{"id":"alj-H400805-2024-10-01","awcc_number":"H400805","decision_date":"2024-10-01","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Chase Boyd","employer_name":"Cwc Mechanical LLC","title":"BOYD VS. CWC MECHANICAL LLC AWCC# H400805 October 01, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Boyd_Chase_H400805_20241001.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Boyd_Chase_H400805_20241001.pdf","text_length":54422,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H400805 \n \n \nCHASE BOYD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCWC MECHANICAL LLC, \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nACCIDENT FUND INS. CO. AMER., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 1, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on  July 5,  2024,  in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Andy L. Caldwell, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. Jarrod S. Parrish,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On July 5, 2024, the above-captioned claim was heard in Jonesboro, Arkansas.  \nA  prehearing  conference  took place  on April  22,  2024.   The Prehearing Order  entered \non that date pursuant to the conference was admitted without objection as Commission \nExhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the  stipulations,  issues,  and \nrespective contentions, as amended, were properly set forth in the order. \nStipulations \n The parties discussed the stipulations set forth in Commission Exhibit 1.  After an \namendment of Stipulation No. 2 at the hearing, they read as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n2 \n2. The  employee/employer/carrier  relationship existed  among  the  parties  on \nor about December 10, 2023, and at all other relevant times. \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n4. Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  of  $1,119.20  entitles  him  to \ncompensation rates of $746.00/$560.00. \nIssues \n At  the  hearing,  the parties  discussed the  issues  set forth  in  Commission  Exhibit \n1.  The following were litigated: \n1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his back by specific \nincident or, in the alternative, by gradual onset. \n2. When did Claimant provide notice of his alleged injury? \n3. Whether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment. \n4. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n5. Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties, following amendments at the hearing, \nread as follows: \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n3 \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant contends that he sustained injuries to his back in the course and \nscope of his employment on or about December 10, 2023.  Respondents \nhave controverted the claim. \n2. Also, Claimant  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits  from January  26,  2024,  to  a  date  yet  to  be  determined;  to \nreasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment;  and  to  a  controverted \nattorney’s fee. \n3. All other issues have been reserved. \n Respondents: \n1. Respondents contend that Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury \non   December   10,   2023,   or   at   any   other   time   while   working   for \nRespondent-employer. \n2. Further,  Respondents  contend  that  there  was  no  notice  of  an  alleged \ninjury until January 25, 2024. \n3. Finally,  Respondents  contend  that  Claimant’s  temporary  total  disability \nclaim is barred by his refusal of suitable employment, and/or he should be \nestopped from asserting entitlement to these benefits based on his lack of \ncooperation with Respondent-employer. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documents, and \nother  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n4 \nthe  testimony  of the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the \nfollowing  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  § \n11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he \nsustained a compensable injury to his back by specific incident. \n4. Claimant  has not proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he \nsustained a compensable injury to his back by gradual onset. \n5. Because of Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law Nos. 3 and 4, supra, the \nremaining issues—whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits and to a controverted attorney’s fee, and when did he furnish \nnotice  of  his  alleged  compensable  injury—are  moot  and  will  not  be \naddressed. \nADJUDICATION \nSummary of Evidence \n The  hearing  witnesses  were Claimant,  Jonathan  Wattingly,  Kyle  Boyd, Mark \nChavers (“Mark”), and Buffy Chavers (“Buffy”). \n Along  with the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  the  exhibits  admitted  into \nevidence in this case were Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of his medical records, \nconsisting  of one index  page  and 51 numbered  pages  thereafter; Claimant’s Exhibit 2, \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n5 \nnon-medical  documents  including  correspondence,  Commission  forms\n1\n,  and a  written \nstatement, consisting of one index\n2\n page and 17 numbered pages thereafter; Claimant’s \nExhibit  3, a  table  from  the  Craighead  County  District  Court  that  lists  traffic  citations \npurportedly  received  by  witness  Mark  Chavers,  consisting  of  one  page;  Claimant’s \n \n \n1\nThis exhibit includes a Form AR-2.  