{"id":"alj-H400206-2024-09-30","awcc_number":"H400206","decision_date":"2024-09-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Bruce Baker","employer_name":"City Of Warren","title":"BAKER VS. CITY OF WARREN AWCC# H400206 September 30, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["hernia"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BAKER_BRUCE_H400206_20240930.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BAKER_BRUCE_H400206_20240930.pdf","text_length":29412,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: H400206 \nBRUCE BAKER,                         \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                    CLAIMANT \n  \nCITY OF WARREN,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                RESPONDENT \n                                                                                                            \nMUNIICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’  \nCOMPENSATION TRUST, CARRIER/TPA                                         RESPONDENT                                                                               \n                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              \n \n         OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 \n          \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, El Dorado, \nUnion County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant appeared pro se. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable  Melissa  Wood, Attorney at  Law,  Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn July  17, 2024, the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for a hearing in El  Dorado, \nArkansas.  A Prehearing Telephone Conference  was  conducted in  the  above-styled  claim on \nMay 15, 2024, from which a Prehearing Order was filed on that same day.  A copy of said order \nand the parties’ responsive filings have been marked as Commission’s Exhibit 1 and made  a \npart of the record without objection.   \nStipulations \nDuring the prehearing telephone conference, and/or hearing the  parties  agreed  to  the \nfollowing proposed stipulations: \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n2 \n \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  the \nwithin claim. \n2. That  the  employee-employer-carrier  relationship  existed  at  all  relevant  times, \nincluding on or about September 5, 2023. \n3. The Claimant’s average weekly wage on September 5, 2023 was $645.73.  His \nweekly compensation rates are $431.00 and $323.00. \n4. The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  \n5. All  issues  not  litigated  herein  are reserved  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act. \nIssues \nBy  agreement  of  the  parties,  the  issues  to  be  litigated at  the  hearing included  the \nfollowing: \n1. Whether  the  Claimant sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  abdominal on \nSeptember 5, 2023.  \n2. Whether   the Claimant   is entitled to   medical   treatment for   his   alleged \ncompensable injury.    \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant:  \nThe Claimant contends that he sustained a compensable abdominal injury, for which he \nis entitled to medical treatment. \nRespondents: \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n3 \n \n The Respondents contend that the Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury \non   September   15,   2023, pursuant   to the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act.  \nRespondents contend that the medical documentation does not support objective findings, \nthe need for medical treatment or any off-work status associated with an abdominal injury.          \n                    FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on  my  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  the  aforementioned \ndocumentary evidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an \nopportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses and observe their demeanor, I hereby make \nthe following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.      The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this     \n          \nclaim. \n \n2.       I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n3.      The Claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained  \n \na  compensable abdominal  injury  on  September  5,  2023.    Therefore,  the  issue \npertaining to reasonable  and necessary medical care for said alleged injury has \nbeen rendered moot and not discussed in this opinion.              \nSummary of Evidence \nMr. Bruce Baker (referred to herein as the “Claimant”), and his son, Bruce Baker, Jr., \nwere the only two witnesses to testify during the hearing.  \nThe  record  consists  of  the July  17,  2024 transcript and  the following exhibits: \nSpecifically, Commission’s Exhibit 1 includes the Commission’s Prehearing Order filed  on \nMay 15,  2024, and  the  parties’ responsive  filings; Respondents’  Exhibit  1  comprises  \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n4 \n \nRespondents’ Hearing  Exhibit  Index of  Medicals consisting  of  twenty-nine  (29)  pages;  and \nRespondents’ Hearing Exhibit Index of  Non-Medicals consisting of twelve (12) pages has been \nmarked as Respondents’ Exhibit 2. \n                                                   Testimony \n  Bruce Baker/the Claimant \n  \n The  Claimant  testified  that he  worked  for  the  City  of Warren.  He  has  prior  work \nexperience at KJ Construction, as a heavy equipment operator.  The Claimant has performed \nthis type of work for over twenty (20) years.    At the time of the hearing, the Claimant was \nfifty-seven (57) years old.  He confirmed that he has worked for the City of Warren over eight \n(8) years, as a heavy equipment operator.   \n On September 5, 2023, the Claimant maintains that he injured his stomach area while \nperforming his employment duties for the City of Warren.  However, the Claimant testified that \nit was probably on September 4, 2023, when he got hurt.  The Claimant testified that he does \nnot know the exact date of his injury.  However, the Claimant testified that he was on the mini \ntrack when he injured his stomach.  According to the Claimant, he was picking up ramps that \nweighed around one hundred fifty (150) to seventy-five (75) pounds each when he got hurt, he \ntestified  that  he  had  been  performing  that  type  of  work  for  thirty (30) days.   The  Claimant \ntestified that no one witnessed his injury because he was working on a Saturday at the airport.  \nAccording  to  the  Claimant, the  following Monday  was  a  holiday.    However,  the  Claimant \nmaintained that he reported his injury the following night on the 5\nth\n when he arrived for work.  \nThe Claimant stated that his coworkers were aware that he was having problems.   \n With respect to his injury, the Claimant explained that once he unloaded the ramps, that \nis when he felt pressure on his stomach.  The Claimant testified that that he told his supervisor, \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n5 \n \nMonte  Hearnsberger, that  he  was  unloading  the  ramps  and  got  hurt.  However,  the  Claimant \nspecifically testified that he told Mr. Hearnsberger that he had some problems, but he was not \nsure what it was because he was confused on what was going on.  Per the Claimant, he worked \nthe following day with pressure on his stomach although he was unable to do very much but he \nwas still working.  According to the Claimant, his wife set him up for an appointment, but he \ncould not see a doctor until two or three days later, which was on a Friday.             \n The following exchange took place: \nQ What did you say to Mr. Hearnsberger? \nA That’s what I’m trying to recollect on because it’s been so long ago.  I guess, I \ntold him that that was all I was doing that day.  You understand that?  That all I’d been \ndoing that day, he thought that I probably ...... That’s probably where I got hurt was on \nthe ramps.  \n \nAccording to the Claimant, Mr. Hearnsberger did a report on his injury, but he did not  \nreceive  a copy  of  the  paperwork.    The  Claimant  testified  that  he  saw  someone  (Anthony \nRodriguez) that works under Dr. Joe Wharton (his primary care physician) for his alleged injury. \nHe specifically testified that he reported that he was injured picking up ramps.  The Claimant \ntestified that he told Mr. Rodriguez that he was pretty sure he was hurt because he was unable \nto  breathe, and “the  veins  were  pulling  in  his  arms.”  Per  the  Claimant,  at  that  time,  he  was \nprescribed medication for acid reflux.  The Claimant denied that his symptoms of acid reflux \nwas caused by his work activities.   \n The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  ultimately underwent  evaluation  by  the  workers’ \ncompensation doctor, Dr. Carle.  According to the Claimant, the nurse case manager went to \nthe appointment with him to see Dr. Carle.   The Claimant denied seeing Dr. Carle for a follow- \nup  appointment.    Instead,  the  Claimant  returned  to  his  family  physician  for  his  stomach \nsymptoms.  According to the Claimant, he was told he needed surgery because he had something \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n6 \n \nprotruding  out  his  stomach.    However,  the  Claimant  denied  he  had  a  hernia.   Instead,  the \nClaimant testified that he was told he had a “tore muscle.”  He denied ever previously having \nhad a hernia. \n On cross-examination the Claimant confirmed that counsel took his deposition on May \n16,  2024.      The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  works  for  the  City of Warren, in  the  Street \nDepartment.    He  agreed  that  he  runs  the  machinery  and  is  somewhat  a  boss  and  has  other \nmembers of his crew in line. \n The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  testified  during  his  deposition  that  he  got  hurt  on  a \nTuesday.  He confirmed that Monday, September 4, 2023, was Labor Day.  The Claimant agreed \nthat September 5\nth\n would have been that Tuesday.  