{"id":"alj-H305681-2026-03-03","awcc_number":"H305681","decision_date":"2026-03-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Fannon","employer_name":"Northwest Public Water Authority, Inc","title":"FANNON VS. NORTHWEST PUBLIC WATER AUTHORITY, INC. AWCC# H305681 March 03, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","knee","shoulder","rotator cuff","lumbar","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FANNON_JAMES_H305681_20260303.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"FANNON_JAMES_H305681_20260303.pdf","text_length":36715,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H305681 \n \nJAMES T. FANNON, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \n \nNORTHWEST PUBLIC WATER \nAUTHORITY, INC., EMPLOYER      RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVEDLERS PROPERTY AND  \nCASUALTY OF AMERICA, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA       RESPONDENT  \n \n    OPINION FILED MARCH 3, 2026 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 21\nST\n day of \nJanuary 2026, in Mountain Home, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by C. Michale White, Attorney at Law, of North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \nRespondents are represented by Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 21\nst\n day of January 2026, to determine the issue \nof compensability of an alleged injury to the Claimant’s lower back on August 22, 2023, \nplus medical treatment, and attorney fees. At the time of the hearing, it was agreed that \nthe issue of temporary total disability would be reserved. The Respondents contend that \nthe Claimant did not sustain a compensable work-related injury to his lower back at that \ntime. A copy of the Pre-hearing order was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part \nof  the  record without  objection.  The  Order  provided  that  the  parties  stipulated  that  the \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim and \nthat an employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed on or about August 22, 2023, \nthe date when the Claimant contends that he sustained an injury to his lower back. The \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n2 \n \nparties agreed that the Claimant earned an average weekly wage of $676.69 which would \nentitle him to TTD rate of $451.00. The Respondents controverted the claim in its entirety.       \n The Claimant’s and the Respondent’s contentions are all set out in their respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing Questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. Specifically, the Claimant contends that he sustained compensable injuries on \nAugust  22,  2023,  when  a  backhoe bucket struck  him  and  threw  him several  feet.  The \nRespondents  initially  accepted  the  claim  and  paid  for  medical  treatment  involving  the \ninjuries to his left hip, his left arm, and his left knee. Throughout the course of his claim, \nthe Claimant contends that his primary complaints have involved problems related to his \nlower back. However, the Respondents have denied liability for any benefits related to his \nlow back. The Claimant contends that he sustained a compensable injury to his low back \nand that additional medical treatment is reasonable and necessary, particularly treatment \nfor  his  continued  low  back  complaints. He further  contends  that  the  Respondents  are \nliable for the medical treatment that he obtained after their denial of liability for the injury \nto his low back.  At the time of the hearing, the Claimant reserved his claim for temporary \ndisability benefits. \n The Respondents contend that they accepted the Claimant’s contusion injuries to \nhis  left  knee  and  hip,  laceration  of  his  left  arm,  and  paid  the  applicable  medical  and \nindemnity  benefits.  The  Respondents  contend  that  the  Claimant  did  not  sustain  a \ncompensable low back injury but that any such complaints are the result of a pre-existing \ncondition for which they are not responsible.     \nFrom  a  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  medical  reports  and  other \nmatters properly before the Commission and having had an opportunity to observe the \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n3 \n \ntestimony and demeanor of the sole witness, the Claimant, the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law are made in accordance with Ark. Code 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 August 22, 2023, the date \nof the claimed injury.   \n3. That  the Claimant has failed  to prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  credible \nevidence that he sustained a compensable work-related injury to his lower back \non August 22, 2023. \n4. That all remaining issues are moot. \n5. 