{"id":"alj-H307394-2025-09-30","awcc_number":"H307394","decision_date":"2025-09-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Patrice Gilmer","employer_name":"Wal-Mart Associates, Inc","title":"GILMER VS. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. AWCC# H307394 September 30, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:6"],"injury_keywords":["back","knee","hip","sprain","lumbar","thoracic","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GILMER_PATRICE_H307394_20250930.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GILMER_PATRICE_H307394_20250930.pdf","text_length":30974,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM No H307394 \n \nPATRICE GILMER, EMPLOYEE       CLAIMANT \n \nWAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,  \nSELF- INSURED EMPLOYER                  RESPONDENT \n \nWAL-MART CLAIMS SERVICES, \nTHIRD-PARTY ADM’R                            RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION & ORDER FILED 30 SEPTEMBER 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge \nJayO. Howe on 3 July 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by the Gary Davis Law Firm, Mr. Gary Davis. \n \nThe respondents were represented by Newkirk & Jones, Mr. Rick Behring. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A Prehearing Order was filed on 11 March 2025 and admitted to the hearing record \nwithout objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1. Consistent with that Order, the parties \nagreed to the following: \nSTIPULATIONS \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The self-insured employer/employee/third-party administrator relationship \nexisted at all times relevant to these claims. \n \n3. The respondents initially accepted this claim but have since controverted this \nclaim for any additional benefits.\n1\n \n \n4. The claimant’s average weekly wage of $559.21 would entitle her to weekly \nbenefits in the amounts of $373 for temporary total disability (TTD) and $280 \nfor permanent partial disability (PPD). \n \n \n \n1\n As noted in the respondents’ contentions below, the respondents have denied this claim in \nits entirety after providing some initial benefits at the outset claim. \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n2 \n \nISSUES \n \n1. Whether the claimant sustained compensable injuries to her back and right \nlower extremity by specific incident on 27 October 2023.\n2\n \n \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to TTD benefits for a period to be \ndetermined. \n \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to medical benefits. \n \n4. Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nAll other issues have been reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nThe Prehearing Order incorporated the following contentions from the parties’ \nrespective prehearing questionnaire responses: \nClaimant \nThe claimant contends that she sustained compensable injuries to her \nright knee on 27 October 2023. She was seen by Dr. Lawrence O’Malley, \nwith the UAMS Orthopedic Clinic, who recommended surgery. \nRespondents have refused to authorize the same. Claimant contends \nentitlement to TTD benefits and medical treatment (including but not \nlimited to recommended surgery). These matters are controverted for \npurposes of attorney’s fees.  \n \n Respondent \n \nThe respondents contend that this claim has been denied and \ncontroverted in its entirety. The claimant did not sustain a compensable \nback injury while employed by Respondent employer. The claimant did \nnot sustain a compensable right lower extremity (knee) injury while \nemployed by the respondent employer. The claimant cannot meet her \nburden of proving the alleged back and right lower extremity conditions \nresulted from a specific incident on or about 27 October 2023. The \nclaimant’s condition preexisted the alleged incident and/or arose from \nan idiopathic event and not the result of a specific incident. The \nclaimant voluntarily abandoned her position with the respondent. The \nclaimant is not entitled to any benefits, as the claimant’s need for \nmedical treatment, if any, is unrelated to her employment for the \nrespondent. Instead, the claimant’s physical problems and need for \n \n2\n At the beginning of the hearing, the parties agreed that the alleged compensable injuries \nwere by specific incident on 27 October 2023.  \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n3 \n \ntreatment (if any) are related to a pre-existing and/or degenerative \ncondition and not the result of her work for the respondent-employer. In \nthe alternative, if it is determined the claimant sustained a \ncompensable injury, the respondent initially paid for medical treatment \nand temporary disability benefits through 12 August 2024. After \ninvestigating the claim, the respondent then controverted this claim in \nits entirety. In the alternative, if it is determined the claimant \nsustained a compensable injury and is entitled to any benefits, the \nrespondent hereby requests a setoff for all benefits paid by the \nclaimant’s group health carrier, all short-term disability benefits \nreceived by the claimant and all unemployment benefits received by the \nclaimant.  \n \nFINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n Having reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized \nbelow, and having heard testimony from the witnesses, observing their demeanor, I make \nthe following findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over these claims. \n \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered a compensable injury by specific incident to her right lower \nextremity. \n \n4. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered a compensable injury by specific incident to her back. \n \n5. Because the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury, the remaining \nissues are moot and will not be addressed in this Opinion. \n \nADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). A \nclaimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n4 \n \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \nThe claimant was the only witness to testify. The record consists of the hearing \ntranscript and the following exhibits: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 11 March 2025 \nPrehearing Order); Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (two index pages and 102 pages of medical \nrecord); Respondents’ Exhibit No 1 (one index page and seven pages of medical records); \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 2 (one index page and four pages of non-medical records); and \nRespondents' Exhibit No 3 (a disc containing security camera footage of the claimant’s work \narea on the day of her alleged injuries). \nHearing Testimony \n Claimant Patrice Gilmer \n The claimant is 54 years old with some college and vocational training. She began \nworking for the respondent-employer Walmart in the Spring of 2023. On 27 October 2023, \nthe time relevant to this claim, she was working as an attendant at the self-checkout area \nof the Walmart in Stuttgart, Arkansas. The claimant testified that her job duties generally \nincluded providing assistance to customers as they made purchases, helping with the \nregisters, moving shopping baskets, and collecting return items. \n According to the claimant’s testimony, she “was working and when all the customers \ngot down quiet, they left—it was just me and another co-worker, and I was, you know, \nfinishing up, and I went to go get a basket—I was going out the outside, the entrance to go \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n5 \n \nget a basket, and I was walking, halfway through walking to go get a basket, I heard my \nknee and my back pop.” [TR at 17.] She went on to explain that she leaned on an empty \nshopping cart for support before using an electric scooter to leave her work area and shop \nfor a knee brace. She then returned to her work area, where she sat on the scooter before a \nsupervisor told her she could leave. \n The claimant left work and drove to the Forrest City Medical Center, where she was \nseen in the emergency department. Then, on 2 November 2023, she was seen at an urgent \ncare clinic in Wynne, Arkansas, and by Dr. James Meredith at his clinic in Forrest City, \nArkansas. Eventually, the claimant was referred to physical therapy. She continued \nphysical therapy for some time until an MRI scan was ordered for her right knee. That scan \nwas reviewed by Dr. Lawrence O’Malley, who recommended surgery. The respondents \ndenied the claimant’s request for knee surgery and controverted her claim in its entirety \nfrom that point forward. Describing the difficulty she experiences with her knee, the \nclaimant testified:  \nIt’s like my knee. It’s like my leg. I have a lot of cramps, behind this, all the \ntime, and I have—I have pain—even when I’m driving, I have pain, all down \nto my toes. It’s like my toe—my feet kind of went over a little bit. ‘Cause I got \nsome stuff from studying. They said if you don’t get them, you will need to \ntell, it can cause... I majored in nursing. \n \n[TR at 34.] \n The claimant stated that she has not worked since her alleged injury on 27 October \n2023. When asked about her alleged back injury, the claimant stated: \nYeah, I still have problems. I even visit my—don’t nobody want to mess with \nme, ‘cause they say it’s a workers’ comp case. I’m using my primary care, you \nknow, two of them, ‘cause they don’t—this is a workers’ comp case. So... I still \nhave pain on this right side. I don’t know where—but like I said, I had a pop. \n \n[TR at 36-37.] \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n6 \n \n On cross-examination, the claimant reluctantly acknowledged that she had seen Dr. \nMeredith and complained of right knee swelling in April of 2023. \nQ:  ... Does that say, “Pain in the right knee”? Did I read that correctly? \nA:  Yes, it’s probably ‘cause I was standing. \nQ:  Did I read that correctly? \nA:  Yes. Yeah. \nQ:  All right. All right. And you were having—sounds like you were having \npain in your right knee, because you were doing some standing, huh? \nA:  Well, at my sister’s house, helping her. \nQ:  Is that a yes, ma’am? \nA:  That’s right, yes. \nQ:  All right. \nA:  Uh-huh. \nQ:  And that was before you worked at Walmart, correct? \nA:  Yes, ‘cause I was helping my sister. Uh-huh. \nQ:  And it also says on page 2 here that you had chronic stiffness in your \nknees, is that correct? \nA:  That’s what they said. I still have it. I mean, I didn’t have it as bad. I have \nit real bad now. \n \n[TR at 42-43.] She also acknowledged some popping in her knees