{"id":"alj-H304075-2024-02-22","awcc_number":"H304075","decision_date":"2024-02-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Tony Langston","employer_name":"L’oreal USA, Inc","title":"LANGSTON VS. L’OREAL USA, INC. AWCC# H304075 FEBRUARY 22, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Langston_Tony_H304075_20240222.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Langston_Tony_H304075_20240222.pdf","text_length":31733,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H304075 \n \n \nTONY LEE LANGSTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nL’OREAL USA, INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nXL INS. AMER., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2024 \n \nHearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 30, 2023, \nin Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant pro se. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  Mr.  Lee  J.  Muldrow,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On  November  30,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  was  heard  in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.    A  pre-hearing  conference  took  place  on  September  11,  2023.  The \nPrehearing  Order  entered  that  same  day  pursuant  to  the  conference  was  admitted \nwithout  objection  as  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that \nthe  stipulations,  issues,  and  respective  contentions,  as  amended,  were  properly  set \nforth in that order. \nStipulations \n At  the  hearing,  the  parties  discussed  the  stipulations  set  forth  in Commission \nExhibit 1.  With an amendment of the fourth, they are the following, which I accept: \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n2 \n \n1. The Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has jurisdiction  over \nthis claim. \n2. The  employee/employer/carrier  relationship  existed  on  or  about  April  13, \n2023, and at all other relevant times. \n3. Respondents   initially   accepted   this   claim   as   compensable   and   paid \nmedical  and  temporary  total  disability  benefits  pursuant  thereto;  but  they \nhave since controverted the claim in its entirety. \n4. Claimant’s average weekly wage of $947.82 entitles him to compensation \nrates of $632.00/$474.00. \nIssues \n At  the  hearing,  the parties  discussed the  issues  set forth  in  Commission  Exhibit \n1.    After  Claimant  elected  to  reserve  the  issue  of  whether  he  is  entitled  to temporary \ntotal disability benefits, the following were litigated: \n1. Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  lower  back  by \nspecific incident. \n2. Whether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties read as follows: \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n3 \n \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant  contends  that he sustained a  compensable  injury  to  his  lower \nback by specific incident on or about April 13, 2023, and that he is entitled \nto reasonable and necessary medical treatment therefor. \nRespondents: \n 1. Respondents  dispute  the  injury  account  given  by  Claimant.    There  is  no \nobjective  evidence  of  an  injury.    To  the  extent  that  Claimant  has  health \nissues, they did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  including  medical  reports,  deposition \ntranscript, non-medical documents, and other matters properly before the Commission, \nand  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  and  to  observe \ntheir  demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that he \nsustained a compensable injury to his lower back by specific incident. \n4. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \nentitled  to  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  of  his  alleged \nlower back injury. \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n4 \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The hearing witnesses were Claimant and William Castner. \n In  addition  to  the  prehearing  order  discussed  above,  admitted  into  evidence in \nthis  case  were  the  following:    Commission  Exhibit  2,  an  email  from  Respondents’ \ncounsel  to  Claimant  (copying,  inter  alia,  the  undersigned)  dated  November  21,  2023, \nregarding  exhibits  and  witnesses,  consisting  of  one  page;  Claimant’s  Exhibit  1, a \ncompilation  of  his  medical  records,  consisting  of  37  pages;  Claimant’s  Exhibit  2, \nwork/school  excuse  slips,  consisting  of  two  pages; Respondents’  Exhibit  1,  another \ncompilation of  Claimant’s  medical  records,  consisting  of one  index  page  and 34 \nnumbered  pages  thereafter; Respondents’  Exhibit 2,  a  flash  drive  containing  video \nfootage;  and  Respondents’  Exhibit  3,  a  photograph  of  the  forklift  and  damaged  trailer \nflooring related to the incident at issue. \n Also,  I  have  blue-backed  to  the  record  the  post-hearing  briefs  of Respondent, \nfiled on December 13, 2023, and consisting of four numbered pages. \nAdjudication \nA. Compensability \n Standards.   