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 the parties \nwere  admitted  into  the  record  without  objection. The Claimant  submitted an exhibit of \nmedical  records consisting  of  fifty-one  pages  that  was admitted  without  objection. The \nRespondents submitted an exhibit of one hundred and two pages of medical records that \nwas also admitted without objection.  \n The Claimant was the only witness to testify. He was thirty-eight (38) years old at \nthe time of the hearing and had attended a little college toward becoming a paramedic \nand had also served  in  the  military.  On  August  22,  2023,  he  was  employed  by  the \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n4 \n \nRespondent, Northeast Public Water Authority, where he had worked since April of 2021, \nas  a  water  operator-in-training.  His  job  consisted  of  repairing  water  lines  and  busted \nmains, along with other things. On Augst 22, 2023, they were training a new person and \nwere  repairing  a  small  leak.  The  Claimant  stated  he  was  digging  with  his  back  to  the \nbackhoe in a hole. The experienced backhoe operator was off that day and a backhoe \noperator-in-training was operating the backhoe. The Claimant had his shovel down, in an \nattempt to keep the water from flying into the guy’s face while he was digging up the water \nline. The  backhoe  had  a  problem  with a hydraulic-line, and  it  was  revving  up  and  the \nbucket from the backhoe hit him while he was down in the hole. It knocked him out of the \nhole and “I remember I went airborne for just a second and then I remember tumbling, \nand then I got stopped by a tree.  And when I tried to stand up, I kept falling down, and it \ntook a couple of minutes for the other two operators to find me because it had knocked \nme over.” (Tr. 7 – 9)  \n They  lifted  my  pants  leg  up  and  took me  to  Baxter  Regional  and  I  told them, “I \ncouldn’t really feel my leg, and my knee was buckling.” He went on to state that an X-ray \nof his knee was performed and that they gave him crutches and sent him back to work. \nHis  boss  then sent him  home.  He  returned  to  the  Baxter  Regional  Emergency  Room \nwithin a week on August 28\nth\n, 2023, due to pain in his lower back, down his left buttock, \nand continuing down his leg, which was causing pain almost like little needles. His hip \nwas fine, but if he put too much weight on it, it would ache a little. His main complaint was \nhis lower  back,  about  at  his  pant  line.  He  saw  Dr.  McConnel,  who  referred  him  to  Dr. \nGocio, who sent him for a nerve conduction study. (Tr. 10 – 12) He went on to testify that \nhe was off work from August 22\nnd\n to the beginning of December. When he returned to \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n5 \n \nwork,  he  was  placed  on  light  duty  and  mainly  drove  around  looking  for  leaks.  They \neventually  placed  Claimant  back  on  his  regular  job  and  then they found  out  that he \ncouldn’t hold his balance,  so  they  took him back  off  that  and  placed him back  on  light \nduty. He testified that they wanted him to return to the doctor. He was on regular duty for \nabout a week. In regard to his balance issues, he stated his leg just wobbles. “If I put too \nmuch weight on my left leg when I’m taking a step, it kind of - - it’ll want to jerk.” He stayed \non light duty until they terminated him in the summer of 2025. He was terminated after \nthe board members met and decided that he couldn’t do the job that he was hired to do. \n(Tr. 13 – 15) \n The  Claimant  admitted  he  had  suffered  from  problems  with  his  lower  back \npreviously, about six or seven years ago, but that it was higher and was due to a bulging \ndisc, which he recovered from. After he recovered, he stated he no longer experienced \nany  problems with his lower back. He couldn’t remember having any other medical \ntreatment  relating  to  his  back  until  August  22,  2023.  He  never  received  any  medical \ntreatment for his hip or his leg before. His problems at the time of the hearing consisted \nof just his lower back, and “It’s an everyday thing but not all day. It just depends on what \nI’m doing or how long I’m on my feet for. And it’s just like little sharp - - like it radiates \ndown almost to my foot but not quite, like I would say around the calf area, and then it \nfeels like I start getting a Charlie-horse trying to start out.”  