{"id":"alj-H304348-2024-05-07","awcc_number":"H304348","decision_date":"2024-05-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Mark King","employer_name":"Recon Group, Inc","title":"KING VS. RECON GROUP, INC. AWCC# H304348 May 7, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["knee","ankle","back","hip","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/KING_MARK_H304348_20240507.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"KING_MARK_H304348_20240507.pdf","text_length":30682,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H304348 \n \nMARK KING, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nRECON GROUP, INC., Employer RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n AMENDED OPINION FILED MAY 7, 2024 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in   Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by LAURI THOMAS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by GUY ALTON WADE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On February  6,  2024,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Springdale, \nArkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on October  30,  2023,  and  a  Pre-hearing \nOrder  was  filed  on October  31,  2023.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked \nCommission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties on June 27, \n2023. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-2- \n 4.  The  claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  him  to  compensation  at  the \nweekly rates of $391.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $293.00 for permanent partial \ndisability benefits. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left knee on or about June 27, \n2023. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for his compensable left knee injury. \n 3.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  November  1, \n2023, to November 28, 2023.  \n 4. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“Claimant   sustained   a   compensable   injury   while   working   for \nRespondent on or about 6/27/23. At that time, claimant was in the \ncourse and scope of his employment with Respondent when a cart \nhit his shin, causing him to fall onto another cart, twisting his knee \nin the process. \n \nOn  6/30/23  Mr.  King  reported  to  Northwest  Medical  Center  with \ncomplaints of left knee pain that had not subsided since he twisted \nhis knee at work. After performing test and imaging, Dr. Burton at \nNorthwest   Medical   Center   suspected   an   internal   left   lateral \nmeniscal   injury.   She   recommended   that   he   follow   up   with \northopedics. \n \nOn 7/10/23 Mr. King reported to Dr. Maline at the Agility Center \nwith  complaints  of  left  knee  pain.  The  doctor  determined  his \nsymptoms  were  consistent  with  a  meniscal  tear  and  requested  an \nMRI of Claimant’s left knee. \n \nThe Respondents have denied Claimant’s right to further medical \ntreatment. Mr. King was unable to delay treatment any further. On \n9/19/23  Mr.  King  had  an  MRI  of  his  left  knee  which  showed \nlongitudinal  horizontal  type  tear  of  the  medial  meniscus.  After \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-3- \nreviewing the MRI, Dr. Maline recommended surgery to repair the \ntear.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“Respondents   contend   that   the   claimant   did   not   sustain   a \ncompensable    injury    within    the    course    and    scope    of    his \nemployment.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 57-year-old  male who  alleges  to  have  sustained  a \ncompensable  injury  to  his  left  knee  on  June  27,  2023.  The  claimant’s  job  duties  for  the \nrespondent included taking products off a line, entering them into a computer system, and putting \nthose  products  away.  On  direct  examination  the  claimant  described  the  incident  in  which  he \nalleges  to  have  suffered  a  compensable  left  knee  injury.  That  incident  occurred  about  10  to  15 \nminutes  prior  to  the  end  of  the  workday.  A  video  has  been  introduced  into  evidence  on  a  flash \ndrive marked as Claimant’s Exhibit 3. The claimant’s testimony regarding that incident follows: \nQ And tell us about that day. \n \nA Okay. Well, the day was almost over and at the  end of the \nday,  we  always  get  a  push  of  product  on  the  line.  