Arkansas Code  Annotated  § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012),  which I \nfind   applies   to   the   analysis   of Claimant’s   alleged   lower   back   injury,   defines \n“compensable injury”: \n(i) An  accidental  injury  causing  internal  or  external  physical  harm  to \nthe  body  .  .  .  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment  and \nwhich requires medical services or results in disability or death.  An \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n5 \n \ninjury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident and is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those \nfindings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16). \n If  Claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence any  of  the \nrequirements  for  establishing  compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.   Mikel  v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 \nArk.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415;  Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove  Barium  Corp.,  212  Ark.  491,  206 \nS.W.2d 442 (1947). \n Discussion.    Claimant  has  asserted  that  while  working  for  Respondent  L’Oreal \nUSA  (“L’Oreal”)   on April  13,  2023,  he  suffered a  compensable  injury  to  his  lower  back \nwhen a  forklift  that  he  was  driving  fell  through  the  floor  of  a  trailer  in  which  he  was \noperating  the  equipment.  Respondents  do  not  dispute  that  Claimant  was  performing \nemployment  services  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  incident.    Indeed,  the video  footage  of \nthe incident, discussed more fully infra, readily shows this.  Instead, they have asserted \nthat no compensable injury resulted from this. \n Claimant, who is 55 years old and has a graduate equivalency degree, along with \na certification of completion of an automotive program from Arkansas State University-\nSearcy,  testified  that  he  has  been employed at  L’Oreal  since  August  2001.   He began \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n6 \n \nworking at the company’s manufacturing facility in North Little Rock as a forklift operator \nin early 2022. \n Asked what happened at work on April 13, 2023, he related: \nWell,  I  was—I  was  working  in  Receiving  and  I  was  unloading  a  trailer, \nand—and so I had already unloaded two trailers or whatever, and—and so \nI was starting on the third trailer but it was about empty.  I mean, it had like \nfive  stacks,  five  stacks  left  on—on—on the  third  trailer,  so  I  left—I  saved \nthat  for  last.    And  when  I  went  in  there  to  start  unloading  the  trailer,  I \nbrought out a stack that was—it was just one stack in the front, but it was \ntwo more stacks behind it, so it was like five stacks just on the trailer.  And \nso the—the—the first stack I brought out was on the right side, and—and \nI—I picked it up and brought it out and put it—put it where it was supposed \nto have been.  So I went back, I went back in to—to grab the other stack.  \nI  was  kind  of  feeling—the floor  was  kind  of  jumping  a  little  bit  but  I  done \nbeen in several trailers like that and—and never had no issues.  But as I \nwas coming back, I—I picked up the—picked up the other stack and was \ncoming  back  out  of  the  trailer  and  I  got—I  got  almost  halfway,  about \nhalfway  in  the  trailer—out  the  trailer  and  was  in  the  middle  of  the  trailer \nand the floor just—the floor, I’m going back like this (demonstrating) and—\nand—and  the  forklift  just  all  of  a  sudden  just  dropped  it,  fell  to the  floor \nwith it . . . [s]o as I’m coming back out the trailer, all of a sudden my forklift \njust  hit  real  hard  through  the  floor  .  .  .  [t]he  forklift—the  floor  gave  in  and \nthe  forklift  went  through—the  back—the  back  tire  went  through  the  floor \nwith it. \n \nClaimant continued: \nThe  head  pain  hit  so hard  or  whatever,  caught me  off  guard  or  whatever \nand kind of terrified me really.  I wasn’t expecting that.  