{"id":"alj-H300539-2024-11-21","awcc_number":"H300539","decision_date":"2024-11-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Felicia Bell","employer_name":"Walmart Associates, Inc","title":"BELL VS. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC. AWCC# H300539 November 21, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["repetitive","carpal tunnel","wrist","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BELL_FELICIA_H300539_20241121.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BELL_FELICIA_H300539_20241121.pdf","text_length":16777,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H300539 \n \nFELICIA BELL, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \nVS. \nWALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., EMPLOYER    RESPONDENT  \nWALMART ASSOCIATES, INC./      \nWALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, CARRIER/TPA   RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2024 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 8\nTH\n day of October \n2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nClaimant is Pro Se. \nRespondents are represented  by Michael  C.  Stiles,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 8\nth\n day of October 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas, \nto determine the compensability of an alleged repetitive motion injury of both hands of the \nclaimant that she contended cumulated on or about October 16, 2023, and if the claim is \nfound  to  be  compensable,  the  issue  of  reasonable  and  necessary medical  benefits. A \ncopy of the Pre-hearing Order as well as the response to the Prehearing Questionnaire \nby both the Claimant and the Respondent were made part of the record without objection.\n From  a  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole, to  include  medical  reports  and  other \nmatters properly before the Commission and having had an opportunity to observe the \ntestimony and demeanor of the witnesses, the following findings of fact and conclusions \nof law are made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1.  That the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show the \nexistence of a compensable repetitive motion injury to both of her hands that \ncumulated on or about October 19, 2023.  \n3. That  this matter  involving  the  same  rapid  repetitive  injuries  was  previously \nsettled in a Joint Petition on December 20, 2022. (H207221).   \n4. That all other issues are moot. \n5. If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript \nforthwith. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The claimant, Felicia Bell, testified she “sustained this carpal tunnel.” “After I had \nsurgery, the doctor told me I had carpal tunnel. Well, I had injuries before that, but the \nnumbness,  the  tingling,  the  burning  sensation,  I  never  knew  what  it  was  until  I  had \nsurgery.” The claimant went on to state she told Walmart, “but, prior to that, I had another \ninjury, and then I called workman’s comp. They said it was two different cases, so here \nwe are today.” “I had carpal tunnel, and I had to have surgery on both of my wrists, and I \nhave - - I’m not able to have the surgery because I’ll be off work, and I can’t pay my bills.”  \nShe stated she had not had surgery yet and that it was painful. She worked 12 – hour \nshifts as a “cutter” and “putter” and cut 5000 to 6000 boxes a day and as a putter she \nmakes over 6000 in production. “A putter is you scan a box. You have a section, and it’s \nsix boxes up here, six boxes down here. And when I scan the boxes, they put one, two in \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \neach box, and I’ll just - - you have to move real fast with your hands.” She stated  she \nconstantly used her hands. (Tr. 8, 9) \n Under cross examination, the claimant was questioned about a nerve study which \nprovided “bilateral hand and wrist numbness, tingling and burning began 2021”. She \nadmitted the nerve study was read correctly but stated “I had no idea what I had. I just \nwent  to  the  doctor  and,  you  know,  I  had  the  other  incident. And  then  when  this  came \nabout, I went to the doctor. He said I have carpal tunnel from the surgery, and he said it \nprobably began in 21 but I just didn’t know about it.” The claimant admitted having surgery \non her left wrist on September 19, 2022, with Dr. Thomas Day in regard to a knot that \n“grew up in my wrist.” (Tr. 10, 11)  \n The following questioning then occurred: \n Q: And it was one or two days after that surgery that you then reported to  \n  Walmart, that you filed your prior claim, is that correct? \n A: They would not let me file a prior claim, because they said I had the open  \n  claim with the wrist for the surgery and I tried to tell them the doctor said I  \n  have carpal tunnel as well, but they wouldn’t let me file it.  That’s why I called \n  the workman’s comp. \n Q. Okay. And it was, what, about three, four days after that surgery that you  \n  saw Doctor - - or I’m sorry - - Nurse Teresa Rhew, and that’s R-H-E-W.  Am \n  I pronouncing that - - \n A. I’ve seen her prior, but I was - - She sent me to the specialist, and I’ve been \n  - - She’s my main doctor. \n Q. Okay. \n A. So, I see her frequent. (Tr. 12) \n The claimant admitted she was sent to the clinic for pain and numbness in regard \nto  both  hands,  a  couple  of  days  after  her  September  19,  2022,  surgery.  She  admitted \nhaving the carpal tunnel or wrist ailments in 2021 and in September of 2022, long before \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \nOctober 19, 2022, but contended she did not know what it was until she saw Ms. Teresa.  \nThe following questioning then occurred: \n Q. And so, at the time that you were initiating your prior claim against Walmart, \n  you were experiencing these numbness, tingling pains in your wrist,  \n  correct? \n A. Uh-huh.  