I  was  storing \nstuff into the computer. I emptied a bin of product and then I went \nto  get  another  bin  of  product  off  the  line.  Someone  had  placed  a \nflat cart, which stands about this tall (indicating), behind me and I \ndidn’t see it. I turned around, walked right into it hitting my right \nshin  on  it.  Fell  forward.  Used  my  left  leg  to  brace  myself,  almost \nfalling. I did everything I could not to fall. \n \nQ Was it painful? \n \nA Very painful. \n \nQ Did you report it to anyone? \n \nA I reported it to my supervisor, Jamie Deans, immediately. \n \nQ And after you reported it to Ms. Deans, what happened? \n \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-4- \nA They sat me down over at Jamie’s desk. Put some ice on it. \nSince it was the end of the day, they decided that they would wait \nuntil the next morning to do a report incident on it. \n \nQ Okay.  So  from  the  time  you  got  injured  until  you  clocked \nout, how long was that time frame? \n \nA Ten, maybe 15 minutes. \n \nQ Okay. So when you clocked out, what did you do after this? \n \nA I went straight home. \n \n The  claimant  was  also  asked  about  his  alleged  left  knee  injury  on  cross  examination  as \nfollows:  \nQ Okay. Now, you turned around from entering some product \ninto  the  computer  and  somebody  had  put  this  cart  behind  you;  is \nthat right? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ Okay. I believe it was a blue cart? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ Okay.  And  when  you  turned  around,  you  described  that  it \nwas about six inches off the floor? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ And  you  struck  your  right  shin  on  that  cart  which  would \nhave been six inches above the floor? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ So right above where your ankle is? \n \nA Right. \n \nQ Right in that shin area? \n \nA Correct. \n \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-5- \nQ Okay. Now, you didn’t have any pain at that point in your \nleft knee; did you? \n \nA No.  The  pain  was  so  severe  in  my  shin,  that  is  all  I  could \nfeel. \n \nQ Okay. Now, you didn’t have any pain that you knew of in \nyour left leg at all at the time involving your knee; correct? \n \nA No, I had not. Not that I felt. \n \nQ Okay. Hadn’t noticed any issues with your left knee when \nyou left that day; did you? \n \nA No, I did not. \n \nQ Didn’t notice any swelling or bruising or issues with your \nleft knee at all when you left work that day; correct? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Is that correct? \n \nA That is correct. \n \n The  claimant  testified  that  he  immediately  reported  the  incident  to  a  supervisor,  Jamie \nDeans. The claimant was placed at Ms. Deans’ desk and was given ice to apply to his right shin. \nHolly Killbreth, who is the respondent’s safety coordinator, was also present when the claimant \nreceived  the  ice  for  his  right  shin.  Ms.  Killbreth  was  called  as  a  witness  by  the  respondent  and \ngave direct examination testimony about her time with the claimant as follows: \nQ Okay.  So  were  you  called  to  the  location  where  Mr.  King \nand Ms. Deans would have been? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ What did you do and what did you observe at the time you \nwere called? \n \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-6- \nA When  we  first  got  there,  we  initially  asked  what  happened \nand  he  had  told  us  that  he  had  hit  his  shin,  so  we  just  observed  a \nscrape towards the bottom part of his shin by his ankle. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA And it was red. \n \nQ When you said his shin, are you talking about the left or the \nright? \n \nA The right. \n \nQ The  right.  Okay.  Did  he  describe  any  other  complaints  or \nproblems at that time? \n \nA No. \n \n The  claimant  testified  that  he  went  home  after  work  and  took  a  nap  on  his  couch.  The \nclaimant also works part-time as a dance instructor and was scheduled to give a dance class that \nnight. The claimant gave direct examination testimony about his activities after work on June 27, \n2023, as follows: \nQ Okay. So when you clocked out, what did you do after this? \n \nA I went straight home. \n \nQ And what did you do when you went home? \n \nA I laid on the couch and took a nap. \n \nQ You didn’t do any physical activities? \n \nA No, ma’am. I was hurting too much. \n \nQ At  what  point  in  time,  originally  you – what  was  your \noriginal injury when you hit the flat cart? \n \nA I  had  a  contusion  on  my  shin  about  right  here  (indicating) \nand it was – it was a little red. You could tell that it broke the skin, \nbut it didn’t bleed. \n \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-7- \nQ Okay.  