{"id":"alj-H301917-2025-01-17","awcc_number":"H301917","decision_date":"2025-01-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sander Gillespie","employer_name":"Kipp Delta College Prep School","title":"GILLISPIE VS. KIPP DELTA COLLEGE PREP SCHOOL AWCC# H301917 January 17, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["granted:5","denied:6"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","hip","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GILLESPIE_SANDER_H301917_20250117.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GILLESPIE_SANDER_H301917_20250117.pdf","text_length":18733,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H301917 \n \nSANDER D. GILLISPIE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nKIPP DELTA COLLEGE PREP SCHOOL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nEMPLOYERS INS. CO. OF WAUSAU/ \nLIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 17 JANUARY 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 17 October 2024 in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas. \n \nThe Hunter Law Firm, Mr. Scott Hunter, appeared for the claimant. \n \nThe Ryburn Law Firm, Mr. Michael Ryburn, appeared for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 17 October 2024 in Helena-West Helena, \nArkansas. The parties participated in a prehearing telephone conference on 25 June 2024. \nA Prehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1, \nwas entered on 26 June 2024.  \nThat Order set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  The employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed at all relevant times. \n \n3.  The claimant’s average weekly wage entitles her to Temporary Total Disability \n(TTD) benefits at a rate of $835 per week and Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) \nbenefits at a rate of $626 per week. \n \n4. TTD benefits were paid by the respondents until 20 November 2023, when she \nwas released to regular duty at maximum medical improvement (MMI) with a \nzero percent (0%) permanent impairment rating.\n1\n \n \n \n1\n This stipulation was agreed upon by the parties at the outset of the hearing. [TR at 5.] \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n2 \n \nThe Order stated the following ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: \n1. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional benefits, specifically whether she \nis entitled to additional TTD benefits and additional medical treatment. \n \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nAll other ISSUES are reserved.\n2\n \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their prehearing questionnaire \nresponses, were incorporated into the Prehearing Order. The claimant contends that the \nrespondents have paid for some medical treatment, but have failed to pay for proper TTD \nbenefits and additional necessary medical treatment. The respondents contend that the \nclaimant fell at work and injured her left knee. Benefits were paid for medical treatment \nand TTD. She did not sustain a compensable injury to her back, feet, or hips.  \n The claimant was the only WITNESS. \nThe EVIDENCE considered in this claim consisted of the hearing testimony along \nwith the following EXHIBITS: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the Prehearing Order) and \nClaimant’s Exhibit No 1 (an index page and forty pages of medical records). \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Having reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the \nwitness, observing her demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of \nlaw under ACA § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2\n The respondents acknowledge that the claimant fell and injured her knee at work. She requested a \nhearing on her entitlement to additional medical and TTD benefits. The bulk of the testimony and \nthe medical evidence presented, however, related to reported pain in the claimant’s back and hips \nand treatment(s) that she sought or is seeking related thereto. The Prehearing Order notes that the \nrespondents specifically deny that the claimant sustained compensable injuries to her back, hips, or \nfeet. Whether such alleged injuries are compensable was not an issue that the parties designated for \nlitigation at the hearing. As indicated above, this Opinion is limited to the issues outlined in the \nPrehearing Order and are being addressed only to the extent that they pertain to the claimant’s \ncompensable left knee injury. To the extent that the claimant seeks benefits regarding her back, \nhips, and/or feet, any such issues are reserved and not addressed herein.  \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n3 \n \n \n 2. The previously-noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to additional medical benefits in connection with her compensable \nleft knee injury. \n \n4.   The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to additional TTD benefits in connection with her compensable left \nknee injury. \n \n5. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \nClaimant Sandra Gillispie \n The claimant testified that she is fifty years old with bachelor's degrees in business \nadministration and elementary education. She also holds a master’s degree in curriculum \nstudies and is currently enrolled in another master’s program in instructional design and \ncomputer technology. She began working for the respondent-employer on 30 June 2021 as a \nteacher, coach, and building facilitator. \n On 16 March 2023, the claimant slipped and fell at work. She testified that she \nreported the injury before seeking treatment. \nQ:  I see. And what—what body parts did you injure in the fall? \nA:  Well, when I went into the air and I came down, I landed on my \nbuttocks, but my left knee, the skin was knocked off or whatever, so \nwhen I got to the hospital, they ended up putting that left—that left \nknee like in a little brace like. \nQ:  Okay. And so did you take yourself to the hospital? I mean, what \nhappened there? \nA:  Yes, sir. \nQ:  And this was on the same day of the accident? \nA:  Yes, sir. \nQ:  And so what hospital did you go to? \nA:  The Methodist in West Memphis. \n \n[TR at 11-12.] \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n4 \n \n The claimant was later seen by Jeffrey Pipkin, NP-C, at OrthoXpress