Didn’t know what it was at that time, yeah, until after I had my  \n  surgery in 22. \n Q: But is it a ‘yes’ or a ‘no,’ at the time you initiated your first claim against  \n  Walmart - - \n A. Uh-huh \n Q.  - - were you experiencing pain and numbness in both wrists and hands? \n A. Not as much as after I had the surgery. After I had the surgery and it  \n  intensified (sic) it, I guess. (Tr. 13, 14) \n Q.  And then it was October 14, 2022, that you requested a hearing, a workers’ \n  comp hearing regarding your pains and ailments for your first injury - - your \n  first claim against Walmart, correct?  \n A.  Oh. You talking about the - - the surgery? \n Q.  When you initiated the claim - - \n A.  Yeah.  My first surgery was in twenty - - hold on. \n Q.  It was in September - - on September 19, 2022. (Tr. 13 – 15) \n The claimant admitted she filed her first claim and then five days later, she filed \nagain on October 19, and contended she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome to \nboth  of  her  wrists. She also contended  she was  told  it  was two  separate  cases  by  the \nworkers’ comp legal aid. (Tr. 16, 17) The claimant also admitted she already had all the \nproblems with her hands and wrists when she initiated the first claim and contended they \nwould not let her file a piece of paper which stated that she had carpal tunnel. The first \nclaim was Claim number H207221, where the claim was denied but settled with a joint \npetition. The claimant admitted settling the first claim after discovery, but again stated it \nwas not carpal tunnel. (Tr. 18, 19) She also admitted she sent an email on December 9, \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \n2022, which provided she was thinking about having surgery for both hands due to carpal \ntunnel. (Tr. 20) At the time of the email, she had not initiated a second claim because “I \nwas thinking that I can tell you about it so we can wrap it all in one, but they said it was \ntwo  separate - - two  separate  claims.”  She  admitted  she  was  telling  the  respondent’s \nattorney she had carpal tunnel. (Tr. 21) The claimant ultimately agreed to settle her initial \nclaim, and a Joint Petition was entered into on December 20, 2022.  She also admitted \nthe  first  paragraph  of  the  settlement  discussed  gradual onset  injures  to  her  upper \nextremities, wrists, and hands, which culminated on or about July 24, 2022, and the Joint \nPetition contained her signature.  She signed the Joint Petition Questionnaire and had in \nfact read  the  joint  petition  or  had  it  read  to  her.  (Tr.  22,  23)  She  was then questioned \nabout how she stated in the Joint Petition hearing that her job with the respondent was \nrapid and repetitive, and she responded that her hands were okay and at the moment of \nthe question, she didn’t feel any pain, tingling, or burning sensations. (Tr. 26) She also \nadmitted that at the time of the Joint Petition, she stated she did not anticipate any medical \ntreatment for her hands, wrists, and upper extremities. “Because I was fine at the time, \nbut it’s getting worser.”  The claimant again reiterated these were two different cases and \nwhen  asked  about  there  being  no  incident  or  accident  on  October  19,  2022,  she \nresponded, “Well it happened at work. That’s how I got carpal tunnel.” When asked “that’s \nwhat was settled in that first claim” she responded “It was settled because I had a strain \nin my wrist that grew a knot.  That was for the first surgery, and that’s when they found \nout I had carpal tunnel.”  I was told I couldn’t file but legal aid said that it was two different \ncases. She admitted she went through a settlement hearing where the pains and ailments \nin both hands and the upper extremity were discussed. (Tr. 27, 28)    \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \n The  next  witness  was Nicloe  Woodruff who was  called  by  the  claimant. Ms. \nWoodruff testified that she worked for Walmart Distribution as a Put Order Filler where \nshe filled orders, scanned boxes, and thew merchandise into boxes. Her production was \n5800 per day but she always went over in a 12-hour shift. She stated that the claimant \nwas a cutter/putter. (Tr. 32) \n Claimant  was  allowed  to  proffer  an  exhibit  that  was  found  to  not  be  admissible \ndue to the fact it was not timely provided to the opposing side and outside the seven-day \ntime limit.  (Cl. Proffer 1) \nThe respondents’ submitted exhibits without objection, with the first exhibit being \na  medical  report  from  Teresa  Rhew,  APRN,  dated  September  23,  2022.  The  report \nprovided that the chief complaint was bilateral tingling and numbness with possible carpal \ntunnel (emphasis added) (Resp. 1, P. 1 – 6) An email from the claimant dated December \n9, 2022, provided she went to the specialist that week to have surgery on both wrists for \ncarpal tunnel. (Resp. 1, P. 7)   \nA Joint Petition Order dated December 20, 2022, was entered into the record and \nit provided that the claimant was to receive a lump sum payment of $7000.00. (Resp. Ex. \n1, P. 8, 9) The Joint Petition provided it was a compromise settlement on a disputed claim \nand that the Joint Petition would be final as to the rights of all the parties. It additionally \nprovided that the claimant sustained gradual onset injuries to her upper extremities, her \nwrists, and her hands which culminated on or about July 24, 2022, which arose out of and \nin  the  course  of  her  employment  with  Wal-Mart  Associates,  Inc. The  document  further \nprovided that the respondent employer denied and continued to deny that the Claimant \nsustained  a  compensable  injury  within  the  meaning  of  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \nCompensation Act. This document was signed and approved by the claimant. (Resp. 1, \nP 10 – 13) The Joint Petition Questionnaire that was made part of the record provided \nthat  the  claimant  had  in  fact  read  the  Joint  Petition  and  her  applicable  rights were \nexplained in regard to the settlement, and she also approved and signed this document. \n(Resp. 1, P. 14 – 18)   \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn determining whether the claimant has sustained her required burden of proof, \nthe  Commission  shall  weigh  the  evidence  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the \ndoubt to either party.  