{"id":"alj-H303065-2025-11-10","awcc_number":"H303065","decision_date":"2025-11-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Misty Coleman","employer_name":"Centers For Youth & Family Services","title":"COLEMAN VS. CENTERS FOR YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES AWCC# H303065 November 10, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","shoulder","neck","sprain","rotator cuff","lumbar","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/COLEMAN_MISTY_H303065_20251110.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"COLEMAN_MISTY_H303065_20251110.pdf","text_length":48029,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H303065 \nMISTY COLEMAN, ENRLOYEE       CLAIMANT \nCENTERS FOR YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES, \nENTLOYER RESPONDENT \nATA WORKERS' COMPENSATION SI TRUST, \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC., \nCARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 10, 2025 \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Shelia F. Campbell, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Jarrod S. Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn August 13, 2025, the above-captioned claim came on for a hearing in Little Rock, \nArkansas. Previously, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held in this matter on April 30, 2025. \nA Pre-hearing Order was entered that same day pursuant to the telephone conference. Said order \nwas admitted into evidence along with the parties' pre-hearing information filings without objection \nas Commission's Exhibit 1. \nSTIPULATIONS \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties agreed to the \nfollowing stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \n\nColeman – H303065 \n2 \nclaim. \n2. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed among the parties at \nall relevant times, including on April 30, 2023, when the claimant sustained an \nadmittedly compensable injury to her right knee. \n3. The claimant's average weekly wage (AWW) of $607.00 is sufficient to entitle her \nto weekly compensation rates of $405.00 for temporary total disability (TTD) and \n$304.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. \n4. The respondents have controverted the claimant's entitlement to additional \nbenefits, in the form of the other alleged injuries as outlined below and associated \nbenefits for these conditions as outlined below. \n5. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers' \nCompensation Act. \nISSUES \nThe parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether the claimant sustained compensable work-related injuries to her hips, back, right \n shoulder, and left knee \nl \non April 30, 2023. \n2.  Whether the claimant is entitled to the medical treatment of record and future medical \n  treatment  for  her  alleged  injuries  to  her  hips,  back,  right  shoulder,  and  her  admittedly \n compensable right knee injury. The claimant also contends she is entitled to the medical \n treatment provided to her by Surgical Associates of Arkansas. \n \n \n1 \nAt the beginning of the hearing, the claimant's attorney amended the issue to pertaining to the claimant's \nalleged injuries, to thereby state that the claimant is no longer asserting an injury to her left knee. \n\nColeman – H303065 \n3 \n \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability compensation from \nMay 1, 2023, to a date yet to be determined. \n4. Whether the claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney's fee. \nContentions \nThe claimant's and respondents' contentions are set out in their response to the Pre-hearing \nQuestionnaire. Said contentions are as follows: \nClaimant: \nClaimant contends that she sustained compensable injuries to her hips, back, right shoulder, \nleft knee, and right knee, in the form of a horizontal tear in the meniscus of her right knee. (At the \ntime of the telephone conference, the claimant's attorney stated that she was not alleging an injury \nto the neck. At the hearing, she removed the alleged left knee condition as an issue). \nClaimant contends that she is entitlement to temporary total disability from April 30, 2023, \nto a date to be determined. The claimant contends she is entitled to medical mileage, medical \nexpenses, and attorney’s fees. \nRespondents: \nRespondents contend that all appropriate benefits have been paid with regard to this matter. \nThe claimant has been released to full duty by Concentra and Dr. Seale. No additional medical \ntreatment has been recommended for the claimant's compensable knee injury. It is respondents' \nposition that additional medical treatment, if any, is not reasonable and necessary. Respondents also \ncontend that the medical documentation does not support an off-work status associated with the \nclaimant's compensable knee injury. \n\nColeman – H303065 \n4 \n As previously indicated, respondents have accepted a compensable right knee injury and \nhave  paid  associated  benefits  regarding  the  same.  Respondents  deny  claimant  suffered \ncompensable injuries to her hips, back, neck, and right shoulder and state that any treatment \nassociated  with  those  body  parts  is  related  to  preexisting  or  unrelated  conditions  for  which \nrespondents are not liable. Respondents contend the medical documentation does not support work \nrelated injuries to these other body parts nor does it support entitlement to further indemnity \nbenefits associated with claimant's compensable knee injury or the other claimed injuries in the \nevent compensability is found. Respondents contend all appropriate medical and related expenses \nhave been paid associated with authorized medical treatment related to claimant's compensable \nright knee injury. \nThe respondents forwarded a letter to my office on May 20, 2025. This letter reads, in \nrelevant  part,  as  follows:  \"I  enclose  with  correspondence  records  from  Baptist  Health  NLR \ndocumenting an incident claimant was involved in on or around February 4, 2025. Respondents \nassert that this incident constitutes an \"independent intervening cause.