So  at  what  point  in  time  did  you  realize  that  your \nknee was hurting? \n \nA When  I  woke  up  a  couple  of  hours  later  on  the  couch,  my \nknee was sore and it had started to swell. \n \nQ Are you a dance instructor? \n \nA I am. \n \nQ And did you have a dance class that night? \n \nA I did. \n \nQ Did you teach it? \n \nA I tried. \n \nQ Is  there  a  reason  why  you  went  to  the  dance  class  if  your \nknee was swollen? \n \nA I get paid and I need the money. \n \nQ Okay. When you say you tried to teach the class, what did \nyou do? \n \nA I basically got up to try to demonstrate the first move and I \ncouldn’t do that, so I asked Ms. Elsey to help me with the class. \n \nQ And is Ms. Elzey Missy? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \n The claimant called Missy Elzey as a witness in this matter. Ms. Elzey testified on direct \nexamination that she was in the claimant’s dance class on June 27, 2023. She further testified: \nQ Did you notice if there was anything off about that night’s \ndance class? \n \nA Yeah, right away.  I mean we were just sitting and chatting \nand then when he first got up, he kind of winced and did kind one \nof those, you know. And I was like, “Oh, what is wrong?” I first \nthought what is wrong because when you are trying to dance, you \nknow, and he said, “ I hurt myself at work,” so .... \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-8- \n \nQ Did he describe how he hurt himself? \n \nA Yeah,  because  I  asked  like  what  happened,  so  he  just  said \nhe  tripped – I  always  get  this  all  mixed  up,  but  he  tripped  on \nsomething  and  hit  his  shin.  And  then  in  trying  to  correct  that,  he \nkind of twisted his knee  and the fallout from it, so it just sounded \nlike a mess, you know. \n \nQ So at that night’s class, he said he hurt his shin and hurt his \nknee? \n \nA Uh-huh. \n \nQ And it was your understanding that that happened at work? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Was it your understanding it happened that day? \n \nA Uh-huh. Yeah. \n \nQ Were you able to see his knees and his shin? \n \nA He was showing me because I was like, you know, what is \nhappening.  His  knee  looked  swollen.  And  like  the  other,  his  shin \nwhere he had hit it on something was kind of dented, red, bruised. \nThat was just starting since it was that day, so it didn’t look so \ngood, so .... \n \nQ Was he able to teach the class? \n \nA Huh-uh.  No.  He  got  up  and  that  is  when  I  first  noticed \nsomething  was  wrong  because  he  got  up  to  start  and  he  kind  of, \nyou know, was hobbling a little bit. So he just sort of said, “Well, \nif you can do this, I will kind of tell you what to do,” so I had to \nwing it. You know, I can wing it. \n \nQ So you took over the class? \n \nA Yeah. \n \n The  claimant  also  called  Sherri  Swedlund  as  a  witness.  Ms.  Swedlund  was  also  in  the \nclaimant’s dance class on June 27, 2023, and gave the following direct examination testimony: \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-9- \nQ When  Mr.  King  arrived,  did  you  notice  anything  off  about \nMr. King? \n \nA He came in limping. \n \nQ Okay. Which leg was he limping on? \n \nA Left. \n \nQ Did you notice anything – did he have shorts on? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Were you able to see any injury? \n \nA He  had  a  knee  brace  on  his  left  knee  and  then  on  his  right \nleg, he had like a scratch, like some kind of mark or something on \nhis left leg – or right leg. \n \nQ And  when  you  say  knee  brace,  you  mean  like  an  ACE \nbandage? \n \nA No. It was more like a black thing, like a knee – yeah. \n \nQ Okay. Did he complain about being in any pain? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And where was he complaining the pain was coming from? \n \n MR.  WADE:  Your  Honor,  I  object.  This  is  hearsay.  It  is \nnot  offered  by  a  party-opponent.  It  is  offered  to  bolster  the \ntestimony of the Claimant and it doesn’t meet the exceptions to the \nhearsay rule. \n \n THE COURT: Overruled. \n \nQ [BY MS. THOMAS]: Did he complain of any pain? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And where did he indicate it was? \n \nA On his knee. \n \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-10- \nQ Did he teach class that night? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Who taught class that night? \n \nA He stood there and he didn’t teach – like  dance.  He  just \nstood there and said, hey, do this and we just kind of followed his \nverbal instruction. \n \nQ And is that normally how he teaches class? \n \nA No. \n \nQ How does he normally teach class? \n \nA He dances with us. Like he will dance with us and show us \neverything. \n \nQ But he could not that night? \n \nA No. \n \n The claimant returned to work the next day and testified that he reported that morning to \nhis supervisor, Jamie Deans, that he had injured his left knee in the incident the day before. Later \nthat day the claimant was provided a Health and Safety Incident Report to sign. That report was \ncompleted  by  Ms.  Killbreth,  the  respondent’s  safety  coordinator.  That  report  is  found  at \nRespondents’ Exhibits 2. The report makes no mention of the claimant’s left knee, only his right \nshin.  However,  on  direct  examination  Ms.  Killbreth  testified  that  all  the  information  in  that \nreport was from the time of the incident on June 27, 2023, not information gained after June 27, \n2023.  Ms.  Killbreth  gave  the  report  to  the  claimant  to  review  and  sign  on  June  28,  2023.  The \nclaimant did sign the report but testified on cross examination as follows:  \nQ Now, were you given the opportunity to review that report \nbefore you signed it? \n \nA I looked it over. I didn’t really read it. I just looked it over. \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-11- \n \nQ Okay.  so  you  had  the  chance  to  look  at  those  six  pages  of \ndocuments at the time you signed it; correct? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA I  did  assume  that  it  would  be  added  to,  the  knee  injury, \nbecause  I  did – when  I  got  to  work  that  morning,  I  immediately \ntold  my  supervisor,  Jamie  Deans,  that  my  knee  was  hurting  and  I \nbelieve I hurt it the day before at work. \n \nQ Did  you  make  any  suggestion  to  Ms.  Killbreth  or  indicate \nto  her  any  other  injury  than  the  shin,  which  is  identified  in  that \nreport? \n \nA I  do  believe  I  told  Ms.  Killbreth  that  my  knee  was  hurting \nas well. \n \nAs  made  clear  in  cross  examination,  the  claimant never asked  to  amend  the  report  he \nsigned  on  June  28,  2023.  On  cross  examination  Ms.  Killbreth  was  asked  about  speaking  to  the \nclaimant’s supervisor and protocol for the claimant to report his left knee as follows: \nQ When  he  filled  out – when  you  brought  that  report,  it  was \nalready filled out; correct? \n \nA Correct. We typed it up. \n \nQ Is Ms. Deans’ signature on that paper? \n \nA No, it is not. \n \nQ Had you spoken with Jamie Deans before you gave that to \nMr. King? \n \nA No, I did not. \n \nQ So  if  he  reported  it  to  his  supervisor,  you  would  not  have \nbeen aware of the knee. If you hadn’t spoken to her and she didn’t \nsign the paperwork, the only person he reported it to, you hadn’t \nspoken with? \n \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-12- \nA I had not spoke to her, no. \n \nQ And  would  it  be  proper  procedure  or  protocol  for  him  to \ntell his supervisor? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Okay. He doesn’t work in HR; does he? \n \nA No. \n \nQ So  if  he  reported  it  to  his  supervisor,  would  it  be  safe  for \nhim   to   assume   that   you   would   take   care   of   the   appropriate \npaperwork? \n \nA I can’t answer what he is going to assume. \n \nQ Should you take care of the appropriate paperwork and not \nhim? \n \nA The HR lady would have taken care of it. She would come \nto me when the HR lady is made aware of it. \n \n The  claimant  was  asked  on  direct  examination  about  medical  treatment  for  his  left  knee \nas follows: \nQ At some point in time, did you decide you needed medical \ntreatment? \n \nA Yes. It was two and a half days afterwards, right after lunch \nmy knee was hurting really bad, so I when to my supervisor, Jamie \nDeans, and told her I need to go to the doctor. \n \nQ And what did Ms. Deans tell you? \n \nA She  sent  me  to  Jolene,  our  HR  representative,  and  Jolene \ngave  me  a  list  of  hospitals  or  clinics  that  I  could  go  to  to  be  seen \nabout my injury. \n \nQ Okay. And which one did you go to? \n \nA I went to Northwest Medical Center. \n \nQ And what test did they run? \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-13- \n \nA They ran an X-ray. \n \nQ Did  they  give  you  any  follow-up  instructions  after  you \nwent home? \n \nA They  wanted  me  to  set  an  appointment  with  an  orthopedic \ndoctor, Dr. Maline. \n \nQ Did they give you any kind of instructions on how to treat \nyour knee? \n \n MR.  