{"id":"alj-H304338-2025-07-09","awcc_number":"H304338","decision_date":"2025-07-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Betty Cervantes","employer_name":"Factory Connection LLC","title":"CERVANTES VS. FACTORY CONNECTION LLC AWCC# H304338 & H402579 July 09, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CERVANTES_BETTY_H304338_H402579_20250709.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CERVANTES_BETTY_H304338_H402579_20250709.pdf","text_length":29728,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H304338 & H402579 \nBETTY CERVANTES, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nFACTORY CONNECTION LLC, EMPLOYER          RESPONDENT  \n \nTRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY \nOF AMERICA/TRAVELERS INDEMNITY \nCOMPANY (THE), INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA         RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 9, 2025 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 21\nST\n day of May, \n2025, in Mountain Home, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Mark Alan Peoples, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nRespondent is represented by Amy C. Markham, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE  \nA hearing was conducted on the 21\nst\n day of May, 2025, and the parties agreed at \nthe time of the hearing to narrow and clarify the issues and to only litigate the claim of \nJune 27\nth\n, 2023, claim H304338.  The 2024 claim was reserved at the time of the hearing.  \nThe issues before the Commission at the time of the hearing were the compensability of \nclaimant’s alleged injuries to her right knee on June 27, 2023, medical treatment for the \ninjury, TTD from the date of injury to April 29, 2024, and attorney fees.  All other issues \nwere reserved.   \nThe parties stipulated that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission had \njurisdiction  of  the  claim and  due  to  only  the  June  27\nth\n claim  being  litigated, the parties \nfurther stipulated that the employer/carrier/employee relationship existed on June 27th, \n2023, the date the claimant alleged she sustained the compensable injuries to her right \nknee, and that she earned  an  average  weekly  wage  sufficient to  entitled  her  to  the \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n2 \n \nmaximum  compensation  rates  for  temporary  total  disability  and  permanent  partial \ndisability.  The employer controverted the claim in its entirety.  A copy of the Pre-hearing \norder was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part of the record without objection.  \n The claimant’s and respondent’s contentions were all set  out  in  their  respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing Questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection.  Since at the time of the hearing, the parties agreed to only litigate the injury \nalleged  on  June  27,  2023,  the  relevant  contentions  applicable  to  this  hearing  by  the \nparties are that the claimant contended she sustained a work injury to her right knee on \nor about June 27, 2023, and the respondents contended that the claimant did not sustain \ninjuries per statutory definition and that there was no medical evidence of an injury, as \nalleged by the claimant.  The witnesses consisted of the claimant, Elizabeth Cervantes, \nand Sarah Stanford, the HR person for the respondents.  From a review of the record as \na  whole, to  include medical  reports  and other  matters  properly  before  the Commission \nand having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, \nthe  following findings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law are made  in accordance  with  Ark. \nCode Ann. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n2. That an employer/employee relationship existed on June 27\nth\n, 2023. \n3. The  claimant  earned  an  average  weekly  wage sufficient  to  entitle  her  to  the \nmaximum  compensation  rates  for  temporary  total  disability  and  permanent \npartial disability.   \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n3 \n \n4. That  the  claimant has failed  to satisfy  the  required burden  of  proof by  a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that she suffered a compensable work-\nrelated injury to her right knee on June 27\nth\n, 2023. \n5. That, consequently, all other issues are moot. \n6. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents are ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The Pre-hearing Order along with the Pre-hearing questionnaires of all the parties \nwere admitted into the record without objection. The claimant submitted medical records \nthat were admitted without objection. The respondents also submitted medical and non-\nmedical exhibits along  with  a video, which  were all admitted  without  objection. The \nclaimant was  the  first  witness to  testify. She  testified  that  she  worked  at  Factory \nConnection  and  got  hurt  on  the  job  back  in  June  of  2023, while working as  the  store \nmanager.  