prior to 27 October 2023. \n The claimant confirmed in her testimony that the work area floor was free of any \nhazard or obstruction when she suddenly felt a “pop” in her back and in her knee. She did \nnot slip, trip, or stumble. Nor did she fall. \nA:  Sir, I was walking when it happened. All my customers was finished. \nQ:  Ms. Gilmer, you were simply walking at the time? \nA:  Correct. \n \n[TR at 52.] She also acknowledged that immediately following the incident and before \nleaving work that day, she did not ask for medical treatment. Still, she drove herself from \nStuttgart to the emergency department in Forrest City. The medical records from that visit \nindicate no mechanism of injury associated with her complaints. \n The claimant reluctantly agreed that she was offered and refused light duty work \nwithin her physician-ordered restrictions sometime after the incident. \nQ:  All right. Isn’t it true that Walmart, then, offered you work within those \nwork restrictions, the desk-duty only? \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n7 \n \nA:  Yes. They said—I think, they said desk duty, but I know they don’t have \ndesk duty there. \nQ:  Okay. Is that a yes. \nA:  Yes, that’s what they said. \nQ:  All right. And you decided you didn’t want to do that, is that correct? And \nyou refused the light duty assignment they had given you? \nA:  I wouldn’t say—necessarily, call it refused. It was a reason why. \nQ:  They offered it to you, correct? \nA:  Yes. \nQ:  And you told them you didn’t want to do it, correct? \nA:  I wasn’t trying to get out of work, sir. \n \n[TR at 60-61.] She confirmed, too, that she has not sought any work since 27 October 2023. \n Respondents’ Witness Mr. Aaron Joseph Mertz \n Mr. Mertz testified that he works in human resources at the Walmart in Stuttgart \nand that he was familiar with the claimant and her case. He reviewed the security footage \nof the claimant’s work area and confirmed that it accurately depicted how she walked and \nmoved about prior to the incident related to this claim. Mr. Mertz confirmed that the \nclaimant was offered light duty work and that she refused the same. \nMedical Evidence \n The record from the claimant’s 27 October 2023 emergency department visit \nincludes: \nPRESENTATION \nPresenting complaint: Patient states: heard popping in leg near knee and hip \nwhile walking, denies falling. A primary survey was performed and any \nissues related to ABC’s were addressed and/or cleared. Mechanism of Injury: \nNo Mechanism of Injury. \n... \nTRIAGE ASSESSMENT \nPain: Complains of pain in right knee and right shin. Quality of pain is \ndescribed as aching. Pain currently is 10. Level that is acceptable is 0 out of \n10 on a pain scale. \nInjury Description: no injury noted. \n... \nHISTORICAL \nPMHx: None \n... \nDIAGNOSIS \nSprain of unspecified site of right knee, initial encounter \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n8 \n \n... \nHPI \nThe patient presents with pain, that is acute. The complaints affect the right \nknee. Context: The problem was sustained at work, resulted from twisting \nthe extremity. The patient is not able to bear weight. Onset: The \nsymptom(s)/episode began/occurred 2 day(s) ago... Patient states she was \nwalking from 1 register to the other felt a popping in her right knee... \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1.] The claimant was discharged home with crutches and directed to follow-up \nwith Dr. James Meredith (her primary care physician (PCP)) as needed. \n On 2 November 2023, the claimant presented to an urgent care clinic in Wynne, \nArkansas. The notes from that visit include: \nHPI \nPain, Knee [Pt states she was walking at work on Friday 10/27 and twisted \nher right knee and heard a pop. She went to the ER directly after the fall and \nhad an Xray which pt reports was normal. \n \nPMH \nPast Medical History is unremarkable \n... \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \nSprain of unspecified site of right knee, initial encounter- Uncomplicated \n \n She was told to continue taking medication for pain and swelling as needed and \nreferred for physical therapy. The clinic provided a work note that anticipated the claimant \nreturning to work the following week. \n Also on 2 November 2023, the claimant presented to her PCP Dr. James Meredith’s \nclinic. The notes from that visit include: \nREASON FOR APPOINTMENT \n1. ER Follow Up- Torn ligament. \n2. Hurt R knee on 10/27/23; went to FCMC ER; using crutches and has knee \nbrace on. \n3. X-rays in ER were negative. \n \nASSESSMENT \n1. Sprain of unspecified site of right knee, subsequent encounter \n2. BMI 31-31.9, adult \n3. Dietary counseling and surveillance \n \nFOLLOW UP \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n9 \n \nprn \n \nPROCEDURE CODES \nG8417 BMI >= 30 Calculate w/ Follow up \n \n The following week, on 9 November 2023, the claimant returned to the urgent care \nclinic in Wynne. \nHPI \nf/u R knee pain- states that she is taking Naprosyn for the pain- also got a \nknee brace and wants to know if she can get a different one that Medicaid \nwill cover. \n... \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \nAwaiting approval from Work Comp for PT. Will put PT off 1 more week for \nPT to be approved and evaluate PT. \nRX written and given to pt for knee