He confirmed that he worked all that day  at \nthe airport.  The Claimant admitted that during his deposition, he testified that he thought his \ninjury  occurred  sometime  that  Tuesday.    However,  the  Claimant  admitted  that  he  testified \nduring his deposition that he worked all day Tuesday, but he did not have a problem and was \nnot in pain. \n Next, the following exchange took place: \nQ Okay.  However, when you went to go lay down in bed that night, you had some  \nissues, is that correct? \n \nA Right.  Yeah. \nQ All right. \nA It was bad.   \nQ And then it was the next Wednesday ...... \nA And I don’t know what date Wednesday was but that’s the day I reported it to \nhim.  \n \nQ Okay.  So you had no symptoms at all until that night, is that correct? \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n7 \n \nA Right. \nThe Claimant admitted that he talked to Monte (Hearnsberger) on Wednesday and told  \nhim that something was wrong.  He admitted that he told Monte that he thought he was having \na  heart  attack.    The  Claimant  admitted  that  during  his  deposition  he  was  asked  about  his \nsymptoms.  His response was, “Yeah.  I couldn’t lay flat.”   The Claimant agreed that then on \nWednesday morning, he had a sausage biscuit for breakfast and went to work.  He arrived for \nwork by 7:00 a.m. that morning.  The Claimant confirmed that he felt like his food was hung \nup in his esophagus.  He testified that he had a lot of “real large pressure” that was tight in his \nstomach.  The Claimant explained that the food he had eaten would not go down.  According \nto the Claimant, his food was not caught in his throat.  Instead, the Claimant testified that when \nhis food got to a certain point, and that is when it started putting pressure on him.  The Claimant \nconfirmed that during his deposition, he testified that he had pressure pulling on his veins and \ncould hardly breathe.  At that point, the Claimant admitted to telling Monte he thought he was \nhaving a heart attack.  He agreed that he did not go to doctor because his food went down, and \nthe pressure went away, and he started to get some relief. \n He admitted that he worked on Wednesday and felt good that day.  The Claimant agreed \nthat he did not feel anything when he was moving the ramps that day.  He admitted that when \nhe went to the doctor, he told the doctor the acid reflux was eating him up.   \n The Claimant admitted that they are trying to get him in to see a plastic surgeon.  He \ntestified that Dr. Wharton scheduled the appointment for him to see the plastic surgeon.  The \nClaimant admitted that Dr. Wharton warned him that there might be a problem with insurance \ncovering the surgery because it is cosmetic in nature.  \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n8 \n \n He agreed that at some point Mr. Hearnsberger made a report.  The Claimant confirmed \nthat this was done around the time that they sent him to the workers’ compensation doctor.  At \nthis point, the Claimant agreed that this is what started the process for a workers’ compensation \nclaim.  The Claimant denied that he was told he needed to see Dr. Carle for an examination at \nthat point.  Instead, the Claimant scheduled an appointment for him to see his own doctor first. \nBruce Baker, Jr. \n The Claimant’s son testified on behalf of his father.  Mr. Baker testified that he is \ncurrently dating a nurse.  He also has a lot of friends working in the medical field, and he has \nalso worked in the medical field.  Mr. Baker’s dad called him and told him he had a protrusion \nin his stomach that happened at work.  He was not a witness to the alleged incident. Mr. Baker \ntestified that Dr. Wharton has recommended two surgeons.  However, one of the surgeons no \nlonger performs this type of surgery.  Mr. Baker confirmed that his dad has been diagnosed with \ndiastasis recti, which is a separation of the, a torn muscle. \n On cross-examination, Mr. Baker confirmed that his dad testified that he went to work \non Wednesday after he head the issue with the biscuit, he lifted some ramps and had no problem \ndoing that.           \n                Medical Evidence \nA  review  of  the  medical  evidence  submitted  shows  that  on  September  5,  2023,  the \nClaimant underwent evaluation by Anthony Rodriquez, APRN.  A Chart Note authored by Mr. \nRodriquez shows that the Claimant returned for a follow-up visit of a splinter in his thumb.  At \nthat time, the Claimant reported that a splinter was still in his thumb and that he had a knot in \nhis thumb.  Nurse Rodriquez’ assessment of the Claimant was a foreign body in soft tissue.  Per \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n9 \n \nthese notes, the Claimant’s x-rays showed that the Claimant has arthritis for which a referral to \nOrtho was suggested, but the Claimant wanted to wait.   \nOn  September  11,  2023,  the  Claimant  presented  to  Nurse  Rodriquez  with  a  chief \ncomplaint of concern that he feels pressure in the middle of his chest when he eats, as his food \ndigests.  The Claimant  reported  that  the pressure  moved  downward to  the  abdominal  area.  \nSpecifically,  per  these  notes, the Claimant  presented  with a chief  complaint  of  having  issues \nwith epigastric pain making his left arm go numb.  At that time, the Claimant was noted to have \na history of obesity with BMI of 34.6 and reports that this pain is normally present shortly after \neating.  He denied any shortness of breath. The Claimant was assessed with “1.  Epigastric pain \n(primary).  2. Gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis.”  X-rays of the Claimant’s \nabdomen  revealed  likely  GERD,  Gastro-esophageal  reflux  disease  without  esophagitis. The \nClaimant  was  instructed  to  avoid  overrating;  not  to  lie  flat  within 2  to  3 hours  of  eating  any \nmeal;  avoid  foods  that  worsen  GERD  symptoms;  take  all  medications  as  directed  and \nRTC(return to clinic) if GERD symptoms return.   Nurse Rodriquez provided the Claimant with \nnutrition  counseling and weight  management information.    Specifically,  the  Claimant  was \ncounseled on well-balanced diet consisting of lean meats, fresh fruits, and vegetables, low fat \nmilk and cheeses.  He was also counseled for physical activity daily, which included 30 minutes \na day at least 5 days a week as tolerated, and increase of water intake.  BMI education provided. \nA CT scan was performed of the Claimant’s abdomen on October 5, 2023.  Dr. Rogerich \nT. Paylor’s with an impression of: “1.  No Acute abdominal process.  2. Non-Obstructing right \nnephrolithiasis.  3. A 0.4 cm noncalcified nodule right lung base.”    \nOn October 6, 2023, the Claimant was evaluated by Dr. Joe Wharton. At that time, the \nClaimant  was  assessed  with,  “Gastro-esophageal  reflux  disease  without  esophagitis  and \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n10 \n \ndiastasis recti.” The Claimant was informed of no lifting for one month and return for follow-\nup  in  one  month.  At  that  time,  the  Claimant  was  instructed  on  weight  management  and \ncounseling for nutrition.   \nThe  Claimant  underwent  an  Independent  Medical  Examination of  his  abdomen on \nNovember 16, 2023, Dr. Scott W.F. Carle. \nPURPOSE OF EXAMINATION: Examine for objective findings and issue  \nstatement of impairment.  Causation, and maximum medical improvement.       \n \nMEDICAL RELATIONSHIP DESCRIPTION: \n \nThe Claimant was advised that we are here today for an independent medical \nexamination and that the examining physician will be Scott Carle, M.D.  The \ninformation provided during this examination will be used in the assessment and  \npresented in a report-like fashion to the requesting third party.  The requesting  \nthird party for this exam is Whitney Stratton, RN, CM ICS Consulting Services.   \nNo treating physician relationship will be established, and the report will be  \nshared with the requesting party listed above. \n \nThe Claimant signed, acknowledging understanding above and opinion will be  \ncopied to the requesting third party. \n \nHISTORY OF CURRENT CONDITION: \n \nThis is a 57-year-old male who was performing lifting tasks at work and had an episode  \nof  chest  pressure,  arm  tightness,  and  dyspnea.    The  Claimant  stated  that his  job  tasks \nwere “more demanding than usual.” He was seen by the PCP and thought that he may \nhave had a torn muscle in his chest or abdomen.  He was diagnosed with a diastasis recti.      \n               \n*** \n \nMEDICAL SUMMARY: \n \nThis is a 57-year-old male c/o intolerance to lifting at work by history, there was \napparently an episode of chest tightness with exertion and he was told he had reflux.  \nDuring one of his exams, some attention was given to some protruding of the lineal \nalba.  He underwent a CT scan which did not show acute injury findings.  He denies \na  history  of  abdominal  surgery.    He  states  that  his  abdominal  injury  occurred  on \nSeptember 5, 2023, while lifting ramps at work.  That same day, he was seen for \nf/u for a foreign body in the right thumb and his abdominal exam was noted to be \n“non tender” and “without masses.”  There  has  been  no  history  of  subcutaneous \nbleeding or ecchymosis after or near the case date. \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n11 \n \n \nABDOMEN: \n \nDistended  and  obese  abdomen  without organomegaly.    Linea  alba  with  an \napproximate 5 cm diastasis above the above the umbilicus.  There does not appear \nto be a ventral hernia.  There is no ecchymosis or hematoma.  BS normal and no \nsignificant tenderness. \n \nDIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS: \n1) Idiopathic  rectus  abdominis diastasis (Major  causes:  obesity  and  Age) (No \nevidence of ventral hernia due to lifting) (non-occupational diagnosis). \n2) Exertional chest tightness and history of exertional dyspnea. \n3) Obesity and deconditioning. \n4) Gastro-esophageal reflux. \n5) Skin injury to right thumb (not related). \n6) Hypertension. \n7) CT  abdomen  finding;  0.4  non-calcified  nodule  right  lung  base.    (PCP  f/u \nrecommended.)      \n \nCAUSATION \nCausation:    I  cannot  say,  with  reasonable  medical  certainty,  the  cause  of  his \nabdominal diastasis is from an occupational injury.  While activity may contribute \nto  some  discomfort  the  condition  is  considered  idiopathic  and  not  otherwise \nassociated with an occupational “event.” This condition while present, may lead to \nintolerance for lifting and would be considered as activity intolerance secondary to \nthe presence of the diastasis.  There was no clinical indication of traumatic tissue \nseparation by review of record and current examination.  There is no evidence of \nventral hernia with the diastasis by ultrasound. \n \nMMI    \nMaximum  medical  improvement  is  the  date  at  which  with  reasonable  medical \ncertainty that further deterioration or recovery is not anticipated.  This assessment \nimplies  that  a  condition  is  permanent  and  static.    One  can  either  state  that  it  has \noccurred or opine on when it is expected to occur.   \n \nThere  does  not  exist  an  occupational  injury  to  the  abdomen  for  which  MMI  is \napplicable. \n \nMANAGEMENT/DIAGNOSTIC THERAPEUTIC/CASE ANALYSIS   \n \nManagement: no continued management under workers ‘compensation for these \ncomplaints is justified.   \n \nGroup  health  management  is  recommended  for  his  weight,  blood  pressure  and \nabdominal weakness.  Weight loss and core strengthening can be helpful  for this \ncondition.   Surgery  is  rarely  indicated.  The  history  of  exertional  symptoms  of \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n12 \n \ndyspnea and chest tightness are concerning from a cardiac standpoint.  Mr. Baker \nshould consider exercise stress ting with a cardiologist.  Furthermore, he has been \nnon-compliant  with  hypertension  management.    He  is  also  at  risk  for  obstructive \nsleep apnea and should also be screened for this. \n \nDiagnostics:  ultrasound of the diastasis did not show a hernia or traumatic \ndefect in the diastasis due to injury or trauma.   \n  \n Therapeutics: None indicated under a work compensation setting. \n \n Case Analysis: No additional records would be needed at this time. \n \nThe  final  medical  record  is  a  soft  tissue  ultrasound  abdomen  was  done  on  the \nClaimant’s stomach on November 21, 2023, with the following impression being rendered \nby Dr. Aaron L. Janos: “No soft tissue mass or fluid collection is identified.  No  ventral \nabdominal wall hernia was able to be visualized during Valsalva.”      \n \n                    Adjudication \nCompensability  \nThe Claimant has asserted that he sustained an injury to his abdominal area arising out \nof  and  in  the  course  and  scope of his  employment  with  the  City  of  Warren on September  5, \n2023, while working for the respondent-employer.  \n Act  796  of  1993,  as  codified  at Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl.  2012), \nprovides, in pertinent part:   \n (A)\"Compensable injury\" means: \n(4)(i) An  accidental  injury  causing internal  or  external physical  harm  to  the  body... \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services or \nresults in disability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific \nincident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.] \n      \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.   Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl.  2012).   “Objective findings,” are those \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n13 \n \nfindings  which  cannot  come  under  the voluntary  control  of  the  patient.   Ark.  Code  Ann.  § \n11-9-102(16)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012).   \nThe Claimant has the burden of proving that he sustained a compensable injury.  Ark. \nCode  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)  (E)(i).  Preponderance  of  the  evidence  means  the  evidence  having \ngreater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. \n269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003).   \n  After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of the \ndoubt to either party, based on the current evidence before me, I find that the Claimant failed to \nprove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his \nabdominal area while performing his employment duties on September 5, 2023, while working \nfor the City of Warren. \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on September 5, 2023.  \nThe  Claimant  began  working  for  the  City  Warren  approximately  nine (9) years  ago.    He \ncontinued  to  work  for  the  city  as  of  the  date  of  the  hearing.    The  Claimant  testified  that  his \nemployment  duties  included  that  of  a heavy equipment  operator. He  also  worked  as  a  crew \nleader over several employees.  His testimony shows that he was injured at work while lifting \nsome heavy ramps as he was unloading the mini track.  Per the Claimant’s testimony, he does \nnot recall the exact date of his injury. It is well established in workers’ compensation law that \nan employee does not have to know the exact date that  he was injured.  