Bending over also makes his \nback hurt, and he usually just sits on a heating pad to make it better. Medications don’t \nseem to help. (Tr. 16, 17) He went on to testify that there are times that he cannot get up \nand down from a chair without assistance, maybe a few times a week. He keeps a cane \nin his car, but didn’t want to be reliant on it, and used it a couple of times a week. He also \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n6 \n \ntestified that he experienced weakness in his leg all of the time, that he had been unable \nto go on hikes and could not top carry his kayak anymore, and that he had to obtain a \ntrailer to carry it. His girlfriend would go with him and assist him and drop him off when he \nwanted to go use his kayak. (Tr. 18- 20) \n He is currently working at his friend’s tint shop, where they do window tinting which \nhe can do while mostly sitting. He does have to stand some and he went on to state that \nhe has been able to perform his job. That was the only place that he has worked since \nleaving the Respondent. He tries to help his girlfriend around the house but even when \ndoing the dishes, “It’s like when I’m standing in one spot, it’ll - - it feels like - - almost like \nthe weight’s putting pressure on the back. So, I’ll get like halfway done, then I’ll have to \ngo sit down for a while, and then I’ll go back.”  He had previously been diagnosed with \nPTSD and panic attacks. He also admitted having some coronary issues. His heart rate \nand blood pressure would get really high, and they would give him medicine that would \ncalm  him  down.  He  admitted  having  slightly  high  blood  pressure and was  currently  on \nmedication and beta-blockers. (Tr. 21 – 23) He also testified that nothing had occurred \nsince the August 22, 2023, accident that would have caused his back problems. (Tr. 24) \n Under  cross  examination, the  Claimant  admitted  he  had  completed  the  tenth \ngrade, dropped out, and then obtained his GED while in the military. The Claimant also \nadmitted  that  he  had  injured  his  shoulder  during his  first  year  of training  and  was \ndischarged at that point, with what he described as a broken rotator cuff. The Claimant \nalso admitted he had been attempting for a period of time to obtain disability through the \nVA and had not been successful, but that it was still up in the air and he had not received \nany  treatment  through  the  VA. He also  admitted  attending  paramedic  school  at  ASU-\n\nFANNON – H305681 \n7 \n \nMountain  Home,  training as  a  detention  officer,  and previously working for  the  Marion \nCounty Sheriff’s office where he oversaw about 100 prisoners in a jail type setting. He \nalso  admitted  to  doing  some  marketing  work  with  BDS  and  working as  a  Samsung \nrepresentative, building displays, training employees, and that he had also worked as an \nE-Z Mart clerk and a pizza delivery driver. The Claimant had also obtained his license as \na bail bondsman and worked in that position for a period of time. (Tr. 25 – 28) In regard \nto  the  Claimant’s  PTSD,  he  admitted being diagnosed  by  his  family  physician,  Dr. \nPritchard, who had placed him on Xanax, Trazodone, and Buspirone. He also admitted \nthat he had obtained his medical marijuana card in 2022, which was still in place. He also \nadmitted that he had been previously treated for a bulging disc in his back, but that he \ncould not remember at the time of his deposition when that had occurred. (Tr. 29, 30) \n In regard to the incident involving the backhoe while working for the Respondent, \nthe Claimant admitted that he described it as when the bucket hit his left hip and scratched \nhis left arm. At that point, he noticed he was unable to put pressure on his left leg. He \nalso admitted that he testified in his deposition that the pain in his low back did not start \nuntil the feeling in his leg returned. There was no pain immediately. The Claimant went \non  to  state  that  everything  was  numb  on  the  left  side. He also  admitted  that  he  had \ntestified in his deposition that he had not noticed any pain in his lower back until two or \nthree months later and after Dr. McConnell had released him from treatment, which would \nhave been in December of 2023. He also admitted that the only time he had been treated \nfor any low-back complaints was for a bulging disc and that this would have been prior to \nthe  event  of August 2023.  (Tr.  32,  32) Under  further  cross  examination,  the  Claimant \nstated  he  had  been  telling  Dr.  McConnell  about  the  little  pin  prickles  prior  to  being \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n8 \n \nreleased  by  Dr.  McConnel, and that  the  actual  pain had  started  about  that  time.  The \nfollowing questioning then occurred: \n Q: Did you complain to McConnell or Gocio about any low-back pain? \n A: Yes, sir. \nQ: Well, maybe we’re not communicating, because you just told me a second ago \nthat you didn’t have low-back pain until after McConnell released you - - \nA: No, the – \nQ: - - in December of 2023. \nA: - - the low-back pain had come back. Before it was like - - like what I was telling \nhim, it was like spot - - \nQ: Come back from when? \nA: - - like almost, - - almost like needles. What was that? \nQ: Well, let me start over. You told us you didn’t have low-back pain when this first \nhappened in August of 2023, correct? \nA: Yes sir. \nQ: Okay. You also told me that you didn’t have low-back pain until  two  to  three \nmonths after you were released by Dr. McConnell, which was two or three months \nafter August of 2023, correct?    \nA: Yes, sir. \nQ: So that would be December when he released you correct? \nA: Yes, sir.  \nQ: And you would’ve gone back to work at that point? We’ll talk about that in a \nminute. Is that right? \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n9 \n \nA: Yes, sir. \nQ: Okay. So, you didn’t have low-back pain for two or three months from August \n22, 2023, until December of 2023, when McConnell released you, correct? \nA: Yes, sir. The actual - - like the real back pain, yes, sir. \nQ: Okay. So, what did you have in between? Was it just kind of fake back pain? \nA: No, sir. It was - - \nQ: Was it any back pain or anything? \nA: - - it was like needly, like it wasn’t like a pain. It was like - - \nQ: Like when your foot goes to sleep - -  \nA: Yeah. \nThe Claimant went on to state that it was hard to explain. (Tr. 33 – 35) \n The  Claimant  also  admitted  that  when  he  was  initially  taken  to  the  emergency \nroom, they only took x-rays of his left knee. He also admitted that the next physician that \nhe  saw  was  Dr.  McConnell  who he told about his  complaints.  He was  then  sent to  Dr. \nGocio for a nerve conduction study on his left leg. At some point, he was sent to physical \ntherapy.  The  Claimant  also  admitted  that  he  did  not  receive  an  MRI  on  his  back  while \nbeing treated by Dr. McConnell and Dr. Gocio. The Claimant testified, “Workman’s comp \nactually sent a nurse with me, and she told McConnell that they had permission to do the \nMRI, and he just said that he didn’t think it was needed, that it was weakness in my leg.” \nHe admitted that Dr. Pritchard, his family doctor, ordered an MRI of his back, and that \nwas the only one he ever remembered having other than the one while working for the \nsheriff’s department. The Claimant also admitted that Dr. Pritchard had not recommended \nany additional treatment for his back since the MRI. (Tr. 36 - 38) Dr. Pritchard had also \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n10 \n \nnot made a referral or recommended surgery. Dr. Gocio and Dr. McConnell both released \nthe Claimant to return to work in late November or early December. The Claimant had \nalso admitted that during his deposition in January of 2025, he had gone back into the \nfield and had only recently been moved into the office. (Tr.39) \n The Claimant also admitted that he liked to use his new kayak at least twice a week \nwhile it was warm and would go as frequently as he could. He also admitted being able \nto use a computer, having a driver’s license, and being capable of reading. He also \nadmitted to driving to his deposition in Little Rock. (Tr. 40 - 42)  \n When the Claimant presented to the ER after the accident involving the backhoe, \nhe  admitted  that  he  had  referred  to  his  left  knee  and  left  hip. In regard to Claimant’s \nsecond  visit  to  the  ER after  the  incident  with  the  backhoe on  August  28,  2023, the \nClaimant was questioned about the medical report referring to low-back pain, hip pain, \nand  knee  pain. More  specifically,  he was  questioned  about  the  report  providing  under \nComparison that they compared the MRI of the lower back on that date, to a CT of the \nspine of the same year, and was asked if he remembered going to the hospital for back \npain  in  June  of  2023, approximately  two  months  prior  to  the  incident  involving  the \nbackhoe. He responded that he remembered going vaguely, but that “It’s hard to keep up \nwith everything that’s happened.” “I mean, I remember going in, but I can’t remember \nwhat was said or what happened. That’s been a while  ago.” The  Claimant  was  also \nquestioned about the X-rays taken on August 23 after the accident that provided “Normal \nlumbar spine with mild degenerative changes from L3 to S1” and he responded “Yes, sir.” \nAdditionally,  the  Claimant  was  questioned  about  X-rays  of  his  hip  at  the  time, which \nprovided for no acute fracture of the pelvis and he again responded “Yes, sir.” The \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n11 \n \nClaimant also admitted that the EMG nerve conduction study performed at Baxter Health \non September 20, 2023, provided there was no electrophysiologic evidence recorded and \nwas not suggestive of any type of radiculopathy or pain running down his bruise. (Tr. 43 \n– 47) \n After presenting to Dr. Gocio, the Claimant followed up with Dr. McConnell, who \nrecommended  an  ACL  type  stability  brace, and  the  Claimant  admitted  Dr. McConnell \nstated that he could return to duty full duty. The Claimant also agreed he again returned \nto  Dr.  