{"id":"alj-H303979-2025-08-07","awcc_number":"H303979","decision_date":"2025-08-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Khanh Thotsaraj","employer_name":"Trane Commercial Systems","title":"THOTSARAJ VS. TRANE COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS AWCC# H303979 August 07, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["neck","back","shoulder","cervical","thoracic"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOTSARAJ_KHANH_H303979_20250807.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"THOTSARAJ_KHANH_H303979_20250807.pdf","text_length":35583,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H303979 \n \n \nKHANH THOTSARAJ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nTRANE COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nFARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED AUGUST 7, 2025 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., Attorney,  Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by AMY C. MARKHAM, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On  May 12, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort Smith, Arkansas. \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on March 6, 2025, and a pre-hearing order was filed on that \nsame date. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made \na part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2.  The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on April 13, 2023. \n3.  The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n4.  After the hearing, the parties announced an agreement that claimant's average weekly wage \nwas  $987.00,  which  would  entitle  her to  compensation  at  the  weekly  rates  of  $658.00  for \ntemporary total disability benefits and $494.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n2 \n \n \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n1.      Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury on April 13, 2023. \n2.      If compensable, compensation rates. \n3.      If compensable, whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from \nOctober 6, 2023, to a date yet to be determined. \n4. If compensable, whether claimant is entitled to medical benefits. \n5. Attorney’s fees. \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe claimant contends that “She sustained a compensable injury to her neck, shoulders and \nback on April 13, 2023. She is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from October 6, 2023, \nuntil a date yet to be determined, except January 4, 2024, the day on which she returned to work and \nwas  only  able  to  work  one  day.  Further,  the  claimant  contends  that  she  is  entitled  to  appropriate \nmedical benefits. The claimant contends that her attorney is entitled to an appropriate attorney’s fee.” \nThe respondents contend that “There is no clear mechanism of injury. There are no objective \nfindings. Claimant did not sustain an injury in the course and scope of her employment.”    \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the \nwitnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.  The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on March \n6, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n3 \n \n \n 2.  Claimant has met her burden of proving that she suffered a compensable injury to her neck, \nshoulders and back on April 13, 2023, and is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment \nfor that injury as recommended by her treating physicians \n3. Claimant has met her burden of proving she is entitled to temporary total disability from \nOctober 6, 2023, through May 12, 2025, less the one day she worked on January 4, 2024. \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n At the beginning of the hearing, claimant requested that the first issue in the prehearing order \nbe amended to  reflect  that  April  13,  2023,  was  her  correct  date  of  injury,  and that issue  should  be \nframed in the alternative to include a gradual onset injury claim from March 2023 until April 13, 2023. \nRespondents did not object to this amendment, and announced it was there to defend the claim as \namended. The first issue in the case was therefore amended to add an alternative claim as to a gradual \nonset injury.  \n The  email  exchange  between  the  Court  and  counsel  regarding  the  stipulated  compensation \nrate is blue backed to the record.  \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant first called her daughter, Cathy Phommasy. She testified that she has lived with her \nmother from at least March 2023 to the date of the hearing, and recalled in March 2023, when her \nmother  lost  the  help  of  one  of  her  coworkers. Before  April  13,  2023,  claimant  was  active  in  the \nneighborhood  and  around  the  house,  but  after  April  13, 2023, her  activity  level  decreased. Ms. \nPhommasy  remembered  that  after  claimant  finished  her  shift  on  April  13,  she  did  not  engage  her \nnormal activity, which was unloading her lunch box, washing dishes, taking a shower, and a few chores \naround the house before she went to bed. After April 13, she came home, unloaded her lunch box, \nshowered and went straight to bed. Ms. Phommasy saw her mother rubbing and massaging her arm \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n4 \n \n \nand massaging. Ms. Phommasy attended most of the doctor’s visits with claimant. \n On  cross  examination, Ms.  Phommasy  said  she  did  not  remember  the  exact  day  in  March \n2023, when her mother commented that she had lost her partner. Claimant did tell her daughter that \nthere were other employees available to help her. Ms. Phommasy said that she acted as a translator for \nher mother with the medical providers at times. \n Claimant was called on her own behalf and said that on April 13, 2023, she was injured lifting \nor holding a panel that was too heavy for her. Claimant testified that the panel weighed between 80 \nand 700 pounds. Claimant understood that she was not moving a 700-pound panel by herself but the \none she referred to weighed at least 80 pounds. Before March 2023, she had someone to help her, but \nthat person quit, and no one replaced the employee that left. On April 13, 2023, claimant testified that \nthere was a big panel that she had to move herself, which required lifting and pushing it. She said she \nhad overloaded her body on the heavy items that she had worked by herself. She said during the course \nof the shift on April 13, 2023, she hurt her left side from the neck down. She reported it to  her lead \nperson and supervisor. According to the claimant, the team leader was named Wendy who said that \nshe was busy and the supervisor Jim  Lee, said that he didn’t care that she was hurting, that was her \njob. She  likewise  reported  to Alex  Diaz,  who  was  employed  as  a  safety  supervisor;  he authorized \nmedical treatment for claimant.  \nThe initial medical report says that the claimant was hurting in both her right and left shoulder, \nbut  she  had  never  had  medical  treatment  for  either  shoulder  or  her  neck  prior  to  April  13,  2023. \nClamant says she was eventually placed on restricted activity, to work only with one arm which she \ndid until August 2023, when she was told by someone in the human resources office that she cannot \nwork in her area with one hand. She testified that after two or three months, respondents declined to \npay for any more of her medical treatments and she had to find a doctor on her own. Claimant was \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n5 \n \n \nencouraged to file for short-term and long-term disability. On January 4, 2024, claimant attempted to \nreturn to work and only worked for a day. She said that she was using vacation or PTO hours while \nsuch was available. \n Claimant  testified  that  she  understood  some  English  but  would  not  have  fully  understood \nwhat was going on in the hearing and did had difficulty communicating with her doctors.  \n On cross-examination, claimant said that her daughter did go with her to most of her medical \nappointments  and  interpreted  for  her. On  April  13,  2023,  she  was  asked  if  there  was  a  certain \nmovement  that  caused  an  injury. She  said  there  were  no  particular  movement  but  repeating  the \nmovements  through  the  night  is  how  she  was  hurt. Respondents’ attorney had this exchange with \nclaimant: \nQuestion (By Ms. Markham) So if your medical record reflects there was no \nreport of an accident, rather the slow developed symptoms, that is consistent \nwith what you told us here today isn’t it? \n \nAnswer (By the claimant) She says she always tell the doctor that she hurt on \nher left arm neck down. She always tells them. \n \nQ.  But you didn’t tell them it was due to some specific accident; did you? \nA.  She told them that she got hurt in the company.\n1\n \n There  was  then  this  exchange  between  respondents’  attorney  and  claimant  regarding \nClaimant’s Exhibit 1 Page 17. \nQuestion (By Ms. Markham) On this document it says, “The cause of this \nproblem   is complex  involving  multiple  factors.”  