{"id":"alj-H306170-2025-05-12","awcc_number":"H306170","decision_date":"2025-05-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Roshandra Ray","employer_name":"Hino Motors Mfg. USA, Inc","title":"RAY VS. HINO MOTORS MFG. USA, INC. AWCC# H306170 May 12, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","cervical","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RAY_ROSHANDRA_H306170_20250512.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"RAY_ROSHANDRA_H306170_20250512.pdf","text_length":22701,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                        CLAIM NO.: H306170 \nROSHANDRA RAY,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                             CLAIMANT \n \nHINO MOTORS MFG. USA, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT \n \nFIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \n         OPINION FILED MAY 12, 2025     \n        \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black on February 14, 2025, in Forrest City, \nSt. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, unrepresented/pro se. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable  Zachary  F.  Ryburn, Attorney at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nStatement of the Case \nThe above-captioned claim comes before the Commission for a full hearing on the merits.   \nSaid hearing was held on February 14, 2025, in Forrest City, Arkansas. A prehearing telephone \nconference was conducted in this matter by Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II, on \nDecember 16, 2024.  Chief Judge Fine entered a Prehearing Order in this matter on that same day.  \nA  copy  of  said order and  the parties’ prehearing  information filings have  been  marked as \nCommission’s Exhibit 1 and made a part of the record without objection.   \nStipulations \nDuring the telephone conference, the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n2 \n \n2. That  the  employee-employer-carrier  relationship existed at  all  relevant  times \nincluding on or about August 9, 2023. \n3. The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  \n4. All other issues are reserved under the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act.  \nIssues \nBy  agreement  of  the  parties,  the  issues  to be  litigated  at  the  hearing  are  limited  to  the \nfollowing: \n1. Whether the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her left hand by a specific \nincident injury on August 9, 2023.       \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment for \nher alleged injury.    \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant:  \nThe Claimant contends that she sustained a compensable injury to her left hand when it got  \nin a machine at work on August 9, 2023.  She further contends that she is entitled to reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment for her alleged injury.    \nRespondents: \n The Respondents contend that the Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury.  At the \nhearing, the Respondents’ attorney further contended that there are no objective medical findings \nof an injury. \n \n \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n3 \n \n                       FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nAfter reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documentary evidence, \nand all other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the \ntestimony of the witness and observe her demeanor, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.      The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this     \n          \nclaim. \n \n2.      The stipulations set forth above are hereby accepted. \n \n3.      The Claimant did not prove she sustained an accidental injury to her left hand   \n      \n                       on August 9, 2023.  Specifically, the Claimant did not establish a compensable  \n \n            injury to her left hand by medical evidence supported by objective findings.   \n \n                       Nor can I find in the record a reasonable inference that would lead me to conclude  \n \n                       the Claimant was prescribed medication to treat objective medical findings to her  \n \n                       left hand.           \n         \n            4.       This claim for a left hand injury is hereby respectfully denied and dismissed  \n          \n          entirely.      \n \nSummary of Evidence \nMs. Roshandra Ray (referred to herein as the (“Claimant”) testified during the hearing.  \n            In addition to the Prehearing Order discussed above, admitted into evidence in this case \nwere the following: Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of her medical records consisting of thirty-\nfour (34) numbered pages; and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 includes a page of a payout history for the \nclaim.    \n                                                 \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n4 \n \n        Testimony \n   \nThe Claimant, age 44, testified during the hearing.  She confirmed that in August 2023, she \nworked for Hino Motors Manufacturing, the respondent-employer in this matter.  According to the \nClaimant, she sustained an accidental injury to her left hand on August 9, 2023, during and in the \ncourse of her employment with the respondent-employer while operating a machine.   \nSpecifically, the Claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ     Okay.  Tell me briefly what happened on August 9, 2023. \n \nA     I was working on rear axle, and  -- \n \nQ     Rear axle. \n \nA     Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ(sic) Okay. And I had spoke with the team lead, and I had specifically told him  \nThat I wasn’t trained properly on that position that he switched me over to.  And as \nI was working the process, the shelf things clamped down on my left hand and my \nhand instantly swolled (sic) up.  