Ark. Code Ann 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavanaugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, \n768 S.W. 2d 521 (1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty to translate evidence on \nall issues before it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 \nArk. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nThe claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to benefits under \nthe  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act  and  must  sustain  that  burden  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence. Dalton v. Allen Engineering Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 635 \nS.W. 2d 823 (1982).  Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater \nweight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark App. 263, \n101 S.W.3d 252 (2003).  Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight \nto  be  given  to  their  testimony  are  within  the  exclusive  province  of  the  Commission.  \nPowers v. City of Fayetteville, 97 Ark. App. 251, 248 S.W.3d 516 (2007).  Where there \nare contradictions in the evidence, it is within the Commissions’ province to reconcile \nconflicting evidence and to determine the true facts.  Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight, 99 Ark. \nApp.  162,  258  S.W.3d  394  (2007).   However,  the  Commission  may  not  arbitrarily \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \ndisregard the testimony of any witness.  Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. \n230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004).  \n   A.C.A. 11-9-102  (4) provides  in  pertinent  part that  a “Compensable  injury” \nmeans: (ii) An injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body arising out of \nand  in  the  course  of  employment  if  it  is  not  caused  by  a  specific  incident  or  is  not \nidentifiable by a time and place or occurrence.   \nIf  the  injury  is  caused  by  rapid  repetitive  motion,  and  carpal  tunnel  syndrome  is \nspecifically categorized as a compensable injury falling within this definition, the standard \nfor interpreting “rapid repetitive motion” is two pronged: (1) the tasks must be repetitive, \nand (2) the repetitive motion must be rapid.  See Malone v. Texarkana Schools, 333 Ark. \n343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998).  Even repetitive tasks must be completed rapidly.  The issue \nof  whether  an  injury meets the  rapid  repetitive  motion  requirements  will  ordinarily  be  a \nquestion of fact.  Westside High School v. Patterson, 79 Ark. App. 281, 86 S.W.3d 412 \n(2002).    The  proof  provided  by  the  claimant  failed  to  satisfy  these requirements. The \nstatements by the claimant along with her witness, provided that the claimant performed \nmultiple daily tasks but did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements in regard to the degree \nof  repetitiveness  and  how  rapidly  these  actions were performed.  Additionally,  a \ncompensable  injury  must  be  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings.  A.C.A.    11-9-102 (4) (D).  “Objective findings” are those which cannot come \nunder the voluntary control of the patient.  (A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16) (A) (i).  Here, there are \nno  objective  findings supporting the  claimant’s contentions, even  if  the  proffered \ntestimony had been admitted as evidence.  \n\nFelicia Bell – H300539 \nAdditionally, it is clear the claimant entered into a compromise settlement involving \na Joint Petition which was approved on December 22, 2022.  The Joint Petition provided \nthat the Claimant took the position she suffered from gradual onset injuries to her upper \nextremities, her wrists, and her hands which culminated on or about July 24, 2022.  In the \ncurrent matter and hearing, the claimant appears to have taken the position that although \nshe suffered from pain and injuries at the time of the Joint Petition settlement (specifically \nsuffering from “bilateral hand and wrist numbness, tingling and burning” which began in \n2021  as  per  testimony  at  the  time  of  this  hearing), the  injuries  were  not called  carpal \ntunnel at the time of the Joint Petition and consequently, she is entitled to pursue another \nclaim on the same injuries using the term carpal tunnel for this injury.  However, the law \nis quite clear that the issue of a rapid repetitive motion or carpal tunnel injury, or for that \nmatter any other injury, cannot be relitigated after a Joint Petition settlement has been \nentered into and approved by the Commission. \nBased  upon  the  above  evidence  and  the  applicable  law,  and  after  weighing  the \nevidence  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  either  party,  there  is  no \nalternative but to find that the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof \nto prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a rapid repetitive motion \ninjury (Carpal  tunnel) and  that additionally, the matter  was  previously  settled  in a Joint \nPetition on December 20\nth\n, 2022. (H207221) Consequently, all other issues are moot. If \nnot already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H300539 FELICIA BELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT VS. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC./ WALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:46:42.632Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300539-2024-11-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BELL_FELICIA_H300539_20241121.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}