{"id":"alj-H302922-2024-07-18","awcc_number":"H302922","decision_date":"2024-07-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Robert Boyd","employer_name":"Madison County Waste Management","title":"BOYD VS. MADISON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AWCC# H302922 July 18, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BOYD_ROBERT_H302922-20240718.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BOYD_ROBERT_H302922-20240718.pdf","text_length":9637,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H302922 \n \nROBERT BOYD, Employee      CLAIMANT \n \nMADISON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT, Employer  RESPONDENT \n \nAAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Carrier/TPA    RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED JULY 18, 2024  \n \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n       \nClaimant represented by LAURI THOMAS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondent represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n The claimant in this matter is a 34-year-old male who sustained a compensable injury to \nhis lower back on February 23, 2023. At the time of the hearing in this matter the claimant had \nreturned  to  work.  The  claimant  first  sought  medical  treatment  on  February  24,  2023,  with  Dr. \nShawn  Brown  at  MANA  Medical  Providers  for  his  compensable  back  injury.  The  claimant \nsometime after that hired his current counsel and filed a form AR-C on May 4, 2023. Sometime \nafter  those  events, the  respondent  accepted  and  began  to  pay  for  the  claimant’s  medical \ntreatment.  That  treatment  was  primarily  through  Ozark  Orthopedics  and  included  physical \ntherapy and an epidural injection in the claimant’s low back on June 27, 2023, by Dr. Mark \nMiedema.  The  claimant  eventually  underwent  surgical  intervention  at  the  hands  of  Dr.  Gannon \nRandolph on July 26, 2023, in the form of a left L5-S1 microdiscectomy. The claimant testified \nthat he last saw Dr. Randolph on December 28, 2023. Following is a portion of that testimony: \n\nBoyd – H302922 \n \n-2- \nQ Robert, when was the last time you saw Dr. Randolph? \n \nA It was the 28\nth\n of December of last year. \n \nQ And after that visit, did Dr. Randolph want you to schedule \na future appointment? \n \nA He  did  but  at  the  time  he  was  changing  practices  and \nmoving  from  Ozark  Orthopedics  to  UAMS  and  was  uncertain  of \nhis schedule. \n \nQ So it’s your understanding that he would like to see you a \nyear after your surgery, which would be this July? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ Have you made an appointment with him yet? \n \nA I  have  not  and  it  was  kind  of  contingent  on  as  if  he  was \ngoing  to  still  be  qualified  or  accepted  by  worker’s  comp  to \ncontinue treatment. \n \nQ And  by  going  to  see  Dr.  Randolph  for  your  follow-up,  do \nyou believe that you – it’s medically reasonable and necessary for \nyou to have a follow-up appointment? \n \nA Absolutely. \n \nQ With your surgeon? \n \nA Yes. \n \n The  claimant  also  underwent  an  impairment  evaluation  at  Functional  Testing  Centers, \nInc., on February 5, 2024. That report is signed by Darin Bell, occupational therapist, and Casey \nGarretson,  occupational  therapist.  The  report  states  that  the  claimant  has  a  whole  person \nimpairment of 10% regarding the claimant’s compensable low back injury.  \nThe respondents filed a motion to dismiss the claimant’s case for failure to prosecute \nunder ACA  §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \n\nBoyd – H302922 \n \n-3- \non February 20, 2024. That motion was filed 209 days after the claimant’s surgical intervention \nand 15 days after his impairment evaluation.  \n ACA §11-9-702 (4) states: \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation \nno bona fide request  for  a  hearing  has  been  made  with  respect  to \nthe  claim,  the  claim  may,  upon  motion  and  after  hearing,  be \ndismissed  without  prejudice  to  the  refiling  of  the  claim  within \nlimitation   periods   specified   in   subdivisions   (a)(1)-(3)   of   this \nsection. \n \n ACA §11-9-702 (d) states: \nIf  within  six  (6)  months  after  the  filing  of  a  claim  for  additional \ncompensation  no  bona  fide  request for  a  hearing  has  been  made \nwith  respect  to  the  claim,  the  claim  may,  upon  motion  and  after \nhearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling \nof the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section. \n \n Rule 099.13 states: \nThe   Commission   may,   in   its   discretion,   postpone   or   recess \nhearings  at  the  instance  of  either  party  or  on  its  own  motion.  No \ncase  set  for  hearing  shall  be  postponed  except  by  approval  of  the \nCommission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \nIn  the  event  neither  party  appears  at  the  initial  hearing,  the  case \nmay  be  dismissed  by  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law \nJudge, and such dismissal order will become final unless an appeal \nis  timely  taken  therefrom  for  a  proper  motion  to  reopen  is  filed \nwith  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party \nin  an  action  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the \nclaim be dismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, \nupon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the \nclaim for want of prosecution. (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \n The  claimant,  as  quoted  above,  is  to  see  Dr.  