Per Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-529(a)-(c) (Repl. \n2012): \n \n(a) Within ten (10) days after the date of receipt of notice or of knowledge \nof injury or death, the employer shall send to the Workers' Compensation \nCommission a report setting forth: \n \n(1) The name, address, and business of the employer; \n(2) The name, address, and occupation of the employee; \n(3) The cause and nature of the injury or death; \n(4) The year, month, day, and hour when, and the particular locality  \n where, the injury or death occurred; and \n(5) Such other information as the commission may require. \n \n(b) Additional reports with respect to the injury and of the condition of the \nemployee  shall  be  sent  by  the  employer  to  the  commission  at  such  time \nand in such manner as the commission may prescribe. \n \n(c)  Any  report  provided  for  in  subsection  (a)  or  (b)  of  this  section \nshall   not   be   evidence of   any   fact   stated   in   the   report   in   any \nproceeding  with  respect  to  the  injury  or  death  on  account  of  which \nthe report is made. \n \n(Emphasis  added)    Form  AR-2—one  of  the  numerical,  or  administrative,  forms  of  the \nCommission–is   one   of   the   forms   covered   under   this   provision.      Even   though \nRespondents  did  not object  to its admission,  the  above-highlighted  language  prohibits \nthe  Commission  from  considering it for  the  purpose  of  determining,  inter  alia,  whether \nClaimant sustained a compensable injury. \n \n \n2\nThe  index  page  also  has  an  entry  that  reads:    “Audio  file  of  telephone  call \nbetween  Claimant  and  Paul  Carter  in  which  Respondents  agree  to  ‘take  care  of \neverything.’”  This was not included in the exhibit; but based on remarks by Claimant’s \ncounsel  at  the  hearing  [T.  27-28],  it  is  clear  that  this  recording is  identical  to  the  one \nlocated at page 101 of Respondents’ Exhibit 1. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n6 \nExhibit 4, the transcript of the deposition of Mark taken June 28, 2024, consisting of 37 \nnumbered   pages; Respondents’ Exhibit   1, non-medical   items   including   audio \nrecordings,  and  reports,  consisting  of two index  pages, 114 pages  thereafter,  and  one \ndisc; and Respondents’ Exhibit 2, a screenshot of a text message exchange, consisting \nof one page. \nAdjudication \nA. Compensability \n Introduction.    Claimant  has  argued  that  on  or  around December  10,  2023,  he \nsustained a compensable injury to his back either by specific incident or gradual onset \nwhile working for Respondent CWC Mechanical (“CWC”).  Respondents dispute that he \nsuffered a compensable injury. \n Testimony.    Claimant,   who   is   28   years   old,   testified   that   he   worked   for \nRespondent CWC on two different occasions totaling four years.  His more recent stint \nthere  lasted  approximately  two  years.    His  employer,  whose  shop  is  located  in \nJonesboro, performs welding, construction, millwright, and equipment services.  These \nservices are often performed in industrial settings.  He testified that his duties at CWC \nprior  to  December  10,  2023,  involved  “a  lot  of  bending,”  along  with  twisting,  lifting, \ncrouching,  and  working  his  way  through  attic  spaces.    He  routinely  worked  eight-plus \nhours a day doing this. \n \n \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n7 \n On December 10, 2023, Claimant was working for CWC on-site at the ConAgra \nplant  in  Russellville.\n3\n  Two  other  CWC  employees  were  at  the  plant  that  day:    Mark \nChavers  and  Jonathan  Wattingly.  The  project  that  they  were  working  on  was  the \nreplacement  of  old  glycol  lines  with  new  stainless  steel  ones.   This  work  was  taking \nplace  in  the  attic (also  referred  to  at  times during  testimony as the “interstitial”) above \nKitchens 5 and 6 in the plant.  Claimant’s job was to help cut out the old pipe, remove it \nfrom  the  attic,  take  measurements,  and  hold  the  new  piping  in  place  for  the  welder.  \nWattingly was handling the welding duties in the space below the attic, while Mark was \nacting as the supervisor.  Describing the workspace, Claimant related:  “It’s short.  It’s \ncrowded  with  other  pipe  and  ceiling  hangers,  and  you  have  to  crawl  around  to \nmaneuver through it.  It’s pretty tight.” \n The following exchange took place: \nQ. And  so  just to  explain for  the  Commission  and for  the  record  what \nhappened  in  terms  of  how  the  pipe  got  cut,  how  the  pipe  got \nwelded, how it got delivered from where it was welded into this attic \nspace. \n \nA. So  you  would  start  by  cutting  the  pipe  out  in  the  attic.    And  in \npieces,  you  would  crawl  through  the  attic  dragging  it,  go  out  the \nlittle manhole door, climb down a small ladder that’s probably about \nfour-foot tall,  and  then  you  would  turn  and  crawl  down  another \nladder off  of  that  platform  that  was  probably  about  12—10  to  12 \nfeet, something in that range.  And you would go down.  And then if \nthey  were  welding  it  from  below,  we  weld  long,  long  stretches  of \npipe to avoid having to do much welding when we were in the attic; \nbecause the welding in the attic is difficult, laying down and all.  