And so, you know, \nI never did—I mean, it wasn’t—at that time—I mean, when it—when it hit \nlike  that  or  whatever,  I  was  so  scared  I—I  felt  like  the  forklift  was  going \nupward  like  that  or  something,  and—and  all  I  could  do  was “Lord—Lord, \nhelp  me,”  like  that.    And  when  I  said  that,  it  seemed  like  everything  just \nwent  white  for  a  second,  and—and  after  that,  I  really—whatever went  on \nin  the  trailer  after  that  right  there,  I  mean,  I  don’t  really  know.    I  mean,  I \nbeen  thinking  about  it  myself,  but  really  don’t  know.    But  I  remember \ngetting  on  the  radio  and  calling  my  supervisor  or  whatever.    I  had  to—I \nhad to use the bathroom.  I don’t know if I used the bathroom on myself at \nthe time.  I was hurting when I—I don’t—I don’t remember getting off the \nforklift or whatever. \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n7 \n \n \nI had to—I had to use the bathroom.  I don’t know if I used the bathroom \non  myself  at  the  time.    I  was  hurting  when  I—I  don’t—I  don’t  remember \ngetting  off  the  forklift  or  whatever.    But  after  I  called  my—called  my \nsupervisor,  I  was  letting  him  know  it  was  an  emergency  to  come  to  the \nReceiving, but I’m trying to hurry up and get to the bathroom.  I’m about to \nuse the bathroom on myself.  And so I get to the bathroom and I come out.  \nAfter  I  come  out  of  the  bathroom  and  finally  meet  my  supervisor  or \nwhatever, at first I went back and just—it was burning and I had a burning \nsensation right there, but I—I had to go to the bathroom, and that’s when \neverything just—it hit me, you know what I’m saying, pretty hard and I was \ntrying  to  keep  my  composure ‘cause  I  was  at  work,  didn’t  want  to  see \nnobody seeing me get down bad like that. \n \n In his testimony, Claimant stated that his supervisor, Phillip Kelly, wanted to take \npictures of the trailer floor.  He asked Claimant to drive the forklift and move any pallets \nthat  he  would  move  to  the  back  of  the  trailer  by  way  of  a  pallet  jack.    But  Claimant \ncontinued: \nAfter I tried to get up on my forklift or whatever, I couldn’t and felt like I—\nfelt like my—felt like something in my back has had—flipped—like a bone \nor something flipped, and—and I couldn’t just stand up straight.  And so—I \nmean, all—I mean, it’s kind of hard to describe, but I couldn’t get up on the \nforklift  .  .  .  I  was  in  so  much  pain.    I  was  trying  to  hold  it  in  and  I  was—I \nwas  moaning  and—and  all—I  was  just  tensed  up  tight  the  whole  time \ntrying  to  ease  the  pain  a  little  bit,  but  I—I  couldn’t—I  couldn’t—I  couldn’t \nfinish  my  job.  I  had  to  go  to  Health  Service  and  all—you  know,  so  we \ncould do what we had to do there, and I was—I was trying to get out and \ngo  home  really ‘cause  I  didn’t  want  to  be  at  work  like  that.    I  knew  I \nwouldn’t be able to do nothing. \n \nClaimant  elaborated  that  as  he  was  backing  the  forklift  out  of  the  trailer,  the  left  rear \nwheel  of  the  vehicle  fell  through  the  wooden  floor.    As  a  result,  he  experienced  a \nsudden  onset  of  burning  pain  in  his  lower  back  that  rendered  him  unable to  sit  down.  \nBecause he was upset about what occurred and was in so much discomfort, Claimant \nnever  returned  to  the  trailer  and  visualized  the  hole  in  the  trailer  into  which the  forklift \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n8 \n \nwheel  had  fallen.  He  acknowledged  that  he  does  not  remember  whether  or  not  he \ndrove  the  forklift  out  of  the  trailer  after  the  incident  in  question.    He  explained  that he \n“was so terrified at the time . . . it was a scary experience or whatever . . . [i]t hit so hard \n. . . .” \n It was Claimant’s desire at that point simply to go home.  But in order to receive \npermission  to  leave  work  early,  he  first  had  to  go  to  Health  Services  at  the  plant.  \nBecause he was physically unable to drive the forklift there, Claimant was taken by golf \ncart to Health Services.  He stated that his medical records in evidence would detail the \ntreatment  that  he  has  undergone.    While  he  is  contending  only  that  he  suffered  a \ncompensable  injury  to  his  lower  back,  Claimant  related  that  he  also  treated  for \nsymptoms  in  his  chest  that  he  attributed  to  his  ribcage  being  struck  when  the  wheel \nwent  through  the  floor.  The  jarring  motion  was  what  caused  the  burning  pain  in  his \nlower back; the forklift did not strike the side of the trailer. \n After  arriving  at  Health  Services,  Claimant  spoke  by  phone  with  Castner.   