{"id":"alj-H400768-2025-07-22","awcc_number":"H400768","decision_date":"2025-07-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Carol Diaz","employer_name":"Envoy Air, Inc","title":"DIAZ VS. ENVOY AIR, INC. AWCC# H400768 July 22, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","strain","lumbar","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DIAZ_CAROL_H400768_20250722.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"DIAZ_CAROL_H400768_20250722.pdf","text_length":69973,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                                CLAIM NO.:H400768 \n \nCAROL DIAZ, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nENVOY AIR, INC.,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                              RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nAIU INSURANCE COMPANY/SEDGWICK  \nCLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 22, 2025 \n             \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented  by the Honorable GREGORY R.  GILES, Attorney  at  Law, Texarkana, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable RANDY P. MURPHY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n    STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn April 23, 2025, the above-captioned case came on for a hearing before the Arkansas \nWorkers’  Compensation  Commission in Little  Rock,  Arkansas.   A pre-hearing  telephone \nconference was held in this matter on March 19, 2025.  A Pre-hearing Order was entered on that \nsame day.  The parties’ pre-hearing information filings have been made a part of the record without \nobjection; and thus, been marked accordingly, as Commission’s Exhibit No. 1. \n During the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties agreed to \nthe following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n2. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed among the parties, on  \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n2 \n \nJanuary 16, 2024, at which time, the Claimant alleges to have sustained compensable \ninjuries to her back and left leg during and in the course and scope of her employment \nwith the respondent-employer, Envoy Air. \n \n3. The Claimant’s average weekly wage on the day of her alleged work-related incident \nwas  $808.98.   Her weekly compensation rate is $539.00, for temporary total \ndisability/TTD  compensation, and $404.00\n1\n for  permanent  partial  disability/PPD \nbenefits. \n \n4. The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.     \n    \n5. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct. \n \n During the  pre-hearing  telephone conference, the  parties  agreed  to  litigate  the  following \nissues:   \n1. Whether  the Claimant  sustained  compensable  injuries  to her back and  left  leg on \nJanuary 16, 2024, by a specific incident injury, or whether she sustained a gradual onset \ninjury. \n  \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment for her \nalleged injuries, both of record and future medical treatment. \n \n3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to TTD compensation from January 17, 2024, through \nMarch 30, 2024, excluding the time she worked in January.  Specifically, the Claimant \nworked her entire shifts on January 23, 2024, January 24, and January 25.  However, \nthe Claimant worked only one hour on January 29. \n \n4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to a 10% impairment rating for her alleged back injury. \n \n5. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee.   \n \n The Claimant’s and Respondents’ contentions are set out in their respective response to the \npre-hearing questionnaire and those made at the beginning of the hearing.  Said contentions are as \nfollows: \n Claimant: The  Claimant contends  that  she  sustained  compensable  injuries  to the  left  leg \n \n1\n There  is  a  clerical  error  in  the hearing transcript  at  page  5 concerning the Claimant’s correct  weekly \ncompensation rate for TTD compensation.  Her correct compensation rate is $404.00, instead of the erroneously listed \namount of $040.00.     \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n3 \n \nand back on January 16, 2024.  The Claimant contends that the medical treatment received to date \nhas been reasonable, necessary, and related such that the Respondents should be ordered to pay \nfor same.  The Claimant contends entitlement to temporary total and/or temporary partial disability \nbenefits  from  January  17,  2024,  through  and  until  March  30,  2024.  The  Claimant  contends \nentitlement  to  a  permanent  impairment  rating  of  10%  to  the  body  as  a  whole.    The  Claimant \ncontends that the Respondents should be ordered to pay a controverted attorney’s fee as provided \nby law.   \n At the beginning of the hearing, the Claimant’s attorney changed his contentions:  \n The Claimant contends that she sustained a compensable injury to her back by a gradual \nonset injury or a specific  incident.   It  is noted  that  the  medical  evidence  here reflects that the \nClaimant had some symptoms prior to the specific date and time of January 16, 2024.  However, \nshe did not miss any time from work until the event of January 16.  She has the argument of at \nleast some gradual symptoms occurring.  However, they did not allege that at the time.   \n The Claimant contends that the specific event that created the need for the surgery that she \nhad and the time that she missed work is due to the specific event.   \n However, the  Claimant  further  contends  that in  terms  of  a  gradual  onset  injury  prior  to \nJanuary 16, 2024, there may have been an injury.  She did not miss any time off work for it.  But \nin terms of the timeframe of what she is contending created the time off work, and the time that \ncreated the impairment rating, we contend was the event of January 16, 2024.\n2\n   \n The Claimant completed the Form N, and in that document, on page 25 of the Claimant’s \nTable of Contents, she outlines a statement that references the timeframe prior to the January 16 \nevent in terms of her symptoms and complaints.  However, the medical records reference that those \n \n \n2\n Counsel for the Claimant inadvertently stated the incorrect alleged specific incident date as being January 14, \n2024.  Instead, the correct alleged specific incident date is January 16. \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n4 \n \noccurred because of the nature of her work.  Therefore, to the extent that a compensable injury can \noccur over time or by specific incident, the Claimant contends that both in either/or circumstance \ncaused her injury.              \nRespondents:   The Respondents contend that the Claimant did not sustain a compensable \ninjury within the course and scope of her employment. \nAt the beginning of the hearing, the Respondents’ attorney contended that they believe the \ncredible  evidence, the  medical  records,  and  in  particular  the  testimony  of  Ms.  Carol  Diaz will \nsupport  a  gradual  onset-type  of  injury  that  had  developed  gradually  over  a  period  of  time.  \nRespondents contend that they have dates of when the gradual onset injury started; and they have \nmedical  records  supporting  that  it  is  a  gradual  onset-type  injury  for  this  back  claim, and  not  a \nspecific incident injury.  \n                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nFrom a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documentary evidence, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to listen to the \ntestimony of the Claimant 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 claim. \n      2.      I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n            3.      The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained     \n                     compensable injuries to her back and left leg due to a specific incident occurring on \n                     January 16, 2024.  The alternative assertion of a gradual onset injury has thus been  \n          rendered moot.  \n                      \n           4.      The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that all the medical  \n         treatment of record was reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received     \n         by her on January 16, 2024.  No future medical treatment has been recommended for  \n         the Claimant’s compensable injuries.    \n \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n5 \n \n5.       The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence her entitlement to temporary  \n         total disability compensation beginning on January 17, 2024, and continuing through  \n         March 30, 2024, excluding the days she worked on January 23, 2024, and through          \n         continuing through January 25; and the one hour that she worked on January 29.              \n \n6.     The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a 10% \n        permanent anatomical impairment to the body as a whole due to her compensable back        \n        injury of January 16, 2024. \n \n7.    The parties stipulated that the Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.       \n       Therefore, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on the  \n        indemnity benefits awarded to the Claimant herein.  \n                    \nSummary of Evidence \n The entire record is made up of the April 23, 2025, hearing transcript, which includes the \ndocumentary  evidence  of Commission’s Exhibit No.  1; Claimant’s Exhibit No.  1,  which  is  a \nMedical  Exhibit  Abstract  consisting  of six pages; and Claimant’s Exhibit No. 2 comprising 70 \nnumbered pages of medical records. The Claimant, Ms. Carol Diaz, was the only witness to testify \nduring the hearing. \n                                        HEARING TESTIMONY \n  \nMs. Carol Diaz/the Claimant \n As  of  the  date  of  the  hearing,  the Claimant was 52  years  of  age.  Although  born  in  the \nUnited  States, the  Claimant lived in Chile  for  a  significant  period of  time,  which  is  where she \nreceived all of her education.  The Claimant graduated from high school and later earned a degree \nin  Business  Administration while  living  there.  In  2018,  the  Claimant,  her  husband,  and their \nchildren returned to the United States.  The Claimant described her English fluency to be at 80%, \nalthough she testified that her ability to understand English surpasses her speaking ability.  She \nconfirmed that she was comfortable proceeding without an interpreter.   \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n6 \n \n The  Claimant began her  employment with the  respondent-employer, Envoy  Air,  as an \ninventory control specialist on April 20, 2020.  Her job title and description remained unchanged \nas of January 16, 2024.   Her standard work schedule was from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., Sunday \nthrough Thursday.  According to the Claimant, Envoy Air is a passenger airline company.   \n She provided the  following description  of  her daily employment duties as  an  inventory \nspecialist: \nA I do shipping/receiving.  I work on the computer.  I get parts for their place \nso  they  can  do  their  job at  nighttime.    I  help  mechanics  with  the  tools.    I  get \neverything ready for them to have the work done every night. \n \nQ What kind of lifting and carrying would you have to be responsible for? \n \nA A lot of lifting, like – – heavy parts like tires, brakes, blades.  Like also we \nhave from little parts to big parts which I have to be – I have to get them ready to \ngo out for repair. \n \nQ What would be generally like the heaviest thing you would have to lift? \n \nA Every day?  Main tires, nose tires that go – – \n \nQ How much would something like that – – \n \nA Main (sic) tires about 110, and nose tires are about 68 pounds.  There’s some \nheavy parts, I don’t remember the name, but they usually weigh over 50 pounds.  A \nbrake is 150 pounds.  Blades are 300 pounds, and, of course, I didn’t have to pick \nup that myself, just me; I always request help when it’s over 300 pounds.   And \nthat’s basically what I do every day at work. \n I ship out everything that needs to go out for repair.  And in the last couple \nmonths that year before, I was working by myself a lot of times so I needed to have \neverything done so they can go out for repair. \n \nWith respect to the Claimant’s alleged work injury of January 16, she testified that it is the \nday that she will never forget because it was on a Tuesday, after a snowstorm.  According to the \nClaimant, she was picking up a box from the floor and felt a very sharp pain in her leg, and she \nwas unable to move.  The Claimant explained, “...  It was – –  it was a different pain than I had \nbefore.”  In fact, the Claimant testified, “I never felt it before.” According to the Claimant, the box \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n7 \n \nshe was trying to lift weighed approximately 50 pounds.  The Claimant further explained that after \npicking up the box, she felt a sharp pain like a burning sensation.  She denied having experienced \nthat type  of  burning  sensation previously.   The  Claimant essentially testified  that  the pain  was \ncompletely different because she never had discomfort in her legs before.  \nThe  Claimant  testified  that  her supervisor,  John  Thurber, saw what  happened.   Per  the \nClaimant, Mr.  Thurber was  walking  in  front  of  her when  the  incident occurred.   The  Claimant \nexplained that  she  did  not  say  anything  to  anyone because  her supervisor was present for  the \nincident.  However, she testified  that Mr. Thurber  said to her, “Carol, you better see a doctor.”  \nAccording to the Claimant, at that time, she replied, “Okay.  I will do that.”  \nShe admitted that this was not the first time she had experienced discomfort in her left leg.  \nThe Claimant testified that she first started having pain in her left leg, a couple of months before \nthis happened, for which she sought attention.  At that time, the Claimant testified that she was not \n100% well; and she had some discomfort in her leg that was starting to bother her.  \nUnder  further  direct  examination, the Claimant fully explained the exact location of  the \ndiscomfort in her leg.  Specifically, the Claimant testified: “My left foot, yes.  I’m sorry.  It’s my \nleft foot, my left leg, my calf, my -- the whole leg.  I tried to explain (sic) the doctor that was what \nI was feeling.” The Claimant confirmed that she sought medical treatment from her family \nphysician, Dr. Stone.  She agreed that she saw Dr. Stone on December 15, 2023.  The Claimant \nconfirmed that she provided a history to Dr. Stone of having the symptoms for the last two weeks, \nwhich would have been the first part of December 2023.  She admitted that she saw Dr. Stone on \ntwo other occasions before January 16, 2024.   \n According  to  the  Claimant,  Dr.  Stone  provided  her  with conservative treatment  that \nincluded an injection on her leg, near to her hip, on the left side.  She confirmed that the injection \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n8 \n \nprovided some temporary relief for her leg pain.  Dr. Stone also prescribed painkillers that worked \nfor a few days, and she believed her symptoms had resolved.  The Claimant admitted to seeing Dr. \nStone on January 2, 2024.  However, she denied having missed any work during this time.  She \nconfirmed that she told Dr. Stone that she believed her job had created this problem.  The Claimant \ndenied experiencing any back problems when she saw Dr. Stone in December and the period before \nJanuary 16, 2024.  She continued to deny any back pain even after the January 16 incident.  The \nClaimant consistently attributed all her discomfort to her left leg.   \n She  denied any  prior medical treatment for  any type  of back related problems.    The \nClaimant  admitted she  completed  her shift  on  January  16 following her  lifting  incident.    She \nconfirmed that she returned to work the next day.  However, upon arrival for work on January 17, \nthe Claimant was unable to move freely due to pain.  The Claimant contacted her supervisor, John \nThurber, who was absent that day, to report severe pain and her need to seek medical attention.  \nDue to the Claimant’s primary care physician’s office being closed, she presented to Baptist Health \nUrgent Care.  They provided the Claimant with an off work note for January 17 through January \n23.  She turned the note in to Mr. Thurber via email.  The Claimant was able to see her  family \ndoctor on January 19.  Dr. Stone reviewed some home stretching exercises with her for her leg.  \nwho recommended home exercise stretches for  her  leg.   Also,  the  Claimant  testified  that he \nprescribed some medications for her symptoms.   \nThe  Claimant confirmed that  Dr.  Stone gave her another note  allowing  her to  return  to \nwork with certain physical restrictions.  She admitted that she worked on January 23, 24 and 25. \nShe acknowledged that her employer agreed to accommodate her restrictions.  She denied that her \nsymptoms got any better during that period.  According to the Claimant, she inquired about getting \nhelp through workers’ compensation.  On Wednesday, January 23, the coordinator for workers’ \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n9 \n \ncompensation benefits came and told her she needed to fill out a form to put in a claim regarding \nher workplace incident.   \nShe testified that Shauna Schultz is the coordinator for workers’ comp. benefits for Envoy \nAir.  The Claimant testified that she completed the necessary forms given to her by Ms. Schultz.  \nShe confirmed that she was given a work excuse for Monday, January 29, 2024.  However, the \nClaimant went to work on January 29, but they sent her home because he was in a lot of pain.  She \nadmitted  to going  back to  Baptist  Health  Urgent  Care  again.    According  to  the  Claimant,  her \nhusband took her off work excuse to the office and gave it to her supervisor. \n The Claimant confirmed that she saw her family doctor on February 1.  At that point, the \nClaimant had health insurance.  She continued to follow under the care of Dr. Stone.  He took the \nClaimant off work through February 12 and recommended an MRI.  \nAfter the Claimant underwent the MRI, she was referred to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Youssef.  \nShe confirmed that after she worked one hour on January 29, she did not work again until after her \nsurgery and recovery.  At that point, the Claimant returned to work for Envoy Air. \nShe  admitted  that  she  went  to  physical  therapy  after  undergoing back surgery.   The \nClaimant confirmed that the surgery was beneficial.  According to the Claimant, she has been able \nto work and no longer has severe pain in her left leg.  She attended physical therapy sessions for \nabout a month, three times a week.  There is a note where Dr. Youssef returned the Claimant to \nwork as of March 26.  The Claimant testified that she returned to work for Envoy Air, on March \n30.  She admitted that she was not paid for the days she was off work.  The Claimant denied having \nreceived short-term or long-term disability.  She testified that the workers’ compensation carrier \ndid  not  ever  pay her  anything for her injury.   The  Claimant provided  testimony  outlining  her \ncurrent  work  situation  and  physical  restrictions.   She  is  working  under  permanent  physical \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n10 \n \nrestrictions,  which Envoy  Air is  accommodating.    Her permanent restrictions  include  no  lifting \nmore than 15 pounds.  She has not returned to see Dr. Youssef since her release from his care.  The \nClaimant denied having to take any medications or get pain management or any type of medical \ntreatment since her release from his care.   \nAccording to the Claimant, she continues to do the same job, except for the heavy lifting.  \nShe can print paper and do paperwork.  The Claimant can lift small parts, and if she needs to lift \nheavy parts, her workers help with the heavy parts.   \nThe Claimant confirmed that she has health insurance coverage.  However, there are some \nout-of-pocket expenses, which have been made as part of the record.  She agreed that she is asking \nthat her medical treatment be considered reasonable and necessary.  The Claimant is also asking \nthat the out-of-pocket expenses be considered reimbursable to her.  She confirmed that Dr. Youssef \nreleased  her from  his  care.  According  to  the  Claimant,  Dr. Hugghins evaluated her  for  an \nassessment for an impairment rating.  He assessed the Claimant with a 10% impairment rating to \nthe body as a whole.  The Claimant denied that she has been paid for the above rating.     \nRegarding her symptoms, the Claimant essentially testified that she continues to experience \nnumbness in her left foot.  However, she explained that her back is pain free.  She can bend with \ncare, do things, and walk.  In fact, the Claimant has a treadmill and can walk on it for 20 minutes, \nwithout any problems.  According to the Claimant, she tries to walk at least three times per week. \nThe Claimant  verified  that  since  her  employment  with  Envoy  Air,  she  has  continued  to \nreceive pay increases.  She confirmed that she has received a pay raise since her alleged injury.    \nOn cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that she had back surgery on February 15, \n2024.   Dr.  Youssef performed  her  surgery.    She  saw  him  in follow-up  care  and  was ultimately \nreleased from his care.  The Claimant agreed that Dr. Youssef evaluated her on March 26 and told \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n11 \n \nher she could return to work at light duty, with a 20-pound lifting limit.  However, the Claimant \ntestified he changed her lifting limit. On April 1, 2024, the Claimant returned to Dr. Youssef and \nhe increased her lifting limit to 25 pounds, with the stipulation of no twisting or turning with force.  \nThe Claimant returned to Dr. Youssef again on June 5, 2024, and he permanently lowered \nher lifting restrictions to 15 pounds over her lifetime.  She confirmed that the surgery resulted in \nan  improvement  in  her  symptoms.    The Claimant  further  confirmed  that currently Envoy  is \naccommodating her restrictions, and she does not see any problems related to her working under \nthose  restrictions.   She  admitted to  having reported as  referenced  in  a  medical  report that her \ncondition improved significantly after her surgery.  The Claimant is not under a doctor’s care for \nher condition and has no future appointments scheduled.             \nWith further  questioning,  the  Claimant admitted  that during  her  deposition, she testified \nthat she started having problems around the first week of December 2023.  She agreed that she did \nnot name any specific injury or day that this event occurred in December.   The Claimant admitted \nthat she did not report anything to her employer in December about needing to see a doctor.  She \nconfirmed  that  she  sought  treatment  for  her  symptoms  on  her  own  in  December  2023.   The \nClaimant confirmed that when she did go to the doctor, she saw her family doctor, Dr. Valentin-\nStone.\n3\n  The  Claimant  saw  him  on  December  15,  2023.    She  admitted  that  she  reported  to  Dr. \nValentin-Stone she had been having some left foot pain, that radiated from her foot to her hip.  Per \nthose notes, the Claimant reported that she had those symptoms for the last two or three weeks.  \nAt that time, she agreed that she did not report a history of trauma or an injury.   \nThe Claimant admitted to seeing Dr. Valentin-Stone on January 2, 2024, for a second visit, \nwhich was just a follow-up visit.  At that time, Dr. Stone documented that the Claimant was having \n \n \n3\n Of note, Dr. Paul Valentin-Stone is referred to as Dr. Valentin-Stone in portions of this opinion, and in other \nparts, he is referred to as Dr. Stone.  \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n12 \n \npain in her calf, and it had been present for two or three months.  She admitted that she treats with \nDr. Valentin-Stone for a number of general health problems.   \nThe Claimant agreed that an event happened on January 16, 2024.  She admitted that her \nsupervisor saw her facial expressions and asked what was wrong.  According to the Claimant, her \nsupervisor observed that she was in a lot of pain and that something had happened to her.  At that \npoint, the Claimant admitted  that  she did  not say  anything  to  him  about  filing  a  workers’ \ncompensation claim.  The Claimant further admitted she did not pursue any type of request that \nthe company provide her with medical treatment.  However, the Claimant admitted to going back \nto the urgent care clinic.  She confirmed that the only record she has from there is of them taking \nher off work.   \nShe admitted to seeing Dr. Valentin-Stone on January 19, 2024, due to complaints of left \nleg pain.  He prepared a comprehensive note wherein he documented that the Claimant was there \nfor follow-up.  According to the Claimant, the urgent care clinic directed her to follow up with her \nprimary  care  physician.   The  Claimant admitted  that  she  was  not  aware  of  the  record  from  her \nJanuary 19 visit, not mentioning the January 16 event.  \nUnder further cross-examination, the Claimant acknowledged that she filled out the Form \nAR-N on January 30, 2024.  She admitted that she did not document a specific date on this form.  \nIt  simply  reads, “While lifting/moving heavy parts boxes had a pain for over a month.” She \nadmitted that the last doctor she saw was for an assessment of an impairment rating.  The Claimant \nconfirmed that the doctor is not a treating physician, but rather a chiropractor.          \nShe confirmed that her group health insurance is Blue Cross/Blue Shield.  The Claimant \nadmitted that she was found to be eligible for FMLA, and it was approved.  She further admitted \nthat she had a bona fide offer of employment for transitional duty, and they accommodated light \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n13 \n \nduty.  The Claimant admitted that she was off work except for the dates her attorney provided for \nthe record, until she resumed working on March 31, 2024.   \nThe  Claimant  admitted  that she is  not currently under a doctor’s care.   