Gocio  on  November  27,  2023,  who  referred  to  the  MRI  and  the  EMG  nerve \nconduction study and stated “I believe a portion of the patient’s injuries represents a \nneuropraxia that has resolved without residual impairment“ and then released him from \nhis care. The Claimant contended that Dr. Gocio made a recommendation to the nurse \nfrom  Travelers  about  getting  a  second  nerve  conduction  study and  he appeared \nsomewhat  surprised  that  the  report made  no  mention  of  the offer  of  a second  nerve \nconduction  study  and that  he  could  return  to  work  with  whatever  restrictions  that  Dr. \nMcConnel felt necessary. (Tr. 51) The Claimant also agreed he returned to Dr. McConnell \non November 27, 2023, and Dr. McConnell provided that he could return to work with no \nrestrictions and had reached MMI. (Tr. 52) \n The Claimant was then questioned about a visit to the emergency department in \nJanuary of 2024, with a chief complaint of acute lower back pain onset with no trauma to \nthe  site.  The  Claimant  first  responded  that  he  could  not  honestly  remember  the  visit \nexactly. He later agreed the report provided he just woke up with severe pain to his lower \nback and had not suffered any trauma. He agreed he was saying that he just woke up \nwith the pain. “That’s whenever I was getting all the feeling back in my leg.” (Tr. 55, 56) \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n12 \n \nAfter the end of cross examination, and after a discussion between the Claimant and his \nattorney, the Claimant rested.  \nThe Claimant’s medical Exhibit consisted of 50 pages.  Claimant  presented  to \nBaxter Regional ER on August 22, 2023, with a complaint of knee and hip pain. (Cl. Ex. \n1,  P.  1 - 6)  The  Claimant  then  returned  to  the  ER  on  August  28,  2023, and  the  report \nprovided  under  “Diagnosis  for  Today’s  Visit”  for  lumbar  radiculopathy  and  left  leg \nweakness. X-rays of the left pelvis and an MRI of the lumbosacral spine were taken. The \nMRI on this date was compared to a CT scan of the lumbosacral spine taken on June 16, \n2023. The report provided that the bones and joints of the lumbar spine alignment were \nnormal  and  unchanged  and  vertebral height  was  maintained.  Narrow  zones  of marrow \nedema  adjacent  to  the  endplates  were  noted with no  fractures  or  subluxations.  The \ndiagnosis provided for lumbar radiculopathy with left leg weakness. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 7 – 18) \nThe Claimant then presented to Knox Orthopedics and was seen by Dr. McConnell \non September 5, 2023, with a chief complaint of left hip pain and issues involving the left \nknee. X-rays of the lumbar spine were obtained. The report referred to multiple series of \nX-rays and an MRI of the lumbar spine and provided there was nothing on the Lumbar \nMRI that would explain the complaint. The report further stated that an EMG of the left \nlower extremity would assist in the diagnosis. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 19 – 21) \nThe  Claimant  presented  to  Baxter  Health  Physical  Therapy  on  September  20, \n2023, for a nerve conduction study and the report stated that it was a normal study. All \nnerve conduction studies were within normal limits and all muscles showed no evidence \nof electrical instability. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 22 – 25) \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n13 \n \nThe Claimant returned to Knox Orthopedics and Dr. McConnell on November 27, \n2023, and the report provided that the Claimant had a gait abnormality while walking that \ngets worse with fatigue. The doctor opined that the knee was stable, and it was a muscular \nproblem, and that he would allow the Claimant to return to work in two weeks. (Cl. Ex. 1, \nP.  26,  27)    The  Claimant  then  returned  to  Dr.  McConnel  on  January  8,  2024,  and  the \nreport provided that there was full range of motion of the left knee, that the Claimant had \nreached MMI, and that he could return to work full duty with no restrictions and with no \nimpairment,  that  his  leg  buckling  was  essentially  gone,  and he referred  to  lumbar \ndegenerative  disc  disease.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  28,  29) On  January  31,  2024,  the  Claimant \npresented to the Baxter Regional ER with the chief complaint of lower back pain with a \nThursday onset, and  with  no  trauma  reported. The  report  referred  to  a  finding  of \nsacroiliitis. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 30 – 32) \nOn  March  1\nst\n,  2024,  the  Claimant  presented  to  the  Regional  Family  Medicine \nClinic, and Dr. Jamie Pritchard, with low back pain, left hip pain, and obstructive sleep \napnea. The report provided a finding of mild arthritic changes at L5 of the lumbar spine \nthat is otherwise normal, with normal spacing of the vertebral heights in the lumbar spine, \nwith  very  tiny  osteophyte  formation and with  no  subluxation.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  33 – 35)  The \nClaimant returned again to Dr. Pritchard on March 6, 2024, with a complaint of low back \npain and left hip pain, and X-rays with two views were taken of the sacroiliac joints. Under \nimpression, the  report stated  that  they  were  normal.  Additionally,  X-rays  of  the  pelvis \nprovided it was normal. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 36, 37)   \nOn April 1, 2024, the Claimant returned to Dr. Pritchard for a follow-up. The report \nmentioned a  referral  to  Ozark  Physical  Therapy  for  low  back  pain  and additionally \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n14 \n \nmentioned chronic PTSD. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 38 – 40) The Claimant then again returned to Dr. \nPritchard on May 9, 2024, for a follow-up for back pain. The report provided that a lumbar \nMRI would be ordered, and that the Claimant would be contacted if it was approved by \ninsurance. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 41, 42) The Claimant again returned to Dr. Pritchard on May 13, \n2024, for left knee pain, and the X-ray provided for a normal left knee. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 43) \nThe records provided that the Claimant did not return to Dr. Pritchard until October 14, \n2024. The  report  provided  that the  Claimant’s  depression had worsened  due  to  his \nphysical limitations, referred to left hip pain, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. \n(Cl. Ex. 1, P. 44 to 46) \nOn June 11, 2024, the Claimant received another MRI of the lumbar spine due to \nlow back pain. The report mentioned the Claimant being hit by a forklift in 2023, which \nwould appear to be clearly incorrect. In any case, under impression, the report provided \nfor some early degenerative changes with mild degenerative changes of the facet joints \nand  some  minimal  disc  disease.  The most pronounced disc  changes were  at  the  L3-4 \nlevel, where there is a tiny protrusion of a disc, but which had not changed since August \n28, 2023, to any degree. Minimal bulging at L4-5 and L5-S1 level as seen previously had \nimproved  to  some  degree. Mild  narrowing  of  the  left  neural  foramen  at  the  L5-S1  was \nnoted. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 47)   \nClaimant’s final medical record involved another visit to Dr. Pritchard on October \n14,  2024,  and referred  to  generalized  anxiety  disorder  and  again  mentioned left  knee \npain.  No  mention  of  lower  back  pain was  mentioned.  Under  assessment,  the  report \nreferred to PTSD. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 48 – 50)  \nThe  Respondents medical  records entered  into  the  record consisted  of many  of \nthe same reports provided by the Claimant with some additional medical records added.  \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n15 \n \nA report provided that the Claimant presented to Baxter Regional on October 11, 2023, \nfor physical therapy, and the report provided for no pain, but for mild limitation of motion, \nand with severe limitation of function. After the discharge from physical therapy, the report \nprovided for a very mild limitation of function. Dr. Allan Gocio assessed neurapraxia of \nthe left lower extremity. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 65 – 77)   \nOn November 27, 2023, the Claimant presented to Dr. Gocio with complaints of \nback and hip pain, with lower extremity weakness.  The report provided for left lumbar \nradiculopathy with neuropraxia of the left lower extremity. Dr. Gocio provided he would \ndefer to Dr. McConnell from the standpoint of returning to work. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 82 – 85) \nDr. McConnell issued a return to work note on December 11, 2023, and stated that the \nclaimant could return to work full duty but must wear a stability brace. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 81)    \nOn December 1, 2023, the Claimant again presented to Baxter Regional Physical \nTherapy and the report provided he stated that there was no pain, with a mild limitation \nto function. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 86 – 90) The Claimant presented to Dr. McConnell on January \n8,  2024.  The  report  provided  that  the  Claimant’s  leg  buckling  and  instability was \nessentially gone and that he suffered from intervertebral disc degeneration. The report \nwent on to provide that the Claimant had reached MMI and could return to work with no \nrestrictions and no impairment. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 91 – 92) \nA report from Dr. Patrick Tobias, dated July 23, 2024, provided that the Claimant \nsuffered from additional health issues which included heart palpitations, bradycardia, and \nessential hypertension. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 93 – 96) The final medical report entered into the \nrecord  by  the  Respondents was  also  one  from  Dr.  Tobias  dated  May  21,  2025,  which \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n16 \n \nreported that the Claimant still was suffering from heart palpitations, anxiety, and other \nheart issues. (Resp. Ex. 1, 97 – 100)   \n  DISCUSSION 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 he is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor the claimed injury to his lower back. In determining whether the claimant has sustained \nhis burden of proof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving \nthe  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  either  party.  Ark.  Code  Ann. 11-9-704. Wade  v.  Mr. \nCavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 (1989). Further, the Commission has the \nduty to translate evidence on all issues before it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce \nBrothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nIn regard to the current claim before the Commission, Claimant contends that he \ninjured his back  on August  22, 2023,  while repairing  water  lines and employed  by  the \nRespondent while he was down in a hole with a shovel, with his back towards a backhoe, \nwhen he was hit by the bucket of the backhoe, which knocked him out of the hole and \ninjured his lower back. The Claimant was immediately taken to Baxter Regional ER with \na complaint of pain in his left knee and left hip. Only his left knee was X-rayed, and he \nwas released to return to work with crutches. His boss sent him home.   \nHe  returned  to  the  Baxter  Regional  ER  on  August  28,  2023, due  to  pain  in  his \nlower back, down his left buttock, which continued to his left leg. The diagnosis for the visit \nprovided for lumbar radiculopathy and left leg weakness. X-rays of the pelvis and an MRI \nof the lumbosacral spine were taken. The MRI on this date was compared to a previous \nCT scan of the lumbosacral spine taken on June 16, 2023, and the report provided that \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n17 \n \nthe bones and joints of the lumbar spine were in normal alignment and unchanged and \nthe vertebral height of the vertebrae was maintained. Later, on September 5, 2023, the \nClaimant presented to Knox Orthopedics and Dr. McConnell, with the chief complaint of \nleft  hip  pain  and  issues  involving  the left knee. The  report  provided  there  was  nothing \ninvolving  the  MRI  of  the  lumbar  spine  that  would  explain  the  complaint.  Later, on \nSeptember 20, 2023, a nerve conduction study provided that it was a normal study within \nnormal limits and all muscles showed no evidence of electrical instability. The Claimant \nreceived another MRI of his lumbar spine on June 11, 2024. The report provided, under \nimpression, for some degenerative changes with mild degenerative changes of the facet \njoints, and  some  minimal  disc  disease.  Additional  X-rays  and  findings  by  Dr.  Pritchard \nprovided for mild arthritic changes at L5 of the lumbar spine but that it is otherwise normal, \nwith normal spacing.  \nThe Claimant continued to see Dr. McConnell, Dr. Gocio, and his personal family \nphysician,  Dr.  Pritchard.  Dr.  Gocio  stated  that  he  would  defer  to  the  opinion  of  Dr. \nMcConnell, and Dr. McConnell opined that the Claimant had reached MMI, could return to \nwork full duty with no restrictions, and with no impairment.  \nUnder workers’ compensation law in Arkansas, a compensable  injury  must  be \nestablished  by medical  evidence  supported by  objective  findings  and  medical opinions \naddressing  compensability and it must  be  stated  within  a  degree  of  medical  certainty. \nSmith-Blair,  Inc.  v.  Jones,  77  Ark.  App.  273,  72  S.W.3d  560  (2002).  Speculation  and \nconjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence. Liaromatis v. Baxter County Regional \nHospital,  95  Ark.  App.  296,  236  S.W.3d  524  (2006).  More  specifically,  to  prove  a \ncompensable injury, the claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n18 \n \nan injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal \nor external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in A.C.A. 11-9-\n102 (16) establishing the injury and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident \nand identifiable by time and place of occurrence. If the claimant fails to establish any of \nthe requirements for establishing the compensability of the claim, compensation must be \ndenied. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). \nThe injury for which the claimant seeks benefits must be established by medical \nevidence supported by objective findings which are those findings that cannot come under \nthe voluntary control of the patient. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16). It is also important to note that \nthe claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Lambert v. Gerber Products \nCo. 14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985).  \nHere the medical records clearly provide that the claimant suffered from lower back \nissues and  had previously received  a  CT  of his lower  back  on  June  11,  2023, only \napproximately  two  months  prior  to  the  MRI  of  August  28\nth\n,  2023,  after  the  incident \ninvolving the backhoe. No change was noted between the scans. Dr. McConnell opined \nthat the Claimant could return to full duty work with no restrictions and no impairment. It \nis noted that an employer takes  the employee as it finds  him and  employment \ncircumstances that aggravate preexisting conditions are compensable. Here, there is no \nproof  that the incident  involving  the  backhoe  was  the  cause  of  the  claimants  alleged \nissues involving his lower back. See Heritage Baptist Temple v. Robinson, 82 Ark. App. \n460, 120 S.W.3d 150 (2003). \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n19 \n \nIt  is  noted  that a Claimant  is  not  required  in  every  case  to  establish  the  casual \nconnection between a work-related incident and an injury with an expert medical opinion. \nSee Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.  v.  VanWagner,  337  Ark.  443,  990  S.W.2d  522  (1999). \nArkansas  courts  have  long  recognized  that  a  causal  relationship  may  be  established \nbetween  an  employment-related  incident  and  a  subsequent  physical  injury  based  on \nevidence that the injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of time following the \nincident so that the injury is logically attributable to the incident, where there is no other \nreasonable explanation for the injury. Hail v. Pitman Construction Co. 235 Ark. 104, 357 \nA.W.2d 263 (1962).  \nHere, the  claimant had suffered from  issues with his lumbar spine prior  to  the \nclaimed  work-related  injury. No  medical  reports  of  record made  objective  findings  that \nmake  any connection  between the  claimed injury on Augst  22,  2023, and the claimed \nlower back problems. The Claimant was clearly suffering from lower back problems prior \nto the incident involving the backhoe. \nAs stated above, the workers’ compensation claimant bears the burden of proving \nthe compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (4) (E) (i). \nA compensable injury is one that was the result of an accident that arose in the course of \nhis employment and that it grew out of or resulted from the employment. See Moore v. \nDarling Store Fixtures, 22 Ark. App 21, 732 S.W.2d 496 (1987). Preponderance of the \nevidence  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or  convincing  force. Metropolitan \nNat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 263, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). Based upon the \navailable evidence in the case at bar, there is no alternative but to find that the Claimant \nhas failed to satisfy  the  required burden  of  proof  to  show  that the claimed  injury  to his \n\nFANNON – H305681 \n20 \n \nlower back on August  22,  2023, is the  cause  of  his lower back  problems and that \nconsequently the claim is not compensable under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct. \nAfter weighing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to \neither party, there is no alternative but to find that the Claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that his claim for an injury to his lower back, on \nAugust 22, 2023, is a compensable claim under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct. Consequently,  all  other  issues  are  moot. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents  are \nordered to pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \nIT SO ORDERED: \n \n      ________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H305681 JAMES T. FANNON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NORTHWEST PUBLIC WATER AUTHORITY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVEDLERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY OF AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 3, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:28.502Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H305681-2026-03-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FANNON_JAMES_H305681_20260303.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}