Do  you  have  an \nunderstanding of what these multiple factors are describing? \n \nAnswer ( By the claimant) What is it?  \nQ. That is what I am asking you. Do you have an understanding of what this \nmeans by multiple factors? \n \n1\n Rather than translating what claimant said in the first person, the interpreter frequently used the third person \nnarrative. I am repeating the testimony as it appears in the transcript.  \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n6 \n \n \n \nA. Yes, she understands. \nQ.  What is your understanding? \nA. I understand that I work with this company, I work hard, I work by myself, \nand I hurt. \n \n When claimant was asked about the increase in her records regarding degenerative changes, \nshe did not know what that meant. Claimant said that surgery had been suggested but she wanted to \nconsider it.  \n On redirect-examination, claimant repeated that the doctors have recommended neck surgery, \nbut she wanted to think about it. She clarified that there was not one specific moment on April 13, \n2023, that her injury occurred but rather there was a big order that she had to lift, push, and move \nfrom table to table, and it slowly got worse during the course of that shift. \n After claimant  rested, respondent called Bradley Daniel, who is the manufacturing engineer \nleader. He was familiar with claimant, as he was serving in that  position in March 2023. He testified \nthat claimant was on the panel line department assembling multiple panels. That job entailed sliding \npanels  from  a  foaming  machine  using  a  conveyor  onto  an  assembly  table. Claimant  would  then \nassemble them using screws and caulking and then attach lifting devises to the panel’s assemblies. \nClaimant used a screw gun, of eight screws per panel and roughly sixty panels per shift in a seven-\nhour period. Mr. Daniel said the panels on average weighed less than a hundred pounds, about fifty \nto seventy-five pounds would be the normal range and he affirmed that seven-hundred pounds were \nnot possible for one panel. \n When asked about claimant’s testimony that she predominantly worked alone in her position \nfrom March until April 13, 2023, Mr. Daniels said that he did not believe that that was accurate. Mr. \nDaniel testified: \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n7 \n \n \n “Our policy is that we would never ask our employees to lift something they \nare not comfortable to lift. And she did state the team leader was available to \nhelp  her. The team leader’s role is specifically that,  to  help  members  of  the \nteam  when  needed.  On several  occasions,  I  personally  gave  her  coaching  to \nutilize the team leader more frequently regardless of if it was required to slow \nher work down.” \n \n He did not believe that claimant was ever required to lift panels on an extended basis for a \nshift alone. He stated that the team leader was supposed to do hourly checks at each workstation and \nthe supervisor was also supposed to do hourly checks within the overall work cell. Mr. Daniel testified \nthat he personally walked through the area of the assembly line where claimant worked twice daily, \nand he did not observe claimant lifting panels alone. Had he done so, he would have told her to work \nwith  her  team leader  and supervisor  to get  help  and  would  have addressed  it  immediately  with  her \nsupervisor. There was then this exchange between respondent’s attorney and Mr. Daniel: \nQuestion (By Ms. Markham) Did she ever report to you a need for additional \nhelp in performing her job duties? \n \nAnswer  (By  Mr.  Daniel) Yes, she did, and  I  told  her  specifically  to  ask  for \nassistance from her team leader anytime she needed help and to work with her \nsupervisor as well. I then followed up with her team leader and supervisor.  \n \nQ. Did you ensure that help was provided to her? \nA.  I did not immediately because I felt the issues were resolved once I spoke \nwith the team leader. \n \nQ.  And what was the situation that made you feel like the situation had been \nresolved? \n \nA.  I  spoke  directly  with  Randy-or  sorry,  her  team  leader,  and  I  said  she \nrequested help, and he said “okay I will...”  I told him that she requested help \nand said that he would go and help her. \n \nQ.  