{"id":"alj-H305931-2025-05-07","awcc_number":"H305931","decision_date":"2025-05-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Kim Welborn","employer_name":"Inspiration Point Fine Art College","title":"WELBORN VS. INSPIRATION POINT FINE ART COLLEGE AWCC# H305931 May 07, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WELBORN_KIM_H305931_20250507.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WELBORN_KIM_H305931_20250507.pdf","text_length":10432,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H305931 \n \nKIM WELBORN, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nINSPIRATION POINT FINE ART COLLEGE, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nFIRSTCOMP INS. CO., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED MAY 7, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE GREGORY   K.   STEWART in \nSpringdale, Washington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant unrepresented and appearing pro se. \n \nRespondents  represented  by RANDY  P.  MURPHY,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On April 9, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on January 29, 2025, and a pre-\nhearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been \nmarked Commission'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 \nclaim. \n 2. Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right knee on June 5, 2022. \n 3. Respondent has accepted and paid permanent partial disability benefits based \non a 7% impairment to the lower extremity. \n\nWelborn – H305931 \n \n-2- \n 4.  Claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  her  to  compensation  at  the \nweekly  rate  of  $778.00  for  total  disability  benefits  and  $584.00  for  permanent  partial \ndisability benefits. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issue: \n 1. Claimant’s entitlement to additional medical treatment from Dr. Dona. \n The  claimant  contends she  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  from  Dr. \nDona. \n The respondents contend that claimant has received all benefits to which she is \nentitled for the compensable right knee injury and that claimant’s current problems are \nrelated to a preexisting knee condition. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted  on January  29,  2025,  and  contained  in  a pre-hearing  order  filed  that  same \ndate are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat  she  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  from  Dr.  Dona.  This  includes  PRP \n(plasma rich protein) injections and hyaluronic acid injections. \n \n\nWelborn – H305931 \n \n-3- \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The  claimant  worked  as  a  seasonal  costume  manager  for  the  respondent.  Her \njob duties required her to design costumes; and supervise the construction and fitting of \nthe  costumes.  On  June  5,  2022,  respondent  had  flooding  in  its  building  due  to  a  pipe \nbreak. Claimant testified that heavy rubber perforated mats were placed on the floor but \nthe mats were too big for the area so the edges were rolled up against the edges of a \ncounter.  Claimant  testified  that  she  was walking  around a  corner  when  her  foot  got \nstuck under the mat causing her body and knee to twist. \n Claimant  reported  this  incident  to  her  supervisor  and  also  received  some  initial \ntreatment from Dr. Alice Martinsen, a retired orthopedic surgeon who was on the staff at \nrespondent.  Martinsen  initially  informed  claimant  that  she  believed  she  had  suffered  a \ntorn MCL that would take some time to heal. Claimant continued to work for respondent, \npropping  up  her  knee  and  putting  ice  on  it.  She  also  continued  to  receive  some  initial \nmedical treatment from Dr. Martinsen.  \n At  some  point  the  claimant  moved  to  Maryland  and  began  receiving  treatment \nthere.  Claimant  underwent  an  MRI  scan  on  February  21, 2023,  which  revealed  a  torn \nmeniscus.  Claimant  was  treated  conservatively  with  physical  therapy  and  injections \nincluding a PRP injection. When the conservative treatment did not alleviate claimant’s \ncomplaints, she underwent surgery on September 1, 2023, which consisted of a partial \nmedial meniscectomy and synovectomy of all three compartments. \n After  her  surgery  the  claimant  continued  to  have  complaints  of  pain  in  her  right \nknee. Claimant underwent a second MRI scan on November 29, 2023, which revealed \ninterval progression of the medial meniscus; femoral tibial arthrosis; and a cyst. \n\nWelborn – H305931 \n \n-4- \n Claimant  eventually  came  under  the  care  of  Dr.  Dona  who  has    prescribed \ntreatment in the form of PRP injections and hyaluronic acid injections. \n At  some  point  respondent  denied  claimant’s  entitlement  to  additional  medical \ntreatment including the injections by Dr. Dona. As a result, claimant has filed this claim \ncontending that she is entitled to additional medical treatment from Dr. Dona. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant  contends  that  she  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  from  Dr. \nDona which includes PRP injections and hyaluronic acid injections. \n An  employer  is  required  to  provide  for  an  injured  employee  such  medical \ntreatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the \nemployee.  