{"id":"alj-H305841-2024-10-29","awcc_number":"H305841","decision_date":"2024-10-29","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Patrick Jackson","employer_name":"Central Packaging Of Arkansas, Inc.,","title":"JACKSON VS. CENTRAL PACKAGING OF ARKANSAS, INC., AWCC# H305841 October 29, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","rotator cuff","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON_PATRICK_H305841_20241029.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JACKSON_PATRICK_H305841_20241029.pdf","text_length":30021,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H305841 \nPATRICK M. JACKSON, EMPLOYEE           CLAIMANT \n \nCENTRAL PACKAGING OF ARKANSAS, INC., \nd/b/a/ CENTRAL PACKING, INC., EMPLOYER      RESPONDENT \n \nSTATE AUTO INSURNACE COMPANIES, \nCARRIER/ TPA        RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 29, 2024 \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  James  D.  Kennedy, on  the 18\nTH\n day  of \nSeptember 2024, in Mountain Home, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Mark Alan Peoples, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nRespondents are represented by David C. Jones, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A  hearing  was  conducted  on  the 18\nth\n day  of September 2024,  to  determine  the \nissues of compensability for a work-related injury to the claimant’s right shoulder and arm, \nmedical in regard to the injury, temporary total disability from the date of injury to a date \nto be determined less the period from May 6, 2022, through August 29, 2022, and attorney \nfees.  The respondents contend the claim for all benefits should be barred based on the \nShippers defense, contending the  claimant  did  not  disclose  the  extent  of  pre-existing \nconditions and whether he was physically capable of performing the job duties required.  \nThe respondents also contend that the claimed incident did not occur as alleged.  At the \ntime  of  the  hearing, the  parties  stipulated that the  claimant  earned  an  average  weekly \nwage of $713.18 for a TTD/PPD rate of $475.00/$357.00. A copy of the Pre-hearing Order \nwas marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part of the record without objection. The \nOrder provided that the parties stipulated that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nCommission  has  jurisdiction  of  the  within  claim  and  that  an  employer/employee \nrelationship existed on or about March 22, 2022, the date of the claimed injury in question.  \nThe claimant’s and respondent’s contentions were set out in their responses to the Pre-\nhearing Questionnaire and made a part of the record without objection. Four witnesses \ntestified at the time of the hearing.  From a review of the record as a whole, to include \nmedical  reports and  other  matters properly  before  the  Commission and having  had  an \nopportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witness, the following findings \nof fact and 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. The claimant earned an average weekly wage of $713.18, sufficient for a \nTTD/PPD rate of $475.00/$375.00 \n3. An employer/employee relationship existed on or about March 22, 2022, the date \nof the claimed injury in question. \n4. The claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that he \nsuffered a compensable work-related injury. \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. \n \n \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \nThe initial witness to testify was James Benedict, who also goes by the name of \nJacob. He had worked for Central Packing in shipping or receiving for around 12 years, \nand  was  working  there  back  in  March  of  2022,  the  date  the  claimant  alleges  he  was \ninjured. Mr. Benedict remembered throwing something like a piece of paper at the start \nof the workday, and when the claimant attempted to throw it back stated that his shoulder \nwas hurting. He then explained that “he had injured himself from one of the strap blocks \nthat we used to -- not to – so it prevents the straps from cutting like on a piece of a pallet.  \nYou know the straps go over, like, a stack of pallets?  Well, there’s a corner piece right \nthere that prevents the straps from cutting as you’re going down the highway. So anyways \nhe said that one of those had come down and hit him on the shoulder.” (Tr. 9 – 12) \n Under cross examination, Mr. Benedict, testified that he was “acquaintances” with \nthe  claimant  but  that  he  did  not  really consider  him  a  friend. He  admitted  riding  bikes \ntogether once up to Caulfield where he would purchase cigarettes and went on to state \nthat  the  claimant was all  over  the  road, and  consequently after  that,  they never  road \ntogether. He admitted to rarely hanging out with the claimant outside of work but admitted \nthat they would chat on occasion. He did not remember the claimant stating he needed \nto file a workers’ compensation claim. He also admitted that he later quit the company \nafter harsh words which involved name calling and cussing, with Holt Dye.  (Tr. 13 – 18) \n The  claimant,  Patrick  Jackson, was  then  called. He  stated that he  had  started \nworking for the respondent in 2017 or 2018, and that he was driving a truck and making \ndeliveries, which amounted to a one-day trip over a fairly large geographical area. On the \nday of the claimed injury, he pulled into Manila at Southworth Company and unstrapped \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nthe pallets he was hauling. (Tr. 19, 20) “I rolled up all the straps. I’m standing there by the \nback  door of  the  semi. The  forklift  driver  comes out,  starts  taking them  off, and  then a \nboard come down, and smacked me in the shoulder, and I didn’t think nothing of it. I just \nthought I was bruised, but the next morning I couldn’t move my arm.” He stated he then \ndrove the truck back to the shop and told them the next morning that he was injured. (Tr. \n21) “I just said, I got hurt yesterday at - - at Southworth.” The  claimant stated that  Mr. \nBenedict was in the room when he stated that he had hurt his shoulder. Mr. Benedict then \nleft the room, and he did not talk about it any further with Mr. Holt. He was then handed \npaperwork  for  his  next  trip, and  he  continued  to  work. There  was never  any additional \ndiscussion with Mr. Holt. The claimant stated that he worked about two more weeks and \nwas then laid off because they hired a cheaper driver. No medical care was ever offered. \n(Tr. 22, 23) \n He then went to work for TNI driving a semi, where he worked until May 6\nth\n. He \nstated he had trouble opening and closing doors but that was it. He had an MRI in April, \nthen  another  in  September, before  surgery  in  October  of  2022. He  worked  for  TNI for \napproximately three months. He stated he was let go because of the surgery and that he \nwas unable to lift his arm up to break the doors free. (Tr. 24, 25) He thought he obtained \na release to return to work from Dr. Knox but was told that he wasn’t working for them \nanymore. He also admitted that he had purchased a motorcycle after his injury. He stated \nthat he had only made one trip on his motorcycle, when he went to Caulfield with Jake \nand another gentleman. (Tr. 26) \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \n The claimant additionally testified that he had not worked anywhere since he left \nTNI, and that he had not hurt his shoulder anywhere else since March of 2022, when he \nhurt his shoulder on the job working for Central Packing. (Tr. 27, 28) \n Under cross examination, the claimant admitted he had bought a motorcycle after \nthe alleged  shoulder  injury, but  stated  it  was  actually  a  gift  from  his  wife  to  replace  a \nmotorcycle he owned that was stolen. He also added that he was the one that paid for it. \n(Tr. 29) He admitted the claimed injury occurred at Southworth in Manila and he did not \ncall anyone at the respondent when the corner piece up on top of the pallets came off \nand hit him. He testified that he was certain the incident occurred in Manila. He was then \nquestioned about the invoices from Southworth. An invoice dated March 22\nnd\n, provided \nhe dropped off a load in Manila. Another invoice showed an additional load to Manila on \nthe 25\nth\n. (Tr. 30, 31) He again claimed that the corner piece in question was on top of the \npallets and that it came off and hit him. (Tr. 32) The claimant was also questioned about \npage 23 of his deposition where he stated that he bent over to pick up a corner piece from \nthe ground. The following questioning then occurred:   \nQ:  Okay.    So, what  you  told  us  a  minute  ago  is  inconsistent  with  your \n deposition; is that fair to say. \nA:  Okay. No, it’s not. I mean, I did my job. I mean, that’s all there is too it. \nQ:  Well, there’s a factual dispute here. You’re claiming now that you were just \n standing there, and this fell off the truck. Is that what you’re telling us now? \nA:  That’s - - no. I’m telling you I was stand - - well, yeah, I was there when it \n hit me. I mean, I don’t even remember if I was picking up something or what, \n but I did get hit. \nQ:  Okay. But in your deposition, you said you were bent down picking this up? \n A: Yeah. \nQ: Okay. All right. So, it wasn’t a - -  \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nA:  I mean, that’s what I had to do that day. \nQ:  - - so physically we don’t know how it hit you, how you were bent down or \n anything because you’re - - you don’t recall exactly what happened? \nA:  No, I don’t. I mean, that was - - \nQ: Okay. \nA:  - - quite a while back. \nQ:  And it’s this corner  piece  that  goes on  top  of a  small  pine  pallets;  is  that \n correct? \nA:  It’s corner pieces that go on top of the loads, yes - - \nQ:   Okay. \nA.  - - to hold them from the straps breaking the pallets. \nQ:   Correct. Okay. And you’re claiming this forklift driver knocked it off and you \n were right there next to this when this happened; is that correct? \nA:  No, I’m not blaming the forklift driver knocked it off. I’m just telling you that \n it fell off the truck. \nQ:  Okay \n(Tr. 33, 34)  \nThe claimant admitted that he didn’t load the trucks he drove. When he was hired, \nhe was told the trucks would be loaded and strapped for him, due to his prior back surgery, \nbut he would be responsible to unstrap them. (Tr. 35) The claimant was asked about the \ncorner piece not being used on loads to Southworth, and he responded that if anyone stated \nthey  were  not  used, they  would  be  lying. He was  also  questioned  about  the  MRI which \nshowed that his rotator cuff tear was degenerative in nature, and he responded he was not \naware of it. (Tr. 37, 38) He also admitted the truck which he drove back from the accident \nfor the two-hour return trip, was equipped with a manual transmission with a stick shift, and \nthe roads were two lane roads with some inclines and declines. (Tr. 37, 38) The claimant \nalso admitted he did not tell Mr. Holt Dye the next day about the injury. (Tr. 39) The claimant \nwas also questioned about filing a workers’ compensation claim, and he stated that there \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nwas never anything there about reporting the injuries. (Tr. 41) He admitted that he worked \nabout  a  month  after  the  alleged  injury,  continuing  to  drive  the  truck  with  the  manual \ntransmission. (Tr. 42) He also admitted he drove a truck for TNI for 25 to 30 days working \n10  to  11  hours  a  day  driving.  (Tr.  44) He drove from  Loredo  Texas,  up  to  Wisconsin  or \nMichigan. He worked for TMI until he was told that he needed surgery. (Tr. 45) \nThe claimant was then questioned about the statement in his deposition where he \nhad stated  he  never  had shoulder problems. He  was also questioned  about  seeing  Dr. \nChaney, his family physician in May of 2019, where the report provided that the claimant \nstated his shoulders hurt all the time. The claimant responded that he did not remember, \nso he didn’t have to agree in regard to his shoulders hurting three years before the accident. \n(Tr. 47) The claimant admitted that he was taking pain medication back then but contended \nit was due to his back surgery. The claimant was also questioned about telling Dr. Knox \nthat the injury occurred on March 28\nth,\n and he responded “Well, like I said, in March, yes.” \n(Tr. 48)   \nThe claimant was also questioned about seeing Dr. Cheney on March 20 or the 21 \nof 2022  and telling  her  there  was  no  recent  trauma  and  the  claimant responded, “I was \nalways  fine  when  I  went  in  and  seen  Dr.  Chaney.” “I mean dates get mixed up with \neverybody.” (Tr. 50,51)  \nOn  redirect, claimant was questioned about respondent’s medical exhibit, page \none, which provided he suffered from chronic pain, referring to his shoulders. The claimant \nresponded that he was not referring to the right shoulder rotator cuff. He went on to state \nthat he had no problem with his right rotator cuff prior to his on-the-job injury. He also wasn’t \nsure, as to the exact date of his injury. (Tr. 53, 54) \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nThe claimant rested at this point and the respondents called Mr. Justin Anderson, \nwho worked for the respondents roughly between 2016 until 2023, as the respondent’s \nforklift operator, loading and unloading trucks, and strapping loads. He no longer worked \nfor the respondent. (Tr. 55, 56) He stated that when he first met the claimant, they walked \naround the semi, and he was told that that the claimant had pre-existing conditions with his \nback and shoulder. Consequently, he threw the straps for the claimant with the claimant \nbeing the  only  driver that needed this  assistance  due  to  his  shoulder  problems.  Mr. \nAnderson went on to testify that they had different types of pallets and the loads that were \nsent to Southworth were hardwood pallets, and the hardwood pallets did not require the \ncorner  piece  that  goes  on top  of  the  loads  to  keep  the  deck  board  from  breaking. Pine \npallets are a lot easier to break and that is when the top piece on the corner is used to keep \nthem  from  breaking. Looking  at  the  invoice,  there  would  have  been  no  protector  pieces \nsince the pallets going to Southworth were all hardwood pallets that week (Tr. 57 - 59).  \nThe  respondents  then  called  Kelli  Dye,  who  is  part  owner  of  the  respondent \nemployer along with her husband of the respondent employer. She testified that there was \na standard poster on the wall stating how a workers’ compensation claim was to be reported \nand even listed the insurance carrier for a claim. She further testified that she was present \nin the backside of the tiny office when the claimant was interviewed for a part-time driver \nposition  and  the  claimant admitted that  he  was  on  disability with back  and  shoulder \nproblems. Consequently,  he  would  not  be  able  to  strap  his  own  loads. The  loads  were \nstrapped by Mr. Anderson. She did not recall the claimant coming into the office and talking \nto her or Holt regarding an injury. (Tr. 62 - 65) She first heard about the injury when she \nreceived a letter somewhere around September of 23, a year and a half after the date of \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nthe injury. She also stated that the loads going to Southworth, were hardwood and would \nnot have had a corner piece or