She  now  makes \n$21.82 an hour.  At the time of her injury, the Claimant was making $19.05 an hour.  She admitted \nthat she has received only one raise.  This upcoming May, the Claimant will be eligible for another \npay increase, which she predicts to be close to $22.80 an hour.                  \nShe admitted that there is no mention of an event in the January 19, report.  According to \nthe Claimant, it was difficult to explain things because she was in so much pain.  The Claimant \ndenied that she has done anything to reinjure herself.   \nOn redirect examination, the Claimant testified: \nQ       So take us back to December 2023, early January 2024, you had been in to \nsee Dr. Stone and you were telling him about you thought this might be something \nthat happened at work; right?  \n   \n         A Yes.   \n Q Tell us why you didn’t report that to your job at that time. \n  A Because I thought it was  -- the pain was gonna go away, that it was gonna \ngo away, that it was gonna feel better and there was no reason for me to tell no one \n because every time that I go to a doctor, they give me painkillers to help for a few \ndays, and I was hoping that the pain would go away with my care at home doing \nnot many things, so I thought it was no reasons at all to tell my employer.  And I \ndidn’t want to miss any days. \n \nThe Claimant admitted to telling Shauna Schultz a specific date of injury when she  \nfilled out the paperwork for her injury.  She testified that she gave them a specific date of January \n16, 2024.  Next, the Claimant was shown page 22 of the Claimant’s exhibit, which is a letter from \nSedgwick that was sent to her on January 25, 2024; and it does have an injury date of January 16.  \nShe agreed that the Form N at page 25, of Claimant’s Exhibit 1 is a document she signed on January \n30.    It  states  that  the  Claimant  injured  her  left  leg,  and  she provided an  explanation  of what \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n14 \n \nhappened.  She agreed that the place of the accident, date of the accident, and time of the accident \nwere all left blank because they knew the date; and she just wanted a description of what happened \nto her.   According to the Claimant, at that time, she was in a lot of pain, and everything was new \nto her, and she did fully understand the process.            \n                      MEDICAL EVIDENCE \n A review of the medical records demonstrates that on December 15, 2023, the Claimant   \nsought  medical  attention  from  CHI  St.  Vincent,  under  the  care  Dr.  Paul  Valentin-Stone (her \nprimary care physician) due to pain in her left foot, that radiated from her hip to her foot.  Per this \nmedical report, there was no history of trauma or injury.  The Claimant reported that when walking \nshe was asymptomatic, but stooping caused her pain.  Dr. Stone assessed the Claimant with, among \nother things, “Trochanteric bursitis.”  The Claimant was given an injection with Celestone and \nLidocaine.  \n On January 2, 2024, the Claimant sought follow up medical care from CHI St. Vincent due \nto a chief complaint of left leg pain.  The injection provided excellent results for her pain in the \nleft  trochanteric  bursa.    However,  now  the  Claimant complained  of  pain  in  her  calf, over  her \nAchilles tendon and the posterior triceps, in the lower left extremity.  This had been present for \ntwo to three months and was noted to probably be work related. It all was muscular in nature.  Dr. \nStone opined in relevant part: “... Muscle strain with spasm associated with most likely her work \nactivity.”  Dr. Stone reviewed with the Claimant some home stretching exercise and the use of a \ndeep massage machine that she will obtain and start using over the sore tissues.  She was instructed \nto use moist heat as well as Motrin for inflammation...”  \n It appears that the Claimant was seen at the Baptist Health Urgent Care clinic on January \n17, 2024, under the care of Cherry Megan, NP.  At that time, the Claimant was excused from work \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n15 \n \nfrom January 17, 2024, until January 23, 2024.     \n Dr. Valentin-Stone saw the Claimant on January 19, 2024, in a follow-up appointment due \nto her January 17 urgent care visit.  Per this note, during the last two weeks, the Claimant had left \nfoot pain from her foot to hip with no history of trauma or injury.  When walking the Claimant \nwas  noted  to  be  asymptomatic.    However,  she  reported  that  stooping  caused  pain.    She  also \nreported  pain  in  her  calf  over  the  Achilles  tendon  and  the  posterior  triceps of  her lower  left \nextremity.  These symptoms were noted to have been present for two to three months and were \nprobably work related.  These symptoms were muscular in nature.  She had severe posterior left \nleg pain over the sciatic distribution.  The Claimant did not complain of low back pain; but she \nhad difficulty getting out of bed in the mornings.  Her leg on the left side in the lower posterior \naspect  was  very  tender.  Dr.  Stone stated  that  this  was the  sciatic  nerve  distribution  probably \nassociated with the piriformis muscle and spasm of the same since she had no back pain and no \nreproducible back pain.  Dr.Valentin-Stone opined that on physical examination, palpitation of the \nClaimant left’s leg showed tissue texture changes, asymmetric and tenderness as reported by her.  \nAt that time, Dr. Valentin-Stone opined that the Claimant had muscle strain with spasm associated \nwith most likely her work activities.  He reviewed with the Claimant, home stretching exercises \nand the use of deep massage machine that she would obtain and start using over the sore tissues.  \nThe Claimant was instructed to use moist heat as well as Motrin for inflammation.  Dr.Valentin- \nStone directed the Claimant to follow up with him in three months.     \n Also, on January 19, Dr. Stone placed work restrictions on the Claimant.  He opined that \nthe Claimant’s weightlifting limit was no more than 30-pounds.      \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n16 \n \n On January 23, 2024, Envoy provided the Claimant with a Bona Fide Offer of Employment \nfor Transitional Duty.  The start date was January 23, 2024, and the end date was April 23, 2024.  \nPer this document, the Claimant’s date of injury was January 16, 2024.    \n The claims examiner for Envoy Air wrote a letter to the Claimant on January 25, 2024.  Per \nthis letter, the Claimant’s date of injury was noted to be January 16, 2024.  \n On  January  29,  2024,  the  Claimant  was  seen again at  the  Baptist  Health  Urgent  Care.  \nEbony Thompson, NP, authored a note that same date.  Thompson stated that the Claimant was \nseen at their clinic and excused from work until February 4, 2024.   \n The Claimant signed a Form AR-N on January 30, 2024.  Per this document, the Claimant’s \ninjury to her left leg occurred while lifting, moving heavy parts, boxes.  She stated that she had \npain for over a month.  However, the Claimant wrote “but on that day I felt a sharp burning pain \non my left leg.  Unable to get down or move at all.” \n On  February  1,  2024,  the  Claimant  saw  Dr. Valentin-Stone  for  a  follow-up  visit due  to \nchronic sciatica pain and recurrent sciatic syndrome, after non-invasive treatments had failed.  Dr. \nValentin-Stone  noted  that  on physical examination of the Claimant’s left leg, palpation of it \nrevealed tissue texture changes.  At that time, Dr. Valentin-Stone stated that he would go ahead \nwith an MRI of the lumbar/sacral and a referral to neurosurgery for evaluation.  Dr. Valentin-Stone \nassessed the Claimant with, among other things, “Sciatica of left side.”   \n Also, on February 1, Dr.Valentin-Stone authored a letter concerning the Claimant’s current \nmedical condition and the need for diagnostic evaluation.  Specifically, Dr. Valentin-Stone wrote: \nTo Whom It May Concern. \nI am the primary care physician for Carol Diaz, and she was examined by me on February  \n1,  2024.    Due  to  the  nature  of  her  job,  she  is  required  to  lift  and  transfer  heavy  objects.  \nThis has precipitated severe left hip pain, sciatica, and radiculopathy.  She will be having \nan MRI of her lumbar spine to evaluate this further.  She will need to be off of work until \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n17 \n \nall her work up for the same has been done.  I am enclosing a work note for her stating she \nwill need to be off work through February 11, 2024, with a tentative start date back to work \non February 12, 2024.  Please take this information into consideration. \n \n An MRI of the Claimant’s lumbar spine was performed on February 2, 2024, with the \nfollowing conclusion: \n1. Multileveled degenerative change. \n2. Disc bulging L3/4 and disc protrusion L4/5 as above. \n3. Milder disc bulging at L5/S1.  \n \n The Claimant was evaluation by Dr. Hossam Youssef on February 5, 2024, due to a chief \ncomplaint of continued severe left leg sciatica and related symptoms.  The Claimant mentioned \nthat she had a lifestyle for years in her employment, where herein her job duties included lifting, \npulling, and pushing heavy objects as an airport worker.  At that time, the Claimant stated that the \nsciatic symptoms  were getting  worse  especially  over  the  past  two  months.   She  complained  of \ndifficulty with walking and  doing her  daily  activities.  She  denied  any  urinary  or  fecal \nincontinence.  The Claimant continued with no significant symptoms of back pain.  Dr. Youssef \nstated that the MRI of her lumbosacral spine revealed severe lumbar spondylosis mainly at L3-4, \nL4-5 and L5-S1, which was more prominent at L4-5 in the form of a large left lateral disc prolapse \ncompressing the left L-4 and L-5 nerve roots.  Per these clinical notes, the Claimant reported that \nshe had not experienced any back pain.  She also reported gait disturbance, and sharp left leg pain.  \nDr.  Youssef  assessment  was: “1.   Sciatica  of  the  left  side – M54.32.  2.  Lumbar  spondylosis -\nM47.816.  3. Prolapsed lumbar disc – M51.26,” for which he recommended surgical intervention.    \n On  February  8,  2024,  Dr. Valentin-Stone  authored  an off-work excuse  for  the  Claimant \nfrom February 12, 2024, through February 15, 2024.  \n Dr. Youssef authored an Operative Report on February 15, 2024. \n  Indication for Surgery  \n  Diaz Carole DOB 10/22/1969 is a pleasant patient presented to my service c/o  \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n18 \n \nsevere left L4-5, sciatica with denying any back pain.  Patient works as a luggage \ncarrier  at  the  airport,  she tried  the  non-surgical  conservative  options  without  any \nimprovement,  MRI  revealed  L3-S1  Lumbar  spondylosis  profound  at  Left  L4-5, \nwith  a  big  caudally  migrated  Disk  herniation  with  foraminal  and  extraforaminal \nextension. \n         \n   Preoperative Diagnosis  \nLeft  L4-5  with  a  big  caudally  migrated  disk  herniation  with  foraminal  and \nextraforaminal extension.  \n \nOperation  \n1. Microscopic partial Left L4 laminectomy and partial facetectomy. \n2. Microscopic microsurgical excision of the Left L4-5 herniated disc (Lateral and \nextraforaminal approach). \n3. *** added complexity to the operation lateral and extraforaminal herniation of \nthe disc fragment. \n      \n      * * * * \nFindings  \nBig disk  herniation  laterally,  foraminal  and extraforaminal  at  L4-5  with  caudal \nmigration with compression of the Left L-5 root at its axilla.  \n \n On February 16, 2024, the Claimant underwent an ultrasound procedure, which included \nbilateral lower extremity venous duplex. \nFINDINGS:  The common  femoral  superficial  femoral,  and  popliteal  veins  appear \nunremarkable.  Normal compressibility and augmentation demonstrated.   \n \nIMPRESSION: No evidence of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis.  Please note that \nNo evidence of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis.  Please note this exam includes \nboth lower extremities. \n \nDr. Youssef authored a Discharge Report.  He noted that the Claimant tolerated the  \nsurgery well without complications.  The Claimant told him that she had significant improvement \nof the left sciatica.  She was neurologically stable and intact.  Dr. Youssef discharged the Claimant \nhome on February 17, 2024, in stable condition.      \n On March 26, 2024, Dr. Youssef saw the Claimant in a follow-up clinic following her L4-\n5 microdiscectomy on the left side, which was performed on February 15, 2024.  At that time, the \nClaimant reported that she had significant improvement in her symptoms, and she was very happy \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n19 \n \nand satisfied with her surgery and asked about getting back to work.  Dr. Youssef stated that the \nClaimant’s surgical wound was clean, dry, and intact.  He assessed the Claimant with “Prolapsed \nlumbar disc – M51.26 (Primary),” for which he recommended the Claimant be referred to physical \ntherapy.  At that time, Dr. Youssef stated that he would allow the Claimant to get back to work \nwith strict lifting restrictions of no more than fifteen pounds, with follow-up again in two months.     \n Also, on that same day,  Dr. Youssef issued the  Claimant a return-to-work note.  At that \ntime, Dr. Youssef stated that the Claimant could return to work on light duty effective March 26, \n2024.  Special instructions: “No lifting over 20-pounds.”   \n On  April  2,  2024, Dr.  Youssef  authored  a  Fitness  for  Duty  Authorization  Form,  Envoy.   \nPer this document, the Claimant was returned to work as of April 1, 2024, with restrictions of no \nlifting over 25-pounds, and no twisting or turning with force.  \n The Claimant returned to Dr. Youssef for a follow-up visit due to her lumbar spine surgery \non June 4, 2024.   At that time, Dr. Youssef noted that the Claimant had returned to work with \nstrict lifting restrictions of no more than 15 pounds.  However, Dr. Youssef stated that no additional \nfollow-up was needed with him, but he was available if she needed anything in the future.      \n Dr. Joe Hugghins, DC, of Academy Rehab, saw the Claimant on October 26, 2024, for an \nImpairment Evaluation.  Per these medical note, Dr. Hugghins’ purpose for the examination was \nto evaluate the Claimant to figure out if she had reached maximum medical improvement for her \nJanuary 16, 2024, work injury and to decide if any, a suitable impairment.  Dr. Hugghins reviewed \nsome medical  records from prior to the date of injury relating to the  Claimant’s left lower \nextremity.  At that time, the Claimant rated her lower back pain as 2/10.  She said that her pain can \nincrease to 6/10 with prolong standing but can dissipate with a change in position.  Dr. Hugghins \nstated  that  the  Claimant’s  original  complaints  were  “Severe  left  lower  extremity  pain  and \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n20 \n \nweakness.” Her current complaints were “Mild to moderate lower back pain.” Specifically, Dr. \nHugghins opined, in relevant part: \n IMPRESSION: \nThe  current  diagnosis  associated  with  the  file  is  lumbar  disc  injury  associated  with \nradiculopathy. \n \n ASSESSMENT: \n Maximum Medical Improvement is defined as “the earliest date after which, based on a  \nreasonable medical probability, further material recovery from or lasting improvement to \nan injury can no longer be anticipated. \n \nAfter reviewing information provided in the medical file as well as information gathered \nin my consultation and examination, if that Ms. Diaz reach [sic] clinical Maximum Medical \nImprovement as of the date of her discharge from Dr. Youssef, 6/24/24/.  As of that date, \nno  further  surgical  intervention  was  anticipated  or  scheduled,  no  postoperative  physical \nrehabilitation was scheduled, and no further material recovery was anticipated or scheduled \nas she was issued permanent lifting restrictions. \n \nWith regard to Whole Person Impairment, according to Table 75 on page 113, Ms. Diaz is \nassessed a 10% Whole Person Impairment Rating based on Section II, Intervertebral disc \nor documented pain and rigidity.  A review of the medical documentation provided as well \nas  information  gathered  in  my  consultation  and  examination  confirms  the  presence  of \nongoing paravertebral muscle spasm/rigidity in the lumbar spine. \n \nAt this time, I find 10% Whole Person Impairment Rating to be appropriated for residual \nfunctional loss associated with Ms. Diaz’s 1/16/24 work-related injury.  I’ve advised her \nthat it is in her best interest to continue her home stretching and exercise program, as well \nas attempt to increase her Activities of Daily Living, most notably walking, so that she may \ncontinue to increase mobility and stamina in her lumbar spine and left lower extremity.  I \nalso advised her to increase her mobility and stamina in her lumbar spine and left lower \nextremity.   I also advised her that should she suffer an exacerbation of symptoms in the \nform  of  increased  lower  back  or  left  lower  extremity  pain,  weaknesses,  swelling, \nnumbness,  or  instability  she  should  immediately  return  to  Dr.  Youssef  for  further \nevaluation and possible treatment.       \n          \n              ADJUDICATION \n \n A.  Compensability- Specific Incident Back Injury/or Gradual Onset Injury  \n The Claimant has alleged that she sustained a specific incident injury to her back and left \nleg on January 16, 2024; or in the alternative, she has alleged a gradual onset injury to her back,   \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n21 \n \nwhile in the course and scope of her employment with the respondent-employer, Envoy Air.     \n In that regard, for the Claimant to establish a compensable injury as a result of a specific \nincident, the following requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), must be \nestablished:  (1)  proof  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  of  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the \ncourse of employment; (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury caused internal \nor external physical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102 (4)(D), establishing the injury; and (4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time  and place of occurrence.   Mikel v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).   \n A  compensable  injury  must  be proven by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings \nthat  cannot  come  under  the  voluntary  control  of  the  patient.   Id.  §  11-9-102(16).  The  element \n“arising out of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the Claimant’s \ninjury  and their employment.   City  of  El  Dorado  v.  Sartor,  21  Ark.  App.  143,  729  S.W.2d  430 \n(1987).    An  injury  arises  out  of  a Claimant’s employment “when a causal connection between \nwork conditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.” Id. \n If the Claimant does not show by a preponderance of the evidence any of the requirements \nfor proving compensability, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, \n56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard means evidence that has greater weight \nor more convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet \nCove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n22 \n \n After reviewing the evidence as a whole, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either \nparty,  I  find  that  the Claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the credible evidence  that  she \nsustained a specific incident injury to her back on January 16, 2024, which resulted in severe left \nL4-5 sciatica, radiating down her left lower extremity, with no back pain.   \nThe Respondents have asserted as an issue the Claimant’s failure to report this as a specific \nincident injury, which should be addressed now.   Particularly, when  completing the Form N on \nJanuary 30, the Claimant did not state a specific date of injury.  However, her explanation for not \ndoing  so  is  very  plausible,  and  she  makes  direct  reference  to  the  January  16  incident,  without \nspecifying an exact date.  Moreover, per the Claimant, this was all new to her and she believed \nthat management was aware of the date of her injury since her supervisor was present for the event,  \nand her credible testimony demonstrates that she simply wanted to make sure management had a \ndescription of the incident. On the Form N, the Claimant gave the following description of how \nunique her pain was on January 16, 2024, when she tried to lift the heavy box, “But on that day I \nfelt a sharp burning pain on my left leg.  She was unable to get down or move at all.” \n The Claimant reported a specific date of January 16 to Ms. Schultz when completing her \npaperwork for  a  workplace  injury,  and  the January  25, a  letter from Sedgwick to  the  Claimant \nstated a specific date of January 16.  Moreover, her testimony shows that her supervisor saw the \nincident.    Therefore,  due  to  all  the  foregoing  facts,  I  am  persuaded  to  find  that  the  Claimant \nconsistently reported an accidental injury, which occurred on January 16, 2024.   \n Nevertheless, in the present matter, the Claimant was an extremely credible witness.   Her \ntestimony is corroborated by medical records.  She gave conclusive and uncontradicted testimony \nof having experienced  left  leg discomfort and  weakness starting in  December  2023 before  her \nspecific  incident  injury  of  January  16,  2024.    According  to  the Claimant, she initially sought \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n23 \n \nmedical treatment from her primary care physician, Dr. Valentin-Stone, for symptoms relating to \nher  left  leg,  hip, and  back.    Although  the Claimant  had  symptoms  relating  to  her  left  leg,  these \nsymptoms were bearable and she continued to perform her job duties, without accommodations \nfrom her Envoy Air.  However, the Claimant reported to her doctor that all of her symptoms were \ncaused by her employment duties. Prior to January 16, the Claimant was able to function without \na lot of difficulties or work accommodations.   \n There is no evidence showing that the Claimant had prior problems with her back or left \nleg before December.  Nor had the Claimant been involved in earlier accidents, which resulted in \nproblems with her left leg or back.  The record does not show that the Claimant engaged in any \nhobbies or any other activities outside of work, which would have resulted in an injury to her back \nand left leg.         \nRegarding the Claimant’s January 16, 2024, work-related incident.   It is  undisputed that \nthe Claimant’s employment duties as an inventory specialist involved a great deal of heavy lifting.  \nHowever, on January 16, the Claimant was trying to lift an item that weighed approximately 50 \npounds when she experienced debilitating and excruciating pain in her left leg.  Per the Claimant’s \ntestimony,  this  pain  was much  more intense, and vastly  different from  the type  of pain  she  had \nexperienced previously.  Her testimony shows that her supervisor was nearby when this incident \noccurred. Upon seeing the agonizing look of pain on the Claimant’s face, he suggested that she \nseek medical attention, which she agreed to do.  She was able to complete her shift.  The Claimant \nreturned to work on January 17 but had to leave and seek medical attention for severe pain in the \nleft leg.  \n At that time, she sought medical attention for her symptoms from her Baptist Urgent Care \nClinic.  Thereafter she began treating her primary care physician, Dr. Valentin-Stone.   When the \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n24 \n \nClaimant’s symptoms did not improve with conservative non-invasive treatment modalities, she \nunderwent an MRI to her lumbar on February 2, 2024, with a conclusion: \n1. Multileveled degenerative change. \n2. Disc bulging L3/4 and disc protrusion L4/5 as above. \n3. Milder disc bulging at L5/S1.  \n Following the MRI, the Claimant was referred a neurosurgeon evaluation.  On February 5, \nthe Claimant came under the care of Dr. Hossam Youssef.  Per his medical notes, the Claimant \nconsistently reported no back pain.  However, the Claimant reported gait disturbance, and sharp \nleft leg pain.  Dr. Youssef assessed the Claimant with “1.  Sciatica of the left side – M54.32. 2. \nLumbar spondylosis -M47.816.  3. Prolapsed lumbar disc – M51.26,” for which he recommended \nsurgical intervention.   Dr. Youssef performed surgery on the Claimant’s back in the form of a L4-\n5 microdiscectomy, on February 15, 2024.  The Claimant reported that that received significant \nbenefit from the surgery.  Ultimately, on March 26, Dr. Youssef released the Claimant to return to \nwork with a restriction of no lifting over 20-pounds, which he later changed to a no lifting over \n15-pounds.   \n Subsequently, On  October  26,  2024, the  Claimant underwent  an evaluation  by Dr. Joe \nHugghins for  an  impairment  rating.    He opined  that  the Claimant  sustained  a  10%  impairment \nrating  to  her  back.    Dr.  Hugghins  stated  that  her  residual  functional loss  resulted from the \nClaimant’s work activities of January 16, 2024.  I have assigned significant evidentiary depth and \nweight  to this  expert  opinion  because  it is  based  on  a  complete and accurate medical  history \nreported by the Claimant of no prior back and left leg related symptomology.  Her reported medical \nhistory is corroborated by the lack of any evidence to the contrary proving the same.  This evidence \nsupports  a  finding  that  the Claimant’s work  activities  led  to  and caused  the Claimant’s \nabnormalities revealed on the lumbar MRI of February 2, 2024.   \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n25 \n \n I have considered the fact that the Claimant’s lumbar MRI done on February 2 revealed \nsome pre-existing degenerative changes that existed prior to her work-related accident.   \n It is well-established under workers’ compensation law that a pre-existing condition may \nbe aggravated by a work accident and be found compensable as a new injury.  I find that to be the \nprecise case here.  I reached this conclusion based on the following probative evidence.   \n Here, the Claimant’s complaints of left leg pain and back symptoms are all new.  