So I had told – what’s his name – -  Ramone Beck \nwhat happened to my hand, and I ended up had to get transferred to West Memphis \nHospital ‘cause my hand was swollen, and they said it was a contusion, I think.      \n \nShe testified that her accidental injury occurred around 1:00 a.m. on the morning of August \n9.  The Claimant further explained that after she reported her injury to her supervisor, he directed \nher to go the nurse’s station.  At that time, the Claimant testified that the safety person wrapped \nher hand in a package of ice and told her to go the hospital.   \nNext,  the  Claimant sought  medical  attention  for  her  hand  from  the  hospital in West \nMemphis, Arkansas.  According to the Claimant, she drove herself to the hospital.  She testified \nthat at the hospital, they gave her a shot.  They also performed x-rays on her left hand and put her \narm in a splint. The Claimant testified that the doctor at the hospital told her to follow up for hand \nat the Urgent Care Clinic, and she did so.  According to the Claimant, she was taken off work by \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n5 \n \nthe Urgent Care Clinic.  The Claimant confirmed that she reported to management that she had \nbeen  taken  off  work because  she  continued  to  have  problems  with  her  hand.   She specifically \ntestified that she made the plant manager aware of her absence.  According to the Claimant, when \nshe reported for work, management sent her home because they did not have any light-duty work \navailable.     \nThe Claimant testified that she underwent three (3) weeks of physical therapy in Forrest \nCity, Arkansas.  However, she maintained that after undergoing the therapy sessions, she continued \nto experience problems with her left hand, so she tried to go back to therapy on her own. At that \ntime, the Claimant described problems with her hand that included symptoms of a pinched nerve, \nalong with other difficulties, such as stiffness, swelling and limited range of motion.  Specifically, \nthe  Claimant testified that  she primarily had  problems  with  her  index  finger.    According to the \nClaimant, she had difficulties with it swelling, and constantly bending over, causing her not to be \nable to hold anything.   Per the Claimant, she also had problems with the top of her middle finger.   \nShe denied undergoing any other treatment after her second round of physical therapy.  The \nClaimant testified that she did not have the money, group health insurance, or Medicaid to pay for \nany additional medical treatment for her hand.  The Claimant essentially testified that she sought \ntreatment from her primary care physician/PCP.  Per the Claimant, her PCP prescribed medication \nfor her  hand,  which  included  a muscle  relaxer\n1\n to  help relieve her  symptoms.    The  Claimant \ntestified that she occasionally has problems with her hand.  According to the Claimant, her last \ntreatment for her hand was when she went to the Urgent Care Clinic, in Wynne, Arkansas.  The \nClaimant testified that Dr. Ryan gave her some medicine for her hand.  At that time, the Claimant \n \n1\n Although the Claimant maintained she was prescribed a muscle relaxer, the medical records of evidence \ndoes not demonstrate that she was prescribed a muscle relaxer.      \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n6 \n \nmaintained that her hand was swollen.  Per the Claimant, they told her if she continued to have \nproblems with her hand, she should return to the clinic.                     \n   The Claimant testified that she left her employment with Hino Motors in January 2024.  \nAccording to the Claimant, on the day that she returned to work, she told her supervisor she was \nleaving to go home because she was still bothered with her arm.  However, the Claimant testified \nthat when she returned to work the following day, she was called over to the other building and a \nwoman spoke with her and told her they had to let her go.  She was unable to recall the exact date \nthat this happened.  At that time, the Claimant testified that she continued to have problems with \nher left hand.   \n Under continued direct examination, the Claimant explained: \nQ     Okay, as we sit her today, what problems are you having with your left hand?  \n \nA     Every now and then, my hand will swell up or it’s like a tingling feeling in my \nhand, and I have to hold my hand down like I’m not getting good blood circulation \nor something in my hand. \n \nQ     Okay.  Do you have swelling today in your hand? \n \nA     No, ma’am, I do not. \n \nQ     So as we sit here today, the only problem that you’re having with your hand is \nthat  you think  you  have  poor  circulation  and  you  get  a  tingling  feeling  in  your \nfingers, your entire hand, or what? \n \nA     In my entire hand.  They told me it was damaged nerve.  \n \nThe  Claimant maintained that  she  was  told by  the  doctor  in Wynne  that she  has  nerve \ndamage to her hand.  However, she admitted that she does not have a diagnostic test showing that \nshe has nerve damage to her hand.  The Claimant testified that currently she takes Tramadol, a \nmuscle relaxer, and Hydrocodone for her hand.  She maintained that her primary care physician, \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n7 \n \nDenise Parnell, prescribed these medications for her left hand symptoms.  However, there are no \nmedical records confirming that the Claimant has been prescribed these medications.   \n Prior to her work incident at Hino, the Claimant testified that she did not have any problems \nwith her left hand.  Currently, the Claimant works at Love’s Truck Stop.  She started working for \nLove’s in March 2024.  The Claimant works in the restaurant, as a cook.  She works thirty-five \n(35) to forty (40) hours per week.  \n Next,  the Claimant  was  asked about  the medical treatment being recommended  for  her \nhand.  