\" \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nAfter reviewing the record as a whole, including the medical reports, the documentary \nevidence, and other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity \nto listen to the testimony of the witness and observe her demeanor, I hereby make the following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. {11-9-704 (Repl. \n2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The proposed stipulations set forth above are reasonable and hereby accepted. \n\nColeman – H303065 \n5 \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \ncompensable injuries to her hips, and right shoulder on April 30, 2023. There are no \n objective medical findings establishing an injury either to the claimant's hips and right \nshoulder. All other issues relating to temporary total disability compensation, medical \ntreatment, and attorney fees have been rendered moot. \n4. The claimant sustained a temporary aggravation/aggravation of her pre-existing back \nthat resolved no later than May 18, 2023. The respondents have paid all appropriate \nbenefits for this minor injury. \n5. The claimant failed to prove her entitlement to additional medical treatment for her \ncompensable right knee injury of April 30, 2023, including the medical services that \nshe received from Surgical Associates of Arkansas. \n  6. All issues not litigated herein or addressed in this Opinion are reserved under the Act. \nSummary of Evidence \n   The claimant was the only witness to offer testimony during the hearing. \n The record consists of the hearing transcript of August 13, 2025, and the exhibits held \ntherein.  In  addition  to  the  Pre-hearing  Order discussed  above,  the  exhibits  admitted  into \nevidence in this case were Claimant's Exhibit 1, which is a Medical Exhibit consisting of 69 \npages; Respondents' Exhibit 1 encompassing 242 pages of Medical Records; Respondents' \nExhibit 2 is a Non-Medical Exhibit comprising of 122 pages; and Respondents' Exhibit No. 3 \nincludes seven, which is a Medical Exhibit Abstract. \nTestimony \n   The claimant testified that she was employed by Centers for Youth and Family Services \non April 30, 2023. She testified that she was supervisor for the night staff on the weekends. According \n\nColeman – H303065 \n6 \nto the claimant, she assisted with helping to address the needs of children with physical disabilities \nand behavioral difficulties. According to the claimant, she worked alongside of the nurses in dealing \nwith sex-trafficked children, made staff schedules, and assisted with other \"houses\" that the Centers \nfor Youth and Family Services was responsible for during the weekends. The claimant testified that \nshe coordinated telephone calls to the directors, helped with transportation for the children, and \nsupervised them during fire drills. \nShe confirmed that she contends on April 30, 2023, she was involved in a work-related \naccident in the course and scope of her employment with the respondent-employer. The claimant \ntestified that she was helping calming down one of the children. She testified that upon entering the \ndorm to help with the child, she noticed that the floor had bananas and Jello on it and was very sticky. \nAccording to the claimant, she asked staff to clear everything from the floor. The claimant essentially \ntestified that she went to confer with the nurse to make sure all the paperwork was completed in a \ntimely fashion. Per the claimant, as she walked across the floor, she fell to the floor because it was \nslippery. She maintained that when she fell, she fell in \"splits.\" She testified that it happened so fast, \nbut she recalls that she hit her head, knee, and shoulder when she went back in ''a splits.\" According \nto the claimant, she tried to get up, but she fell again. The claimant testified that one of the male staff \nmembers and a supervisor helped her up. \nThe claimant testified that she was hurting in her back, legs, and ankles areas. She testified \nthat she was not really hurting so much as she was sore. The claimant reported her injury to her \nemployer. Subsequently, the claimant was directed to go for medical treatment. She first sought \nmedical  treatment  from  North  Little  Rock  Baptist  Health  Emergency  Room  Department. The \nclaimant also treated with Concentra. According to the claimant, they checked out her back and could \ntell it was swollen and told her that she had \"a sprain. \" \n\nColeman – H303065 \n7 \nPer the claimant, she saw Dr. Thompson, and she gave her a brace for her knee. The claimant \ntestified that they gave her braces for her feet that wrapped around her ankles, which looked like \nsocks. Per the claimant the brace was like a sleeve and made of Velcro. The claimant also testified \nthat she had a brace for her knee. However, she admitted that she asked for a back brace. She testified \nthat she received treatment for her back in the form of physical therapy, a shot and medicine for her \nback. According to the claimant, they kept her off work for some days because her back injury was \n\"sprang.\" As a result, this was like a treatment plan. The claimant maintained that she had back pain. \nShe described her pain as pulling sharp aching and muscle spasms. The claimant also testified that \nher back was swollen, and it felt stiff. According to the claimant, her \"back felt tinglingly,\" and she \nhad sharp pains and aches in it. The claimant testified that she was released to return to work twice. \nShe was released once when the doctor had released her and explained that she was advised by Ms. \nGwatney\n1 \nto release her. However, the claimant maintained that she did not recall the exact date. \nAccording to the claimant she was released with restrictions, but her employer refused to put her \nback to work because she was a liability. The claimant stated that at that time, she was unable to \nretrain the children and perform her normal duties because the Centers did not have any light duty \nwork. She testified that she must be physically able to restrain a child, and she might have to pick \nup a child to console them. The