She has \nno history of any back or left leg pain,  and she has never needed any medical attention for any \nsuch symptoms.  Although the Claimant suffered age-appropriate pre-existing degenerative disc \ndisease prior to December 2023, this condition was asymptomatic.  There is no probative evidence \nthat this condition interfered with the Claimant’s job performance or caused her to miss any time \nfrom work.  Moreover, the Claimant has never been involved in any other prior accident, nor has \nshe ever sustained any injuries to her back or leg.  Her credible testimony proves that she never \npreviously  had pain with  walking or  performing her  employment  duties. Again, there are  new \nobjective  findings  of  a lumbar  disc injury (with  associated radiculopathy) demonstrated  on  the \nlumbar MRI performed on February 2, 2024, which are all attributable to her work activities rather \nthan her pre-existing asymptomatic degenerative disc disease  \nBecause  I  find  that  the Claimant supported the  existence  of  her  alleged back  and  left \ninjuries with objective medical findings as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. \n2012),  I  find  that  the  Claimant  proved by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  all  of  the  necessary \nrequirements  for  proving that  she  sustained  a  compensable back injury,  which  resulted  in \nsignificant left leg symptoms on January 16, 2024. \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n26 \n \nHaving found that the Claimant has met her burden of proof of a specific incident injury, \nthe need for consideration of a gradual onset injury has been rendered moot.   \nI realize that the Claimant sought medical treatment for her leg prior to January 16, 2024, \nbeginning in December 2023.  However, the Claimant did not miss work due to these symptoms, \nand most significantly, the Claimant described the pain she experienced on January 16, to be much \nmore intense and vastly different.       \n B.  Medical Benefits \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as \nmay be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-508(a).   \nThe  Claimant  has  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the \nmedical treatment is reasonably necessary.  Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, \n209  S.W.  3d  445  (2005).   Preponderance  of  the  evidence  means  the  evidence  having  greater \nweight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003). \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, I find the Claimant proved that the medical \ntreatment  of  record  that  she  received  for  her  compensable  back  injury  and  resulting  left  leg \nsymptoms was reasonably necessary in connection with the injury sustained by the Claimant on \nJanuary 16, 2024, while performing her job duties for the respondent-employer.   \n In the instant case, the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her back, which resulted \nin  significant  left  leg  pain  and  weakness.    She  sought  initial  treatment  for  her  back  and  related \nsymptoms from Baptist Health Urgent Care.  Thereafter, the Claimant was referred to return for \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n27 \n \nfollow-up with her primary care physician, Dr.Valentin-Stone, for treatment of her compensable \ninjury.    On  February  1,  2024,  Dr.Valentin-Stone  saw  the  Claimant  in  follow-up  clinic  due  to \nchronic sciatica pain and recurrent sciatic syndrome.  At that time, he noted that the non-invasive \ntreatments had failed to provide improvement in the Claimant’s condition.  As a result, Dr. Stone \nrecommended that the Claimant undergo an MRI and a neurosurgery evaluation.   \n On February 2, 2024, the Claimant underwent a lumbar MRI, which revealed the above-\ndescribed disc abnormalities.  Ultimately, the Claimant came under the care of Dr. Youssef.  On \nFebruary 15, 2024, Dr. Youssef performed back surgery, namely a L4-5 microdiscectomy on the \nleft side.  The Claimant reported that she had significant improvement in her symptoms.  In fact, \nthe Claimant was very satisfied with the surgery and asked to return to work for the respondent \nemployer and did so.  Although the Claimant suffered from pre-existing degenerative disk disease.  \nThese findings were age appropriate and had been asymptomatic.  This conclusion is corroborated \nby the Claimant’s credible testimony in this regard and the lack of any prior treatment for her back, \nexcept for the days preceding her compensable incident injury of January 16, 2024.  As such, I am \npersuaded that the Claimant’s lumbar disk injury associated with radiculopathy was caused by \ncompensable injury of January 16, 2024, and resulted in the Claimant’s need  for  the  medical \ntreatment of record, including the surgery performed by Dr. Youssef.  All the medications, medical \nevaluations,  diagnostic  tests, conservative  medical care, and  surgical  intervention  were  all \nmedically indicated treatment modalities ordered and geared toward treating and diagnosing the \nClaimant’s back and left leg injuries.   \nTherefore, I find that all medical treatment contained in the record herein, to include the \nlumbar surgery, performed by Dr. Valentin--Stone on February 2, 2024, to be reasonably necessary \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n28 \n \nand related medical treatment in connection with the compensable injuries to the Claimant’s back \nand left leg on January 16, 2024.   \nThe Respondents are liable for the Claimant’s medical expenses of record attributable to \nher compensable back injury (and related symptomatology of the left leg) received by her during \nand in the course and scope of her employment with Envoy Air on January 16, 2024. \nNo future treatment has been recommended for the Claimant’s compensable injury. \nC. Temporary Total Disability Compensation  \nHere, the Claimant contends that she is entitled to temporary total disability compensation \nfor her back and leg injuries beginning on January 17, 2024, and continuing until March 30, 2024.  \nThe Claimant’s primary injury was to her back which resulted in residual symptoms to her left leg.  \nAs  such,  the  Claimant  sustained  an  unscheduled  injury  to  her  back  on  January  16,  2024,  while \nperforming her employment duties for Envoy Air.   \nAn injured employee for an unscheduled injury is entitled to temporary total disability \ncompensation during the time that she is within her healing period and totally incapacitated from \nearning wages.  Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department v. Breshears, 272 Ark. \n244,  613  S.W.2d  392  (1981).  The  healing  period  is  that  period  for  healing  of  the  injury  which \ncontinues until the employee is as far restored as the permanent character of the injury will permit.  \nNix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  If the underlying condition \ncausing the disability has become stable and nothing further in the way of treatment will improve \nthat condition, the healing period has ended.  Id.  Temporary total disability cannot be awarded \nafter the Claimant’s healing period has ended.   \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n29 \n \n Here, on January 16, 2024, the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her back while \nperforming work-related activities for Envoy Air.  The Claimant worked three days January 23, \n2024, through January 25, 2024; and on another occasion January 29, 2024, she worked only one \nhour of her shift.       \n However, except for the above time, the Claimant was totally incapacitated from earning \nwages.  This conclusion is reached based on probative evidence including but not limited to the \nClaimant’s credible testimony regarding her excruciating pain and other debilitating symptoms in \nher left leg that affected her ability to move freely, perform her employment duties, and engage in \nthe basic activities of daily living. The Claimant was also taken off work by her physicians during \nthe period in question.  Her inability to work was the direct result of her back injury of January 16, \n2024.    \n The Claimant treated with non-invasive treatment modalities for her compensable injury \nbeginning on January 17, 2024. She received initial treatment from Baptist Urgent Care and her \nprimary  care  physician,  Dr. Valentin-Stone.  However, when the Claimant’s condition did  not \nimprove, she underwent an MRI of the lumbar spine on February 1, which revealed the Claimant \nhad sustained a severe disc injury accompanied by radiculopathy of the left leg.  Ultimately, the \nClaimant was referred the Dr. Youssef, a neurosurgeon, for evaluation of her back condition.  Dr. \nYoussef performed back surgery on February 15.  The Claimant continued under the medical care \nof Dr. Youssef, and he ordered physical therapy treatment, which was done.  