{"id":"alj-H302270-2024-01-03","awcc_number":"H302270","decision_date":"2024-01-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Maritza Sandoval","employer_name":"Tyson Foods, Inc","title":"SANDOVAL VS. TYSON FOODS, INC. AWCC# H302270 JANUARY 3, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","hip","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SANDOVAL_MARITZA_H302270_20240103.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"SANDOVAL_MARITZA_H302270_20240103.pdf","text_length":21365,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H302270 \n \nMARITZA SANDOVAL, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nTYSON FOODS, INC., Employer RESPONDENT \n \nTYNET CORP., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JANUARY 3, 2024 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in   Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JEREMY SWEARINGEN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On  October  10,  2023,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Springdale, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on May 22, 2023, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas  filed  on  May  23,  2023.      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 \nNovember 1, 2022. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-2- \n 1.  Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  left  knee  on  or  about \nNovember 1, 2022. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for her left knee injury. \n 3. Respondents raise lack of notice as a defense in that the April 6, 2023, AR-C was the \nfirst notice of any alleged work-related injury. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“Claimant   contends   she   injured   her   left   knee   while   walking \ndownstairs  and  slipping  on  the  bottom  step.  She  contends  she  is \nentitled  to  medical  treatment  for  her  left  knee.  Claimant  reserves \nall other issues.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“A. Respondent contends that the Claimant has offered no proof at \nall  that  she  sustained  a  compensable  left  knee  injury.  She  has \nprovided no objective findings of injury. \n \nB.  Respondent  contends  that  its  first  notice  that  the  Claimant  was \nalleging a compensable left knee injury was the AR-C filed by the \nClaimant’s  attorney  on  April  6,  2023,  which  was  received  by  the \nRespondent  on  April  10,  2023.  Thus,  even  if  the  claim  were \nsomehow  found  to  be  compensable,  Respondent  would  not  be \nliable  for  any  benefits  incurred  or  accrued  before  the  date  such \nnotice was received. \n \nC. The Claimant has not specified what medical she is seeking.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a  53-year-old  female  who  alleges  that  she  sustained  a \ncompensable left knee injury while employed by the respondent. The claimant has asserted that \nshe  does  not  know  the  date  that  she  injured  her  left  knee  but  believed  that  it  occurred  in \nNovember of 2022. The claimant worked for the respondent in a chicken processing facility in a \ndepartment  called “flat  pack.”  On  direct  examination,  the  claimant  described  her  alleged  left \nknee injury as follows: \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-3- \nQ And what happened to cause the injury to your left knee? \n \nA I  was  working  where  I  had  to  go  up  a  ladder  to  check  on \nproduction. \n \nQ And when you say a ladder, can you describe the ladder for \nus. \n \nA It  is  a  fixed  ladder  that  goes  really  high,  but  I  mean  really \nhigh  up. So  when  I  was  coming  down  the  ladder,  I  didn’t  see  one \nor two of the rungs and I slipped. I didn’t fall, I slipped, and that is \nwhen I felt the pain in my leg. \n \nQ So how did you land? \n \nA No.  There  are  things  on  the  side  that  I  grabbed  onto,  so  I \nhad just slid. \n \nQ Okay.  And  so  when  you  slid  down,  how  were  your  legs \nwhen you hit the floor? \n \nA So the right one – the right leg was like out and the left one \nwas pushing in (indicating). \n \n THE COURT: I  noticed  the  Claimant  made  hand  gestures \nduring her testimony. Ms. Brooks, I would ask you to try to get her \nto  be  more  descriptive  of  how  her  legs  actually  were.  