claimant testified that she was required to lift up to 50 pounds in her \njob. She also testified that she was having difficulties walking after her fall due to her knee, back, \nshoulder, and ankles. According to the claimant she received physical therapy and a shot with an \n18-inch needle, but no pain medicine was given to her when that was done. The claimant maintained \nthat she continued to have problems even after she was released with restrictions. Once she was \nreleased by Concentra, the claimant went over to OrthoArkansas for continued medical treatment, \n \n2\n Rebecca Gwatney is the senior claims adjuster Risk Management Resources. \n\nColeman – H303065 \n8 \nwhere she received the shot. The claimant admitted received some compensation. However, she \ntestified that Ms. Gwatney stopped her checks, but she does not recall the exact date. She confirmed \nthat she spoke with Ms. Gwatney about her checks being stopped and her need for medications. At \nthat point, Ms. Gwatney told her she had stopped payment of her medications for her injury as of \nMay 3 1, 2023. The claimant testified that she started going to doctors using her Medicaid insurance. \nAccording to the claimant, she had issues with OrthoArkansas and had to file complaint for sexual \nharassment. \n2\n \nThe claimant confirmed that she received a change of physician to treat with Dr. Victor \nWilliams. She had to stop her treatment with him because he did not receive payments for her \nmedical care. Per the claimant, she received treatment for her whole body, including her knees, \nshoulder, back, neck, and ankles. Dr. Williams treated the claimant with some physical therapy, but \nshe could not complete her treatment. The claimant testified that the adjuster did not give her a \nreason for stopping her treatment with Dr. Williams. As a result, she was left with finding her own \ntreatment. \nAt that point, the claimant started looking for work. She testified she worked for Amazon \nand did some \"Ubering.\" She denied being paid mileage. The claimant admitted that she had an N4RI \nof both her back and neck. She maintained that she had an MRI of her shoulder at OrthoArkansas \ndue to a rotator cuff tear. The claimant testified that she wants to be paid for her injuries. She testified \nthat she continues to have problems with her knee giving out on her. Per the claimant, her knee swells \nand goes up and down, and it is painful. She stated that she has problems with sharp pains in her \nknee, from her feet as well as her shoulder and back. However, she admitted that sometimes its due \nto the medication she is on. \n \n3\n The alleged complaint against OrthoArkansas is not part of this claim for workers' compensation benefits \nand will not be address in this Opinion. \n\nColeman – H303065 \n9 \nOn cross-examination, the claimant admitted that she is aware of her back condition being \ndenied by the respondents. About her fall, the claimant agreed that she testified that she fell and \nwent the splits, meaning she fell backwards because the floor was slippery. However, the claimant \nadmitted that she does not remember the actual mechanics of the fall because it was almost two \nyears ago. She maintained that she \"remembered falling, hitting her knee and falling in a splits.\" \nUnder further cross-examination, the claimant testified: \n Okay. You don't remember hitting your shoulder or head on anything, do you? \nA.       Yeah. I hit I went back and hit my head. \nQ  Okay. How, mechanically, did that happen if you were in the splits? \nA.  Because when I hit fell, I hit my Imee, I think. I slid and then I went back \n 'cause I couldn't balance myself, so it's like boomp, boomp. \n                         Q.       You went back over your leg behind you? \nA.  I fell and I went in a split. I hit my knee, went in a splits, and fell back. I \n remember fallin' back, so if you askin' me for every single step on how I \n fell, I remember goin' down. If I went down, my slidin' , boom, walkin', \n slidin', and goin' back. That's what I remember.  \nQ  Okay. You're not claiming any type of head injury or brain injury in this case \n though, right? \n A.      No, sir. \nQ.  All right. Did I hear you say on direct that your shoulder injury affected the \n way you walked? \nA.     No. I said my knee. She said did my knee - - \nQ.     Okay. \nThe claimant specifically denied having testified that her shoulder affected her walk. She \nessentially stated that her hips and knees caused her to walk a certain way. She confirmed that she \ntestified that Dr. Smith injected her with an 18-inch needle. However, the claimant admitted that \n\nColeman – H303065 \n10 \nthis was an exaggeration because she was nervous. (She apologized for her overexaggeration about \nthe needle and having testified to this length multiple times). \nAbout the claimant's medical records, she testified that she did not sign any type of medical \nauthorization for her past medical records to be released. According to the claimant, her doctors told \nher that Ms. Gwatney told them she was watching the claimant. She explained that she has a problem \nwith the respondents knowing her past medical history and using that against her to not pay for her \nfuture treatment in a situation that was obviously caused at her job, which was recorded. Per the \nclaimant, it is a problem when she is being singled out to be watched so that they can find a way to \nsend her back to work without any restrictions. The claimant maintained the doctors told her they \nhad researched her the day she went in to see them because Ms. Gwatney had told them about her \npast medical injuries. She essentially maintained that it is improper for the respondents to conduct \nan investigation of a pre-existing condition in the context of determining what is compensable and \nwhat is not compensable, even if one has wrong motives. The claimant essentially stated that she \nhas been discriminated against in trying to get proper treatment. \nShe  confirmed  that  she  has  a  long-standing  diagnosis  of  fibromyalgia.  