So, does your understanding that when help was requested, Ms. Thotsaraj’s \nteam leader himself assisted her? \n \nA. Yes. \nQuestion  (By  the  Court)  What  I  understood  is  that  he  said  he was  going  to \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n8 \n \n \nhelp her. \n \nQuestion (By Ms. Markham) Okay I can rephrase. \nThe Court. Yes. \n Redirect examination: \nQuestion (By Ms. Markham) Do you have any knowledge of whether the team \nlead assisted Ms. Thotsaraj? \n \nAnswer (By Mr. Daniel) No. \nQ. But it was communicated to you an intention to do that was forth coming? \nA. Yes. \n Concluding direct examination, there was this exchange: \nQuestion  (By  Ms.  Markham)  What  type  of  employee  will  you  describe  Ms. \nThotsaraj to be when she worked at Trane? \n \nAnswer (By Mr. Daniel) She was very passionate about making sure her job \nwas done. \n \nQ. Did she complain or ask for accommodations? \nA.  She did ask for help on the occasion that we discussed. I can’t recall any \nother  requests  for  accommodations,  but  every  time  I  would  speak  with  her, \nthere were definitely some conversations about the jobs and different conflicts \nwithin the department with other people and that was on going. \n \n On cross-examination, Mr. Daniel explained that when claimant asked for additional help, it \nwas to keep up with the rate on the line. Mr. Daniel did not remember specifically if someone was \nalready helping her, but that when it was a request for help, he communicated that to her team leader. \nClaimant had expressed concerns that for some jobs with larger panels, the work goes slower, and Mr. \nDaniel assured her that it was okay to slow down on those heavier panels. He believed that a large \npanel would weigh about a hundred-ten pounds. He clarified that there were some custom products \nthat would weigh more than the normal fifty to seventy-five pounds and the larger ones are a little \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n9 \n \n \nodd to manipulate and being a larger assembly, the cycle time was a bit longer.  \n Mr. Daniel explained that Alex Diaz was the environmental health and safety technician and \nwould be responsible for managing a portion of the investigation to be performed before respondent \nTrane decided if an employee had suffered an injury. He agreed that if something happened on the \nsecond shift, it would be reported to safety the following shift. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Diaz \nwas still employed at Trane, but Mr. Daniel did not think that what he did could be properly called an \ninvestigation,  as that  was  done  through  a  corporate  team  associated  with  respondent  Travelers \nInsurance. \n On redirect-examination, Mr. Daniel said that there was no need for someone in claimant’s \nemployment  position  to  pick  up  and  bare  full  weight  of  a  panel  at any  time because  at  least some \nportion of the panel would be resting on a table surface or a conveyor surface at all times. The panels \nwere slid into place for assembly. The conveyor or the tabletop bore the weight of the panel. At no \ntime would an employee manipulating a panel on the conveyor have to push eighty pounds of dead \nweight because of the rollers on the conveyor. \n Claimant testified on rebuttal that she disagreed with Mr. Daniel’s description of how the roller \nfunctions. She said that one of the lines were basically perpendicular to the other line, forming an L-\nshape. With big panels, she needed help to lift it and turn it onto the next line. For example, if the \npanel  was  coming  to  the  west,  she  had  to  turn  it  to  the  south. She  would  have  to  lift  and  turn  it \notherwise it would not go to the south. She also said the tables had different heights; one was lower \nthan the other. \n On balance, I found no effort on the part of any witness to be deceptive. Even considering \nthe  natural  bias  that  I  would  expect  a  child  to  have  for  her  parent,  I  found  the  testimony of  Ms. \nPhommsay to be credible on the issues to which she spoke. Likewise, I had no reason to believe Mr. \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n10 \n \n \nDaniel was less than truthful in testifying about what he knew in this case. I noticed that instead of \nsaying claimant received help when she asked for it, he simply said he was told by a supervisor that \nshe would be assisted. Finally, while a claimant’s testimony is never to be considered uncontroverted, \nI  found nothing  in  her  demeanor  nor  in  the  medical  records  to  cause  me  to  think  she  was  being \nintentionally untruthful.  \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n Claimant submitted 172 pages of medical records while respondent introduced 49 pages, most \nof  which  duplicated  those  submitted  by  claimant. Claimant’s records between April 24, 2023, and \nJanuary 2, 2024, consisted primarily of those from Conservative Care Occupational Health and Fort \nSmith  Therapy,  neither  of  which  were  providing  more  than  basic  care by  nurses  and  physical \ntherapists. APRN Jessica Minton from Conservative Care referred claimant for an MRI on her right \nshoulder, which was performed on June 13, 2023, with this impression:  \n1.  Advanced  degenerative  change  in  the  superior  glenoid  with  articular \ncartilage  thinning  and subchondral  cystic  degeneration.  Raises  concern  for \nunderlying superior labral tear. \n2.  Infraspinatus  tendinosis  and  interstitial  tearing,  No  full-thickness  rotator \ncuff tear or- tendon retraction. \n3. Mild-to-moderate AC  arthrosis with mild subacromial/subdeltoid edema \nand bursal surface fraying of the infraspinatus and supraspinatus tendons.  \n \nFollowing the results of the MRI, APRN Minton referred claimant to an orthopedic doctor  \non June 15, 2023; when claimant went to Mercy Clinic on July 6, 2023, she was seen by Physician’s \nAssistant Lauren Wahlmeier. PA Wahlmeier conducted an examination and performed corticosteroid \ninjections on claimant’s right arm and right elbow. She then referred claimant to physical therapy and \nwanted claimant to return in three months.  \nClaimant began her course of physical therapy. When it became apparent that claimant needed \na  level  of  care  beyond  what  she  had  received  to  that  point,  on  January  2,  2024,  Physical  Therapist \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n11 \n \n \nAshlyn McBride concluded her note with, “Patient will be placed on hold until she is able to follow \nup with MD.”  Once again, claimant did not immediately see a medical doctor, but was again examined \nby PA Wahlmeier on January 16, 2024, and an MRI was ordered. That was performed on January 30, \n2024, with the impression as follows: \n“1. Both acquired and developmental narrowing of the central canal with disk \nprotrusions  present  up  to  moderate  canal  narrowing  at  C3-4  level  and  C5-6 \nlevels. More mild central canal narrowing at other levels as above.  \n2.  Foraminal narrowing as above. \n3. Degenerative facet changes with small facet effusions C3-4.” \n \n Following the results of the MRI, claimant was seen by Dr. Miles Johnson for an EMG/NCS \nto evaluate the peripheral  nerve involvement. Dr. Johnson’s assessment was that while the study was \nunrevealing  for any abnormalities  of  the  peripheral  nervous  system,  he  did  note that  claimant  did \nappear to have some radicular symptomology He believed it was possible that she was having a purely \nsensory cervical radiculopathy which was not revealed in that study. Upon receiving the MRI and the \nEMG/NCS results, PA Wahlmeier referred the claimant to pain management for a possible epidural \ninjection in her cervical spine.  \n PA  Wahlmeier  next  saw  claimant  on  July  30,  2024. Her  notes  from  that  visit  indicate  that \nclaimant  had  seen  P.A.  Timothy  Booker  with  neurology  and  that  claimant  had  been  referred  to  a \nneurosurgery spine institute in Little Rock but had not yet been seen at that facility. She was first seen \nby  Dr.  Jordan  Walters  on  September  11,  2024,  following  that  examination,  Dr.  Walters  wanted \nclaimant to be evaluated by Dr. Muhammad Moursi for a possible thoracic outlet, and Dr. Walters \nmentioned that claimant might benefit from a posterior cervical decompression infusion, but would \nsuggest that only as a last resort. After examining claimant, Dr. Moursi determined that she was not a \ngood candidate for a thoracic outlet and referred her to UAMS Health Orthopedic and Spine Center. \nShe was seen by Dr. Tsu Chuan Yen and Dr. Walters on November 27, 2024, who referred her back \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n12 \n \n \nto UAMS Neurology. She finally had an MRI on her cervical spine on March 5, 2025:  \nFINDINGS: \nThere is straightening of the cervical spine with loss of normal \ncervical lordosis. \n \nThe cervical vertebral bodies are normal in height. There is mild \ndegenerative anterolisthesis at C3-4. The bone marrow signal intensity \nis within normal limits. No focal osseous lesions are seen. The \nspinal cord is normal in signal Intensity. Multilevel disc desiccation \nis noted. Intervertebral disc heights are maintained. Study by level: \n \nC2-3: Mild disc bulge with central disc protrusion and ligamentum  \nflavum thickening. MHd spinal canal stenosis. No neural foraminal narrowing. \n \nC3-4: Moderate disc bulge and ligamentum flavum thickening causing \nmoderate spinal canal stenosis. There is indentation of the ventral \nsurface of the spinal cord without cord compression or abnormal signal. \nThere is mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing due to facet \nhypertrophy. \n \nC4-5: Moderate diffuse disc bulge and ligamentum flavum thickening \ncausing moderate spinal canal stenosis. There is ventral spinal cord \nindentation without cord compression or abnormal signal. There is mild \nright neural foraminal narrowing. \n \nC5-6: Moderate diffuse disc bulge with central disc protrusion and \nligamentum flavum thickening causing moderate spinal canal stenosis. \nThere is ventral spinal cord indentation without cord compression or \nabnormal signal. There is mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing. \n \nC6-7:Moderate diffuse disc bulge with central disc protrusion and \nligamentum flavum thickening causing moderate spinal canal stenosis. \nThere is ventral spinal cord Indentation without cord compression or \nabnormal signal. No neural foraminal narrowing. \n \nC7-T1: Mild disc bulge and ligamentum flavum thickening. Mild spinal \ncanal stenosis. Moderate left neural foraminal narrowing. The prevertebral soft \ntissues appear unremarkable. The included posterior fossa structures show no \nsignificant abnormality. \n \nImpression: \nModerate cervical spondylosis with moderate acquired spinal \ncanal stenosis at the C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6 levels causing ventral spinal \ncord indentation. No spinal cord compression or abnormal signal.  \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n13 \n \n \n  \n  On March 13, 2025, Dr. Thomas Pait at UAMS Neurosurgery Clinic met with claimant and \nher daughter to go over the results of the MRI and outline the treatment options for claimant. His \nnote outlined what he advised claimant:    \nI discussed the options and alternatives with the patient and daughter. A model \nwas used to demonstrate the anatomy, as well as an anterior approach to the \ncervical[ spine.  The  patient  and  her  daughter  were well briefed regarding  an \nanterior  approach  to  the  cervical  spine  for  C5-C6  and  C6-diskectomy,  as \nintervertebral biomechanical  device  insertion, fusions, and  anterior  MRI \ncompatible  titanium  plate  screw  fixation.  No guarantees  could  be  given  her \npain  symptoms  would  improve,  could  worsen.  Likelihood  of  the  surgery \ninfluencing Maurice Raynaud's phenomena is remote. \n \nThe  risks  included,  but  not  limited  to,  infection  with  need  for  long-term \nantibiotics,  headaches,  spinal  fluid loss, pseudo  meningocele (defined),  need \nfor further surgery at the same or adjacent levels, injury to the food pipe and \nor airways (trachea/ esophagus), swallowing difficulties, hoarseness, blood clot \nat  the  operative  site requiring  evacuation,  blood clots  and  lower  extremities, \ninjury to great blood vessels ( carotid and or vertebral arteries), need for surgery \nposteriorly    (back    of    neck),    stroke, heart    attack,    blindness,    coma, \nmovement/migration/loosening/ pullout of the bone plate/screws, coma and \ndeath.   \n \n His  note  concluded  that  claimant  wanted  to  consider  her  options and  to contact  his  office \nwith any other questions or concerns.  \nNON-MEDICAL RECORDS \n Claimant submitted several pages of correspondence with and from representatives of Trane \nand Travelers Insurance, as well as her deposition of July 29, 2024. Respondent provided that same \ndeposition as well as an earlier one that occurred on June 11, 2024. In its brief, respondent pointed \nout  some  discrepancies  in claimant’s testimony at deposition and at the hearing, but none of these \nwere of such a nature that it impacted claimant’s overall credibility. \n \n \n \n \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n14 \n \n \nADJUDICATION \n \n As  this  claim  was  controverted  in  its  entirety,  claimant  has  the  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course of her \nemployment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services \nor  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  the  injury  is  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective findings, which are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the \npatient; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \nClaimant’s testimony provided the proof on the first and fourth elements; I found claimant to \nbe a credible witness on that issue (despite her mistaken belief that something she was moving may \nhave weighed 700 pounds). Although a claimant's testimony is never viewed as uncontroverted, the \nCommission need not reject the claimant's testimony if it finds that testimony worthy of belief. Ringier \nAmerica v. Combs, 41 Ark. App. 47, 849 S.W.2d 1 (1993). I am satisfied claimant promptly reported the \ninjury to several fellow employees in a supervisory capacity on April 13, 2023.