Randolph  again  and  has  been  unable  to \nschedule that appointment, at least in part, because Dr. Randolph has changed medical practices. \n\nBoyd – H302922 \n \n-4- \nThe claimant also testified while being questioned by respondent’s attorney about medical bills \nhe has been paying out-of-pocket as follows: \nQ At this date, today, is there anything that you’re claiming is \nnot paid that should have been paid by my client? \n \nA The only thing that hasn’t been paid was MRI and X-ray. \n \nQ Is that something that still remains unpaid or do you know? \n \nA We’ve been – my wife and I have been currently paying it \njust out-of-pocket. \n \nQ Okay. Is that  something  that  you  could  get  documentation \non to your attorney? \n \nA I could. \n \nQ Was it something – tell us when these diagnostic tests were \ndone. \n \nA They were done before I’d actually sought an attorney at \nthe time. I went to my – I did what my boss told me to do, go to the \ndoctor directly after. The very next day I did. He went through the \nmotions.  Basically,  we  thought  it  was  something  that  maybe  was \njust gonna take care of itself. It wasn’t taking care of itself. I went \nthrough the X-ray, went through the MRI, and once I realized that I \nwas  going  to  have  to  have  surgery,  it  was  going  to  be  not  a \ntemporary deal, I sought an attorney. \n \nThis  administrative  law  judge  inquired  about  the  unpaid  medical  bills  at  the  hearing  in \nthis matter and had an exchange with the claimant and the respondent’s attorney about unpaid \nbills and the claimant’s upcoming visit with Dr. Randolph as follows: \nTHE COURT: This MRI – I think X-rays is what you said, \nwhat doctor ordered those? Was it the doctor that... \n \nTHE WITNESS:  It was  my primary  care physician.  It  was \nthe doctor that I was – my family doctor. \n \nTHE COURT: Okay. \n \n\nBoyd – H302922 \n \n-5- \nMS.  WOODS:  Judge,  I  would  just  like  to  state  for  the \nrecord that if we could get the documentation, I’ll certainly get it to \nmy  client  for  consideration,  but  whether  or  not  that  is  something \nthat’s approved or is denied has nothing to do with whether or not \nthe case is actually being prosecuted. \n \nTHE COURT: Well, I mean so the respondents stand ruling \n– obviously, he is asking to go back and see a doctor one year after \nhis surgical intervention. I’m pretty sure that was his testimony. He \nthought he should have follow-up. \n \nAre you telling us your client is willing to pay for that? \n \nMS.  WOODS:  I  can’t  state  for  certain,  but  that  is \nsomething  that  I  would  definitely  advise  my  client.  Even  if  the \ndismissal  is  entered,  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  approval  of \nreasonable and necessary medical care. If can’t give you an answer \nas  to  whether  she  would,  but  we  did  have  a  discussion  this  week \nabout  Dr.  Randolph  moving  locations,  and  she  said  she  would  be \nfine  with  him  going  to  the  new  location  at  UAMS  to  see  Dr. \nRandolph. \n \n Both  ACA §11-9-702  (4)  and  ACA §11-9-702  (d),  as  well  as Commission  Rule  099.13 \nprovide discretion in deciding whether a case be  dismissed, and in  all instances the language is \n“may” and not shall. This is not a case with a long and tortured history. In fact, the claimant’s \ncompensable  injury  that  resulted  in  back  surgery,  was just  short  of a  year  old  when  the \nrespondent  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss.  Questions  remain  about  unpaid  medical  bills  and  an \nunscheduled visit to the claimant’s surgeon. It appears to this administrative law judge that this \nparticular claimant has not ignored or wasted the time of the Commission or the respondent, but \ninstead,  has  actively  pursued  indemnity  and  medical  benefits  to  return  himself  as  much  as \npossible  to  his  pre-injury financial and physical state and continues to do so. The respondent’s \nmotion to dismiss is denied. \n  \n \n\nBoyd – H302922 \n \n-6- \nORDER \n Pursuant  to  the  above  findings  and  conclusions,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  deny the \nmotion to dismiss filed by the respondents. \n If  respondents  have  not  already  done  so,  they  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, her fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of her invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      ___________________________________ \n       ERIC PAUL WELLS \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H302922 ROBERT BOYD, Employee CLAIMANT MADISON COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT, Employer RESPONDENT AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Carrier/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 18, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington Coun...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:51:30.902Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H302922-2024-07-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BOYD_ROBERT_H302922-20240718.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}