So \nwe would weld a longer stretch, carry it up.  Someone would stand \n \n \n3\nPer  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704(b)(4)(B)  (Repl.  2012),  this  case  should  have \nbeen assigned to an administrative law judge in District 2 (which includes Pope County, \nthe location of the alleged accident) instead of District 4. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n8 \nbelow,  and  they  would  hand  that  pipe  up  to  the  person  up  on  the \nplatform.  That person would maneuver the pipe into the manhole, \nand then go through dragging the pipe and place it in the— \n \nQ. As you were cutting out these old sections of pipe, were we dealing \nwith different lengths of pipe? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. And  give  us  an  idea,  in  terms  of  various  lengths,  that  you  were \ncutting and replacing that day, December 10, 2023. \n \nA. We  would cut  out  pieces  anywhere  from,  you know,  two  feet  to \neight feet, maybe, just to pull out.  And then we’d replace it with, \nroughly, 10, 12-foot pieces that are pre-welded together. \n \nQ. And, I assume, from what you’re telling me, the reason there’s a \ndifferent length in terms of what’s being pulled out versus what’s \nbeing taken up is you’re probably—are  you  cutting  it  for  ease  of \ngetting it out? \n \nA. Yes.  You just cut it at random. \n \n It  was  the  testimony  of  Claimant  that  he  hurt  his  back  on  December  10,  2023.  \nHe  arrived  at  ConAgra  shortly  before  7:00  a.m.    Asked  what  happened,  Claimant \nrelated that the following occurred “probably around lunch time to noon or just before”: \nAs  Giovanni  [Suarez,  an  employee  of  MRM,  another  contractor]  was \nhanding me up one of those pre-welded pipes . . . a longer stretch.  It was \none of the longer stretches that we did that day.  It was just after it come \nthrough the roof.  We had a piece that was a long stretch that was 90 up, \n90  over,  and  it  was  probably  around  10,  12  foot  long.    It  was  probably \nabout 40 to 60 pounds.  Well, he would hand it up to me while I was on the \nplatform, and I had to maneuver it into the manhole at an awkward angle.  \nOnce  I  got  in,  I  was  dragging  it  through  there  on  my  hands  and  knees.  \nAnd I’m facing the manhole sort of to my right side.  As I’m taking the pipe \nand  moving  it  over  some  other  pipe  and  through  the  hangers  going \ntowards my left, I felt a pop in my lower back.  And it was sort of a shock. \n \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n9 \nContinuing with his testimony, Claimant described the pain as being located in his lower \nback.    He stated  that he  reported his  back  injury  to  Mark that  day—and  that Wattingly \nwas present when this conversation took place. \n Admitting  that  he  did  not  immediately  seek  treatment,  Claimant  testified  that  he \ndid not do so until January 26, 2024.  Asked why, he responded:  “It had finally gotten \nso  painful  that  I  needed  to  go.”   On  this  occasion,  he  went  to  Lawrence  County \nChiropractic Clinic at the recommendation of Mark.  Questioned why, per the record in \nevidence, that he told the chiropractor that his injury happened on December 11, 2023, \nClaimant responded:  “I had just got the date wrong whenever I was speaking to him.”  \nBut he added that he was “certain it was December 10,” adding:  “Evidence of the work \nwe were doing that day and text messages about the insulation we put on the pipe that \nday indicated it happened December 10.” \n The  chiropractor  declined  to  treat  him  that  day,  fearing  his  back  condition  was \nmore  serious  than he would  like  to  address.    So,  Claimant  was  referred  to  his  primary \ncare physician, Dr. Jonathan Cain.  He saw Dr. Cain on January 31, 2024.  Along with \nphysical   therapy,   Claimant   has   been   referred   to   a   neurosurgeon   and   to   pain \nmanagement.    His  testimony  was  that  he  was  scheduled  for  a  follow-up  visit  with  the \npain  management  clinic  the  week  after  the  hearing,  and  with  the  neurosurgeon  the \nweek after that.  As part of the treatment for his back, he has undergone x-rays and an \nMRI.    Moreover,  he  has  been  prescribed Neurontin  and  Gabapentin,  along  with \nCyclobenzaprine (Flexeril) for muscle spasms. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n10 \n Claimant acknowledged that he had been involved in the workers’ compensation \nmatter previously:  he had suffered a partial finger amputation that he had reported and \nhad received benefits as a result.  He admitted that prior to the alleged date of injury, he \nhad been involved in multiple motor vehicle accidents.  However, he stated that he did \nnot  recall  being  involved  in  an  incident  on  September  2,  2020,  when  he  drove  off  the \nroad and struck a tree.  The following exchange occurred at that point: \nQ. Did you get a DWI associated with one of your wrecks? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. Was that it? \n \nA. Possibly. \n \nQ. Did you run your truck off the road into some trees? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. Okay.  