He \ninstructed personnel to place a bag of ice on Claimant’s back before he could leave for \nhome,  and  let  Claimant  know  that  he  could  call  him  with  any  questions or  concerns.  \nAfter 15 minutes of this application, Claimant was escorted to his car.  The drive to his \nhouse was difficult, according to him, because of his back condition.  Upon his arrival at \nthe  parking  lot  of  his  apartment  building,  Claimant  experienced  difficulty  exiting  his \nvehicle because of his back condition; he was unable to raise his leg.  He contacted his \nbrother,  who  convinced  him  to  go  to  the  hospital.    They  went  to  the  emergency \ndepartment of Baptist Health. \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n9 \n \n On  cross-examination,  Claimant  was  asked  about  the  history  portion  of  the \nemergency room record, which reads in pertinent part: \nTony  L.  Langston,  54  yo  M,  presents  to  ED  for  evaluation  after  a  fall.  \nPatient  states  he  was  operating  a  forklift  for  work  at  around  7PM  today \nwhen the forklift had suddenly fallen through the flooring.  Patient reports \nhe had to climb out of the hole after the incident.  Now reporting of left \nflank, left back, and left chest pain.  Patient states he did not immediately \nfollow up after incident reporting he had gone home. \n \n(Emphasis  added)    Attempting  to  explain  the  discrepancy  between  his  testimony  and \nthe  highlighted  language,  Claimant  stated  that  it  was  his  brother—not he—who  told \ntreating personnel that he had to climb out of the hole.  When questioned further by the \nCommission,  he  added  that  the  timeline  in  the  above  report  is  incorrect  as  well;  the \nalleged  trailer  incident  happened  around  7:30  to  8:00  p.m.    As  a result  of  his  visit  to \nBaptist   Health,   he   was   administered   a   Fentanyl   injection   and   prescribed   three \nmedications.  He could recall the names of two:  Naproxen and Hydrocodone.  Claimant \ndid not remember whether, as reflected in the report of his visit, he was also prescribed \nCyclobenzaprine  (Fentanyl) “as  needed  for  [m]uscle  spasms.”  Later  in  his  testimony, \nhowever,    he    related    that    he    remembered    being    given    a    prescription    for \nCyclobenzaprine. \n Called by Respondents, William Castner testified that he has been employed for \nRespondent  L’Oreal  for  two  and  one-half  years  as  the  manager  in  the  Environmental, \nHealth and Safety department.  Castner stated that he is familiar with Claimant and with \nthe  incident  at  issue.    Claimant  had  been  operating  a  forklift,  which  he  termed “a  sit-\ndown counterbalance lift truck.”  He added: \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n10 \n \nTony,  Mr.  Langston,  was  unloading  a  trailer.    We  use  Davis  Trailers  to \ntrans—transport  pallets  from  Davis  Storage  Warehouse  in  town  over  to \nour  facility,  and  he  was  unloading  a  Davis  trailer.    He  was  unloading \npallets, a  double  stack,  and  as he  started  to back  out of  the  trailer, there \nwas  a  weak  spot  in  the  trailer  and  it  created  a  divot,  and  he—the  truck \nstopped.  He got off the truck and called for assistance. \n \n Castner  viewed  the  video  footage—which  was  played  in  open  court—that  is \ncontained on Respondents’ Exhibit 2.  He confirmed that it depicts the incident at issue, \ndescribed above.  The L’Oreal plant has numerous video cameras mounted throughout \nthe facility.  The footage, 241 seconds in length, was recorded and played in real time.  \nWhile  the  footage  does  not  bear  a  time  or  date  stamp,  Castner  testified  that  he \nrequested  that the plant’s  security  team furnish  him  with  footage from  the  camera that \nviewed the trailer in question at the time in question—and that this is what he was given.  \nIt  depicts  Claimant  driving  the  forklift  into  the  trailer  on  the  left  side  of  the screen  (two \ndock  doors  are  shown).    At  1:06,  he  enters  the  trailer  (it  is  at  that  point  that  the  forks \ncross  the  boundary  between  the  dock  and  the  trailer).    The  floor  of  the  trailer  is  wood \nplanking with a metal seam that is in the center and runs from the rear toward the front.  \nThere  is  a  square-shaped  portion  of  the  flooring  that  is  noticeably  lighter  in  color  than \nthe surrounding wood—indicating that it is newer and served as a patch or replacement.  \nThe  forklift,  which  had  disappeared  from  view  as  it  ventured  further  into  the  trailer, \nreappears  at  1:36,  being  driven  in  reverse  by  Claimant.  