A.C.A. §11-9-508(a).  The  employee  has  the  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Stone v \nDollar  General  Stores,  91  Ark.  App.  260,  209  S.W.  3d  445  (2005). What  constitutes \nreasonably  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission. \nWright Contracting Company v Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W. 2d 750 (1984). \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has met her burden of proof.  \n Initially, I note that claimant submitted into evidence a letter from Dr. Dona dated \nJanuary 27, 2025, which states: \nMrs.  Kimberly  Welborn  is  my  patient  and  I  am  actively \ntreating her. In my expert medical opinion, Mrs. Welborn will \nbenefit  from  continued  treatment  with  platelet-rich  plasma \n(PRP)   and   synergistic   use   of   viscosupplementation   for \nmedical  history  of  chronic  postoperative  right  knee  pain \n\nWelborn – H305931 \n \n-5- \nsecondary  to  exacerbation  of  primary  osteoarthritis  with \ncomponent  of  posttraumatic  osteoarthritis  in  the  setting  of \nprior  arthroscopy.  The  patient  has  demonstrated  clinical \nimprovement    with    prior    treatments    under    ultrasound \nguidance. \n \n Subsequent to that letter claimant was again seen by Dr. Dona on February 12, \n2025. Dr. Dona noted that claimant’s pain had moderately worsened since the time of \nher  last  visit  and  that  it  was  interfering  with  her  daily  activities.  Dr.  Dona  further  noted \nthat a prior injection had provided some relief in the months following the procedure. Dr. \nDona  performed  a  PRP  injection  that  date  using  ultrasound and  noted  that  claimant \nmight need a total joint arthroscopy should she fail to improve from the injections. \n In response to claimant’s continued medical treatment, respondent had various \nmedical records of the claimant reviewed by Dr. Owen Kelly, an orthopedic surgeon. In \na  report  dated  April  17,  2024,  Dr.  Kelly  opined  that  claimant  had  reached  maximum \nmedical  improvement  and  stated  that  he  would  assign  claimant  an  impairment  rating \nequal  to  7%  to  the  lower  extremity.  He  also  noted  that  he  did  not  believe  claimant \nneeded any further treatment with respect to her accident.  \n With  respect  to  the  PRP  injections  and  hyaluronic  acid  injections,  Dr.  Kelly \nauthored a letter dated February 24, 2025, stating that in his opinion the injections were \nnot reasonable and necessary medical treatment. In support of his statement he relied \nupon  recommendations  by  the  Academy  of  Orthopedic  Surgeons  which  he  indicated \nnoted   moderate   recommendations   against   the   use   of   hyaluronic   acid   and   PRP \ninjections. \n I find that the opinion of Dr. Dona is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of \nDr.  Kelly, Initially, I note that Dr. Kelly’s opinion is based upon the medical records \n\nWelborn – H305931 \n \n-6- \nthrough March 27, 2024. Claimant has continued to receive medical treatment from Dr. \nDona since that date. Furthermore, I note that the recommendations cited by Dr. Kelly in \nsupport of his opinion do not indicate that the use of hyaluronic acid and PRP injections \nprovide  no  benefit.  Instead,  he  notes  that  there  is  a  moderate  recommendation  or \nlimited  recommendation  against  their  use.  According  to  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Dona, \nclaimant  is  receiving  a  benefit  from  these  injections.  Most  significantly,  Dr.  Dona  is \nclaimant’s treating physician and has had the opportunity to evaluate her following the \ninjection  procedures.  On  the  other  hand,  claimant  has  never  been  evaluated  by  Dr. \nKelly. \n Based upon the foregoing, I find that the opinion of Dr. Dona is entitled to greater \nweight  than  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Kelly  under  the  circumstances  presented  in  this  case. \nTherefore, based upon the opinion of Dr. Dona, I find that claimant has met her burden \nof proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment from him. This includes the PRP injections and hyaluronic acid injections. \n \nAWARD \n Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  from  Dr.  Dona.  This  includes  PRP \ninjections and hyaluronic acid injections.  \n If  respondents  have  not  already  done  so,  they  are  directed  to  pay  the  court \nreporter, Whitney Bryant, her fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of her \ninvoice. \n \n\nWelborn – H305931 \n \n-7- \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H305931 KIM WELBORN, Employee CLAIMANT INSPIRATION POINT FINE ART COLLEGE, Employer RESPONDENT FIRSTCOMP INS. CO., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 7, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County, Arkans...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:40:25.480Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H305931-2025-05-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WELBORN_KIM_H305931_20250507.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}