And did you get a DWI with that incident? \n \nA. In Russellville? \n \nQ. Yes. \n \nA. Yes. \n \nShown photographs from Respondents’ Exhibit 2 that purport to show Claimant’s truck \ntotaled  in  2021  after  a  collision—one  that  did  not  result  in  a  police  report,  he  admitted \nthat he had been involved in a wreck.  But he stated that he did not remember if he left \nthe  scene  of  the  accident.    However,  he  did  recall texting  a  picture  of  his  damaged \nvehicle  to  Mark.    He  also  remembered being  struck  head-on  in  another  accident  on \nMarch 4, 2023. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n11 \n Claimant admitted that on January 18, 2024, he texted Buffy, Mark’s wife, to ask \nabout getting on CWC’s health insurance so that he could obtain an x-ray.   He  was \nunable  to  do  this  at  that  time  because  it  was  outside  the  open  enrollment  period.   In \naddition,  Claimant  agreed  that  just  one  day  after  he  allegedly  hurt  his  back,  he \ncontacted the office to find out how much paid time off he had.  The following exchange \noccurred: \nQ. And  after  making  these  inquiries  and  learning  you  only  had  three \ndays of PTO and you couldn’t get on health insurance, then you \nreport this injury formally on January 25; correct? \n \nA. Correct. \n \nQ. And without putting this injury on comp at the time, back in January \nof 2024, if you didn’t put on comp, you had no other way to pay for \ntreatment except out of your pocket; right? \n \nA. Correct. \n \nDespite  being  purportedly  injured  on  December  10,  2023,  Claimant  continued  to  work \nhis regular duties up through January 25, 2024. \n When questioned by the Commission, and told that December 10, 2023, fell on a \nSunday, Claimant confirmed that he was injured on that date, adding:  “We worked \nweekends quite often.”  Asked by Respondents why he told Dr. Zhangliang Ma that his \nback pain began in “late December,” he replied:  “That’s just a turn of phrase.  I just said \nDecember.”  Later, Claimant stated that he “just accidentally said that.” \n Claimant’s testimony was that on the date that he was hurt, December 10, 2023, \nhe reported to Mark that he had injured his back.  He added that Wattlingly was present \nwhen this occurred:  “He was standing just to the side of us while we were having the \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n12 \nconversation.”  Mark was, according to Claimant, not only his supervisor but the owner \nof CWC. \n However,  in  a  recorded  telephone  conversation  with  Paul  Carter  and  Melissa \nBelcher (contained in Respondents’ Exhibit 1), Claimant stated that he actually informed \nMark of his alleged injury the next day, December 11, 2023. \n The following exchange took place: \nQ. Did CWC try to get you on their group health insurance during that \ntime? \n \nA. No, I don’t believe they did. \n \nQ. If  the  evidence  here  today  shows  that  there  was  communication \nbetween  you  and  CWC  about  trying  to  get  on  their  group  health \ninsurance  between  December  10[,  2023,]  and  January  25[,  2024,] \ndo you disagree with that? \n \nA. No, I wouldn’t disagree with it. \n \nQ. Okay.  Do you know why they were trying to get you on their group \nhealth insurance? \n \nA. Yes.      There   was   conversations   about   getting   me   on   health \ninsurance after I had told them that I was needing to seek medical \nattention for my back. \n \nQ. Did they want you to file a workers’ comp claim? \n \nA. No. \n \nQ. Did  you  tell  Mr.  Chavers  and  others  at  CWC  that  you  injured \nyourself at work? \n \nA. Yes, I told them. \n \n Claimant  testified  that  on  December  10,  2023,  he  was  aware  of  how  a  work-\nrelated  accident  should  be  reported  at  CWC.    Per  the  employee  handbook,  he  was  to \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n13 \nnotify  his  supervisor  and  human  resources  immediately.    Moreover,  CWC  displayed  a \nposter that contained information about its workers’ compensation carrier and workers' \ncompensation claims.  Claimant agreed that he had reported two work-related injuries at \nCWC in the past.  While he stated that he reported his alleged back injury to Mark, he \ndid  not  know  if  he  reported  it  to  human  resources—i.e.,  to  Carter and  Belcher.   Asked \nwhy  he  would  not  have  done  so  if  Mark  was  not  responsive,  Claimant  responded:  \n“[h]e’s an owner.”  While, according to Claimant, the matter “[e]ventually escalated” to \nCarter and Belcher, he did not contact them before January 25, 2024, about his back, it \ndid not make sense to him to do this “at the time . . . .” \n Claimant   identified   a   number   of   CWC   employees   who   functioned   as   his \nsupervisors.    They  included  not  only  Mark,  but  Reggie  and  Hayden  Chavers,  Tanner \nO’Guinn, Belcher, and even his own brother, Kyle Boyd.  The following exchange took \nplace: \nQ. And you had cell phone numbers for all these people; right? \n \nA. Correct. \n \nQ. And you told me you had email addresses for most of them; right? \n \nA. Some, yes. \n \nQ. Okay.    And  you  could  have  reported  to  any one  of  these  people  if \nwhat you’re saying about Mark not listening to you was true.  You \ncould have gone to any of these people and reported a work injury, \ncouldn’t you? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. And you didn’t, did you? \n \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n14 \nA. No. \n \n Notwithstanding Claimant’s testimony, cited above, that he informed Mark of his \nalleged back injury the same day it allegedly happened—December 10, 2023—he told \nBelcher  and  Carter  in  the  recorded  telephone  conversation  that  is  in  evidence  that  he \nactually told Mark the next day.  Asked about this, Claimant stated on the witness stand \nthat  he  would  not  dispute  that  was  what  he  informed  them,  and  that  these  are  two \ndifferent  versions.    But  he  repeated  his  testimony  that  he  actually  informed  Mark  on \nDecember  10.    Asked  if  he  had  any  witnesses  who  could  corroborate  this,  Claimant \nidentified  Jonathan  Wattingly.    Returning  to  this  topic  when  he  was  questioned  by  the \nCommission and asked to explain the discrepancy between his testimony and what he \nrelayed in the earlier telephone call, Claimant explained that he ”might have misspoke in \nthat phone call.”  The following exchange took place: \nQ. Why would you have misspoken about something like that? \n \nA. So much stress being put on me about the subject of it. \n \nQ. Okay.  Stress from whom? \n \nA. Pressure from my superiors in the company, the owners, and— \n \nQ. Pressure in that they denied your claim?  What kind of pressure are \nyou talking about? \n \nA. Yes, they were wanting to not offer me the service of workman’s \ncompensation.  They were trying to avoid it and at that point in that \nphone  call  was  being made that  was  after  it  got  to a point  where I \nsaid,  hey,  I  need  help.    And  then  everybody  started  coming  at  me \nall at once try to hit me from different angles with stuff.  And I’m \nsure I misspoke. \n \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n15 \nQ. Okay. \n \nA. But  ask  Jonathan  Wattingly.    He  was  there  December  10  when  I \ncame down and said it. \n \n Called   by   Claimant,   Jonathan   Wattingly   testified   that   he   has   worked   for \nRespondent  CWC  for  nine  years  as  a  tig  welder.    He  has  known  Claimant  for  at  least \nthree  years.    Wattingly  related  that  on  December  10,  2023,  he  was  working  with \nClaimant at ConAgra in Russellville.  They were replacing 1.5-inch glycol pipes.  These \nare  made  of  stainless  steel.    While  he  was  working  below  on  the  floor  of  the  kitchen, \nwelding,  Claimant  was  in  the  attic  space,  cutting  out  the  old  pipe.    Wattingly  helped \ncarry in some of the new pipe, which was lengthy at times because they wanted to have \nfewer welds.  The attic space where Claimant was working was only four or five feet tall.  \nBecause of this, he “had to kneel down some.”  The presence of other pipes in the attic, \nwhich were held in place with hangers, made maneuvering in and out of there with old \nand new pipe difficult.  According to Wattingly, Mark Chavers and Giovanni Suarez were \npresent as well. \n The following exchange took place: \nQ. Did  Chase  tell  you—did  he  come  down  and  tell  you  that  his  back \nwas hurting on December 10, 2023? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. And what time was that? \n \nA I said I think around two o’clock.  It was after lunch.  I don’t know \nexactly when it was, but it was after lunch at sometime. \n \nQ. But there’s no doubt that he came down and said his back was \nhurting on December 10, 2023? \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n16 \nA. Yeah.  He said his back was hurting. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. Had you heard him complain of his back hurting before that day? \n \nA. No. \n \nIt was Wattingly’s testimony that he heard Claimant complain about his back “maybe \nonce or twice” thereafter. \n However,  on  cross-examination, Wattingly  stated  that  Claimant  never  told  him \nthat he hurt his back at work on that date.  The following exchange took place: \nQ. Is  that  why  you  didn’t  report  anything  or  send  anything  up  the \nchain? \n \nA. Yeah.  I didn’t say anything because I didn’t know if, you know, if it \nwas going to be any big deal, if it was just his back was hurting in \npassing or whatever.  So I never— \n \nQ. Did you— \n \nA. —thought it was anything I need to say anything about. \n \nQ. Did you understand it to be from non-work-related causes? \n \nA. No. \n \nQ. Did you know one way or the other? \n \nA. No. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. You  have  not  been  given  any  information  from  Chase  indicating \nthat he had injured himself at work, injured his back? \n \nA. Correct. \n \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n17 \n Asked whether he knew whether Claimant told Mark about his alleged back injury \non December 10, 2023, Wattingly responded:  “I’m not for sure if it was specifically said \nto him because he was in and out all day.”  Moreover, Wattingly was not aware of \nClaimant informing Mark about his back at any point before January 25, 2024. \n Shown  a  form  captioned  “CWC  Mechanical  Incident  Investigation  Form – \nAccident” that is in evidence, Claimant stated that he was never offered this form to \nprepare in connection with his alleged back injury.  Wattingly concurred. \n Called by Respondents, Kyle Boyd testified that he is not only Claimant’s brother, \nbut  that  he  is  an  employee  of  CWC  Mechanical.    