{"id":"alj-H301244-2025-10-14","awcc_number":"H301244","decision_date":"2025-10-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Maurice Adams","employer_name":"Performance Food Group, Inc","title":"ADAMS VS. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. AWCC# H301244 October 14, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Adams_Maurice_H301244_20251014.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Adams_Maurice_H301244_20251014.pdf","text_length":9058,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H301244 \n \nMAURICE ADAMS,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                         CLAIMANT \n \nPERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \nINDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AM.,  \nCARRIER                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \nCORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP., INC.,  \nTPA                                                                                                                   RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION AND ORDER FILED OCTOBER 14, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on August 19,  2025,  in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant was represented by Andy L. Caldwell, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Mr. Rick Behring Jr., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion for  Independent  Medical \nEvaluation (IME) filed by Respondents on April 15, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted \non August 19, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Claimant’s counsel was present, but Claimant \nhimself was not present for the hearing, nor was any testimony taken, only oral arguments.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a driver. The date for Claimant’s \nalleged injury was on March 14, 2022, when he fell off the side of a ramp injuring his back and \nneck. He reported his injury to Respondent/Employer on the same day. Admitted into the record \nwas Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  pleadings,  and medical  records,  consisting  of 21 pages,  and \nClaimant’s Ex.  1, Response  to  Motion  for  IME,  consisting  of 2 pages.  I  have also blue-backed \n\nADAMS H301244 \n \n2 \n \nRespondents and Claimant’s post hearing briefs, and Respondents’ pre-hearing questionnaire. The \nparties stipulate to Claimant having a compensable spinal injury. TR 43. \nThe purpose of Respondents’ motion is to obtain an order directing the Claimant to \nundergo an IME and they recommend Dr. Wayne Bruffett, M.D., of Little Rock, Arkansas to \nperform the evaluation. This IME, if granted, would allow Dr. Bruffett or another doctor of the \nCommission’s choosing to examine Claimant, review his medical records, and issue an opinion \nas to his impairment rating. Respondents’ reasons for requesting Dr. Bruffett are that they have \ncontroverted the impairment rating of 43% to the body as a whole, the Claimant’s work \nrestrictions, and his entitlement to permanent and total disability and/or wage loss. See \nRespondents’ Questionnaire, blue-backed. The Claimant also noted in their questionnaire that the \n43% impairment rating is an issue involving this claim. Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 3-5.  \nThe Respondents arguments are centered around a letter dated December 13, 2024, by Dr. \nBrad Thomas, Neurosurgeon. Resp. Ex. 1, p. 20. There, Dr. Thomas states that Claimant has \nreached maximum medical improvement for his spinal injury; and that his first impairment of \n30% to the whole person was based on station and gait impairment criteria. Id. Dr. Thomas \nfurther states that Claimant can rise to a standing position and can maintain it with difficulty but \ncannot walk without assistance. Id. \nRespondents argued that these findings were based on subjective criteria, i.e. gait \ndexterity, not objective factors. Dr. Thomas also issued a 19% impairment rating for Claimant’s \ntwo upper extremity impairments. Resp. Ex. 1, p. 20. Dr. Thomas stated that Claimant can use \n“both upper extremities for self-care, grasping, and holding but has difficulty with digital \ndexterity.” Id. Dr. Thomas concluded, based on the combination chart, that Claimant’s total \nimpairment rate was 43%. Id. Respondents controverted this finding and again argued that Dr. \n\nADAMS H301244 \n \n3 \n \nThomas used subjective factors instead of objective factors in determining digital dexterity, gait \ndexterity, and ultimately the 43% impairment rating to the body as a whole, was improper: thus, \nnecessitating in the need for an IME.  \nClaimant has objected to an IME, arguing that an IME in this matter is not reasonable and \nnecessary. The Claimant argues in his post hearing brief that Dr. Thomas followed the guidelines \nwhen issuing the 43% impairment rating. See Claimant’s post hearing brief, blue-backed. \nHowever, in the interest of resolution, the Claimant agreed to go to Dr. Barry Baskin for an IME. \nThe Respondents refused to acknowledge Claimant’s selection for the IME prior to the hearing, \nthereby rejecting Dr. Baskin as an option. The Respondents refused Dr. Baskin because he was \nnot a spine specialist like Dr. Bruffett. The Claimant further argued that Respondents have \nchosen all his treating physicians in this matter. More specifically, the authorized physician Dr. \nScott Carle referred Claimant to Dr. Thomas. The Claimant argues that there was no issue until \nthe impairment rating was issued by Dr. Thomas.   \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. Respondents  have  proven  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant \nshould submit to an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Wayne Bruffett under \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-511 (Repl. 2012) because such is reasonable and necessary. \nClaimant will work with the Respondents to expedite this evaluation.   \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n In addressing this issue, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-511 (Repl. 2012) provides: \n\nADAMS H301244 \n \n4 \n \n(a)  An injured employee claiming to be entitled to compensation shall submit to \nsuch physical examination and treatment by another qualified physician, \ndesignated or approved by the Workers’ Compensation Commission, as the \nCommission may require from time to time if reasonable and necessary. \n \n(b)  The places of examination and treatment shall be reasonably convenient for \nthe employee. \n \n(c)  Such physician as the employee, employer, or insurance carrier may select \nand pay for may participate in the examination if the employee, employer, or \ninsurance carrier so requests. \n \n(d)  In cases where the commission directs examination and treatment, \nproceedings shall be suspended, and no compensation shall be payable for any \nperiod during which the employee refuses to submit to examination and treatment \nor otherwise obstructs the examination or treatment. \n \n(e)  Failure of the employee to obey the order of the commission in respect to \nexamination or treatment for a period of one (1) year from the date of suspension \nof compensation shall bar the right of the claimant to further compensation in \nrespect to the injury. \n \nSee generally Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997)(Arey, \nJ., concurring). \n There is no question that the Claimant is claiming to be entitled to compensation, mainly \nthe 43% impairment rating issued by Dr. Thomas. The only question is whether the ordering of \nan IME is reasonable and necessary.  After careful consideration of all the facts and evidence in \nthis matter, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that it is reasonable to require that \nClaimant submit to an IME with Dr. Wayne Bruffett.   \nThough Claimant argued that Dr. Thomas did things appropriately in assessing \nClaimant’s impairment rating, that alone does not prohibit Respondents’ from seeking an IME \nwith a doctor who may carry a different view. Doctors are engaged in the practice of medicine, \nnot the perfection of it. Therefore, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that an IME is not \nonly reasonable but also necessary. Claimant’s argument against the IME is based on concern \n\nADAMS H301244 \n \n5 \n \nthat Respondents’ will get another bite at the apple. TR 37. But to make such an argument is to \nappreciate that a doctor with similar experience as Dr. Thomas could differ in their assessment of \nthe impairment rating. In fact, there is the sincere possibility that another doctor could access a \nhigher impairment rate, oppose to a lower one. As to Claimant’s alternative argument for Dr. \nBaskin to do the IME, Dr. Baskin is not a spine specialist, like Dr. Bruffett. I am ordering \nClaimant to submit to an expedited IME by Dr. Bruffett.  This evaluation shall be conducted in \naccordance with A.C.A. §11-9-511.  Thus, Respondents’ motion is granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion is hereby granted, and Claimant shall submit to an expedited IME exam with Dr. Wayne \nBruffett.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _______________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H301244 MAURICE ADAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AM., CARRIER RESPONDENT CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP., INC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER FILED OCTOBER 14, 2025 Hearing before Administrative...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:28.025Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301244-2025-10-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Adams_Maurice_H301244_20251014.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}