Specifically, the Claimant stated that she is asking for continued medical treatment under \nthe care of a new doctor.  According to the Claimant, she is currently under the care of Dr. Barrett, \nat a clinic in Jonesboro.  She was referred to him by her primary care physician.  Per the Claimant, \nshe is undergoing occupational therapy in Jonesboro.  The Claimant denied having any subsequent \naccidents or injuries to her left hand since her incident with Hino.  She further denied having any \nhand intensive hobbies.  However, the Claimant confirmed that she can perform her job duties at \nLove’s.                  \n The Claimant denied that Hino paid for any of her medical treatment for her left hand.  She \nmaintained that she is receiving a bill from Forrest Center Medical Center for her ER visit.  Per \nthe  Claimant,  she also continues  to  receive  bills  from  Urgent  Care.   She  confirmed  that  her \nsupervisor  told  her  to  go  to  the  ER.    The  Claimant  denied  having  had  any  prior  workers’ \ncompensation claims.   \n On cross-examination, the Claimant was asked by the Respondents’ attorney to describe \nthe machine and what happened.  \nA     Yes sir.  As I was working on a shelf.  I was doing the parts, and after  -- well, \nI talked to the supervisor there.  I didn’t know the process so, as he told me, I had \nto go over there so, as I was doing the shelf, and thing just clamps on  --  clamped \non my hand, the two shelf things clamped on my hand. \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n8 \n \nQ    Okay.  And is --  what is his machine? What is the clamp process? \n \nA    We was putting a, you know, shelf down and one line to the other line.  And as \nI was pulling the shelf down an  - and that’s when it rolled off the --  I guess the \nbelt thing and it clamped down on my hand. \n \n Q     Okay.  And then that clamp, did it -- was that a fast process?  Did it clamp \nand then let go, or how did it work? \n \nA        No, it clamped.  It was a fast process, and it clamped on my hand as I was  -\n-  you know, as it was coming down the belt. \n I can’t just really explain how it is, but it’s  -- it’s two shelves, heavy shelf \non rear axle.  And as you pushing the things down, it go through one machine on \ndown the line.  \n \n The Claimant confirmed that she was working exclusively on rear axles when her injury \noccurred.   She admitted that she underwent a CT scan of her hand, and it was negative for any \nfindings.   \n On further examination, the Claimant admitted that she reported tinging and numbness in \nboth arms and fingers, when she sought treatment from the ER Department staff at Forrest Center \nMedical Center.   \nShe testified that there were three (3) witnesses to her August 9 accident, namely, Jacresha \nSmith, May-Bay Simmons, and Aaron Williams.  The Claimant confirmed that after being directed \nby her supervisor to go to the hospital, she went to the West Memphis Hospital.  The Claimant  \ntestified  that she  went  to  the  hospital  in  Forrest  City  about  a  month  later  because  she  was  still \nhurting.  This visit occurred on September 14.  She testified that she wore a splint on her hand for \nabout a month.  The Claimant admitted that she reported that she sustained a crush injury to her \nleft hand.   The Claimant maintained that after her injury, she had bruising on the inside of her \nhand.  \n The Respondents’ attorney introduced into evidence a payment summary.  This document \nshows  that  they  paid  for  the  physical  therapy,  as  well  as  the  Baptist  Hospital  and  Mid-South \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n9 \n \nImaging  bills.    However,  after  the  CT  scan showed  no  objective  finding  of  an injury,  the \nrespondent-carrier stopped payment, and controverted the claim in its entirety.              \n  Medical Evidence \n On  September  14,  2023,  the Claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from Emergency \nDepartment/ED at Baptist  Memorial  Hospital- Crittenden.  Ms.  Ray presented to  the  emergency \ncenter with  a  left-hand  injury.    Per  these  notes, apparently the Claimant’s left  hand  got  caught \nbetween two shafts at work.  No other injuries were appreciated.  On physical examination, the \nClaimant had  minimal  discomfort  with  palpation  to  the  dorsal  aspect  of  her  hand,  but  no  open \nfractures, open wounds, bruises, or hematomas were noted.  The Claimant’s left hand was placed \nin a splint for comfort measures, and she was discharged home, with instructions to follow up with \nher family physician the next day.  She was given a prescription for Naproxen to take as prescribed \nand  instructed  to  apply  ice  for  swelling  as  needed.   Of  note, the  Claimant  did  not  complain  of \nswelling, and nor was any swelling noted on physical examination of her hand.        \n There is a Registration Admission sheet from Forrest City Medical Center, which has been \nintroduced into evidence.  This report was generated on November 6, 2023.  At that time, according \nto this report, the Claimant’s chief complaint was pain in her left hand.  As a result, on that same \nday, the Claimant underwent a CT of the left hand due to a clinical indication of pain in her left \nhand, with an impression of “No acute osseous abnormality of the left hand.”   \n On December 8, 2023, the Claimant sought medical treatment from Forrest City Medical \nCenter Emergency Department due to numbness and tingling in both arms and fingers.  The \nClaimant was evaluated by Dr. Toby Anderson.  He assessed the Claimant with “Radiculopathy, \ncervical region, paresthesia of skin, headache, unspecified.”   She underwent a CT scan of the \nhead, and CT of cervical spine without contrast due to worsening headache and bilateral \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n10 \n \nparesthesia, with an impression of: “No acute intracranial abnormality. No acute cervical spine \nfracture or significant subluxation.”     \n       Adjudication \nCompensability     \nThe Claimant contends  that  she  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  left hand/fingers \nwhile working for the respondent-employer on August 9, 2023.  The Respondents contend that the \nClaimant did not sustain an injury to her left hand because there are no objective medical findings \nfor an injury to her left hand.  \nThe  Respondents  initially  accepted  this  as  a  compensable  injury  for  an  injury  to  the \nClaimant’s left hand.  However, after the Claimant underwent a CT of the left hand, which revealed \nno abnormities, they controverted the claim in its entirety.      \n\"Compensable  injury\"  means  an  accidental  injury  causing  physical  harm  to  the  body, \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services or results in \ndisability or death.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012).  A compensable injury must \nbe  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  § \n11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012).   \nThe  Claimant  must  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that she  sustained  a \ncompensable  injury.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)  (E)(i) (Repl. 2012).  Preponderance  of  the \nevidence means evidence having greater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. \nLa Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W. 3d 252 (2003).     \nAfter  reviewing  the  evidence  in  this  case  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the \ndoubt to either party, I find that the Claimant failed to prove by medical evidence supported by \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n11 \n \nobjective  findings that  she    injured  her  left  hand/fingers  on  August  9,  2023,  while  working  for \nHino Motors Manufacturing USA, Incorporated.   \nTo meet  the  requirements  of  a  compensable  injury, the  Claimant  must prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence, every element required by law for establishing compensability.  If \nthe  Claimant does  not prove by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  any  of  the  requirements  for \nproving compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.    Hence,  a  compensable  injury has  not \noccurred.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W. 2d 876 (1997). \n The Claimant was a very pleasant person.  She gave a very complete and correct account \nof  her  accidental  injury. It is undisputed that the Claimant’s left hand was caught in a machine \nwhile performing her employment duties for Hino.  No testimony was presented to the contrary by \nthe Respondents.   According to the Claimant, she injured two fingers on her left hand, when her \nhand was struck by a brake assembly, when she reached for a part.  The Claimant testified that she \nreported  her  injury  to  her  supervisor.   Her  testimony proves that management  instructed  her  to \nseek medical treatment, which she did do.   \n   However, the Claimant has failed to present any medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings to establish an injury to her left hand.  In fact, the first medical record of evidence is dated \nSeptember 14, 2023, more than a month after the Claimant’s incident at work.  The aforementioned \nmedical record and all the other medical evidence are devoid of a resulting injury causing internal \nor  physical  injury  harm  to the Claimant’s left hand/ fingers.   Specifically,  the  x-rays of  the \nClaimant’s left hand do not reveal any objective medical findings of any physical or internal harm \nto her hand.  Also, a CT scan of her left hand was devoid of any objective medical findings.  None \nof the medications in the record are prescribed for any objective medical finding.  Nor can I find a \nreasonable inference in the present matter that the Claimant was prescribed medication to treat any \n\nRAY - H306170 \n \n12 \n \nobjective medical findings in her left hand.  Moreover, there are no reports of spasms, swelling, \necchymosis, bruising or any objective medical findings.     \n     In sum, the Claimant has failed to provide medical evidence supported by measurable \nobjective findings proving a specific incident injury to her left hand/fingers on August 9, 2023.  \nUnder these circumstances, based on the record before me, I am compelled to find that the \nClaimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence all the statutory requirements for \nestablishing compensability for a left hand injury on August 9, 2023.    \nAs such, this claim for a left hand injury must be, and is hereby respectfully denied and \ndismissed in its entirety.  Accordingly, the remaining issue relating to medical benefits in this \nmatter have been rendered moot and not discussed herein this opinion.   \nHowever, it is noteworthy that based on my review of the payout history for this claim, \nthe Respondents have paid for all the medical treatment that the Claimant received for her left \nhand at the direction of management.   \n                ORDER \nThe Claimant failed to prove that she sustained a compensable injury to her left hand on \non August 9, 2023, by way of objective medical findings.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n          ______________________________ \n          CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H306170 ROSHANDRA RAY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HINO MOTORS MFG. USA, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 12, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black on February 14, 2025, i...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:40:38.025Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H306170-2025-05-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RAY_ROSHANDRA_H306170_20250512.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}