In  his  job  as  foreman  there,  he  can \ntake an injury report by an employee.  The following exchange took place: \nQ. Before  January  25,  2024,  had  Chase  ever  mentioned  to  you \nanything about injuring himself at work on December 10? \n \nA. No, sir. \n \nQ. Had you seen him between December 10 and January 25, 2024? \n \nA. Yes. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. And  did  you  know  he was  saying he had  some  back  symptoms  or \nback problems in that window of time? \n \nA. Not other than after the 25\nth\n. \n \nQ. After the 25\nth\n, okay.  But not once before he made the formal report \nto  CWC  had  he  indicated  to  you  that  he  suffered  a  work-related \ninjury  or  that  he  thought  he  had  suffered  a  work-related  injury; \ncorrect? \n \nA. No. \n \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n18 \nQ. Okay.  That is correct? \n \nA. Yeah, that’s correct. \n \nQ. Okay.  When this did come up on January 25, 2024, and he started \nsaying he hurt himself at work, did you ask him if he had told Mark? \n \nA. Yeah.  And I told him, I said he needed to talk to Mark about it. \n \nQ. Did he indicate to you he had not told Mark yet. \n \nA. He asked me did I think they would help him out on medical bills or \nwhatnot. \n \nQ. Okay.    Did  he  indicate  to  you  that  he  had  not  formally  reported  to \nMark yet? \n \nA. Right. \n \nQ. And you did you tell him, you need to tell Mark? \n \nA. Yes, sir. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. And you’re positive when he started telling you on January 25 that \nhe thought he had hurt himself at work, that he said he had not told \nMark yet? \n \nA. Correct. \n \n Mark Chavers,  one  of  the  owners  of  CWC,  confirmed  that  Claimant  inquired  on \nDecember  11,  2023,  about  the  amount  of  paid  time  off  that  he  had.   He checked  and \ninformed Claimant that he had three such days left.  While Claimant was off on the day \nthat he asked this question, he returned to work the next day, Tuesday, December 12, \n2023.  When he did so, according to Mark, Claimant resumed his regular duties and did \nnot show any signs of suffering an injury. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n19 \n Asked about the pipe that Claimant was carrying at ConAgra, Mark stated that it \nweighed  approximately  one  pound  per  foot  of  length.    This  would  mean  that  a  12-foot \nlength—which  was,  by  his  estimation,  the  maximum  length  that  could  be  maneuvered \ninto  the  attic  space  without  being  cut  into  a  smaller  section—would  weigh  about  12 \npounds.  The pipe originally comes in 20-foot lengths. \n Mark testified that he was Claimant’s supervisor at CWC on December 10, 2023.  \nHe was present at the ConAgra plant in Russellville that day while Claimant worked on \nthe  pipe  replacement  project.    But  he  left  the job  site on  or  before  lunchtime  that  day, \nand  related  that  Claimant  did not tell  him  on  that  date  that  he  had  suffered  a  work-\nrelated back injury.  Instead, it was Mark’s testimony that he knew nothing about the \nalleged  injury  until  Claimant  made  a  formal  report  on  January  25,  2024.    Before  that \ntime, on two occasions, Claimant had mentioned his back bothering him, explaining that \nhe  did  not  know  what  he  had  done  to  it.    Mark  was  adamant  that  prior  to  January  25, \n2024,  Claimant  never  disclosed  that  he  believed  that  he  had  suffered  a  back  injury  at \nwork—let  alone  that  it  happened  while  working  in  the  attic  of  the  ConAgra  plant  on \nDecember 10, 2023.  Instead, he was simply stating that he was having back problems \nand needed health coverage.  Mark offered to lend him money for treatment, and texted \nhim  a  list  of  chiropractic  physicians.    Claimant  stated  that  he  was  concerned  about \nchiropractic  treatment  making  his  back  condition  worse.    After  this  conversation  took \nplace  was  the  first  time,  according  to  Mark,  and  Claimant  mentioned  an  incident  at \nConAgra  that  supposedly  happened  the  previous  month.    Mark  stated  that  he  never \ndiscouraged Claimant from filing or pursuing a workers’ compensation claim.  Once it \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n20 \nwas reported, both he and Carter investigated the matter.  Mark testified that he did not \nfill out an investigation report on the alleged incident because it was not reported to him.  \nOnce  Claimant  finally  made  a  report  in  January  2024,  it  was  given  to  Carter,  Belcher, \nand Buffy to handle. \n While Claimant  told Mark a  week  to  ten  days  before  January  25  that  he  was \nhaving a  problem  with  his  back  and  was  going  to  get  an  MRI,  he added  that  when  he \nasked Claimant what had happened, he replied that he did not know what he had done \nto his back.  It was during this period that they investigated whether Claimant could be \nadded to the company’s group health insurance. \n Later,  Mark  stated  that  he  would  not  have  texted  Claimant  the  names  of \nchiropractors had he known that Claimant’s back condition was work-related.    Buffy \nbegan  working  on  the  workers’  compensation  paperwork  the  next  day,  January  26, \n2024; and Claimant came into the office the following Monday, January 29, 2024, to fill \nout  and  sign  it.    