She testified  that  she was  in  charge  of hiring,  putting out  freight, processing \nfreight, making sure everything was put out on the floor, and training employees on the \ncash register, along with taking care of the customers. She worked a regular forty-hour \nweek, but at times worked seven days a week. She performed administrative work as well \nas physical labor. (Tr. 9 - 11) At the time of her injury, she was training a new employee \non the cash register. She was standing by the new employee when she stepped away to \ngive a customer change and her foot hit the side of the mat she was standing on. She \ntripped over the mat, which was about an inch thick, and her foot went out and her knee \nwent in. She could see her knee starting to swell, but she continued to work because she \nwas  the  only one at  work that  day.  She  reported  the  injury  to  Alicia  Ross,  her  district \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n4 \n \nmanager, who instructed her to report it to HR. The claimant went on to testify that she \ndid not want to report it because she was the sole income for her household. She then \ncontacted Sarah Stanford, who put her in contact with the insurance company. She felt \nthat she injured the meniscus of her right knee. (Tr. 12 – 14) \n The claimant admitted she had previous issues with the meniscus of her right knee.  \nPrior to the incident, she stated she was not having problems with the right knee. She \nhad previously tripped over a camera cord at work and had injured her meniscus. She did \nnot report the incident because her husband was suffering from a spinal cord injury and \nwas temporarily unable to walk. She testified she did inform Alicia about her surgery and \ntook two days off from work, which were her regular scheduled days off for the meniscus \nrepair. She had previously injured her meniscus while working for Subway back in 2008, \nwhere she slipped on a wet floor. All the problems were with her right knee. She was not \nhaving problems performing her job. (Tr. 15, 16) \n She  talked  to  the  adjuster  and told  him  she  had already set  up  a  doctor’s \nappointment with the doctor who had previously treated her knee in 2022, and she did \nthis after she heard her knee pop, and the swelling began. “I called them, because I was \nlike, I think I re-tore my meniscus.” “I told them I didn’t want to report it if it was just my \nmeniscus, because it’s preexisting.” She was glad when Alicia instructed her to report it \nbecause it was worse than just a meniscus tear. “It was - - I tore cartilage on my kneecap, \nand I’ve never had issues with the cartilage on my kneecap, and that was way more \nsevere than just a basic two-day resting where I would recover quickly from a meniscus \nrepair.” She continued to work but stated the environment became too much for her to \ncontinue. “I was physically able to work.” She had surgery in August after they had time \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n5 \n \nto regrow her cells to be transplanted to her kneecap. She returned to work two weeks \nafter the surgery. (Tr. 17 – 19) She went on to state that she was doing much better.  “I \nhad another surgery not that long ago because my knee just didn’t heal correctly from the \nsecond - - from the previous one, so I just had surgery like over a month ago, which did \nhelp.” (Tr. 21) \n Under  cross  examination,  the  claimant  was  questioned  if  she  went  to  see  the \ndoctor who she first treated with at Knox Orthopedics, and did she tell the doctor she was \ninjured at work.  Her response was “I don’t remember. I don’t recall.” She admitted to not \nreviewing her medical records. She was then asked whether her medical records of July \nthe 12\nth\n, 2023, provided that the symptoms began as a result of a gradual and insidious \nonset and her having chronic knee pain. “Do you remember telling your doctor that? She \nresponded, “No. I remember we had a discussion about that in 2022, but I do not recall \nhim - - us  having  a  discussion  of  that  when  I  went  to  go  see  him  for  this  incident  that \nhappened on June 27, 2024.” She did not know why those statements would appear in \nher medical record, but did admit she had one surgery on her right knee in 2023. (Tr. 21, \n22) \nThe claimant admitted going to see her PCP, Dr. Pritchard, when she injured her \nknee  after  she  tripped  over  the  cord and  stated that Dr.  Pritchard  referred  her  to  Dr. \nFranklin. Because of her insurance, they had to wait to obtain approval for an MRI. She \nthen testified that Dr. Pritchard of Knox Orthopedics performed the surgery in October of \n2022.  (Tr.  23) The  claimant  was  questioned  about  her  medical  record  from  Knox \nOrthopedics dated  July  12\nth\n,  2023,  and which  provided  the  claimant believed her  knee \nwas struck from the side. The claimant responded, “I did not tell him that.”  