in Tupelo, \nMississippi. She testified that she complained to him of pain in her buttocks. Mr. Pipkin \nordered some diagnostic scans and eventually referred her to the Semmes-Murphey clinic \nfor further evaluation. The claimant underwent some physical therapy and steroid \ninjections before being released at MMI by Pipkin in November of 2023. \nQ:  Okay. And as far as—Then it looks like he released you at \nmaximum—at maximum medical improvement. What was going on \nthen? \nA:  That was after I got the injections from Semmes and Murphy. And \nwhen I came back with—from the injections and me also doing \nphysical therapy, I did feel better. And he also released me to do like \nsome light duty or whatever. I did tell him, you know, I felt better, so \nhe released me to do like some light duty or whatever, and I did tell \nhim, you know, I felt better, so he released me I think in November [of \n2023], but then—but even that day when he released me, I did tell \nhim I felt minor pain ‘cause every time I went to his office, he always \ngave me a scale of pain. The pain never completely stopped, but it was \ntolerable. And so again from being released from Semmes and Murphy \nwith their discharge paper, they kind of gave an idea what to look for, \nand so I was fine. At least I thought I was. \n \n[TR at 16.] \n The claimant then testified that she had a new job beginning in January of 2024, \nand she wanted to make sure that some lingering pain would not impact her new job \nperformance. The claimant eventually contacted the respondents, who denied coverage for \nadditional treatment or benefits. According to her testimony, the claimant works as an \nindependent contractor for Kids First Education. After she began seeing Mr. Pipkin again \nin 2024, he restricted her work status. She stated that her employer limited her to “one day \na week until I get off this medical report.” [TR at 19.] \n On cross examination, the claimant confirmed a portion of Mr. Pipkin’s note where \nhe recorded that she was “feeling great.” [TR at 23.] The claimant testified that she did not \nreturn to the respondent-employer upon her release from care and that she was unable to \nsecure other employment before her release. \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n5 \n \nQ:  When you got released, you had been paid up to that day you got \nreleased. Did you go back to KIPP Delta? \n A:  No, sir. \n Q:  Okay. Did you start looking for another job? \n A:  Yes, sir. \n Q:  And did you find one? \nA:  I went on four interviews and I got hired on all four, but when I \ntold them that I was still on the medical term, I can’t say for sure that \nI didn’t get hired but I’m almost certain that that’s why, because I’m \nstill on the medical— \n \nId. She clarified that she was seeking employment in October, before her release.  \n The claimant continues to work for Kids First; and she confirmed that her injury did \nnot disrupt her part-time work at a tax accounting business that she owns. She described \nthat work as seasonal and mostly around tax season. \n According to her testimony, the claimant was supposed to begin working for Kids \nFirst in January of 2024, but her start was delayed until February due to a snowstorm. She \ndescribed her work as limited “until I get off doctor care.” [TR at 26.] Asked again when she \nbegan working for Kids First, she answered, “I started February 5, and I did my application \nand got hired on October 13.” Id. \n The claimant’s cross examination continued: \nQ:  Okay. Now the—Page Five of your exhibit is from January 8\nth\n of \n’24. This is [Mr.] Pipkin again. \n A:  Uh-huh. \n Q:  And he says, “On her last visit, her pain had completely resolved.” \n A:  Uh-huh. \nQ:  It also says, “But over the last month, she’s gotten a new job that \nrequires her to drive a lot.” \nA:  Uh-huh. But I hadn’t started the job, though. When I went in \nthere, I told them, “I got a new job and it’s going to require me to drive \na lot. I need to be fixed.” That’s what I said to him. \nQ:  “She has taken a new job that requires her to drive a lot over the \nlast month.” So had you been working in January of ’24? \nA:  No, sir. No. So that’s what I’m saying. When that pain came and I \nwent to him, I told him, “I have taken a new job and it’s going to \nrequire me to drive a lot. This pain has started coming back, and I \nneed this pain to stop.” That’s what I went in there for because of \npain. \n Q:  “She noticed the pain and returned after having to drive.” \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n6 \n \nA:  I haven’t drove. I—The new job was going to require me to drive. I \nhaven’t drove because I hadn’t started the new job. \n Q:  Do you have a claim against the employer Kids First- Mississippi? \nA:  I hadn’t started the job. My injury didn’t come from Kids First. My \ninjury came from KIPP. \n \n[TR at 27-28.] \nMedical and Documentary Evidence \nOn 20 November 2023, the claimant saw Mr. Pipkin at OrthoXpress in Tupelo, \nMississippi. The Chief Complaints are listed as Bilateral Hip Pain and Low Back Pain. \nThat note also includes: \nHPI \nSandra comes to the clinic today for follow-up of bilateral hip pain and low \nback pain. She does have a long history of low back pain. She was previously \ntreated by Brandy Blanton, NP, at OrthoXpress in Starkville beginning \nMarch 29\nth\n. She was treated for her left hip pain and left knee pain with \ninjections, oral medications, [and] physical therapy. She did have MRI results \nof the bilateral hips which were fairly unremarkable other than mild \ndegeneration of the right superior acetabular labrum but no tear. She was \nseen in our clinic on May 2\nnd\n and was diagnosed with lumbar radiculopathy, \nleft SI joint inflammation, and concern for lumbar spine HNP. At that time, \nher left SI joint was injected with Kenalog and lidocaine, she was given IM \nToradol, she was placed on diclofenac and baclofen, she was kept off of work, \nand she was sent for an MRI of her lumbar spine. She got tremendous relief \nfrom the SI joint injection. MRI did confirm small disc bulges at L3-L4, L4-\nL5, and L5-S1. She recently had LESI’s performed at multiple levels. This did \nhelp with her back pain. At the last visit, she was doing excellent and we \nwent her back to regular duty at work. Today, she is doing great and has very \nlittle pain other than sitting or standing for long periods of time. Her pain is \ncurrently 2/10. She reports numbness and tingling of the bilateral lower \nextremities. \n \nThe Assessment and Plan section listed (1) inflammation of SI joint, (2) lumbar \nradiculopathy, (3) overweight, (4) herniation of nucleus pulposus of lumbar \nintervertebral disc, and (5) pain in coccyx. The note continued: \nDiscussion Notes \nSandra is doing great today and reports no pain whatsoever other than long \nperiods of sitting or standing. She is very pleased with results of treatment, \nespecially the benefit she got from the LESIs and physical therapy. Today, I \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n7 \n \nwill transition her to a home exercise program [...]