As  you  are \nwell aware, we cannot – \n \n MS. BROOKS: See her. \n \n THE COURT: -- see her doing that in her transcript. \n \n MS. BROOKS: Okay. \n \nQ [BY MS. BROOKS]:  So  you  slipped  and  you  did  not  fall; \ncorrect. \n \nA No, I didn’t fall. \n \nQ So what about the slipping hurt your left knee? \n \nA When  I  slipped,  it  did  hurt  me  here  (indicating),  but  it \nwasn’t hurting all that much. \n \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-4- \nQ When you say here, you were gesturing to your left knee; is \nthat correct? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Okay.  So  earlier  when  I  asked  you  how  you  contacted  the \nfloor,  you  were  making  gestures  with  your  hands,  which  is  okay, \nbut we also have to have the words to explain what you meant. \n So  you  appeared  to  me  to  have  your  left  arm  out  straight. \nWhat did you mean by that? \n \nA So the force hit my shin, so that is how it hurt my knee was \nthe force against my shin when I slipped down the ladder. \n \nQ Okay.  Now,  when  we  are  talking  about  a  ladder,  is  this  a \nladder  like  you  put  on  the  outside  of  your  house  to  climb  to  your \nroof or is this a ladder like stairs inside your house that you get to \nthe second floor? \n \nA So it is like an inside step stool, but it is a very tall one, so \nit has like 20 steps on it. \n \nQ And why were you climbing that, those stairs? \n \nA I   had  to  be  up  there   for  two  hours  checking  on  the \nproduction  making  sure  that  there   was  no  plastic   or   foreign \nmaterial in it. \n \nQ Okay.  So  was  it  necessary  to  come  back  down  those  stairs \nto get to any other area of the plant? \n \nA Yes. \n \nI  note  that  the  parties  in  this  matter  both  acknowledge  that  the  claimant,  who  is  Spanish \nspeaking, required the use of an interpreter and, as such, there was some difficulty in translation \nof  the  word “stairs”  as  it  appears  to  be “ladders”  at  some  points  in  testimony.  However,  both \nparties agree that the claimant was descending stairs and not a ladder. That discussion is found in \nthe hearing transcript on page 29. \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-5- \n The  claimant  testified  that  she  was  going  down  the  stairs  when  her  left  knee  injury \noccurred  and  had  planned  to  go  on  her  lunch  break;  however,  after  her  injury  she  went  to  the \nnurse’s  office  to  report  her  injury  instead  of  going  on  her  lunch  break.  Following  is  the \nclaimant’s  testimony  about  her  reporting  of  her  injury  to  the  in-house  nurse  at  the  respondent’s \nfacility: \nQ And when you went to the nurses station, what did you do? \n \nA I  told  her  that  I  had  slipped  coming  down  those  steps  and \nthat my knee was hurting, but that it wasn’t a really big deal. \n \nQ And what did she do for you? \n \nA “Come back tomorrow. We will see if you get any worse.” \n \nQ And did you go back the next day? \n \nA Yes, because I was feeling worse. \n \nQ And what happened then? \n \nA She told me, “Well, let’s just give it some time because we \nare already treating your arms.” \n And  I  said, “All  right,”  but  I  didn’t  realize  that  my  knee \nwas going to get worse. \n \nQ Did you ever discuss your knee with the nurse again? \n \nA Yes. I kept going back. \n \nQ Did you ever get any treatment for that left knee? \n \nA No. \n \n I  note  that  the  claimant  was  receiving  treatment  for  her  bilateral  forearms  in  January  of \n2023, according to the respondent’s nursing notes. The claimant contends that she was receiving \ntreatment prior to January 2023 for her forearms as well. \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-6- \n The  claimant  also  testified  that  she  reported  her  injury  to  Mario  Salinas,  her  supervisor, \nand  he  told  her “I  can’t  do  anything  for  you.  Go  to  the  nurse.”  The  claimant  testified  that  she \nwent to the nurse’s station several times and to her supervisor again complaining of her left knee \ninjury. It was the claimant’s testimony that she received no treatment from the respondent for her \nleft knee and was not provided paperwork to fill out regarding her left knee injury. \n On  January  13,  2023,  the  claimant  was  seen  at  River  Valley  Primary  Care  by  APRN \nZachary McBroom. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nHistory of Present Illness \nPt presents to the clinic with c/o right hip pain and left knee pain x \n3 weeks. Pt primarily speaks Spanish; translator assisted in visit. Pt \nreports  stepping  down  off  ladder  3  week  prior  which  is  what \nprecipitated  her  current  sx;  denies  falling  from  ladder  or  stepping \nto  the  ground  in  an  odd  manner.  Denies  any  specific  trauma  to \nareas of concern. Reports she has been taking ibuprofen with mild \nrelief; denies trying any other tx modalities. Reports similar sx x 3 \nyears   prior   which   she   f/u   with   a   chiropractor   for   and   was \nsuccessfully tx, denies going to chiropractor for current sx. Denies \nissues  with  ADLs  or  work;  denies  overt  issues  with  gait.  Denies \nany other sx or complaints. \n*** \nVisit Diagnosis \nPrimary right hip pain \nAcute pain of left knee \n \n The claimant was seen at Elite Chiropractic Center by Jim Schilling, DC, on January 25, \n2023. Following is a portion of that medical report from her visit: \nSubjective Complaint \nMr.  Sandoval  was  examined  today  to  determine  progress  with  the \ncurrent treatment plan. \n \nMaritza reported the following new condition today: \n5. Posterior Left Knee \nConstant  posterior  left  knee  pain.  She  considers  this  complaint  as \nmoderate to severe and rated the pain as an 8 on a scale of 0 to 10 \nwith 10 being the worst. The pain is described as sharp, throbbing, \nshooting  and  deep  and  is  radiating  into  the  left  calf.  The  pain  is \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-7- \nincreased   by   prolonged   standing,   prolonged   walking,   walking \ndownstairs, walking upstairs and weight bearing. \n \nIt  has  been  2  years  since  Ms.  Sandoval’s  last  treatment  visit.  The \npatient  currently  complains  of  acute  left  knee  pain.  Pain  is  well \nlocalized  to  the  posterior  and  lateral  compartments  of  the  knee. \nPatient  reports  of  a  slip/fall  at  workplace.  The  patient  states  that \nshe  slipped  and  missed  two  steps  with  majority  of  the  weight \nlanding on the left leg (fully extended) during the fall. The patient \nstates  that  the  pain  was  immediate.  I  did  observe  significant \namount of edema on the posterolateral portion of the left knee. The \npatient was quite guarded and altered gait was noted due to painful \nrange  of  motion.  The  patient  states  the  pain  is  at  its  worst  with \nweight-bearing  position  and  somewhat  alleviated  when  resting. \nOrthopedic  examination  was  performed.  Positive  findings  include \nMcMurray  test,  Apley’s  grind  test,  the  Thessaly’s  test.  These \nfindings   indicate   the   patient   may   have   meniscus   injury   and \nsubsequent Baker’s cyst of the knee. \n \nThe claimant was provided with chiropractic treatment for her left knee injury during that visit. \nThe  claimant  continued  to  treat  for  her  left  knee  injury  with  Elite  Chiropractic,  which  included \nvisits on January 30, 2023, February 1, 2023, February 3, 2023, February 6, 2023, and February \n7, 2023. \n On  February  8,  2023,  the  claimant  was  seen  by  APRN  Erica  Fowler at  River  Valley \nPrimary Care. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nHPI: \nMaritza  A.  Sandoval  52  year  old  female  with  PMH  that  includes \nprediabetes,   HLP,   GERD,   and   asthma,   who   presents   with \ncomplaints of left knee pain that has been ongoing for the last three \nmonths. She states that she was walking down the stairs and landed \nincorrectly,    which    immediately    provoked    the    pain.    She \nsubsequently started ibuprofen and has been following up with her \nchiropractor.  More  recently,  she  states  that  her  chiropractor  took \nxrays  of  her  left  knee  and  recommended  that  she  have  an  MRI \nconducted.  She  was  seen  by  another  provider  one  month  ago  and \nstarted on Naproxen, along with a Medrol dospak, which provided \nminimal  relief.  She  continues  to  ambulate  with  a  cane  for  support \nand utilizes a knee brace intermittently. \n*** \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-8- \nAssessment/Plan: \n1. Acute pain of left knee \nRefilled Naproxen. Encouraged to rest, ice, and elevate knee when \npossible, and to wear knee brace when ambulating. \n \n-naproxen (NAPROSYN) 500 mg tablet: Take 1 Tablet by mouth 2 \n(two) times daily with a meal. Dispense: 60 Tablet; Refill: 2. \n-Referral to Orthopedic Surgery \n \nThe claimant was referred to an orthopedic surgeon at that time.  \n On  March  8,  2023,  the  claimant  was  seen  at  Mercy  Clinic  River  Valley  by PA  Lauren \nWahlmeier. Following are portions of that medical record: \nHPI: \nPatient is a 52-year-old female here for evaluation of her left knee. \nShe  states  that  she  had  an  injury  a  couple  months  ago  when  she \nwas  going  up  and  down  some  stairs.  She  states  that  this  pain  is \nprimarily at the medial aspect of the knee. This pain is worse when \ngoing from a standing to a sitting position. She states that she feels \na catch in the knee with certain motions. She denies any numbness \nor  tingling  the  leg  or  foot.  No  radicular  neurologic  symptoms.  No \nfever chills or constitutional symptoms. \n*** \nAssessment/Plan: \nPatient  is  here  with  a   left  knee  sprain  with  possible  medial \nmeniscal  tear.  Plan  for  corticosteroid  injection  today  as  well  as  a \nreferral  to  physical  therapy.  Return  to  clinic  in  3  months  for \nfollow-up. \n \nThe claimant received an injection in her left knee at that time. \n On  May  5,  2023,  the  claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  the  left  knee  at  Prime  Medical \nImaging.  Following  are  the  Impressions  from  the  diagnostic  report  from  that  MRI  by  Dr.  Leo \nDrolshagen. \nImpression: \n1.   Bone   bruises   lateral   femoral   condyle   with   undisplaced \nosteochondral lesions. Cartilaginous loss lateral compartment knee \njoint space. \n \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-9- \n2.  Bone  bruise  distal  femur  at  intercondylar  notch  at  the  anterior \ncruciate ligament insertion. Partial tear anterior cruciate ligament. \n \n3. Knee effusion, with scattered bone bruises as described above. \n \n The claimant in this matter has asked the Commission to determine whether she sustained \na compensable injury to her left knee on or about November 1, 2022. It is the claimant’s burden \nto prove the compensability of her alleged left knee injury. The claimant does not recall the date \nthat the left knee injury she claims occurred, but she does recall the specific incident and the time \nof  day  that  specific  incident  occurred,  doing  so  consistently  in  deposition  testimony,  hearing \ntestimony, and conversations with medical providers.  \n The  claimant  is  able  to  show  objective  medical  findings  regarding  her  alleged  left  knee \ninjury  from  her  MRI  performed  on  May  5,  2023.  The  claimant  must  also  prove  a  causal \nconnection between those objective medical findings and the injury she alleges. The respondents \nhere contend that the claimant did not report a work-related injury to her left knee until she filed \nan  AR-C  form  on  April  6,  2023.  The  claimant  testified,  and  I  find  that  she  did  so  truthfully, \nreporting her injury immediately following the occurrence to her supervisor and then reporting to \nthe  nurse’s  station.  The  respondent  has  introduced  documents  into  evidence  in  the  form  of \nnursing notes from its facility nursing staff. The notes introduced first discuss a “knee condition” \non  March  6,  2023.  That  knee  condition  is  described  in  the  nurse’s  note  as  a “personal”  knee \ncondition. However, a few days later, a nurse’s note from March 10, 2023, states: \nReceived  return  to  work  note  from  TM  with  restrictions  stating, \n“desk  duty  downstairs  preferred.”  No  positions  available  on  the \nfloor, but TM has restrictions set by work comp  doctor where she \ndoesn’t have to go up or down any steps. If this becomes a problem \nTM will be advised to get an updated note regarding her knee from \nthe doctor. \n \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-10- \n In  the  claimant’s  hearing  testimony  and  deposition  testimony,  the  claimant  testified  that \nshe reported her injury to Mario Salinas, her supervisor, and to a nurse at the nurse’s station. In \nfact, the claimant provided a photograph of the  nurse she  reported her left knee injury to at her \ndeposition which was taken on July 27, 2023, and introduced into evidence in this matter, to the \nrespondent’s  attorney.  