She denied \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n6 \n \nher knee ever being struck from the side, and responded “My foot struck the mat from the \nside.” The claimant agreed her knee was not struck from the side and stated that “I hit my \nfoot against the mat, and I tripped over it, the way it happened, my knee went in.” She \nalso denied her knee being struck from the side prior to the surgery on the right knee in \n2022, stating that she tripped over a blue cable cord. She stated the doctor must have \nmisunderstood what she said. “I’ve never said that my knee was struck  from  the  side, \nbecause that would be false.” (Tr. 24, 25)   \nThe claimant was questioned about her diagnosis of medial meniscal degeneration \nand lateral femoral condyle chondromalacia. She responded that she did not understand \nwhat that meant but went on to state that she knew that her meniscus “wasn’t well.” (Tr. \n26)  The  claimant  further  testified  she  did  talk  to  Sarah  Stanford  and  told  her  what \nhappened at work and was aware that there was a video of the incident, stating “There’s \ncameras everywhere.” When asked if she had viewed the video, the claimant stated that \nwhen  she  went  back  to  look  at  the  video,  it  was  deleted.  She  also  testified  that  two \ncustomers  and  Steven  heard  her  scream  at  the  time  of  her  injury, but  she  did  not \nremember who the customers were, and she was no longer in touch with Steven. (Tr. 27, \n28) At this point the claimant rested. \nThe respondents then called Sarah Stanford, who is employed as the HR Director \nfor the respondent, Factory Connection LLC. Ms. Stanford will have been employed by \nthe  respondent  for  14 years  in  August. She testified  the  claimant  had  reported  injuries \nmultiple times. “The first, I believe, was the June 27\nth\n incident, where she knocked her \nfoot against the mat, and then the second was in August of 2024, I believe.” On the June \n27\nth\n reporting with her knee, “She stated that she knocked her foot against the register \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n7 \n \nmat  and  that  she  felt her  knee  turn  inward. She  also  stated  that  she had a preexisting \ncondition, and she had not wanted to report it initially, but her district manager had her do \nso anyway.” She went on to state there was video that captured the incident involving Ms. \nCervantes and she was able to capture and preserve it and that it was the video that was \npart of the evidence. She also admitted that she took notes of the conversation with the \nclaimant and the notes stated it was a preexisting condition, her foot hit the side of the \nmat, and right knee turned inward. She felt a tear in her right knee and called her treating \ndoctor for a follow-up appointment  on  the  12\nth\n. The  claimant  stated  that the injury was \nwork-related due to a preexisting condition. Ms. Stanford went on to testify that she did \nthis while on the phone with the claimant, as she always did in similar situations. (Tr. 29 \n– 31)  She  also  testified  the  claimant  never  reported  that  she  struck  her  knee  from  the \nside. (Tr. 32) \nUnder cross examination, Ms. Standford was asked how she knew the video that \nshe reviewed was what the claimant reported, and her response was “I looked at the time \nthat  she  reported  it, and  I  looked at the  day.” She agreed that she did see  her  foot hit \nagainst the mat. (Tr. 33) \nThe claimant was then recalled for rebuttal testimony. The claimant was shown the \nnotes by Ms. Stanford and asked if she ever told Ms. Stanford the injury, she reported \nwas not work related and she denied making the statement. She went on to state she told \nher  that  she  had  spoken to  Alicia, who  had  told  her  to  call  HR  and  tell  them  what \nhappened.  “So, I let her know that I was training an employee, that when I turned around \nto come forward, my foot hit the mat, and when it hit the mat, I felt a pop, and my knee \nwent inward, and I went sideways, and the gentleman went out to try to catch me.”  I did \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n8 \n \ntell her I didn’t want to report it because I thought at the time that it was my meniscus, \nwhich was a preexisting condition. (Tr.34) She went on to testify she had spoken to the \nadjuster and had let him know it wasn’t just her meniscus and “I would like to pursue it to \ntry to get medical care if it was something severe. And it ended up being something more \nthan just my meniscus.”  (Tr. 35)     \nThe first evidence introduced into the record without objection will be the claimant’s \nmedical evidence consisting of 18 pages. A note from Knox Orthopedics dated July 12, \n2023,  provided  that  the  claimant  presented  for  an  evaluation  of  right  knee  pain  on  the \ninside of the knee. “Symptoms began as a result of a gradual and insidious onset and \nhaving chronic knee pain. The pain is acute and aching.” Under plan, the report provided \nfor a right knee internal derangement. “I scoped this knee in October 2022, she had  a \ncomplex tear of the posterior body and horn of the medial meniscus. She got complete \nrelief  from  the  first  surgery.  About  two  weeks  ago,  she  sustained  another  buckling \naccident, I believe her knee was struck from the side, and now she again has mechanical \nsymptoms  like  clicking,  catching,  locking.  