\n2\n  As Mr. Daniel noted, \nan injury on the second shift is reported the next day, and I am satisfied that is the reason for April \n14,  2023, being  included  in  the  medical  records  was  due  to  an  error  by  the  employer  (see  Cl.X.2), \nwhere the employer’s description of the accident had April 14, 2023).  Claimant’s testimony that she \nfelt the injury and it got worse over the course of the day does not mean she did not identify a specific \n \n2\n In her depositions, claimant identified several people that she told about her injury on April 13 and 14, 2023. For \nsome, she was able to provide a full name; for others, either a first name or a position. The Arkansas Supreme Court \nhas held that where a witness is available to a party and by reason of his employment subject to the party's direction \nand control, a failure to call that witness with reference to any fact in issue, creates a presumption that his testimony \nwould be adverse to the party who could have called him. Arkansas State Highway Com. v. Phillips, 252 Ark. 206 \n(1972); Brower  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Willis,  252  Ark.  755  (1972).  The  only  inference  that  can  be  drawn  without  a  logical \nexplanation offered as to failure to produce such witnesses is that those witnesses would be adverse to the interest of \nthe respondents. \n \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n15 \n \n \nincident, see Cedar Chemical Co. v. Knight, 372 Ark. 233, 273 S.W.3d 473 (2008).  \nRegarding the second and third elements, claimant began treatment within 10 days of reporting \nthe injury. The employer obviously believed the claimant to be performing employment services on \nApril 13, 2023, because the respondents initially provided medical benefits; the reason for the cessation \nwas never made clear at the hearing. Even while receiving the limited care that respondent provided, \nAPRN Minton recognized there may be a need for an MRI to properly diagnose what was wrong with \nclaimant. In  her  chart  entry  of  May  15,  2023, the  following were  recorded:  “We  will  attempt \nconservative treatment. She may need an MRI for her radiculopathy of the left upper extremity...”  \n“Acute complicated injury.” “The injury is extensive.” Despite  these observations,  APRN  Minton \nconcluded  with: “Khanh’s  recommended  work  status  is  regular  duty. Recommended  activity \nrestrictions: Attention not to aggravate injuries.” \n  As set forth in the summary of the medical records, after another month of conservative care, \nan MRI on claimant’s right shoulder, and still not being seen by a medical doctor at Conservative Care \nOccupational  Health, APRN  Minton referred her to an  orthopedic  doctor. Claimant  next  went  to \nMercy  Clinic  Orthopedic, where  she was  seen on July 6, 2023, by Physician’s Assistant Lauren \nWalhmeier. On  that  first  visit,  PA  Walhmeier injected claimant’s right shoulder and elbow with a \ncorticosteroid.\n3\n  After respondents ceased paying benefits in this matter, there were spasms recorded \n \n3\n See Melius v. Chapel Ridge Nursing Ctr., LLC, 2021 Ark. App. 61, 618 S.W.3d 410l: \n \n\"In addition, there is no requirement under Arkansas law that a doctor, physical therapist or other medical provider \nactually observe a patient having a muscle spasm before an employee's injury can be compensable. See Estridge v. \nWaste Mgmt., 343 Ark. 276, 33 S.W.3d 167. In Estridge, the supreme court held that straightening of the curve in the \nspine was an objective finding supporting a back injury because this finding is normally associated with muscle spasm, \nand the doctor in that case prescribed medication \"as needed for muscle spasm.\" Estridge, 343 Ark. at 282, 33 S.W.3d \nat  171.  This  was  found  to  be  objective  evidence  of  injury  with  no  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Id.  