The  claimant \nadmitted that she testified in her deposition that it caused her pain and discomfort all over her body. \nShe further admitted that there are medical reports showing that she has pain in joints all over her \nbody due to her fibromyalgia. \nThe claimant denied that her foot x-ray done in May of 2023 was normal. Instead, she \ntestified that it showed a foreign object in her foot. She went on to state that a lot of \"stuff' come \nback as normal but have something wrong with them. The claimant maintained that she was not \naware that the back x-rays done on May 2, 2023, were normal. She denied being familiar with the \nx-rays of her shoulder done on November 16, 2023, which revealed only degenerative changes. \n\nColeman – H303065 \n11 \nPer the claimant, she was only aware of different things being shown, such as it being swollen. She \ndenied that the nerve conduction study showed normal results. The claimant stated that the medical \nreport of the MRI of her shoulder shows tendonitis and bursitis, then if that is in the report, that is \ncorrect. She underwent an MRI of her lumbar spine in 2023 and 2019, and they both were deemed \nto be the same. The claimant confirmed that she was released to full duty work by Concentra on \nMay 3 1, 2023, but it was rescinded. According to the claimant, Ms. Gwatney told them to send her \nback to work. She testified that the next day they rescinded it. Dr. Seale released the claimant on \nJuly  3.  The  claimant  was  released  to  return  to  work  on  July  4,  and August  10, 2023,  by \nOrthoArkansas. According to the claimant, she was sexually assaulted and had to file a complaint \nagainst them. The claimant was released from physical therapy at Concentra on August 25, 2024, \nbecause she made considerable progress. \nDuring the claimant's deposition, she stated that she had not had any accidents or incidents \nsince April 30, 2023, involving any of the body parts involving her claim for workers' compensation \nbenefits. She confirmed that it was her testimony that she did not have any accidents or incidents \ninvolving any of the body parts she is now claiming in this case. \nHowever, she testified: \nQ.  And you told me in your deposition that you had not had any accidents or \nincidents involving any of those body parts since April 30th, 2023, correct? \n A. Since. \n Q. You don't understand the word since? \nA.         No. You're saying after April — after my injury? \n Q. Yeah. \n A. Yeah, that's correct. \nQ.        You maintain there's been no accidents or incidents involving those body         \n            parts, right? \n\nColeman H303065 \n12 \n A. Right. \n Q. All right. And is that still your testimony today? \n A. Right. Well, I had a wreck and hit a deer. \n Q. Okay. \n A. Yeah, so \n Q. What body parts \nA.  So that that that was after my injury. That was — I had a wreck like in what \n 2025, 2024? \n Q Okay. That's what I'm asking you about. \n \n A. The end of it. \nQ. February 16th, 2025, you're at the E.R. complaining of bilateral hand pain, \n neck pain, left knee pain, bilateral shoulder pain after hitting a deer. You \n don't dispute that, do you? \n A No, I just said the left side, the left knee. \n Q. Do you know what bilateral means? \n A. Bilateral. What does bilateral means, the opposite side? \n Q. It means both sides. \nA.   Oh, well, yeah, of course my injury was already hurtin,' but I did have a whole \n  deer hit my car so... \nQ.  You told me you had last been symptomatic in your back in 2019 or 2020 before \n this accident at Centers. \n                          A.      Right, 'cause I was workin' and I was functional. \nQ.  Right. You told me you did not have any symptoms or problems basically since  \n you started at Centers, right? \nA.  Yeah. I took medication and I told you I took medication to substain [sic] my \n inj- -- my pain or whatever, so - \nQ.  No. The question was, when was the last time you were symptomatic, and \n your deposition testimony, on page 129, was that you had not been \n symptomatic since 2019 or 2020. Are you changing your testimony today? \n\nColeman - H303065 \n13 \nA.  Well I told you I was takin' medications to be functional. So, I mean, symptoms \n I always have certain symptoms if I have fibromyalgia. \n \nThe claimant was asked if she was changing her testimony. She would neither deny nor \nadmit that she was changing her testimony. Instead, her response was \"Please go back and look at \nthe deposition because I do not recall that. \" The claimant was asked about symptoms in her \nshoulder, back, neck, and legs prior to April 30, 2023, and she answered, \"It was in \"20 or \"19, ' \nbefore I went to work for Centers. \nIt appears that the claimant sought medical treatment on August 30, 2022; October 18, 2022; \nNovember 22, 2022; February 9, 2023; and March 9, 2023, consistently complaining of significant \nback pain with radiculopathy, radiating pain into her legs. On February 9, 2023, the claimant \ncomplained of back pain, right lower extremity pain, shoulder pain, aching, stabbing, throbbing, \nburning, electrical sensations cramping in the low back, pain at an 8 on a 10-point scale, pain \ninterrupting her life at 8 out of 10, pain interrupting regular daily activity at 7 out of \n10. The claimant was prescribed Tizanidine for muscle spasms. She admitted that she does not \ndispute the foregoing, which was done a couple of months before her accident at Centers. \nThe claimant saw Dr. Aditi Saraswat on March 9, 2023, complaining of back pain, lower \nextremity  pain,  shoulder  pain,  significant  lower  back  pain  with  radiculopathy,  chronic  pain \nsyndrome. Again, she was prescribed Tizanidine for spasms and Gabapentin. The claimant was \nunable to complete physical therapy that she started in 2022. Her doctor discussed with her medical \nbranch  block  injections  and  radiofrequency  ablation  procedures  for  her  back  condition.  She \nconfirmed that she does not dispute the report. The claimant confirmed that within two months of \nthe injury date, she was at complaining of low back pain and radiculopathy to her doctor. \n \n \n\nColeman - H303065 \n14 \nThe following exchange took place: \nQ — obviously your statement to me under oath in your deposition that \n you hadn't had problems since 2019 or 2020 was not a true statement, was it? \n \nA.  