At  1:44,  the  vehicle  stops \nbacking up; it appears to be stuck.  Slight movement back and forth (as opposed to side \nto side) is visible, indicating that the operator is trying to extricate the forklift.  Finally, at \n2:00,  the  forklift  returns  to  the  front  of  the  trailer,  away  from  the  rear  door.   When  this \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n11 \n \noccurs, a dark spot in the lighter portion of the  wood comes into view, just to the left of \nthe metal seam.  The movement of the left rear tire of the forklift exposes this spot; and \nthe footage makes apparent that it was this tire that created the spot.  Per Castner, this \nis a “divot.”  Only a very small portion of the left rear of the vehicle remains in view.  At \n3:17,  Claimant reappears,  apparently  exiting  the  forklift.    He  is  dragging  his  left  foot \nslightly.  However, Claimant does not seem to be in any apparent discomfort. \n The following exchange occurred: \nQ. Now,  you  were  saying  to  me  [Respondents’  counsel]  before  the \nhearing began, Mr. Castner, that there is a device on the equipment \nthat  notifies  the  operator  and  also  sends  an  email  where  there’s \nany type of traumatic—or any type of impact? \n \nA. Yes.    I—I  wouldn’t  say  traumatic,  but  any  type  of—it  prevents \ndamage  to  the  facility  or  damage  to  anything.    It  notifies  us  when \nthe forklift has an incident, if it hits a guardrail, if it hits racking, if it \nhas any type of impact. \n \nQ. Would  that  include an  impact  that  would  be caused  by  the  vehicle \ngoing down into a hole? \n \nA. Horizontal and vertical, yes. \n \nQ. Yes.  And what—what would the alarm sound like? \n \nA. So it’s audible and visual. \n \nQ. All right.  And would that alarm also be obvious to others who were \nnot on the vehicle? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. And how is that—how is that information conveyed? \n \nA. To—to the  leadership team or  the management team,  it  comes by \nemail and then focused in here, it’s again audible and visual to say, \n“Hey, this forklift hit something.” \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n12 \n \n \nQ. All right.  Do you have—does the company have record of whether \nor  not  on  this  day  at  this  time  there  was  any  type  of  email \nsuggesting that the alarm system was alerted to an impact? \n \nA.  There was not. \n \n According  to  Castner,  he  was  informed  by  other  personnel  that  Claimant  had \nbeen  involved  in an  incident.    He  called  Claimant  to  find  out  how he  was  feeling.    Per \nCastner,  Claimant  told  him “that  he  was  fine  and  he  was  not  injured  and  that  he  just \nwanted to go home and rest.”  Claimant was given Castner’s number, told to call him if \nhe had any issues, and was  informed that Castner would get him  to see a physician if \nClaimant felt he needed treatment.  However, instead of doing this, Claimant went to the \nhospital  that  same  evening  but  neglected  to  inform  Castner  of  this  until  the  next \nafternoon. \n Shown  Respondents’  Exhibit  3,  Castner  identified  it  as  one  of  the  photographs \ntaken by Claimant’s supervisor, Kelly, at Castner’s request of the scene of the incident \nat issue.  Castner stated that the photograph depicts the right rear tire of the forklift near \nthe “divot.”  His  understanding  from  Kelly  is  that  the  photograph  was  taken  before  the \nforklift was backed out of the trailer.  He elaborated: \nSo they moved it [the forklift] out of the divot, and before they were going \nto back out of the trailer, they got the photo, and that’s why that’s the right \nside of the forklift and not the left side that was involved in the divot. \n \n In  reference  to  the  foot-dragging  by  Claimant  described  above  in  the  security \nfootage, the following exchanges took place: \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n13 \n \nQ. When  Mr.  Langston,  on  this  video,  walked  out  of  the  trailer—you \nsaw  that  on  the  video—did  you  see  anything  unusual  about  his \nwalk or his gait? \n \nA. Yeah.  Tony has a—Mr. Langston has a—just an unusual gait when \nhe walks, just—you know, just the normal way that he walked, you \nknow.” \n \nQ. From  the  standpoint  of  what  you  knew  about  the  way  he  walked \nand  the  way  he  was  walking  in  that  video,  did  you  see  anything \ndifferent? \n \nA. Nothing  unusual,  no  .  .  .  [s]o  Tony—I’ve  never  had  an  issue  with \nTony.    