I  find  the  claimant’s  testimony  to  be  credible  about  her  reporting  of  the \ninjury.  The  only  evidence  that  disputes  that  testimony  is  the absence  of  records  from  the \nrespondent  showing  that  it  occurred,  and  a  nursing  note  about  the  claimant’s  personal  knee \ncondition.  \n The  claimant’s  testimony  was  consistent  to  medical  providers  about  how  her  injury \noccurred,  and  her  left  knee  MRI  certainly  shows  derangement  that  one  would  expect  from  the \nincident she describes. \n The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  sustained a \ncompensable left knee injury in November of 2022 while employed by the respondent. I note that \nthe respondent also contended that the claimant was not performing employment services at the \ntime of her compensable injury. The claimant was going to a lunch break at that time; however, \nthe  claimant’s  job  required  her  to  climb  stairs  to  a  high  point  in  the  facility.  The  claimant  was \ncertainly  performing  employment  services  for  the  respondent  while  she  was  descending  down \nfrom  a  height  her  job  duties  required  her  to  be  at,  as  the  claimant  had  not  even  returned  to  the \nproduction floor level when her injury occurred. \n The  claimant  has  asked  the  Commission  to  determine  if  she  is  entitled  to  medical \ntreatment for her compensable left knee injury. After a review of the medical records submitted \ninto  evidence,  I  find  that  the  treatment  provided  to  the  claimant  in  evidence  is  reasonable \nnecessary   treatment   for   her   compensable   left   knee   injury.   The   claimant   is   entitled   to \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-11- \nreimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses and to reasonable necessary medical treatment for \nher compensable left knee injury. \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  her 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 22, 2023, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed May 23, 2023, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n 2.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  sustained a \ncompensable injury to her left knee on or about November 1, 2022. \n 3.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  is  entitled  to \nmedical  treatment  for  her  left  knee  injury,  including  reimbursement  for  out-of-pocket  expenses \nfor medical treatment submitted into evidence in this matter regarding her left knee. \n 4. The respondent failed to prove its lack of notice defense in that I find that the claimant \nreported  her  injury  immediately  after  it  occurred  to  her  supervisor  and  then  to  a  nurse  at  the \nrespondent’s nursing facility. \n ORDER \nThe  respondents  shall  pay  for  reasonable  necessary  medical  treatment  regarding  the \nclaimant’s   compensable   left   knee   injury,   including   out-of-pocket   expenses   for   treatment \npreviously provided to the claimant that was introduced into the record in this matter. \n\nSandoval – H302270 \n \n-12- \nPursuant  to  A.C.A.  §11-9-715(a)(1)(B)(ii),  attorney  fees  are  awarded  “only  on  the \namount of compensation for indemnity benefits controverted and awarded.”   Here, no indemnity \nbenefits were controverted and awarded; therefore, no attorney fee has been awarded.   Instead, \nclaimant’s attorney is free to voluntarily contract with the medical providers pursuant to A.C.A. \n§11-9-715(a)(4). \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 IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n                                ____________________________                                              \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H302270 MARITZA SANDOVAL, Employee CLAIMANT TYSON FOODS, INC., Employer RESPONDENT TYNET CORP., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 3, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claimant repre...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:58:02.657Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H302270-2024-01-03","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SANDOVAL_MARITZA_H302270_20240103.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}