Tried  to  deal  with  this  on  her  own  couple  of \nweeks, but it continues to get worse.” (Cl. Ex. 5, P. 1) \nThe  claimant  returned  to  Knox  Orthopedics  on  July  31,  2023,  for  an  MRI.  The \nreport provided for a fraying at the free edge of the medical meniscus with truncation at \nthe body and stated the medial collateral ligament was normal.  There was “no evidence \nof  lateral meniscal  tear.” Under  impression,  the  report  provided  for  medial  meniscal \ndegeneration and lateral femoral condyle chondromalacia. (Cl. Ex. 5, P. 2) The claimant \nthen returned to Knox Orthopedics again on August 8, 2023. The report provided that the \nclaimant  was  suffering  from  right  lateral  femoral  condyle  chondromalacia  which  had \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n9 \n \nbecome  quite  disabling  for  the  claimant.  The  claimant  stated  that  she  would  like  to \nproceed to surgery. The report provided that the claimant had a knee arthroscopy in 2008, \nand  another  arthroscopy  with  a  meniscectomy  in  October  of  2022,  along  with  other \nunrelated  procedures.  (Cl.  Ex.  5,  P.  3,  4) The discharge  document  provided that the \nclaimant could walk and bear weight on the leg that received the surgery. (Cl. Ex. 5, P. 5, \n6)  The operating note of August 23, 2023, by Doctor Franklin, provided that the claimant \nwas found to have had a large unstable, contained, focal chondral defect in the lateral \nfemoral condyle, plus multiple loose osteochondral bodies, a high-grade chondromalacia \nin the weightbearing lateral tibial plateau, and a small partial tear of the lateral meniscal \nroot as well. (Cl. Ex. 5, P. 7 - 12)   \nThe claimant returned to Knox Orthopedics on September 14, 2023, and Doctor \nFranklin, provided that the visit was a post-op right knee follow up.  The report provided \nthe claimant still suffered from some pain located anteriorly over the knee, and that he \nwould provide a corticosteroid injection to see how she responded. (Cl. Ex. 5, P. 13, 14) \nThe claimant returned again to Knox Orthopedics and Doctor Franklin on December 14, \n2023, and that report  provided  the  claimant  was  miserable,  and  was  again  ready  for \nsurgery. (Cl. Ex. 5, P.15) A report provided that the claimant was evaluated on January \n10,  2024,  and  had  been  placed  on  the  surgery  schedule  for  autologous  chondrocyte \nimplantation of February 14, but the surgery was going to need to be rescheduled due to \na family event for the claimant, and consequently, the procedure was just canceled.  (Cl. \nEx. 5, P. 16) \nIt  appears  that  another  surgery  was  performed  by  Doctor  Franklin  on  August  8, \n2024, for a right knee chondral defect of the lateral femoral condyle, with a postoperative \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n10 \n \ndiagnosis of a right chondral defect of the lateral femoral condyle and right chondral defect \nof  the  trochlea and  a  right  knee medial  meniscus  tear  at  the  horizontal,  junction of  the \nposterior body/horn. (C. Ex. 5, P. 17, 18)    \nRespondents introduced 21 pages of medical records without objection.  The initial \nreport was dated September 23, 2022, from Knox Orthopedics and Doctor Franklin, and \nprovided for a right medial meniscus tear of the right knee.  The report further provided \nthat  the  claimant  had  not  been  successful  in  conservative  care  of  the  right  knee  and \nsurgery  was  performed  on  October,12,  2022.  (Resp.  Ex.  4A,  P.  1 – 3)  The claimant \nreturned to Doctor Franklin on July 12, 2023, and presented with right knee medial joint \ntenderness, with guarding due to pain with no joint space narrowing.  The report went on \nto  provide  for  internal right  knee  derangement.  (Resp.  Ex.  4A,  P. 4 – 5)  The  evidence \nprovided  the  claimant  returned  to  see  Doctor  Franklin  on  August  8,  2023,  and  was \nprovided surgery at the Baxter Regional Medical Center, as described supra. (Resp. Ex. \n4A, P. 7 – 12) \nA  radiology  report  dated  April  22,  2024,  and  provided  by  Dr.  Jamie  Pritchard, \nprovided the claimant had a mature bony skeleton and a slight indication for a narrowed \njoint space in the medial knee and that this was unchanged from previous films.  There \nwas  no  evidence  for  an  acute  injury  of  fracture.  (Resp.  Ex.  4A,  P.  13) Additionally  the \noperative report dated August 8, 2024, regarding the surgery on the day before, was also \nintroduced and was discussed above in the evidence of the claimant. (Resp. Ex. 4A, P. \n14, 15) \nFinally,  the  last  medical  evidence  introduced  by  the  respondents  was  an \nOrthopedic Surgery Peer Review Report by Gotham City Orthopedics dated November \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n11 \n \n20, 2024.  The report provided that a Board-Certified Orthopedic Surgeon, Doctor Sean \nLager,  had  been  requested  to  review the  claimant’s  medical  file.  He  stated  that  no \ndoctor/patient  relationship  had  been  established.  He  provided  in  his  report  that  the \nclaimant and been involved in two work related incidents, the one dated June 27, 2023, \nwhere the claimant was stepping down from the ladder, and stepped hard causing some \nright knee pain, and the one dated April 13, 2024 where the claimant was standing at a \ncash register and her flip flop caught on the edge of a mat causing her to slip but not fall.  \nHe  opined  in  his  report  that  based  upon  the  medical  records  reviewed,  the  diagnosis \nindicated  a  pre-existing  condition  in  regard  to  the  medial  meniscus  degeneration  and \nlateral femoral condyle chondromalacia. (Resp. Ex. 4A, P. 16 – 21) \nThe  respondents  also  introduced  two  pages  of  non-medical  evidence  that  was \nintroduced into evidence without objection.  The first document consisted of notes taken \nby the HR person from a phone interview with the claimant and provided that the claimant \nhad stated that she had a pre-existing condition, and her foot hit the side of a mat and her \nright knee turned inward and she felt that the injury was work related. (Resp. Ex. 4 B, P. \n1)   \n A DVD of the claimant working behind the cash register and stepping on and off \nthe mat was admitted into evidence without objection.  The video, which was reviewed \nmultiple times, was dated June 27, 2023.  The video showed the claimant and another \nindividual, a male and who appeared to be the person being trained, working behind the \ncash register.  There was a mat on the floor.  It appeared there were other shoppers in \nthe  facility  at  the  time  of  the  video.    The  claimant  stepped  on  and  off  the  mat  multiple \ntimes and there was nothing that showed the claimant tripping, falling, grabbing her knee, \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n12 \n \nor acting like she suffered a sudden onset of pain. She did touch and briefly rub her right \nknee at one point.  Nothing appeared in the video that showed that the claimant’s right \nknee  was struck from  the  side.    Towards  the  end  of  the  video,  another  person,  who \nappeared  to  possibly  be  a  new  co-worker,  appeared  behind  the  cash  register.    No \ninteraction  was  observed  with  the  new  person  behind  the  counter  and  cash  register \nregarding the claimant’s knee. There is no evidence of anyone going to assist the claimant \ndue to any type of physical problem.  The claimant continued to move fluidly on and off \nthe low mat behind the cash register.  Although the video appears to be slightly sped up, \ndue to the method of filming or storage, the claimant appeared to ambulate well with a \nfluid gait and solid stance. (Resp. Ex. 4B, P. 2) \n \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn regard to the primary issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of \nproving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor  the  injury  to her right  knee under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law.  In \ndetermining  whether  the  claimant has  sustained her burden  of  proof,  the  Commission \nshall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party.  \nArk. Code Ann 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 \n(1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty to translate evidence on all issues before \nit into findings of fact.  Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 \nS.W.2d 179 (1996). \nFrom the medical reports submitted by both the claimant and the respondents, it \nappears the claimant clearly suffered from significant conditions and issues involving her \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n13 \n \nright  knee  prior  to  the  alleged  incident involving  her  knee.   A  pre-existing  disease  or \ninfirmity  does  not  disqualify  a  claim  if  the  employment  aggravated,  accelerated,  or \ncombined with the disease or infirmity to produce the disability for which compensation is \nsought.    See Nashville  Livestock  Commission  v.  Cox,  302  Ark.  69,  787  S.W.2d  864 \n(1990); Conway Convalescent Center v. Murphee, 266 Ark. 985, 585 S.W.2d 462 (Ark. \nApp. 1979); St. Vincent Medical Center v. Brown, 53 Ark. App. 30, 917 S.W2d 550 (1996).  \nThe employer takes the employee as it finds him or her. See Murphee, supra.  \nThe medical evidence provided that the claimant presented to Knox Orthopedics \non July 12, 2023, for evaluation of right knee pain on the inside of her knee and the report \nprovided that the claimant’s “Symptoms began as a result of a gradual and insidious onset \nand having chronic knee pain.”  The report went on to provide that the knee had been \nscoped in October of 2022, where a complex tear of the posterior body and horn of the \nmedial meniscus were found and the claimant obtained complete relief from the surgery.  \nThe report also provided that the attending physician believed that the claimant’s knee \nwas struck from the side.  An MRI on July 31, 2023, provided for a fraying of the free edge \nof the medial meniscus but there was “no evidence  of  lateral  meniscus  tear.”  A  later \nreport  dated  August  8,  2023,  provided  that  the  claimant  was  suffering  from  medial \nmeniscal degeneration and lateral femoral condyle chondromalacia which had become \nquite disabling for the claimant. \nThe  medical  evidence  provided  that  the  claimant  had  previously  had a  knee \narthroscopy in 2008, another arthroscopy with a meniscectomy in October of 2022, along \nwith the surgery of her right knee on August 23, 2023, by Dr. Franklin.  