The Claimant was \nreleased from Dr. Youssef’s on or about March 26 with physical restrictions.  At that point, the \nClaimant had reached the end of her healing period for her compensable injury.  During this office \nvisit, the Claimant asked Dr. Youssef to return her to work, which he agreed to do.        \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n30 \n \n She does not have any planned medical visits for her compensable injury.  Her testimony \nshows that she has been working for Envoy Air since March 31, 2024, performing her same job \nduties without any difficulties.  Although the Claimant has permanent physical restrictions of no \nlifting over 15 pounds, Envoy Air has been accommodating those restrictions.    \n Based on the above evidence, I find that the Claimant remained in her healing period due \nto her compensable beginning on January 17 and continuing until March 30.  During this period \nof time, the Claimant was totally incapacitated from earning wages due to her compensable injury.  \nTherefore, based on the above probative evidence, I find that the Claimant proved her entitlement \nto temporary total disability compensation from January 17, 2024, until March 30, 2024, excluding \nthe time she worked.   \n The Respondents are liable for payment of these benefits. \n D.  Anatomical Impairment Rating     \n The Claimant contends that she sustained a 10% impairment to the body as a whole due to \nher compensable lumbar spine injury of January 16, 2024.     \n  Permanent impairment generally is any functional or anatomical loss remaining after the \nhealing period has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 \n(1994).    The  Commission  has  adopted  the American  Medical  Association (AMA) Guides  to  the \nEvaluation of Permanent Impairment (4\nth\n ed. 1993) to be used in assessing anatomical impairment.  \nSee Commission Rule 099.34; Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(g) (Repl. 2002).  It is the Commission’s \nduty, using the Guides, to determine whether the Claimant has proved she is entitled to a permanent \nanatomical impairment.  Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).      \n Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by \nobjective and measurable physical mental findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704(c)(1) (B) (Repl. \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n31 \n \n2012).  Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of \nthe patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i).   \n Permanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a  determination  that  the  compensable \ninjury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a) \n(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of \nmajor cause shall be proven according to a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-102(14).    Preponderance  of  the  evidence  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or \nconvincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 \n(2003).   Medical  opinion  addressing  compensability  and  permanent  impairment  must  be  stated \nwithin a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102 (16) (B).   \n After having given careful consideration and review of  the record as a whole, without \ngiving the benefit of the doubt to either party, I find that the evidence preponderates that the \nClaimant’s work-related injury of January 16, 2024, was the major cause of her 10% permanent \npartial anatomical impairment to her back as assigned by Dr. Joe Hugghins on October 26, 2024. \nThe basis for my conclusion is outlined below.        \nIn the present matter, the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her back with residual \nsymptoms in her left leg.   On February 15, 2024, Dr. Youssef performed a microscopic partial left \nL4 laminectomy and partial medial facetectomy and a microscopic microsurgical excision of the \nleft L4-5 herniated disc using the lateral extraretinal approach.  The Claimant had no prior lumbar \nspine  injuries or  complaints, although  her lumbar MRI of  February  2024 revealed pre-existing, \nage-appropriate degenerative disc disease, these symptoms were asymptomatic.  However, she had \nbeen evaluated and treated for muscle strains and trochanteric bursitis in the lower left extremity \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n32 \n \nin the  weeks leading  up  to  her  January  16, 2024,  compensable injury.   These  symptoms  and \ncomplaints have been attributed to the Claimant’s strenuous job duties at Envoy Air.    \nOn  October  26,  2024, Dr. Hugghins  assessed  the  Claimant  with a  10% permanent \nanatomical impairment for her lumbar spine injury, using the AMA Guides (4\nth\n ed. 1993), at page \n3/113, Table 75, Section II.E.  Particularly, Section II.E assigns a 10% impairment of the whole \nperson for a surgically treated lumbar spine disk lesion with residual medically documented pain \nand rigidity.  Dr. Hugghins opined that his review of the Claimant’s medical file and information \ngathered during his consultation and examination of the Claimant revealed the presence of ongoing \nparavertebral muscle spasms rigidity in the lumbar spine.  No expert opinion to the contrary has \nbeen presented.  Nor was there any medical or other documentary evidence of any kind offered to \nthe contrary.  The Claimant’s own credible testimony is consistent with Dr. Hugghins conclusion.  \nConsidering all the foregoing probative evidence, I find that Dr. Hugghins’ expert opinion wherein \nhe a 10% permanent anatomical impairment for the Claimant’s compensable back injury is correct \nand well-reasoned.  As such, I have assigned significant evidentiary weight and probative value to \nDr. Hugghins’ expert opinion.  \nAccordingly, I find that the Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nher  January  16,  2024,  accidental  injury  was  the  major  cause  of  her  10% permanent partial \nanatomical  impairment.   Specifically,  although  the  Claimant  suffered  pre-existing  degenerative \ndisc  disease,  this  condition  was  asymptomatic.    Her  testimony shows that  she  had  no  prior \nproblems with her back  and prior to December 2023.  Moreover, the  record does show that the \nClaimant had any prior accidents or that she had sought any kind of medical treatment for her back.  \n  Supporting  objective  medical  findings include  the  prolapsed  lumbar  disc sustained  by \nClaimant as  shown  on February 2, 2024, MRI of  her  lumbar;  and  the  subsequent presence  of \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n33 \n \nongoing paravertebral muscle spasms/rigidity in this area as documented by Dr. Hugghins during \nhis October 2024 physical examination of the Claimant’s lumbar region. \n Per my own review of the entire record and the Guides, I find that Dr. Hugghins’ assessment \nof a 10% permanent anatomical impairment for the Claimant’s compensable lumbar spine injury \nof January 16, 2024, comports with the Guides and my own review of the Guides, and is thus valid.       \nI therefore find that the Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained \na 10% anatomical impairment on the body as a whole for her compensable lumbar spine injury of \nJanuary 16, 2024.  The Respondents are liable for payment of these indemnity benefits. \n E.  Attorney’s Fee \n The parties stipulated that the Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  As \nsuch, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on all indemnity benefits \nawarded herein pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012). \n                         AWARD \n Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set forth \nabove.  All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809(Repl 2002).  See Couch \nv.  First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995). Pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney’s fee on the \nindemnity benefits awarded herein.   \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                      \n                                      ______________________ \n                         CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                Administrative Law Judge \n\nDiaz – H400768  \n34","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.:H400768 CAROL DIAZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ENVOY AIR, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AIU INSURANCE COMPANY/SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 22, 2025 Hearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, in ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:40.068Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H400768-2025-07-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DIAZ_CAROL_H400768_20250722.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}