The Claimant need only \nestablish an injury that is identifiable by proximate date and time.   \nHowever, the Claimant did testify that his injury occurred on a Saturday, while working \nat  the  airport.  He  confirmed  that  there  were  no  witnesses  to  his  accidental  injury.      Per  the \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n14 \n \nClaimant’s testimony, he reported his alleged injury to management the following night when \nhe came to work, which was on September 5, 2023. \nThe CT scan of the Claimant’s abdomen revealed “no acute abdominal process.” I \nam  well  aware  of the  fact that  the  workers’  compensation  statute  does  not  have  a \nrequirement of an injury being “acute.”  However, there is no evidence demonstrating a \ntraumatic injury to the Claimant’s stomach.  Nor was a traumatic injury to the Claimant’s \nstomach demonstrated on the soft tissue ultrasound of his abdomen.   \nThe  Claimant’s  testimony  of  a  work-related   injury   to   his   stomach   is   not \ncorroborated by the contemporaneous medical evidence or any other probative evidence of \nrecord.  In fact, the Claimant initially reported that he had indigestion and some heart-like \nrelated symptoms to his treating physician.  There is no medically documented complaint \nof an alleged work-related injury to his stomach until around September 5, 2023.  He was \ncomplaining of abdominal symptoms prior to his diagnoses of “rectus abdominis diastasis.”  \nMoreover, Dr. Carle opined that this condition is idiopathic and not otherwise associated \nwith an occupational “event.” Dr. Carle further opined “That this condition while present, \nmay  lead  to  intolerance  for  lifting  and  would  be  considered  as  activity  intolerance \nsecondary to the presence of the diastasis.  There was no clinical indication of traumatic \ntissue  separation  by  review  of  record  and  current  examination.    There  is  no  evidence  of \nventral hernia with the diastasis by ultrasound.” I have attached significant weight to Dr. \nCarle’s opinion because it is consistent with the medical evidence and the Claimant’s \npattern of complaints. There is absolutely no expert opinion to the contrary. In fact, the CT \nof the Claimant’s abdomen did not show any  traumatic  findings  of  any  injury  such  as \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n15 \n \nbleeding, swelling or anything of that nature.  Nor did the Claimant report or complain of \nany bleeding or swelling.    \nIn fact, no probative evidence whatsoever has been offered to support a finding that the \nClaimant sustained a specific incident injury while working for the respondent-employer.  The \nonly evidence offered in this regard was the self-serving testimony of the Claimant, which I did \nnot find to be credible.  Not only is the Claimant’s testimony not substantiated by the medical \nrecords, the Claimant’s own testimony in this regard to his  alleged  injury  is  conflicting  and \nconfusing. Under these circumstances, I am persuaded that it would require an impermissible \namount of sheer conjecture and speculation to attribute the Claimant’s current abdominal issues \nto his  work  activities  with  this  respondent-employer.    Conjecture  and  speculation,  however \nplausible, cannot supply the place of proof.  Dena Construction Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, \n575 S.W. 2d 155 (1979).  Here, proof of a work-place abdominal injury is lacking. Therefore, \nafter reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to \neither party, I find that the Claimant failed to prove he sustained a compensable injury within \nthe  meaning  of  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act on  September  5,  2023,  while \nperforming employment duties for the City of Warren.  \nHaving  found  that  the Claimant did  not  sustain  a  compensable  injury,  the  issues \npertaining to associated  benefits for this alleged injury are  rendered moot  and therefore have \nnot been addressed herein this opinion.     \n                                                         ORDER \nThe Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he \nsustained   a   compensable abdominal injury   on September 5,   2023,   while   performing \nemployment  duties  for  the  respondent-employer/the  City  of  Warren.    As  such,  this  claim  is \n\nBaker- H400206 \n \n16 \n \nhereby respectfully denied and dismissed in its entirety.  All other issues have been rendered \nmoot and discussed herein this Opinion.       \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.: H400206 BRUCE BAKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF WARREN, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT MUNIICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, El Dorado, Unio...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:37.173Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H400206-2024-09-30","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BAKER_BRUCE_H400206_20240930.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}