some type of protector on top. Small pallets that were soft \nwood (pine) were going to Searcy. The claimant made no runs to Searcy during the two-\nweek period in question. (Tr. 66, 67) \nHolt Dye was then called by the respondent. He testified that he was one of the \nowners  of  company  and  was  employed  by  the  respondent. He  denied  that  the  claimant \nevery came into his office and told him that he was hurt or that a corner piece had fallen \nand hit him on the shoulder. (Tr. 69, 70) He went on to testify that they were looking for a \npart time driver when the claimant came in and stated he would like to drive a couple of \ndays a week. He had been driving for years and had a disability. Consequently, he needed \nto  limit  his  income. A  part-time  driver position would be great for him but “he had back \nissues,  shoulder  issues,  he  had pre-issues.” The  claimant  told  him  that  he  would not  be \nable to do any loading or strapping. He did not tell us he had been on social security back \nin the 80’s or 90’s but did tell us that he was on disability. He specifically told us that he had \nshoulder and back problems. Consequently, Mr. Dye stated that was why they had Justin \nout there strapping the claimant’s loads. In regard to the claimed injury, he was never aware \nof an issue until the formal claim was filed with the Commission on September 12, 2023.  \n(Tr. 71 - 73) He went on to testify that an in-house investigation was performed, reviewing \nthe paystubs for the claimant, and they determined that the claim was not feasible. Further \nin  regard to  the  corner  pieces or  protectors, he  stated  that  they  would not  have gone  to \nManila where the claimant claimed that he was injured, due to the fact that hard wood is \nthree quarters inch thick and will bend. Pine is 9/16\nth\n’s inch thick and is brittle. Southworth \ndid not do pine, hardwood only. Protectors weren’t used with the hardwood. The invoices \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nfor the period between the 22\nnd\n and the 25\nth\n, provided that the pine during that period was \ngoing to Searcy to the Danfoss plant. (Tr. 74 - 76) He also testified that he did not receive \na phone call in March of 2022 telling him that a driver was injured. The claimant worked for \nthem until April 20\nth\n of 2022, and he then went to work for someone else. (Tr. 77) \nUnder  cross  examination,  Mr.  Dye  testified  that  he  had  been  in  business since \n2007, had approximately 13 employees, and had two workers’ compensation claims during \nthat  period. He never told an employee that they did not have workers’ compensation \ncoverage.  “The  companies  that  were - - that  hire  us  required  us  to  have  workman’s \ncompensation.” (Tr. 78) \nClaimant’s non-medical  exhibit  consisted of 16 pages and  was  admitted  without \nobjection. The records showed that the claimant was paid $7845 per his 1099 in 2022, and \nthe notes appeared to list the specific trips that the claimant made as well as a picture of \nthe odometer reading of the vehicle.  (Cl. Ex. 1) \nThe  claimant  also  submitted 2022  pages  of  medical  records  that  were  admitted \ninto  the  record  without  objection.  An  MRI  dated  May  19,  2022,  provided  there  were \nprominent  degenerative  changes  in  the  acromioclavicular  joint  with  inferior  spurring  and \nimpingement on the musculotendinous junction of the superior rotator cuff. The report also \nprovided a larger complete superior rotator cuff tear with a retraction medial to the midpoint \nof the humerus which appeared to involve essentially all of the supraspinatus and probably \nsome of the anterior infraspinatus. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 1) \nThe claimant was seen by Dr. Knox on July 28, 2022, and the report provided that \nthe chief complaint of shoulder pain involving the right shoulder occurred in the context of \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nan injury at work on March 28, 2022. The report referred to an MRI showing a RTC partial \ntear and also referred to a large heavy object falling on his right shoulder while at work. (Cl. \nEx. 2, P. 2,3) \nA second MRI of the right shoulder dated August 31, 2022, provided there was a \npoorly defined sclerotic lesion with a moderately severe osteoarthritic hypertrophy of the \nright AC joint with a hypertrophic AC joint resulting in impingement upon the supraspinatus \nmuscle and tendon below.  A right massive full thickness full width tear of the right rotator \ncuff was also noted. (Cl. Ex. 2, P 4 – 6) A right shoulder arthrogram was also performed on \nAugust  31,  2023.  The  findings  in  regard  to  the  right  humerus  were  consistent  with  a \nprobable  bone  infarct  or  enchondroma. (Cl.  Ex.  2,  P.  7,  8) A  report  dated  September  8, \n2022, stated under impression that there was a right rotator cuff tear and that most tears \narise in the setting of an acute event like falling or lifting a heavy object, or from the chronic \nirritation from overuse or bone spurs. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 10 - 12) \nA medical report by Dr. Knox for an evaluation on October 20, 2022, provided it \nwas  a  follow  up  for  a  right  rotator  cuff  tear  and  a  complete-right  shoulder  joint  and  right \nshoulder repair, presenting for a post-op check after surgery on October 17. (Cl. Ex. 2, 14 \n– 16) The claimant returned to Dr. Knox and was again evaluated on December 1, 2022, \nin regard to the post-op shoulder rotator cuff repair on the right shoulder. It provided that \nthe claimant was much better, that his strength was recovering, and that he was not having \nmuch pain at all. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 17 – 19) The claimant returned again on February 14, 2023, \nfor reevaluation of his right shoulder by Dr. Knox, due to a reinjury of the right shoulder. (Cl. \nEx. 2, P. 20 – 22)  \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nThe  respondents  submitted  twenty-six  pages  of  documentary  evidence  without \nobjection. A  Work  Activity  Report  dated  January  1,  2021,  and  other  documentation, \nprovided  that  the  claimant had  earned  $16,  024.00  in  net  income  in  2020,  with  no  net \nincome  in  2019,  and  only  $2280.00  net  income  in  2018. The  report  provided  that the \nclaimant had to start taking fewer jobs because he was hurting too much. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. \n1 – 6)   \nCorrespondence  from  Central  Packaging  of  Arkansas,  Inc., to  Carroll  Fulmer \nLogistics and Transco Lines, Inc. provided that the claimant was a fill-in driver who worked \nas  needed.  (Resp.  1,  P.  7 – 15) An  odometer  disclosure  statement  in  regard  to the \nmotorcycle  purchase  was  dated  September 9,  2022. One  year  later,  an  AR-C  form  was \nfiled on September 9, 2023, claiming an injured shoulder. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 17, 18) \nA  Witness  Reporting  Form  signed  by  Justin  Anderson,  stated  that  the  incident \nnever happened and when the claimant was hired, he had a bad shoulder. It also provided \nthat the claimant quit and went to work for another company for higher wages and never \nsaid anything about the supposed injury. This document was dated September 19, 2023.  \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 20) Additionally, a photo of that showed the procedure to file a workers’ \ncompensation  claim at  the respondent’s location  was  introduced.  (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  21) \nFinally, an email from Holt Dye of Central Packaging of Arkansas, concerning deliveries to \nSouthworth in Manila was also entered into the record. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 22 – 26) \nThe respondents also submitted medical records into the record without objection.  \nA  report  from  Dr.  Lori  Cheney  dated  from  May  10, 2019, through  February  13,  2020, \nprovided that the claimant was taking hydrocodone and acetaminophen for chronic back \npain. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 1 – 10) The claimant had presented to MedExpress on April 24, 2020, \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nfor a DOT physical. At the time of the exam, the claimant denied taking any medications \nthree times during the exam. An AR PMP revealed patient fills for Hydrocodone. The report \nprovided that the claimant would be required to be off narcotics for at least three months \nwith  a  MD  statement that the  claimant  is medically  safe  to  commercially  drive  a  vehicle. \n(Resp. Ex. 2, P. 11 – 19) \nA report from Dr. Cheney dated November 9, 2020, provided that the claimant was \ncurrently  on  Hydrocodone – acetaminophen.  (Resp.  Ex.  2,  P. 20 – 27) Office notes and \nreports from the Baptist Regional Medical Center family clinic dated April 30, 2021, through \nSeptember 6, 2023, provided for refills of Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. \n28 – 43) A Chart Noted from Twin Lakes Chiropractic dated Dec1, 2023, provided that the \nclaimant suffered from moderate to severe muscle spasms in the left lumbar, lumbar, right \nlumbar,  left  sacroiliac  and  right  sacroiliac.  The  report  also  mentioned  osteoarthritis  and \ninterval disc degeneration of the lumbosacral region.  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 44 – 46) \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 he is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor the injury to his right shoulder under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law. In \ndetermining  whether  the  claimant has  sustained his 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. Cavanaugh’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). \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nTo prove a compensable injury, the claimant must establish by a preponderance \nof the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the \ninjury  caused  internal or  external  harm  to  the  body  which  required  medical  services  or \nresulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as \ndefined in A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16) establishing the injury and (4) that the injury was caused \nby a specific incident and identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  If the claimant \nfails to establish any of the requirements for establishing the compensability of the claim, \ncompensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, \n938 s.W.2d 876 (1997). \nIn the present matter, the claimant contends that he delivered a load of pallets for \nthe  respondent  employer to  Manila  Arkansas, delivering them  to  a  company  called \nSouthworth,  on  March  22,  2022.    