Discussing  the  telephone  conversation  that  he  had  with  Claimant \nfurther, Chavers testified that in the course of it, Claimant identified his work in “the \ninterstitial” at ConAgra “December the 10\nth\n or something, whatever weekend that was.” \n Buffy  Chavers,  the  wife  of  Mark  Chavers,  testified  that  she  began  handing \nhuman resources matters for CWC in January 2024 due to the illness of Belcher.  She \nrelated that in response to a text message (which is in evidence) that Claimant sent her \non January 18, 2024, about getting on company health insurance (which he had waived \nearlier during the open-enrollment period), she called him.  According to her, he did not \nrepresent  during  that  conversation  that  he  had  been  hurt  at  work;  in  fact,  he  did  not \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n21 \neven mention what he needed an x-ray for or why.  She told Claimant that he could not \nsign onto CWC’s group health insurance until April 1, 2024.  However, once the matter \nwas treated as a workers’ compensation claim on January 25, 2024, she contacted the \ncompany’s insurer.  It was the testimony of Buffy that neither Claimant nor her husband \never stated before January 25 that Claimant had hurt his back at work or had reported \nthat he had. \n Claimant gave rebuttal testimony that he called Mark from the road after leaving \nRussellville on January 25, 2024, telling him that he needed to go to the doctor and that \nhe wanted to file a workers’ compensation claim.  He stated that Mark’s response was, \n“Why the ‘F’ are you calling me?”  Claimant added that they had a “heated argument,” \nand  that  Mark  sent  him  names  of  chiropractors  “several  hours  later.”    Asked  by \nRespondents why he did not relate this remarkable bit of testimony during his first stint \non the witness stand, Claimant replied:  “I wasn’t asked.” \n When Claimant testified again on rebuttal, the following exchange occurred when \nhe was examined by the Commission: \nQ. Mr. Boyd, I heard you testify initially that you felt a pop in your back.  \nDo you recall that testimony? \n \nA. Yes, Your Honor. \n \nQ. Did you relate that that that day to Mark? \n \nA. Specifically, a pop in my back? \n \nQ. Uh-huh. \n \nA. I can’t specifically remember saying that.  I remember just saying \nback pain, saying that I hurt my back.  I feels sore. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n22 \n \nQ. I  mean,  you  relayed  on  the  witness  stand  a  specific  occurrence, \nthat you actually felt a pop in your back. \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. What  did  you—what  sensation  did  you  feel  that  came  along  with \nthe pop in your back?  Anything? \n \nA. Yes.  It was kind of like a shock and burning feeling. \n \n Continuing  with  his  rebuttal  testimony,  Claimant  stated  that  he  told  his  brother \nbefore  January  25,  2024,  that  he  had  been  hurt  at  work.    Asked  if Kyle  Boyd had  lied \nunder oath, Claimant responded:  “I wouldn’t call it lying.  He might have forgotten.”  \nWhen  questioned  whether  he  was  disputing his  brother’s testimony that Claimant told \nhim  on  that  date  that  he  had  been  hurt  at  work  but  had  not  told  Mark  yet,  Claimant \nreplied:  “I think there’s some inaccuracies in his story.”  He continued: \nWe had a conversation.  I believe it would have been earlier that day.  And \nI said, “Hey, I’m going to have to tell Mark that I’m done and I need to go \nto the doctor for good, like, for sure.  At this point, I’m not going to keep \nmessing around with him.” \n \n Medical  Records.   The  medical  records  of  Claimant,  contained  in  his  Exhibit  1, \nreflect  that Claimant  went  to Robert  Shackelford,  D.C.,  on  January  26,  2024.    The \nhistory portion of the report reads in pertinent part: \nPatient is a 28-year-old male who presents today stating he hurt his back \nat  work  on  12/11/2023.    Symptoms  include  severe  pain  when  he  coughs \nor sneezes that has progressively worsened.  Patient has pain consistent \nwith  throbbing,  aching,  and  stabbing  type  pain  that  is  continuous  with \nsome movements and produced increases in pain intermittently. \n \nThe chiropractor referred Claimant to his primary care physician, Dr. Cain, who saw him \non January 31, 2024, at the St. Bernards Internal Residency Clinic (St. Bernards). \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n23 \n On  February  12,  2024,  Claimant  went  back  to  St.  Bernards and  saw  Shi  Luo, \nD.O., and Christina Carl, D.O.  The history portion of the record states: \n28  yo  male  came  in  with  a  complaint  of  lower  back  pain  located  in  the \naround  L4-L5  and  surround[ing]  area  with  radiation  to  the  bilateral  lower \nextremities.    Pain  is  worse  with  flexion  and extension.   Patient  has  taken \nTylenol and naproxen without relief.  He is no longer using naproxen.  He \nwas last  seen  by  Dr.  Cain  for  similar  complaints and  xray  lumb[a]r \nspine and mri was ordered.  L-spine xray shows “Mild convex left lumbar \ncurve.    Grade  1  retrolisthesis  L3  on  L4.    The  lumbar  spine  is  otherwise \nnegative.”  MRI is schedule[d] for 2/20.  Patient said the pain was getting \nworse and started to cause bilateral lower extremities weakness.  