Tony  was  actually  one  of  our  first  responders,  so  I  knew \nTony pretty well and I would see Tony almost on a daily basis . . . \n[s]o  I  was  very  familiar  with  Tony,  and  we’d  say  hi,  you  know, \nperiodically, and I would see him as he comes in for second shift as \nhe would walk in the facility and just—he just had like a—I wouldn’t \ncall  it  a  limp  but  he  just—I  don’t  know—it  was  just  a  different  gait, \nlike a different walk, so. \n \n The  medical  records  in  evidence  show  that  approximately  eight  months  before \nthe forklift/trailer incident, on August 4, 2022, Claimant presented to Dr. Shiva Nallur at \nCHI  St.  Vincent  with,  inter  alia,  upper  back  pain  that  had  begun  one  to  two  weeks \nbefore.    He  related  to  Nallur  that  he  drives  a  forklift.    The  doctor  administered a  Depo \nMedrol injection and prescribed both Diclofenac and Cyclobenzaprine. \n On the day of the forklift/trailer incident, April 13, 2023, Claimant presented to the \nemergency department of Baptist Health.  The report reads in pertinent part: \nTony  L.  Langston,  54  yo  M,  presents  to  ED  for  evaluation  after  a  fall.  \nPatient  states  he  was  operating  a  forklift  for  work  at  around  7PM  today \nwhen the forklift had suddenly fallen through the flooring.  Patient reports \nhe  had  to  climb  out  of  the  hole  after  [the]  incident.  Now  reporting  of \nleft  flank,  left  back,  and  left  chest  pain.    Patient  states  he  did  not \nimmediately  follow  up  after  [the]  incident  reporting  he  had  gone  home.  \nPatient does not report LOC and has no other complaints at this time. \n \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n14 \n \nThe history is provided by the patient. \n \n. . . \n \nThe  accident  occurred  1  to  2  hours  ago.    Fall  occurred:  Was  operating \nforklift  when  forklift  had  fallen  through  flooring.    Associated  symptoms \ninclude abdominal pain. \n \n. . . \n \n54-year-old male that presents [to the] emergency department after a fall.  \nPatient was reportedly . . . on a forklift when the floor gave way. \n \n(Emphasis added)  Dr. Komi Vovor-Dassu, the attending physician, examined Claimant \nand did not note the presence of any objective findings of an injury.  A CT scan of the \nabdomen  and  pelvis  and  x-rays  of  the  hip  and  chest  were  negative.    Along with \nHydrocodone and Naproxen, Claimant was prescribed Cyclobenzaprine “as needed for \n[m]uscle spasms . . . .” \n Claimant  returned  to  CHI  St.  Vincent  on  April  19,  2023,  and  per  the report \nthereof, “present[ed]  to  [the]  clinic  for  acute  lower  back  pain.   He  reports  he  fell  at \nwork  on  Thursday  and  injured  his  back  .  .  .  .”  (Emphasis  added)    A  Toradol  injection \nwas given to him.  No objective findings from the examination are listed in the notes by \nKatia  Ryburn,  APRN.   In a  follow-up  visit  to the  clinic on April  27, 2023, Claimant  was \nstill representing that he was suffering from lower back pain as a result of “a fall while at \nwork.”  Again,  the  examination  yielded  no  objective  findings  of  an  injury.    He  was \nprescribed  Hydrocodone.    Claimant  returned  to  the  clinic  yet  again  on  May  30,  2023, \nand saw Dr. Kalyan Kancherla.  As before, the record is devoid of objective findings of \nan injury of any type. \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n15 \n \n The  compensability element  “arising  out  of  .  .  .  [the]  employment” relates  to the \ncausal connection between the claimant’s injury and his or her employment.  City of El \nDorado  v. Sartor,  21 Ark.  App. 143, 729  S.W.2d  430  (1987).   An injury  arises out  of  a \nclaimant’s  employment  “when  a  causal  connection  between  work  conditions  and  the \ninjury is apparent to the rational mind.”  Id. \n In  this  case,  assuming  only  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  Claimant  has \nestablished  objective  and  measurable  findings  of  a  lower  back  injury  (see  Estridge  v. \nWaste  Mgmt.,  343  Ark.  276,  33  S.W.3d  167  (prescription  of  Flexeril “as  needed  for \nmuscle  spasm”  tantamount  to  objective  finding  of  muscle  spasm); Melius  v.  Chapel \nRidge  Nursing  Ctr.,  2021  Ark.  App.  61,  618  S.W.3d  410),  he  has  not  shown  a  causal \nconnection between such a finding and what occurred on April 13, 2023, in the trailer at \nthe L’Oreal plant.  The account related to treating personnel that evening at the Baptist \nHealth emergency department—that Claimant’s forklift fell into a hole in the trailer floor \nso  deep  that  he  had  to  climb  out  of  it—was,  as  he  admitted  on  the  witness  stand, \nuntrue.    