WADE:  Your  Honor,  I  am  going  to  object.  That  is \nhearsay. The medical records are in evidence. \n \n THE   COURT:   I   think   he   can   say   if   they   gave   him \ninstructions or not. \n \n MR. WADE: Well, if he describes the instructions. \n \n THE COURT:  Well, I think the question was did they give \nyou any instructions, so I will overrule your objection. \n \n MR. WADE: Thank you, Your Honor. \n \n THE WITNESS: Yes, they did. \n \nQ [BY MS. THOMAS]: Did you have any restrictions placed \non   you   after   you   went   to   Northwest   Medical   Center   about \nworking? \n \nA Yes.  I  had  a  knee  brace  and  I  had  to  be  careful  about  how \nmuch I lift and things that I could do. \n \nQ Okay.  You  said  that  Northwest  Medical  Center  referred \nyou to Dr. Maline? \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \n On  June  30,  2023,  the  claimant  was  seen  at  Northwest  Medical  Center  by  PA  Chelsea \nBurton. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nHistory of Present Illness \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-14- \n56-year-old  male  reported  history  of  meniscal  repair  right  leg \napproximately  5  years  ago  presents  the  emergency  department  for \n3  days  of  progressive  pain  in  his  left  anterior/lateral  and  posterior \nknee  and  his  left  buttock.  Symptoms  began  3  days  ago  after  he \nturned around while at work and someone had put a flat rolling cart \nbehind him and he hit his right shin causing him to stumble and he \njumped on top of the flat cart. At that time he had not noticed that \nhe had injured his left buttock or knee but later than evening while \nteaching  dance  class  he  began  developing  some  pain  in  his  left \nknee. Since then he has difficulty bearing weight on the left lower \nextremity  due  to  pain  at  the  knee  and  buttock  and  unable  to  fully \nstraighten  or  flex  the  left  knee  secondary  to  swelling  posteriorly. \nPatient   reporting   this   feels   similar   to   his   meniscal   injury \npreviously.   He   denies   lower   extremity   numbness,   tingling, \ndiscoloration, back pain. \n \n*** \nDiagnosis \nAcute    pain    of    left    hip    (ICD10-CM    M25.552,    Discharge, \nEmergency medicine, Medical) \nAcute   pain   of   left   knee   (ICD10-CM   M25.562,   Discharge, \nEmergency medicine, Medical) \nAcute  left-sided  back  pain  with  sciatica  (ICD10-CM  M54.42. \nDischarge, Emergency medicine, Medical) \n \n On July 10, 2023, the claimant was seen by DO Michael Maline at Agility Orthopedics. I \nnote that the medical record provides information on its first page about the claimant’s insurance \nprovider and states, “Med Workers’ Comp – Travelers.” Additionally, that medical record states: \nHPI \n*** \nNotes: \nPatient presents to the office today for pain in the left knee. He was \nat work when he went to turn around to grab another item to scan \nin  when  he  tripped  over  a  low  cart  that  some  one  had  left  behind \nhim. Once he turned and tripped on the cart when his right shin, he \nwas going to fall forward he landed with his right foot on the cart, \nthe  cart  then  started  to  move  and  he  tried  to  jump  off  of  the  cart \nand twisted his knee in the process. \n*** \nAssessment/Plan \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-15- \nHis  outside  images  were  reviewed  independently  and  show  joint \nspace  well  maintained,  no  fracture  noted.  His  exam  is  consistent \nwith meniscal tear. Recommend MRI to evaluate. \n \n On  September  19,  2023,  the  claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  his  left  knee  at  MANA \nMedical  Associates.  Following  is  a  portion  of  that  diagnostic  report  authored  by  Dr.  Tommy \nHinton: \nImpression: \n1. There   is   a   longitudinal   horizontal-type   tear   involving   the \nposterior horn and body of the medial meniscus. \n2. There is suprapatellar knee joint effusion. \n3. There is infrapatellar subcutaneous edema. \n \n On  October  10,  2023,  the  claimant  is  again  seen  by  DO  Maline.  