Well, I didn't have problems without medication. \n \n Under further questioning, the claimant maintained that it was a true statement, because she \nwas working and could work with the injuries. She denied having all the symptoms as set forth and \ntermed. According  to  the  claimant,  she  only  had  pain. The  claimant  stated  that  she  must  have \nmisunderstood the questions. She maintained that she misunderstood the question about her being \nsymptomatic before April 30, 2023. However, the claimant admitted she was asked at the end of \ndeposition if there was a question she did not understand or needed for it to be asked again or rephased \nand she did not indicate she misunderstood anything. She was also instructed of this at the beginning \nof the hearing. She maintained that she did not have any symptoms between 2020 and her injury in \n2023, although obviously she was getting treated for a back injury or pain or pain management. The \nclaimant stated, \"1 was under pain management.\" The claimant was asked about her testimony of no \nsymptoms or being symptomatic in 2020, and she began talking about diagnoses of swollen ankles, \nspranged  [sic]  ankles,  and  torn  madiscus  [sic].  She  began  testifying  about  being  harassed  at \nOrthoArkansas, which they allegedly touched her breasts and tried to take off her wig. The claimant \nmaintained that she must have misunderstood symptomatic to mean symptoms or diagnosis that \nConcentra gave her. Per the claimant that is what she thought was being asked of her. The claimant \nspecifically stated in her deposition that she had not had any prior problems, symptoms, injuries, or \nconditions with her right shoulder. \nHowever, she maintained that she does not recall being asked if she had any injuries to her \nshoulder. According to the claimant, she only heard respondents' counsel make mention of an MRI. \n\nColeman - H303065 \n15 \nThe claimant was asked if she now admits she did have prior shoulder problems before April 30, 2023, \nand she responded: \"l don't recall.\" She was asked if she currently disputes the medical records if they \ndocument her having shoulder complaints in 2022 and 2023. The claimant stated that she does not, \nshe just wants to see them. The claimant was shown pages 112 and 113 of respondents' exhibit, which \nis a medical record form Jefferson Regional on November 25, 2018. Per these medical notes, the \nclaimant complained of right-sided shoulder problems and upper arm problems. However, she did not \nrecall this event. On October 18, 2022, the doctor specifically recounts her reported history of shoulder \npain. That was less than six months before her work incident in April 2023. The claimant was asked \nif she disputes this report, and she stated that due to all the false documentation she has experienced \nshe would like to see it. The claimant stated she has challenged the validity of the reports. However, \nshe next maintained that she had not done so because she did not know the process and she is fighting \ntoo many battles. \nThe claimant confirmed that she is asking for temporary total disability from May l , 2023 \nand continuing to a date to be determined. However, the claimant admitted that she testified that on \ndirect examination that she worked as a driver for Uber. She also admitted to having testified that \nshe has applied for work as a delivery driver for Amazon but has not worked for them. The claimant \nadmitted that she has worked for Uber Eats. She also gives people rides occasionally for pay, favor \nor trade. \nUnder further questioning the claimant admitted the following: \n Q. All right. So, you 're not obviously totally incapacitated? \n     No. \n\nColeman - H303065 \n16 \nShe confirmed that if she is going out and doing a task, she is earning money. However, the \nclaimant maintained that she must be under medication and cannot do what she wants to do. She \ndenied that she could do her prior work for the respondent-employer because of her injury. According \nto the claimant, they would not allow her to return to work. She admitted that she applied for \nunemployment insurance benefits and received those benefits. The claimant admitted that she was \nhonest and truthful with the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services when she completed her \napplication. She confirmed that she told Workforce Services she did not have any disabilities to \nprevent her from working, which are on page 88, 99, 100, 101, and 103 of respondents' non-medical \npacket. The claimant was asked if she was lying, and her response was \"Well not anything that's gonna \nstop me from workin' certain jobs, no.\" \nThe claimant attempted to further explain her ability to work: \nQ. And your unequivocal answer is no, you did not have any disabilities that \nprevent you from doing your job, right? \n  A. Exactly. \nQ. And you indicated that you could go to work full-time, and you could start \nimmediately, correct? \n Correct. \n Q. And you weren 't lying when you gave those answers, were you? \n I wasn 't lying. \nQ.  Okay. You agree if you have no disabilities, you can go to work full-time and \n  you can go to work immediately. You wouldn't be entitled to a benefit that's \n  designated for someone who 's totally incapable of working, right? Those two \n  don't line up? \n   A. Right. It don’t line up. \n \n   Q. Okay. \n \n\nColeman - H303065 \n17 \n   A. But if I'm told to say somethin then that is — it - - it don 't matter long as you \n   can work. They don 't have - they don 't have a answer. mat I was told, they \n   don't have a great answer. \n \n  The claimant continued to testify that on the application for unemployment benefits she had \nto answer that she was not fully disabled because there was no answer for partial disability, or 30% \ndisabled. According to the claimant, when accepting a job, it is at that point when she would answer \npartial or full-time disability. The claimant went on to try to explain away and give conflicting and \nconfusing testimony about her having indicated on her application for unemployment benefits that \nshe was able to work. She was asked if she was totally incapacitated at the time she completed the \napplication and if she was telling the truth. Her response was \"I was advised no.