral tears. \n \n On October 4, 2023, the claimant was seen at the Regional Medical Clinic at Greenville, \nAlabama, by Dr. Holland. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nHISTORY  OF  PRESENT  ILLNESS:  Dietrich  Scott  is  a  very \npleasant 62-year-old male who returns today for a follow up of left \nshoulder and left hip pain. He is here today to review MRI results. \n \nToday,  the  patient  reports  that  he  has  not  had  any  improvement \nwith his shoulder pain.  He fell out of an 18-wheeler in January of \n2023. He had had left hip x-rays done that need to be reviewed. \n \n*** \nASSESSMENT: \n S42.122A – DISP  FX  OF  ACROMIAL  PR  LEFT  SHLD \nINI FOR CLOS FX (PRIMARY) \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-8- \n M75.102 – UNSP  ROTATR-CUFF  TEAR/RUPTR  OF  L \nSHLD NOT TRMA \n M25.552 – PAIN IN LEFT HIP \n Z68.35 – BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) 35.0-35.9, ADULT \n \nPLAN: \nMRI   REVIEWED   WITH   PATIENT   AND   PATIENT   WILL \nNEED  REVERSE  TOTAL  SHOULDER  SURGERY.  PATIENT \nWILL   CONTACT   US   WHEN   HE   IS   READY   TO   HAVE \nSURGERY. \n \nFOLLOW UP PRN. \n \n On  April  22,  2024,  the  claimant  underwent  surgical  intervention  for  his  alleged  left \nshoulder injury at the hands of Dr. Holland. Following is a portion of that surgical intervention: \nPREOPERATIVE  DIAGNOSIS:  LEFT  SHOULDER  ROTATOR \nCUFF ARTHROPATHY \n \nPOSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: LEFT SHOULDER \nROTATOR CUFF ARTHROPATHY \n \nPROCEDURE     PERFORMED:     LEFT     REVERSE     TOTAL \nSHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY \n \n It appears that the claimant’s surgery to his left shoulder provided improvement for his \nleft shoulder injury. The claimant began working on June 24, 2024, but still had some additional \nproblems. On direct examination the claimant described his difficulties as follows: \nQ Explain the trouble that you are having now. \n \nA Well,  I  am  still  having  problems  with  doing  the  landing \ngear.  And,  you  know,  any  of  the  physical  job,  even  opening  the \ntrailer  doors  and  that,  I  have  wrenched  my  shoulder  a  number  of \ntimes. \n \nQ Have you been released from the doctor’s care? \n \nA Not 100 percent, no. \n \nQ Why did you go back to work? Well, let’s just go back to \nthe  period  of  time  that  you  worked  back  in  2023.  Why  did  you \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-9- \nwork for those eight weeks? \n \nA Well, I wanted to see if I could do the job. I wanted to see \nif my shoulder was well enough  to perform. \n \nQ Was this impacting your household finances? \n \nA Yes.  I  depleted – being  off  work  that  long  and  then \ndepleted our savings completely, so that is why I tried going back \nto work, also. \n \nQ Is that the case now that you are working since you started \nworking in June? \n \nA Yes, that is it exactly. I had to pay the bills. \n \nQ And do you want to see how this shoulder does? \n \nA Yes. \n \nIn  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 \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. I find that the claimant is able to prove \nby a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder on \nJanuary 8, 2023. \nEmployers  must  promptly  provide  medical  services  which  are  reasonably  necessary  in \nconnection  with  the  compensable  injuries,  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-508(a).    However,  injured \nemployees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment \nis  reasonably  necessary.   Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.,  86  Ark.  App.  230,  184  S.W.3d  31 \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-10- \n(2004).    What  constitutes  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  fact  question  for  the \nCommission,  and  the  resolution  of  this  issue  depends  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence.  \nGansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). The claimant’s medical \ntreatment  is  found  to  be  reasonable  and  necessary  treatment  for  his  compensable  left  shoulder \ninjury which includes his initial treatment and surgical intervention and aftercare period. \n The  claimant  has  also  asked  the  Commission  to  determine  his  entitlement  to  temporary \ntotal  disability  benefits  from  January  9,  2023,  to  June  24,  2024,  less  eight  weeks  when  the \nclaimant resumed work as a truck driver. \nIn order to be entitled to temporary total disability benefits, the claimant has the burden \nof proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he remains within his healing period and that \nhe suffers a total incapacity to earn wages as a result of his compensable injury. Arkansas State \nHighway & Transportation Department v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W. 2d 392 (1981). \nAfter a review of the evidence in this matter and after giving the claimant’s working interruption \nconsideration, I find that the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from April \n22, 2024, until June 24, 2024. \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 \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 \nMay 20, 2024, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed May 21, 2024, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-11- \n 2. The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to his left shoulder on January 8, 2023, when he fell from the respondents’ \ntractor-trailer.  \n 3.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \nmedical treatment including initial conservative medical measures and surgical intervention and \nits aftercare. \n 4.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from April 22, 2024, until June 24, 2024. \n5.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  attorney  is \nentitled to an attorney fee in this matter. \n ORDER \nThe  respondents  shall  pay  claimant  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  April  22, \n2024,  through  June  24,  2024.  The  respondents  shall  also  pay  for  medical  expenses  associated \nwith the claimant’s compensable left shoulder injury. Those expenses include initial conservative \ncare and surgical intervention and its aftercare. \n The respondent shall pay to the claimant’s attorney the maximum statutory attorney’s \nfee  on  the  benefits  awarded  herein,  with  one-half  of said  attorney’s  fee  to  be  paid  by  the \nrespondent in addition to such benefits and one-half of said attorney’s fee to be withheld by the \nrespondent from such benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715. \n All sums herein accrued are payable in a lump sum and without discount and shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid. \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\nDiederich – H300528 \n \n-12- \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H300528 SCOTT DIEDERICH, Employee CLAIMANT TRANSCO LINES, INC., Employer RESPONDENT NATIONAL INTERSTATE INS. CO, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 5, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:46:09.070Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300528-2024-11-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DIEDERICH_SCOTT_H300528_20241105.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}