{"id":"alj-H304477-2024-08-12","awcc_number":"H304477","decision_date":"2024-08-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Christy Mason","employer_name":"Mueller Industries, Inc","title":"MASON VS. MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC. AWCC# H304477 August 12, 2024","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","rotator cuff","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Mason_Christy_H304477_20240812.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Mason_Christy_H304477_20240812.pdf","text_length":14146,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H304477 \n \nCHRISTY S. MASON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nMUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP.,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER                       RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS SVCS., INC.,  \nTPA                       RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 12, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law Judge  Steven  Porch on July 19,  2024, in Forrest  City, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant was represented by Mr. Mark Peoples, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Mr. Michael Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A full hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on July  19,  2024.   A  prehearing  telephone \nconference  took  place  on May 15,  2024.  A  prehearing  order  was  entered  on  that  date  and \nsubsequently entered into evidence as Commission Exhibit 1. The parties’ stipulations are set \nforth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n \n2. An  employer/employee/carrier relationship  existed among  the  parties on \nMay 31, 2023, when Claimant allegedly sustained a compensable injury to \nher right shoulder. \n \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n\nMASON H304477 \n \n2 \n \n \n4. The Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage is  $557  which  entitles  her  to \ntemporary total disability benefits of $372 and permanent partial disability \nbenefits of $279 weekly. \n \nISSUES \n The parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury by specific incident.  \n \n2. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment and \nrelated expenses, including mileage and out of pocket expenses. \n \n3. Whether Claimant gave proper notice of her injury to Respondent/Employer. \n \n4. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n \n5.   Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee.  \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nA. Claimant Contentions. \n \nClaimant contends that she  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her right shoulder  on  or \nabout May 31, 2023; entitled to temporary total disability benefits from June 26, 2023, through \nJanuary  28,  2024;  entitled  to  medical  treatment  relative  to  her  work  injury;  and  a maximum \ncontroverted attorney’s fee.  \nB. Respondent Contentions. \nThe Claimant allegedly injured her right shoulder at work on May 31, 2023. X-rays and \nan  MRI  show  only  pre-existing  arthritis.  There  is  no  acute  process  and  no  objective  medical \nfindings. The Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. \n \n   \n\nMASON H304477 \n \n3 \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After   reviewing   the   record   as   a   whole,   including medical   reports,   non-medical \ndocuments,  and  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission, I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.  The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted.  \n3.  The Claimant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \na compensable right shoulder injury by specific incident. \n  \n4.  Based  on  my  previous  finding,  the  remaining  issues  of  reasonable  and  necessary \nmedical   treatment, notice   of   injury, temporary   total   disability   benefits,   and   a \ncontroverted attorney’s fee are all moot and will not be addressed in this opinion. \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record consisted of Claimant’s Exhibit 1, Medical Records, that consists of 15 pages, \nRespondent Exhibit 1, medical records, accident, and sickness records, consisting of 9 pages, and \nCommission  Exhibit  1,  Pre-Hearing  Order, that  consists  of  5  pages.  I  have  also  blue-backed \nClaimant’s and Respondents’ post-hearing briefs. I also had the opportunity to hear the testimony \nand  observe  the  demeanor  of  the  Claimant, Christy  Mason, and  Joe  Huggins,  former  lead  man \nfor Respondent/Employer, who were the only two witnesses in the full hearing.  \nThe Claimant   worked   as   a machine   operator   for Respondent/Employer. Claimant \nsuffered an alleged injury to her right shoulder while changing out the rollers on her machine on \nMay  31,  2023. When changing  the  rollers on  her  machine Claimant  heard  a  pop  in  her  right \nshoulder. Joe  Huggins, a former  lead  man  for  Respondent/Employer, was  near  the  Claimant, \nwith his back facing her, when he heard a pop. Mr. Huggins turned around and asked Claimant if \n\nMASON H304477 \n \n4 \n \nshe  was  alright.  The  Claimant  responded  that  it  was  her  shoulder  and  that  she  was  fine.  Mr. \nHuggins  did  observe  Claimant  rubbing  her  right  shoulder immediately after  the  pop  sound. \nNevertheless,  the  Claimant  continued  working  for  Respondent/Employer  until  June  26,  2023, \nwhen  she  woke  up  and  her  shoulder  was  stiff.  She  complained  about  her  shoulder  pain  to  Jim \nHaynes, her line supervisor, on June 27, 2023.  \nClaimant received an MRI at the Cross Ridge Community Hospital on July 3, 2023. The \nreport found no rotator cuff tear. See Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 2-3. Claimant also testified that \nshe    reported    her    alleged    injury    to    Brenda    Kelly,    Human    Resource    Manager    for \nRespondent/Employer, on July 10, 2023.  A form AR-2 was filed on July 17, 2023, denying the \nclaim. The Claimant argues, during the full hearing, that she has objective findings of an injury \nin  the  form  of  adhesive  capsulitis. To substantiate  this  finding,  the  Claimant  points  to  a \nNovember 3, 2023, medical note from the Delta Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Clinic. This \nnote was created by Dr. Michael Hood. See Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 8-14. Respondents argue \nthat adhesive capsulitis is not a compensable injury.  \nClaimant  submitted  a  post-hearing  brief on  July  29,  2024, alleging  that  the  objective \nfindings were now a mild supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinopathy as well as mild right AC \njoint  osteoarthritis.  Claimant  further  argues  that  these  findings  coupled  with  her  testimony \nregarding  her  pain,  discomfort,  and  loss  of  use  of  her  shoulder  carry  the  burden  of  proof. \nRespondents also submitted  a post-hearing brief  arguing  that  tendonitis  and  osteoarthritis are \nboth inconsistent with being caused by a specific injury and would not produce the “pop” that \nClaimant alleges occurred on May 31, 2023.   \n \n \n\nMASON H304477 \n \n5 \n \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder by \nspecific incident. \n \n Arkansas  Code  Annotated  § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012),  which  I  find  applies  to  the \nanalysis of Claimant’s alleged injuries, defines “compensable injury”: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body . . . \narising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment  and  which  requires  medical \nservices or results in disability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is \ncaused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  \nArk.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings that \ncannot  come  under  the  voluntary  control  of  the  patient.   Id.  §  11-9-102(16).    The  element \n“arising out of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the claimant’s \ninjury and his or her employment.  City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d \n430  (1987).    An  injury  arises  out  of  a  claimant’s  employment  “when  a  causal  connection \nbetween work conditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.”  Id. \n If  the  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 means \nthe evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, \n46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  The determination of a witness’ credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White  v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort \n\nMASON H304477 \n \n6 \n \nthrough  conflicting  evidence  and  determine  the  true  facts.   Id.    In  so  doing,  the  Commission  is \nnot  required  to  believe  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness  but  may  accept  and \ntranslate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  \nId. \nI  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  not  proven  she  has \nsustained a compensable right shoulder injury with objective findings. The Claimant received an \nMRI on July 3, 2023. Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 2-3.  The  MRI  report  reveals  degenerative \nfindings  only.  More  specifically,  the  report  reveals  no  rotator  cuff  tear,  the  subscapularis  and \nteres minor tendons are intact, no rotator cuff muscle bulk edema or fatty atrophy, no significant \nglenohumeral  joint  effusion,  and  no  paralabral  cysts. Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 2-3. In  other \nwords, the report shows no swelling or anything else that can be labeled as an objective finding \nfor  a  specific  incident. I  credit  this  report  created  at  the  Cross  Ridge  Community  Hospital  and \nsigned by Dr. Dana J. Coker.  \nNevertheless,  the Claimant initially points  to “adhesive  capsulitis” in  a  medical  record \nfrom  Delta  Orthopaedics  and  Sports  Medicine,  prepared  by  Dr.  Michael Hood, as  the  objective \nfinding for her right shoulder injury. Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 8-14. This record was created \nNovember  3,  2023,  more  than  five  months  after  the  injury  date.  This  report  runs  counter  to  the \nJuly  3,  2023,  MRI  report.  Where  the  MRI  shows  degenerative  issues, Dr.  Hood’s  report  shows \nadhesive  capsulitis  or  frozen  shoulder. I  do  not  credit  Dr.  Hood’s  report. The nature and \nremoteness of the diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis from the actual May 31, 2023, date of injury, \ndoes  not  lend  itself to  a  work-related  incident  by  specific  incident.  And I  find  that  it  is  not.  I \nfurther find that the most accurate and telling record of Claimant’s alleged injury is the July 3, \n\nMASON H304477 \n \n7 \n \n2023, MRI report. This report is closer in time and gives a more accurate depiction of Claimant’s \ncondition.  \nIn this respect, the Claimant now turns her attention to the July 3\nrd\n MRI report and argues \nthrough  her  post-hearing  brief  that the  objective  findings  were  a mild  supraspinatus  and \ninfraspinatus  tendinopathy  as  well  as  mild  right  AC  joint  osteoarthritis. See also Claimant’s \nExhibit  1,  pages  2-3.  Claimant  further  argues  that  these  findings  coupled  with  her  testimony \nregarding  her  pain,  discomfort,  and  loss  of  use  of  her  shoulder  carry  the  burden  of  proof.  \nRespondents  counter  these  claims  in  their  post-hearing  brief by arguing that  tendonitis  and \nosteoarthritis are both inconsistent with being caused by a specific injury and would not produce \nthe  “pop”  that  Claimant  alleges  occurred  on  May  31,  2023. I  agree  with  the  Respondents’ \nargument.  \nTendonitis   and   osteoarthritis   are   degenerative   conditions   but   could   be   caused   by \nrepetitive movements, not by a single specific incident as alleged here. Moreover, nothing in the \nrecord including Claimant’s  own  testimony,  demonstrated  that  her  job  involved  any  rapid \nrepetitive  motion  that  would  create  the  alleged  shoulder  injury. Thus,  I  would,  given  all  the \nfactors including Claimant’s job functions, be  hard-pressed to find that Claimant’s injury was \ndue  to  repetitive work-related actions. For  this  reason, I  believe  the Claimant  has decided  to \nargued vigorously that  her  injury was  the  result  of  a  specific  incident; and  that is  the official \nissue for this claim.\n1\n And as previously stated, the alleged right shoulder injury had no objective \nfindings per the July 3\nrd\n MRI report. The report revealed degenerative conditions that I find are \nnot work-related. It is the Claimant’s burden to prove she had “objective findings” of  an injury \n \n1\n Rapid repetitive motion was never made an issue in this claim. Thus, it will not be \naddressed beyond this point. \n\nMASON H304477 \n \n8 \n \ndue  to  a  specific  work-related  incident and  she  has  not met  that  burden. Thus,  her  claim  must \nfail.  \nMiscellaneous Issues. \n Based  on  my previous  finding that Claimant’s right shoulder injury is  not  compensable, \nthe  issues  regarding  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment, notice  of  injury, temporary \ntotal disability benefits, and a controverted attorney’s fee are moot and will not be addressed in \nthis opinion. \nCONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  set  forth  above,  the \nparties shall act consistent with this opinion.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H304477 CHRISTY S. MASON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS SVCS., INC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 12, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:50:02.666Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304477-2024-08-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Mason_Christy_H304477_20240812.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}