\" The claimant \nadmitted that she drew benefits based on her answer of \"No. \" She explained that she did exactly that \nbecause she had no income. \nHowever, the claimant admitted that at one point her unemployment benefits were suspended. \nAlthough the claimant's benefits were suspended because she put down employers that she claimed \nthat she applied to for work but when they did an audit, they never heard of her or from her. However, \nshe denied that •they advised her of that action. The claimant was that if there is a document of \nrecord from the Department of Workforces saying that is the finding and the reason for her benefits \nbeing suspended if she has any validation to dispute that, she replied \n — I don't recall. She went on to give conflicting and confusing testimony in this regard. \nHowever, the claimant testified that she does not know anything about what has been explained to \nher in that regard. The claimant next maintained that she does not recall it and does not believe that \nhappened. \n\nColeman - H303065 \n18 \nMedical Evidence \nPreviously,  on  November  25,  2018,  the  claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  the \nEmergency Department of Jefferson Regional Medical Center/JRMC due to, among other things, \nsprain of the shoulder and upper arm, and strain of right elbow and forearm. \nThe claimant sought via an ER visit to Baptist Medical Center on May 3, 2019, with \ncomplaints right knee pain, right ankle pain due to a fall. She also complained of neck and back \npain. \nAn  MRI  of  the  claimant's  lumbar  spine  was  performed  on  October  9,  2019,  with  an \nimpression of: \"Mild lower lumbar disc and facet degeneration with relatively minimal disc bulges \nat L4-5 and L5-S1 along with posterior annular fissures. No significant mass effect.\" \nThe claimant underwent a neurosurgery evaluation by Dr. Ahmed Bahgat on August 30, 2022. \nShe complained of chronic pain radiating into the hip and right lower extremity, multiple joint pains, \npain that radiated into the right hip, knees, and feet. The claimant further complained of joint \nswelling,  and  back  and  neck  pain.  On  physical  examination,  the  claimant  was  positive  for \narthralgias, back pain, gait problems, myalgias, and neck pain. \nFurther review of the medical records shows that on October 18, 2022, Dr. Aditi Saraswat \nperformed an initial evaluation of the claimant due to a history of chronic low back pain, right lower \nextremity pain, shoulder pain, neck pain which rates to be at 7/10. She described the intensity of \nher pain being throbbing, stabbing, burning, electric and cramping. \nOn  May  2,  2023,  the  claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  Baptist  Health  Medical \nCenter/BHMC North Little Rock due to a sprain of unspecified ligament of the left ankle.\" The \nclaimant underwent x-rays of the left foot and right foot, which revealed no fractures/swelling. \nX-rays of her right hip were normal, and x-rays of her right knee showed no effusion/swelling. \n\nColeman - H303065 \n19 \nX-rays of the claimant's lumbar spine demonstrated no fractures but showed facet arthropathy at L4-\n5 and L5-S1. \n  Dr. Saraswat evaluated the claimant on May 3, 2023, due to multiple complaints of back pain, \nlower extremity pain, shoulder pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia related symptoms. At that time, Dr. \nSaraswat recommended that the claimant undergo bilateral lumbar facet injections at L4-5 and L5-\nS1. He also ordered an MRI of her lumbar spine. \nThe claimant was seen at Concentra on May 10, 2023, due to a left ankle sprain by the \nMiriam Lawrence, NP. She reported having difficulties performing her job duties. Lawrence noted \nthat  on  palpation  the  claimant  had  left  and  right  sided  muscles  on left  sacroiliac.  Lawrence \nassessments were: \"Left sided ankle sprain. Right ankle sprain. Right knee sprain. Lumbar sprain. \nSprain of the left shoulder. Sprain of right shoulder.\" The claimant was placed on light duty \nfunctional restrictions. She was noted to have full range of her right shoulder. \nOn May 18, 2023, the claimant returned to Concentra. At that time, Lawrence released the \nclaimant to return to work any physical restrictions. She did not prescribe any medications for any \nof the claimant's conditions. \nNext,  on  May  31,  2023,  Concentra/Lawrence  directed  the  claimant  to  refrain  from \nrestraining clients. An MRI was performed of the claimant's right knee was performed on June 13, \n2023, which revealed in pertinent part, \"A horizontal tear of the lateral meniscal body,\" and other \npre-existing degenerative findings.\" \nDr. Victor Williams evaluated the claimant on June 1 8, 2023, for her work injury. At that \ntime, the claimant had multiple symptoms of the pain of the right shoulder, hips, neck, back, right \nknee meniscus tear, and fibromyalgia. He recommended oral steroids and physical therapy. On June \n\nColeman - H303065 \n20 \n23, 2023, the claimant returned for a follow-up visit at Concentra. At that time, the claimant was \nnoted to be approximately 25% of the way toward meeting the physical requirements of her j ob. \n  Subsequently, on June 27, 2023, Dr. Philip Smith at OrthoArkansas gave the claimant an \ninjection in the left knee. Dr. Smith also prescribed a knee brace. Per these clinical notes, he opined \nthat the claimant was attempting to limit her release from medical treatment. \nThe claimant underwent evaluation by Payton Ransom, PA-C, on July 3, 2023, for an office \nvisit to review and discuss with the claimant x-rays and MRI of her back, which was performed \non June 23, 2023. Ransom opined \"There are no objective findings of an acute injury.