Dr. Franklin opined \nthat claimant was found to have a large unstable, contained, focal, chondral defect in the \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n14 \n \nlateral  femoral  condyle,  plus  multiple  loose  osteochondral  bodies  and  a  high-grade \nchondromalacia in the weight bearing lateral tibial plateau, and a small partial tear of the \nlateral meniscal root as well.  It appears that the last surgery occurred on August 8, 2024.  \nA radiology report dated April 22, 2024, provided there was no evidence of an acute injury \nor fracture involving the right knee.  It is also noted that the independent medical review \nby  Doctor  Sean  Lager  provided  that  in  his  opinion,  based  upon  the  medical  evidence \nreviewed, the diagnosis indicated a pre-existing condition in regard to medial meniscus \ndegeneration and lateral condyle chondromalacia.    \nA compensable  injury  must  be  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability and must be stated \nwithin  a  degree  of  medical  certainty. Smith-Blair,  Inc.  v.  Jones,  77  Ark.  App.  273,  72 \nS.W.3d 560 (2002).  Speculation and conjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence.  \nLiaromatis v. Baxter County Regional Hospital, 95 Ark. App. 296, 236 S.W.3d 524 (2006).  \nMore  specifically,  to  prove  a  compensable  injury,  the  claimant  must  establish  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence:  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of \nemployment;  (2)  that  the  injury  caused  internal or  external  harm  to  the  body  which \nrequired  medical  services  or  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  medical  evidence \nsupported by objective findings, as defined in A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16) establishing the injury \nand (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident and identifiable by time and place \nof occurrence.  If the claimant fails to establish any of the requirements for establishing \nthe  compensability  of  the  claim,  compensation  must  be  denied.   Mikel  v.  Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n15 \n \nIn  the  present  matter,  it  is  understandable  why  the  claimant  may  have  initially \nstated that the problem with her right knee was pre-existing due to the previous surgeries \nand the need for her to maintain employment, since her husband was unable to work at \nthe time.  However, with that said, a compensable injury is one that was the result of an \naccident  that  arose  in  the  course  of  her  employment.    See Moore  v.  Darling  Store \nFixtures,23 Ark. App. 21, 432 S.W2d 496 (1987).  Here, the video of the incident that was \nintroduced into the record was viewed multiple times and showed the claimant stepping \non and off a very low mat.  There is nothing in the video to show that the claimant suffered \nany type of injury, or pain, due to hitting her foot on the side of the low mat on the floor \nbehind the cash register, or due to being hit on the side of her knee, although it was noted \nthat she did briefly rub her right knee at one point.  The video showed no one near her \nresponding to an incident involving the claimant where she appeared injured.  Further, \nthe treating physicians did not attribute the claimant’s right knee problem to her hitting her \nfoot on the side of the mat.  It was opined that the claimant was suffering from “internal \nright knee derangement.”  \n  Consequently, based upon the available evidence in the case at bar, there is no \nalternative but to find that the claimant has failed to satisfy the requirements to show that \nthe claimed right knee injury of June 27, 2023, is in fact work related and compensable \nunder the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. \n  After reviewing all of the evidence, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either \nparty, there is no alternative but to find that the claimant has failed to satisfy the required \nburden  of  proof  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  claimant  suffered  a \ncompensable work-related injury to her right knee on June 27, 2023.  Consequently, all \n\nBETTY CERVANTES – H304338 & H402579 \n16 \n \nremaining issues are moot.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the \ncost of the transcript forthwith.   \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H304338 & H402579 BETTY CERVANTES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FACTORY CONNECTION LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY OF AMERICA/TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY (THE), INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 9, 2025 Hearing before Adminis...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:23.315Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304338-2025-07-09","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CERVANTES_BETTY_H304338_H402579_20250709.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}