While  Claimant  attributed  this  inaccuracy  to  his  brother  and  not  him  speaking \nwith treating personnel on that occasion, the medical records do not support this.  The \nrecord  is  unambiguous  that  it  was  Claimant  who  furnished  this  history.   Furthermore, \nthis would not explain Claimant’s later history that he relayed to CHI St. Vincent:  that he \nfell. \n The discrepancies do not end there.  Claimant’s testimony concerning the forklift \nincident was that the left tire suddenly fell through the floor, and that this jarring motion \ncaused his injury.  The video footage of the incident, described in detail above, does not \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n16 \n \nsupport  this  version,  either.    What  is  clear  is  that,  as  Castner  accurately  described, a \n“divot” or indentation appeared in the trailer floor as that portion of it buckled under the \nweight  of  the  forklift.    But  the  wheel  hardly “fell  through”;  rather,  as  the  video  shows, \nClaimant was able after a few tries to drive the vehicle out of the indentation.  Additional \nsupport for the finding that any impact of the floor giving way was not unduly jarring is \nthe  fact  that,  as  Castner  credibly  testified,  the  impact  alarm  on  the  forklift  was  not \ntriggered in this incident.  Finally, in contrast to his testimony, the video evidence does \nnot depict him as leaving the trailer in any perceptible amount of distress. \n In  sum,  Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he \nsuffered a compensable lower back injury. \nB. Medical Treatment \n Introduction.   Claimant  has  alleged  that  he  is  entitled  to  reasonable  and \nnecessary medical treatment in connection with his alleged lower back injury. \n Standards.    Arkansas  Code  Annotated  Section  11-9-508(a)  (Repl.  2012) states \nthat an employer shall provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may \nbe necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.  Wal-Mart Stores, \nInc. v. Brown, 82 Ark. App. 600, 120 S.W.3d 153 (2003).  But employers are liable only \nfor  such  treatment  and  services  as  are  deemed  necessary  for  the  treatment of  the \nclaimant’s injuries.  DeBoard v. Colson Co., 20 Ark. App. 166, 725 S.W.2d 857 (1987).  \nThe claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is \nreasonable  and  necessary  for  the  treatment  of  a  compensable  injury.   Brown, supra; \nGeo  Specialty  Chem.  v.  Clingan,  69  Ark.  App.  369,  13  S.W.3d  218  (2000).    What \n\nLANGSTON – H304075 \n17 \n \nconstitutes  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the \nCommission.  White Consolidated Indus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 \n(2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). \n As  the  Arkansas  Court  of  Appeals  has  held,  a  claimant  may  be  entitled  to \nadditional treatment even after the healing period has ended, if said treatment is geared \ntoward management of  the  injury.  See Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc., 86  Ark.  App. \n230,  184  S.W.3d  31  (2004); Artex  Hydrophonics,  Inc.  v.  Pippin,  8  Ark.  App.  200,  649 \nS.W.2d 845 (1983).  Such services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the \nnature and extent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms resulting \nfrom  the  compensable  injury;  maintaining  the  level  of  healing  achieved;  or  preventing \nfurther  deterioration  of  the  damage  produced  by  the  compensable  injury.   Jordan  v. \nTyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra. \n Discussion.      Because   Claimant   has   not   established   that   he   sustained   a \ncompensable lower back injury, he has not met his burden of proving his entitlement to \nreasonable and necessary treatment of it. \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim is hereby denied and dismissed. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H304075 TONY LEE LANGSTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT L’OREAL USA, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT XL INS. AMER., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2024 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on November 30, 2023, in Little Rock, Pulaski...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:57:37.329Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304075-2024-02-22","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Langston_Tony_H304075_20240222.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}