\" The patient \nhas a history of pain in her lower back and down the leg which she had been treated for pain right \nup until her injury. It was discussed with the claimant that she had an execration of a pre-existing \ncondition being her small annular tear at L5-L5 and L5-SI. Ransom released the claimant to full \nduty work from standpoint of her lumbar spine without restrictions. \nBoth Drs. Justin Seale and Allan Smith wrote letters to the claimant on July 21,2023 stating \nthat they could no longer provide medical care for her. The claimant allegedly was disrespectful, \ndisplayed disruptive behavior and made threats toward their staff. \nThe claimant filed for unemployment benefits insurance benefits on December 11, 2023. \nThe first week she claimed these benefits for was the week ending December 9, 2023. At that time, \nthe claimant stated that she was willing, able, and available to work beginning May 1, 2023. \nOn  January  18,  2024,  the  claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  the  right  shoulder  with  an \nimpression: \"1. No full-thickness rotator cuff tear. No labral tear. 2. Mild to moderate supraspinatus \nand infraspinatus tendinosis. 3. Mild subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis.\" Also, EMG Studies of the \nclaimant' s lower extremities were normal. \n\nColeman - H303065 \n21 \nAdjudication \nA. Compensability of Alleged Injuries-Hips, Back, and Right Shoulder \nIn that regard, for the claimant to establish a compensable injury as a result of a specific \nincident, the following requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), must be \nestablished: (1) proof by a preponderance of the evidence of an injury arising out of and in the course \nof employment; (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury caused internal or \nexternal physical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; \n(3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102 \n(4)(D), establishing the injury; and (4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was \ncaused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). \nA compensable injury must be proven by medical evidence supported by objective findings. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012). \"Objective findings\" are those findings that cannot \ncome under the voluntary control of the patient. Id. 11-9-102(16). The element \"arising out of . . . \n[the]  employment\"  relates  to  the  causal  connection  between  the  claimant's  injury  and  their \nemployment. City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987). An injury arises \nout of a claimant's employment \"when a causal connection between work conditions and the injury \nis apparent to the rational mind.\" Id. \nIf the claimant does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence any of the requirements \nfor showing compensability, compensation must be denied. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, \n56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). This standard means evidence that has greater weight or \nmore convincing force. Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove \nBarium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). Based on my review of the record as a whole, \n\nColeman - H303065 \n22 \nand without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, I find that the claimant has failed to prove \nby a preponderance of the evidence, medical evidence supported by objective findings that she \nsustained compensable injuries to her hips, and right shoulder, on April 30, 2023, during and in the \ncourse and scope of her employment with the respondent-employer while performing her job duties. \nIn the present matter, the claimant was not forthcoming about her prior long standing \nconsistent  complaints  of  ongoing  chronic  conditions  relating  to  various  body  parts,  and  her \nextensive ongoing medical treatment for fibromyalgia. Hence, the claimant has an extensive \nhistory of medical treatment preceding her work-related fall injury in April 2023 for multiple body \nparts and joints. \nAlthough the claimant had an MRI of the right shoulder, all the objective medical findings \nwere pre-existing and degenerative in nature and not related to her fall. As such, her claim for \ninjuries to her right shoulder and hips must be denied because the claimant did not establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence all the necessary requirements for showing compensability for her \nalleged injuries to her hips and right shoulder. \nConcisely, the claimant failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \ncompensable injuries to her hips and shoulder during her work-related fall in April 2023. \nWith respect to the claimant's alleged injury to her lumbar spine. Here the claimant has an \nextensive  history  of  medical  treatment for  chronic  back  pain  and  fibromyalgia.  The  claimant \nunderwent an MRI of the lumbar spine in 2019 and following her work-related fall of April 30, 2023. \nHer treating physician opined that there was no meaningful change in the two MRIs of her lumbar \nspine. During her initial visit at Concentra, under the care Nurse Ransom on July 3, 2023, she opined \n\"There are no objective findings of an acute injury.\" The patient has a history of pain in her lower \nback and down the leg which she had been treated for pain right up until her injury. It was discussed \n\nColeman - H303065 \n23 \nwith the claimant that she had an execration of a pre-existing condition being her small annular tear \nat L5-L5 and L5-SI.