I  note  the  first  page  of \nthat  medical  report  also  indicates  an  insurance  provider  which  now  states, “Med Primary – \nCIGNA,” a  change  from  DO  Maline’s  July  10,  2023,  medical  record  which  stated,  “Med \nWorkers’ Comp – Travelers.” At that visit DO Maline recommends arthroscopic surgery for a \ntorn medial meniscus in the claimant’s left knee.  \n On November 1, 2023, the claimant underwent surgical intervention at the hands of DO \nMaline. Following is a portion of that operative report: \nPREOPERATIVE   DIAGNOSIS:   Posterior   horn   tear   medial \nmeniscus, left knee. \n \nPREOPERATIVE   DIAGNOSIS:   Posterior   horn   tear   medial \nmeniscus, left knee. \n \nPROCEDURE  PERFORMED:  Left  knee  arthroscopy  with  partial \nmedial meniscectomy.  \n \n The  claimant  has  the  burden  to  prove  his  alleged  left  knee  injury  of  June  27,  2023, \ncompensable. In  order  to  prove  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a  specific  incident  that  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-16- \nevidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs \nand More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \n The   claimant   can   clearly   prove   the   existence   of   objective   medical   findings   of \nderangement in the form of a left knee meniscus tear from his left knee MRI dated September 19, \n2023, and DO Maline’s operative report of November 1, 2023. \nThe  credibility  of  witnesses  and  the  weight  to  be  given  to  their  testimony  are  matters \nsolely within the province of the Commission.  Ringier America v. Combs, 41 Ark. App. 47, 849 \nS.W.2d 1 (1993). There were four witnesses in this matter and I believe the credibility of all the \nwitnesses to be high. \n The  claimant’s  testimony  about  how  his  injury  occurred  is  supported  by  the  video \nevidence in this matter. I believe the claimant to be truthful about the timing of his left knee pain \nand swelling occurring after his nap. The claimant’s testimony regarding his left knee problems \nprior  to  his  dance  class  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  Ms.  Swedlund  and  Ms.  Elzey. I  find \nboth  to be credible  witnesses  in  this  matter.  I  will  note  some  differences  in  their  testimony  that \nwas highlighted on cross examination. However, both testified that his complaints began before \nhe danced and the differences and deficits of their testimony seem reasonable particularly given \nthat this was a random dance class for each of these individuals on June 27, 2023, and they did \nnot testify until February 6, 2024. \n The report compiled by Ms. Killbreth does not mention the claimant’s left knee, only his \nright shin. However, she testified all of that information was gathered before the claimant alleges \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-17- \nhis pain in the left knee to have begun. Ms. Killbreth did not talk to Ms. Deans, the claimant’s \nsupervisor, on June 28, 2023, when he testified that he first complained of left knee injury before \nshe had the claimant sign the report. The claimant’s testimony that he did report his left knee \ninjury to the respondent is supported in medical evidence. DO Maline’s July 10, 2023, visit with \nthe  claimant  was  clearly billed through  the  respondent’s  workers’  compensation  insurance \npolicy. I believe the claimant’s testimony true that the next day he reported his left knee injury \nand that he was offered or provided medical treatment sometime thereafter. The claimant is able \nto prove a causal connection between his objective medical findings regarding his left knee and \nthe  incident  that  occurred  on  June  27,  2023.  The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable left knee injury on June 27, 2023, as he has alleged. \n The  claimant  has  asked  the  Commission  to  determine  if  he  is  entitled  to  medical \ntreatment  for  his  compensable  left  knee  injury. Employers  must  promptly  provide  medical \nservices which are reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injuries, Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-508(a).  However, injured employees have the burden of proving by a preponderance \nof  the  evidence  that  medical  treatment  is  reasonably  necessary.   Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores, \nInc.,  86  Ark.  App.  230,  184  S.W.3d  31  (2004).    What  constitutes  reasonable  and  necessary \nmedical treatment is a fact question for the Commission, and the resolution of this issue depends \nupon the sufficiency of the evidence.  Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d \n790 (1996).   \n After  a  review  of  the  medical  records  submitted  into  evidence  in  this  matter,  I  find  that \nthe  medical  treatment  shown  in  those  records  and  provided  to  the  claimant  is  reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment for his compensable left knee injury and that the respondents shall \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-18- \nbe responsible for the payment of that treatment, including the claimant’s out-of-pocket medical \ncosts.  \n The claimant has asked the Commission to determine if he is entitled to temporary total \ndisability  benefits  from  November  1,  2023,  to  November  28,  2023. A  claimant  who  suffers  a \nscheduled  injury  is  entitled  to  receive  temporary  total  or  temporary  partial  disability  benefits \nduring  their  healing  period  or  until  they  return  to  work,  regardless  of  whether  there  is  a  total \nincapacity to earn wages. Wheeler Construction Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W. 3d \n822 (2001). \n A medical record found at Claimant’s Exhibit 1, page 34, indicates that the claimant may \nreturn to work on November 29, 2023. Given that the claimant’s surgical intervention was on \nNovember 1, 2023, and that he was removed from work until November 29, 2023, the claimant \nwas clearly within his healing period due to his compensable injury and taken off work as he was \ntemporarily totally disabled until he was able to return to work per DO Maline’s record on \nNovember  29,  2023.  The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  his  entitlement  to  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits from November 1, 2023, to November 28, 2023. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of \nlaw are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nOctober  30,  2023,  and  contained  in  a  Pre-hearing  Order  filed October  31,  2023,  are  hereby \naccepted as fact. \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-19- \n 2. The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to his left knee on or about June 27, 2023. \n 3.  The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that is  entitled  to \nmedical  treatment  for  his  compensable  left  knee  injury,  including  any  out-of-pocket  expenses \nincurred by the claimant in this matter. \n 4. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits from November 1, 2023, to November 28, 2023. \n 5.  The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  attorney  is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee in this matter. \n ORDER \nThe  respondents  shall  be  responsible  for  the  costs  associated  with  reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment regarding the claimant’s left knee injury which occurred on June 27, \n2023, including reimbursement to the claimant for out-of-pocket medical expenses. \nThe  respondents  shall  pay  the  claimant  temporary  disability  benefits  from  November  1, \n2023, to November 28, 2023. \nThe respondents shall pay to the claimant's attorney the maximum statutory attorney's fee \non the benefits awarded herein, with one half of said attorney's fee to be paid by the respondents \nin addition to such benefits and one half of said attorney's fee to be withheld by the respondents \nfrom such benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715. \n All  benefits  herein  awarded  which  have  heretofore  accrued  are  payable  in  a  lump  sum \nwithout discount. \n This award shall bear the maximum legal rate of interest until paid. \n\nKing – H304348 \n \n-20- \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H304348 MARK KING, Employee CLAIMANT RECON GROUP, INC., Employer RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., Carrier RESPONDENT AMENDED OPINION FILED MAY 7, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claim...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:59.809Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304348-2024-05-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/KING_MARK_H304348_20240507.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}