. I encouraged her to \ncontinue to utilize a heating pad daily. I will refill both her anti-inflammatory \nmedication and muscle relaxers. I gave her an intramuscular injection of 60 \nmg Toradol today. I will release her from the clinic today, allowing her to \ncontinue regular duty at work. She is MMI today with PPI 0%. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 1-3.] \n The claimant returned to the clinic on 8 January 2024. Her complaints were listed \nagain as hip pain and low back pain. These complaints appear as the reasons for her visits \nacross all of the appointments represented in the clinic notes made a part of this record.  \nAt those subsequent visits, her pain was consistently related to driving over long periods of \ntime for work.  \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). \nA claimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness, \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \n \n \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n8 \n \nA. THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL MEDICAL \nTREATMENT. \n \n The claimant believes that she is entitled to additional medical benefits beyond the \ntreatment already provided. Employers must promptly provide medical services which are \nreasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injuries. A.C.A. § 11-9-508(a). \nHowever, injured employees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. \nApp. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment is a fact question for the Commission, and the resolution of this issue depends \nupon the sufficiency of the evidence. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 \nS.W.2d 790 (1996). A claimant may be entitled to additional treatment even after her \nhealing period is ended, if that treatment is geared towards management of a compensable \ninjury. Patchell, supra.  \nThe respondents contend that the claimant fell and injured her left knee at while at \nwork. They began providing benefits, including medical treatment coverage and TTD \npayments, thereafter. When she was released from care at MMI in November of 2023, all \nbenefits were terminated.  \nThe records do not suggest that the claimant’s left knee injury required any \nmanagement after her release from care at MMI. She testified extensively, if not almost \nexclusively, about experiencing additional pain related to her back and/or hips; but she did \nnot provide direct testimony as to how her left knee required any additional treatment since \nher release from care. Nor was she specific about what particular treatment(s) she believed \nwere reasonable and necessary for the treatment or maintenance of her left knee. The \nmedical records presented begin at the date of her release and only relate to the claimant’s \nsubsequent concerns about hip and back pain.  \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n9 \n \nThe claimant has not shown that her left knee requires any reasonable or necessary \ntreatment since her release from care and the cessation of benefits. Accordingly, the \nclaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to \nadditional medical benefits. \nB. THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL TTD BENEFITS. \n \nThe claimant’s compensable left knee injury is a scheduled one. A.C.A. § 11-9-\n521(a)(4). An employee who has sustained a compensable scheduled injury is entitled to \nTTD benefits \"during the healing period or until the employee returns to work, whichever \noccurs first . . . .\" § 11-9-521(a). Wheeler Const. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 \nS.W.3d 822 (2001). The healing period ends when the underlying condition causing the \ndisability has become stable and nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that \ncondition. Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Parker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 (1982). \nA claimant must prove her entitlement to TTD benefits by a preponderance of the \nevidence. A.C.A. § 11-9-705(a)(3). The credible medical evidence credibly establishes that \nthe claimant’s condition was stable on 20 November of 2023, when she was released from \ncare at MMI. Indeed, she acknowledged that she reported feeling great to Mr. Pipkin. The \npreponderance of the evidence establishes that her healing period ended on that time. She \nprovided no evidence supporting an ongoing entitlement to TTD benefits for her left knee \ninjury after her release from care. Accordingly, her claim for additional TTD benefits must \nfail. \nC.       THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY’S FEE. \nConsistent with the findings above, the claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \n\nS. GILLISPIE- H301917 \n10 \n \nV.  CONCLUSION \n Because the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof on any claim for additional \nbenefits, this claim is DENIED and DISIMSSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H301917 SANDER D. GILLISPIE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT KIPP DELTA COLLEGE PREP SCHOOL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS INS. CO. OF WAUSAU/ LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 17 JANUARY 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commissio...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:26.232Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301917-2025-01-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GILLESPIE_SANDER_H301917_20250117.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}