\" Prior to that the claimant was examined by Nurse Lawerance on May 10, and \nshe stated that the claimant had a muscle spasm on physical examination. However, at that time, \nLawerance released the claimant to light duty work from standpoint of her lumbar spine without \nrestrictions. However, on May 18, 2023, she released the claimant to full duty work. \nThe claimant reported on her application for unemployment insurance benefits that she was \nable to work as May 1, 2023, for which she received unable benefits. At one point, the claimant's \nunemployment benefits were suspended due to her having reported false job searches. The claimant \ngave conflicting and confusing testimony regarding her prior back condition. Most remarkably, the \nclaimant gave untrue deposition testimony about her prior treatment for her chronic back condition \nfor which she had received extensive on-going medical treatment to her back. The medical evidence \nof record clearly proves that the claimant has previously and consistently reported back pain and \nrelated symptoms. Here, the claimant's complaints of the back prior to her fall are no different than \nher current complaints. As such, I think it would require a significant amount of impermissible \nspeculation for me to attribute the annular tear to the claimant's work-related fall of April 30, 2023. \nTherefore, I find that the claimant has failed to establish a causal connection between her fall at work \nand the objective medical findings demonstrated on the MRI. However, I do attribute the muscle \nspasms to her fall. Under these circumstances, I am persuaded that the claimant sustained only a \nminor aggravation of her preexisting degenerative back condition, in the form of a muscle spasm. \nAs such, I am compelled to find that at best, the claimant sustained only a minor temporary \nexacerbation of her pre-existing/symptomatic degenerative back condition, which resolved no later \nthan May 18, 2023. \n\nColeman - H303065 \n24 \nThe  respondents  have  provided  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  for  this \ntemporary  aggravation  of  the  claimant's  pre-existing  degenerative  back  condition,  which  was \nsymptomatic at the time of her work-related fall of April 30, 2023. No temporary total disability \ncompensation is applicable under these circumstances because the claimant has received temporary \ntotal disability compensable for her compensable left knee injury during this period. \nB. Medical Benefits \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may \nbe reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code Ann. \n11-9-5086) (Repl. 2012). \nThe claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical \ntreatment is reasonably necessary. Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W. \n3d 445 (2005). \nAfter reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefits of the doubt \nto either party, I find that the claimant has not met her burden of proving her entitlement to any \nadditional medical treatment in connection with the compensable right knee injury she received on \nApril 30, 2023. \nHere, the claimant has received extensive conservative medical treatment for her right knee \nin the form of a medication regimen, a knee brace, and a steroid injection, for which the respondents \npaid. Her complaints are all subjective and not credible. Since 2018, the claimant has consistently \nreported multiple joint related ailments and fibromyalgia related symptoms prior to her compensable \nfall in April 2023. The claimant has been released to full duty by Concentra and Dr. Seale for her \nknee injury. No additional medical treatment has been recommended for the claimant's compensable \nknee injury of April 30, 2023. The claimant's own testimony was conflicting and confusing regarding \n\nColeman - H303065 \n25 \nher alleged need for additional medical treatment. In fact, the claimant has not indicated the need for \na particular treatment modality for her right knee injury. I did not find the claimant's testimony to be \ncredible concerning her alleged need for additional medical treatment for her right knee injury. It is \nnoteworthy that the claimant ultimately testified that she is not totally incapacitated and was able to \nperform work. In fact, the claimant essentially admitted that she was untruthful on her application \nfor unemployment insurance benefits. On this application the claimant reported that she was ready, \nwilling, and able to start working on May 1, 2023. \nI unable to find a trustworthy medical recommendation for additional medical treatment for \nher right knee injury. There is no credible evidence whatsoever demonstrating that any additional \nmedical treatment, is reasonably necessary in connection with the knee injury that she received on \nApril 30, 2023. As such, the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence \nher entitlement to any additional medical treatment for her compensable right knee injury. \nFor the above reasons, I find that the medical treatment received by the claimant from \nSurgical Associates of Arkansas was not reasonably necessary and in connection with the right knee \ninjury received by the claimant. Hence, the evidence before me preponderates that the respondents \nhave  paid  for  all  appropriate  medical  and  related  expenses  associated  with  the  claimant's \ncompensable right knee injury of April 30, 2023. \nORDER \nThis claim for additional medical benefits for the claimant admittedly compensable right \nknee injury of April 30, 2023, and the alleged injuries to her hips, and right shoulder, is hereby \nrespectfully denied in its entirety. \nThe  claimant  proved  that  she  sustained  a  minor  temporary  exacerbation  of  her \npreexisting/symptomatic degenerative back condition, which resolved no later than May 1 8, 2023. \n\nColeman - H303065 \n26 \nHowever, the respondents are not liable for any benefits related to the claimant's back because \nthey have previously paid appropriate benefits for her minor back injury of April 30, 2023. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n      ________________________________ \n      CHANDRA L. BLACK \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H303065 MISTY COLEMAN, ENRLOYEE CLAIMANT CENTERS FOR YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES, ENTLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WORKERS' COMPENSATION SI TRUST, RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 10, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:20.838Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303065-2025-11-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/COLEMAN_MISTY_H303065_20251110.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}