The  claimed  injury  occurred  when  the  person  who \nunstrapped the load, tossed the strap and a corner piece on the strap came off and hit \nthe claimant.  The claimant was sure that the injury occurred in Manila but wasn’t sure of \nthe exact date but thought that the injury occurred during the latter part of March in 2022.  \nWitnesses explained that the corner pieces on the straps were not required on hardwood \npallets due to the pallet’s flexibility and strength, but were required for pine or soft wood \npallets, due to the fact the straps would break a soft wood pallet.   \nThe claimant testified that after the incident, he then drove the truck with a manual \ntransmission home, but  never  notified  his  employer that  evening  or the next  day. The \nemployer testified that they were not aware of the injury until about one and a half years \nlater. \n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \nConvincing testimony provided that no softwood pallets were delivered to Manila \nand the company of Southworth during this time period. The delivered softwood pallets \nwere going to Searcy. This was also confirmed by documentary evidence. \nAdditionally, it was commonly known that the claimant suffered from various health \nissues regarding his back and was unable to toss the straps over the load at the start of \na  trip, and  consequently  was  the only  driver when hired,  required  another  individual  to \nstrap his load. Medical records from Dr. Lori Cheney provided that the claimant was taking \nhydrocodone and acetaminophen as far back as May 10, 2019, for a back injury, and that \nthese  scripts  continued  as  late  as  September  6,  2023. Additionally,  a  DOT  physical \nprovided  that  the  claimant  denied  three  times  that  he  was  taking  any  medications,  but \nthat an AR PMP revealed patient filles for Hydrocodone at the time. Finally, it is noted \nthat an MRI of August 21, 2022, did in fact show a poorly defined sclerotic lesion and a \nmoderately  severe  osteoarthritic  hypertrophy  of  the  right  AC  joint. A report  dated \nSeptember  8, 2022, provided under  impression, that  there  was a  right  rotator  cuff  tear \nand that  most  tears  arose  in the  setting  of  an  acute  event  like  falling  or  lifting  a  heavy \nobject, or from the chronic irritation from overuse or bone spurs. In the present matter, \nalthough no weight was ever provided, the piece that came off the strap could not have \nbeen heavy, or otherwise it could never have been tossed over a load of pallets.    \nBased upon the available evidence, it is found that the claimant has failed to satisfy \nthe first requirement of Mickel, supra, that the injury was work related. It is also found that \nthe claimant has also failed to satisfy the second and third requirements of Mickel, supra.  \nAdditionally, the medical evidence is insufficient to support objective findings which are \nthose findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. A.C.A. 11-9-\n\nPatrick M. Jackson – H305841 \n102  (16). It is also important to note that the claimant’s testimony is never considered \nuncontroverted. Lambert v. Gerber Products Co. 14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985).  \nA workers’ compensation claimant bears the burden of proving the compensable \ninjury by a preponderance of the evidence. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (4) (E) (i). A compensable \ninjury is one that was the result of an accident that arose in the course of his employment \nand  that  it  grew  out  of  or  resulted  from  the  employment. See  Moore  v.  Darling  Store \nFixtures, 22 Ar. App 21, 732 S.W.2d 496 (1987)   \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 satisfy the \nrequired burden  of  proof  to  show  that the claimed right  shoulder injury  is  in  fact  work \nrelated and compensable  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation Act.  \nConsequently, all other issues are moot. \nIf not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript \nforthwith. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n  \n       ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H305841 PATRICK M. JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CENTRAL PACKAGING OF ARKANSAS, INC., d/b/a/ CENTRAL PACKING, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STATE AUTO INSURNACE COMPANIES, CARRIER/ TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 29, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Jud...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:48:15.080Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H305841-2024-10-29","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JACKSON_PATRICK_H305841_20241029.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}