Furthermore,  the \nsupreme court held that a doctor would not prescribe medications used for muscle spasms if he or she did not believe \nthat muscle spasms were existent. Id.” \nIf prescribing oral medications for a muscle spasm is objective evidence that a doctor believes the problem \nexisted, then administering a corticosteroid injection would likewise satisfy the requirement that the physician’s \nassistant made an objective finding that a condition was present that warranted such. \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n16 \n \n \nin claimant’s scapula, periscapular muscles and neck during her physical therapy session on November \n18, 2023. All these objective findings are present in the record before claimant had a cervical MRI in \nJanuary 2024, which clearly demonstrated the issues in claimant’s neck. \nBased on the foregoing analysis, I find claimant has met her burden of proof that she sustained \na compensable injury on April 13, 2023, to her neck, upper back, and shoulders. Claimant requested \nthat  she  be  awarded  medical  benefits,  and  I  find  that  the  treatment  she  has  had  since  respondents \ncontroverted her claim have been reasonable and necessary. Claimant also requested temporary total \ndisability  (TTD)  benefits  from  October  6,  2023,  to  a  date  to  be  determined,  less  one  day  that  she \nreturned to work. Because claimant's neck, back and shoulder injuries are unscheduled injuries, she \nmust prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she remains within her healing period and suffers \na total incapacity to earn wages in order to receive temporary total disability benefits, Allen Canning Co. \nv. Woodruff, 92 Ark. App. 237, 212 S.W.3d 25 (2005). I am satisfied that she proved her entitlement to \nTTD benefits up to the date of the hearing, but the records before me cannot support an award of \nTTD beyond that day; I do not have anything to indicate that she remains in her healing period beyond \nMay 12, 2025. Claimant has been given a treatment option of extensive surgery on her neck, and I \nfind no fault for her desire to carefully consider the risks and potential benefits of that surgery.  It is \nalso reasonable for her to wait to learn how this matter was to be decided. However, it was two months \nfrom the date of her last appointment and the date of the hearing. During her visit with Dr. Elberson \non March 13, 2025, it was suggested that claimant might return to Dr. Walters for a follow-up visit. I \nwas not told if that visit was scheduled as of the date of the hearing. If claimant has determined not \nto  have  the  surgery or  seek  any  other  care,  then it  appears she  has reached  maximum  medical \nimprovement and will need to secure an impairment rating should her physician believe she is entitled \n \n \n\nThotsaraj-H303979 \n17 \n \n \nto one, or alternatively, begin a different course of treatment recommended by her doctors. I simply \ndo  not  have  any evidence of  her condition  beyond  the  date  of  the hearing  and cannot award \nprospective TTD benefits based on the proof before me. The issue of TTD beyond May 12, 2025, is \ntherefore specifically reserved.  \nBased on my finding that claimant sustained a specific incident injury, it was unnecessary for \nme to address the alternative claim of a gradual onset injury.  \nORDER \n \nRespondents  are  directed  to  pay  benefits  in  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  set  forth \nherein this Opinion. \nAll accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest \nat the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809. \nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715, the claimant's attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney's  \nfee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein. This fee is to be paid one half by the carrier and one \nhalf by the claimant. \nThe respondent shall pay the court reporter's fee in the amount of $941.50. \nAll issues not addressed herein are expressly reserved under the Act. \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303979 KHANH THOTSARAJ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TRANE COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 7, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian County,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:10.329Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303979-2025-08-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOTSARAJ_KHANH_H303979_20250807.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}