immobilizer. \nInstructed Pt to use the brace but ensure that she is stretching her right leg \nas well. Tylenol/Motrin for pain. \n \n A work note is indicated in the record, but a copy of the note was not provided for \nthat visit. \n The claimant returned to the urgent care clinic again on 16 November 2023. She \nreported that she was waiting for payer approval for a knee brace and physical therapy. \nAnother work note was provided, keeping the claimant off work until 30 November 2023. \n The records indicate that the claimant began physical therapy on 27 November \n2023. Portions of the notes from that visit include: \nHPI \nMrs. Gilmer is a 53 year old female who presented today with diagnosis of R \nknee sprain. Pt reported that she had [an] incident at work where her knee \nand back popped on Oct. 8 2023. Pt reported that she did not fall but had to \nhold on to buggy. Pt reported that she had X-rays that showed soft tissue \ndamage per her report. Pt stated that she has been using a knee brace and \ncrutches since incident and is currently off work. Pt stated that she has pain \nwhen she puts all her weight on her knee. \n... \nMEDICAL HISTORY REVIEW \nThe patient has a history of present problem with a history of 1-2 personal \nfactors and/or comorbidities that impact the plan of care. \n... \nASSESSMENT/DIAGNOSIS \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n10 \n \n... Pt has increased pain with WB’ing but no laxity was determined with \nligament testing today. Pt pain is global in knee but seems to be more \nisolated at times to lateral knee. Pt ROM is doing well and swelling has \nimproved per patient report. \n \n The claimant was to return for physical therapy two times per week for the next four \nweeks. \n The claimant returned to the urgent care clinic again on 30 November 2023, where \nshe complained of continued pain, not having the correct knee brace, and “wants to talk \nabout last day of work due to not being paid for those days.” She was told to continue with \nphysical therapy and wearing the brace she was wearing. A work note with some \nrestrictions was indicated in the record from that visit, but the claimant did not provide a \ncopy of that work note. \n On 14 December 2023, the claimant presented to the urgent care clinic again and \ncomplained of increased pain in her knee. She was referred for an MRI; and a work note \nwas indicated again. She returned again the following week (21 December 2023) and \nrequested another work note. The clinic provided a note excusing her from work until 4 \nJanuary 2023. She was to follow up at the clinic in another two weeks. Then, on 5 January \n2024, the claimant returned to obtain another work note. This note excused her from work \n“TBD after MRI.” \n The claimant continued to attend physical therapy for the next couple of months. On \n27 February 2024, the therapy note included: \nMrs. Gilmer arrived with slight limp, ambulating independently. Patient \nstated she has self-diagnosed herself with IT Band Syndrome and knows that \nis the root of her issues. Patient has MRI appointment this Friday. Patient \nquestioned PTA entire treatment for PTA to diagnose her with “torn \nligaments.” PTA and PT respectfully answered patient that we only treat \nwhat was written [on the] prescription from MD and cannot diagnose. Patient \nwas able to transfer from stationary bike with no difficulty, standing twisting \nto turn and to walk with no complaints. Patient was able to internal rotated \nhip in supine position with knee flexed over 90 degrees to take off shoe with \nno complaints... \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n11 \n \n An MRI study was performed on 1 March 2024: \nIMPRESSION \n1. PHMM root moderate macerated tear. \n2. Moderate patellofemoral and moderate to severe medial compartments \nosteoarthritis. \n3. Large joint effusion. \n \n The claimant presented back to the urgent care clinic on 5 April 2024, where she \nwas diagnosed with a medial meniscus tear. She was provided with a note for her return to \nwork on 19 April 2024.  \n On 3 June 2024, the claimant saw Dr. Lawrence O’Malley, an orthopedic surgeon, \nbut she did not have the disc from her MRI scan with her for his review that day. She \nreturned to Dr. O’Malley’s office on 5 August 2024 with the disc. The images were reviewed, \nand the claimant indicated that she wished to undergo arthroscopic surgery to repair the \nmeniscal tear.  \n The claimant returned to Dr. Meredith’s office on 14 August 2024 with a complaint \nof lumbar pain. “Explained that her low back pain may be coming from walking different \ndue to her knee pain. Will x-ray if it continues....” She complained that her workers’ \ncompensation claim had been denied as a pre-existing problem and requested a note for \nmore time off work. According to the note from that visit, the claimant refused to weigh, so \nher previous weight was indicated.  \n The claimant presented to Dr. Meredith’s office again on 28 August 2024, where she \ncomplained of ongoing knee and back pain and again requested a note taking her off work. \n“She still has questions about being in menopause and if that can be causing any of her \njoint issues. I have done an FSH [follicle-stimulating hormone test] in the past and she is \nmenopausal. I do not think menopause is causing any of her issues. Lumbar and thoracic X-\nrays were ordered, and she was noted as being prediabetic with elevated blood sugar.  \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n12 \n \n She returned to Dr. Meredith’s office on 2 October 2024, where she complained about \nher knee pain and about the healing of a hand surgery not related to her workers’ \ncompensation claim. In subsequent visits, the claimant continued to make complaints about \nher knee and other conditions.  \n The respondents provided a note from the claimant’s 20 April 2023 visit (predating \nthe start of her employment) with Dr. Meredith. That note included: \nASSESSMENTS \nPain in right knee \nPain in left knee \nPain in right shoulder \nPain in left shoulder \nOther chronic pain \nBMI 31.0-31.9 \nDietary counseling \n \nTREATMENT \n1. Pain in right knee, IMAGING: X-ray, Right Knee, Notes: I think she would \nbenefit more from seeing an orthopedic doctor than a chiropractor. I think she \nhas osteoarthritis. She has been given Meloxicam, but does not want to take \nany medication. Will send her for x-rays at FCMC today. Referral To: Stacy \nBusby, Orthopedic Surgery, Reason: bilateral knee and shoulder pain. \n... \nHPI \nPatient presents complaining of chronic stiffness and pain in her knees and \nshoulders. Her left knee is the worst. She was seeing a chiropractor, Dr. \nScarborough, but he no longer takes her insurance. She was on BCBS, and is \nnow on Medicaid. She has been to ortho, but it was years ago. She denies all \nother complaints. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1] \n On 5 August 2024, Dr. O’Malley wrote a work note for the claimant returning her to \nwork in a desk-duty capacity. \nVideo Evidence \n The respondents provided a disc with security camera footage of the claimant’s work \narea around the time of her alleged injury. [Resp. Ex. No 3.] The video shows her moving \nabout the self-checkout area. According to the time stamp, the video starts at 2:46 PM. The \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n13 \n \nclaimant appears to walk with a noticeable limp, dragging her right leg at times. She \nregularly has a hand pressed against the small of her back and hip. \n At about 3:46 PM, she is walking in the center of the checkout area when her right \nknee appears to buckle. She takes another step and speaks with someone who she \nidentified in her testimony as a supervisor. He leaves and returns with an empty shopping \ncart for the claimant to lean against. She the leaves the video frame. \n The claimant returns to the video frame briefly around 4:17 PM riding on an electric \nshopping scooter. At 4:22 PM, she returns rides back into view on the scooter before leaving \nagain at 4:24 PM. She returns into view at 4:27 PM and talks with another employee \noverseeing the checkout area. The claimant remains seated on the scooter, but twists and \nturns in the seat as they talk. Before the video ends, she walks around the scooter for a \nmoment with a much more noticeable limp. She appears to be wearing the knee brace that \nshe discussed in her testimony. \nDISCUSSION \nI. THE CLAIMANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF \n THE EVIDENCE THAT SHE SUSTAINED COMPENSABLE INJURIES TO \n HER RIGHT KNEE AND BACK. \n \n The claimant alleges that she sustained compensable injuries to her back and right \nknee by specific incident on 27 October 2023 while working in the self-checkout area at the \nWalmart in Stuttgart. The respondents provided some benefits at the outset of her claim; \nbut they denied her claim and controverted it its entirety after she obtained an MRI and an \northopedic surgeon reviewed the findings of the MRI study. The respondents contend that \nthe claimant’s alleged injuries were pre-existing and/or of a degenerative nature and that \nany injury she might have sustained was idiopathic in nature. \n Under Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation laws, a worker has the burden of proving \nby a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury as the result of \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n14 \n \na workplace incident. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i). A compensable injury must be \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(D). Objective medical findings are those findings that cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  \n The claimant alleges that her injuries occurred by specific incident. The claimant \nmust establish four (4) factors by a preponderance of the evidence to prove a specific \nincident injury: (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course of his employment; \n(2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services or \nresulted in disability or death; (3) the injury is established by medical evidence supported \nby objective findings, which are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary \ncontrol of the patient; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and is identifiable \nby time and place of occurrence. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, \n938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). If a claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence \nany of the above elements, compensation must be denied. Id. \n An idiopathic injury is one whose cause is personal in nature, or peculiar to the \nindividual. Kuhn v. Majestic Hotel, 324 Ark. 21, 918 S.W.2d 158 (1996); Little Rock Conv. & \nVisitors Bur. v. Pack, 60 Ark. App. 82, 959 S.W.2d 415 (1997). Injuries due to an \nunexplained cause are different from those whose cause is idiopathic. ERC Contractor Yard \n& Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63, 977 S.W.2d 212 (1998). An unexplained injury at work is \ngenerally a compensable one. Pack, supra. On the contrary, since an idiopathic injury is not \nrelated to one's employment, it is generally not compensable unless conditions related to \nthe employment contribute to the risk of injury or aggravate the injury. Id. \n \n \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n15 \n \n A. The Claimant’s Alleged Right Lower Extremity Injury \n The claimant argues that her right meniscus tear is a compensable injury. I find, \nhowever, that her alleged knee injury was idiopathic. She testified that she did not slip or \ntrip or stumble on any uneven surface or any hazard on or around the floor of her work area \non 27 October 2023. She was “simply walking” at the time that she claims she heard a pop \nin her knee. Reviewing the video, she indeed appears to be simply walking when her knee \nbuckles. While she was limping notably before that incident, she appeared to be in more \npain afterwards. \n The respondents introduced a physician’s note that showed the claimant clearly had \na prior history of knee pain, and Dr. Meredith believed at the time that she was suffering \nfrom osteoarthritis in her knees (which the MRI later confirmed). But the claimant \npresented no evidence to suggest that the conditions of her employment caused a new \ninjury or aggravated a previous injury. Instead, the video and her testimony preponderate \nin favor of finding that she did not sustain a compensable injury because her right knee \ncondition did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Because she has failed to \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a compensable injury by specific \nincident to her right knee, her claim for the same must fail. \n B. The Claimant’s Alleged Back Injury \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered a compensable back injury. While she claims that she heard her back “pop” at the \nsame time as her right knee, the records show no report of a back injury until 14 August \n2024—ten months after the date of her alleged injuries.\n3\n A causal relationship may be \n \n3\n I am mindful that a physician’s note suggests that when the claimant did eventually \ncomplain of back pain, it was potentially attributed to her altered gait being associated with \nan unrepaired meniscal tear. When a claimant suffers a compensable injury, every natural \n\nP. GILMER- H307394 \n16 \n \nestablished between an employment-related incident and a subsequent physical injury \nbased on the evidence that the injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of time \nfollowing the incident, so that the injury is logically attributable to the incident, where \nthere is no other reasonable explanation for the injury. Hall v. Pittman Construction Co., \n234 Ark. 104, 357 S.W.2d 263 (1962). This, though, did not occur here. In light of the \nforegoing, to attribute her eventually reported injury to the incident on 27 October 2023 \nwould require me to engage in speculation and conjecture; and that I cannot do. See Dena \nConstruction Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 575S.W.2d 155 (1979). The evidence plainly \ndoes not suggest that she suffered any compensable injury to her back, as she claims, by \nspecific incident on 27 October 2023. Her claim for a compensable back injury must, \ntherefore, fail. \n Because the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury, the other issues, including her claim for an attorney’s fee, \nare moot and will not be addressed in this Opinion. \nCONCLUSION \n The claimant has failed to prove that she sustained any compensable injuries. This \nclaim is therefore denied and dismissed. \n SO ORDERED. \n       ______________________________________ \n       JayO. Howe \n       Administrative Law Judge \n \nconsequence of that injury is also compensable. Hubley v. Best Western Governor’s Inn, 52 \nArk. App. 226, 916 S.W.2d 143 (1996). But here, the claimant did not allege that she \nsuffered a back injury as a compensable consequence of her alleged knee injury. She alleged \nthat her back was injured by specific incident at the same time that her was injured. Even \nif she had alleged a back injury as a compensable consequence, that claim would fail \nbecause she has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a \ncompensable knee injury.","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM No H307394 PATRICE GILMER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., SELF- INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT WAL-MART CLAIMS SERVICES, THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION & ORDER FILED 30 SEPTEMBER 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Admin...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:51.537Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H307394-2025-09-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GILMER_PATRICE_H307394_20250930.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}