Patient \ndenied  having  trouble  controlling  urine  or  bowel  and  denied  having \nsymptoms    resembling    saddle    anesthesia.        He    did    endorse    a \ncough/headache  that  started  about  3  days  ago  and  coughing  makes  the \nback pain worse. \n \n(Emphasis added) \n With  respect  to  the  language  in  bold above,  the  report reflects  that  Claimant \npreviously saw  Dr.  Cain  on January  31,  2024—and that he placed him “on light duty, \npending more diagnostic testing” at  that  time.  But  the  February  12  report  references \nanother  visit  Claimant  had  with  Dr.  Cain  that  took  place  on December  14,  2023—only \nfour  days  after  his  alleged  back  injury  supposedly  occurred.   On that particular \noccasion—again  per  the  February  12,  2024,  report—Dr.  Cain reviewed  what  was \ntermed Claimant’s “Active Problem List.”  The  first  entry  on  that  list  is:  “Lumbar back \npain (Acute Medical) M54.50.”  Interestingly,  the  report  does  not  indicate  that  the  list \nwas amended on December 14, 2023; only that it was “reviewed” on  that  date.  The \nMarch 18, 2024, report from St. Bernards (see infra) reflects that the Active Problem List \nwas “updated” at that time to include the following:  “Lumbosacral radiculopathy at S1 \n(Acute  Medical)  M54.17.”  Per  this  documentation, Claimant  treated  with  Cain  for \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n24 \n“acute” lumbar pain much earlier  than  reflected  in his  testimony  and  medical  exhibit—\narguably even earlier than December 14, 2023. \n The  following  related exchange occurred at  the  hearing  while Claimant was \nunder direct examination: \nQ. This  is  page  one  of  Claimant’s  medical  exhibit [the  January  26,  2024, \nreport  by  Dr.  Shackelford].    Is  this  the  first  time  you  had  sought  medical \ntreatment? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. And why did you go to this chiropractor? \n \nA. It was recommended from Mark Chavers. \n \nClaimant was also questioned about this on cross-examination: \n \nQ. Is there a reason that you did not tell me about going to Dr. Cain on \nDecember 14? \n \nA. I don’t recall. \n \nQ. Is  there  a  reason  that  you  haven’t  introduced  records  from \nDecember 14? \n \nA. No. \n \n In any case, the February 12, 2024, report continues: \nAssessment & Plan \n(1) Lumbar back pain: \nCode(s):  M54.50 – LBP, LUMBAGO, LOW BACK PAIN \n \nPlan: \nWorsening  pain  and  start  to  have  BLE  weakness.    L-spine  xray  shows \n“Mild convex left lumbar curve.  Grade 1 retrolisthesis L3 on L4.  The \nlumbar spine is otherwise negative.”  MRI is schedule[d] for 2/20.  No \nemergent  need  for  neuro  imaging  due  to  lack  of  signs  of  urinary/bowel \nincontin[e]nce and lack of saddle anesthesia.  Are positive for straight leg \nraising unilaterally.  5/5 on BLE motor strength and sensation are grossly \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n25 \nintact  in  BLE  as  well.    MRI  scheduled  for  2/20.   OMT  provided  targeting \nparaspinal  muscles  with  soft  tissue  manipulation  and  spinal  inhibition \ntechnique  with  compression  to  the  .  .  .  paraspinal  region  of  L4  region.  \nSacral  rocking  was  utilized  as  well  as  the  pain  radiates  lower.    Also \nordered Toradol IM 60mg.  Also ordered Flexeril ER 15 mg once daily \nas needed (10 pills in total) for muscle spasm.  Hopefully all the above \ntreatment  is  going  to  last  him  until  the  MRI  for  definitive  diagnosis  and \nformulation of treatment plan. \n \nPlan: \n \n. . . \n \nCyclobenzaprine  ER  15  mg  PO  QDAY  PRN  10  caps  ORF  muscle \nspasm \n \n(Emphasis added)  Dr. Carl wrote that Claimant “may return to work on 2/22/2024 with \nlight  duty  restrictions  until  physical  therapy  is  completed.  On  February  26,  2024,  Carl \nstated that Claimant “cannot do any kind of bending or flexing of his back.  Mr. Boyd can \nalso  not  l[i]ft  anything  over  25  pounds.    He  can  return  to  work  with  these  restrictions, \nuntil physical therapy is completed.” \n As  stated  previously,  Claimant  went  again  to  St.  Bernards  on  March  18,  2024, \nand saw Paul Saad, M.D.  The history portion reads in pertinent part: \nMr.  Boyd  presents  to  clinic this  morning with  complaints  of  ongoing \nlumbosacral  pain.    Patient  initially  had  pain  since  December  2023,  has \nundergone  conservative  management  since  then  including  3  weeks  of \nphysical  therapy  and  OMM  which  have  not  alleviated  his  symptoms.  \nPatient  states  that  it  is  affecting  his  ADLs  including  walking  with  a  gait \nfavoring  his  right  leg,  pain  when  he  walks  especially  uphill  and  downhill, \nflexion  and  extension,  sitting  posture  is  affected,  patient  has  awakenings \nin  the  middle  of  the  night  when  he  moves,  and  is  currently  affecting  his \njob. \n \nThe report continues: \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n26 \nAssessment & Plan \n(1) Lumbosacral radiculopathy at S1: \nCode(s):  M54.17 Radiculopathy, lumbosacral region \n \nPlan: \nPatient  endorses  ongoing  lumbosacral  pain  with  radiculopathy  to  the \nbilateral lower extremities since December 2023.  Patient has undergone \nconservative  management,  OMM  session,  and  3  weeks  of  physical \ntherapy which have not alleviated his symptoms.  Patient is denying any \nred flag symptoms. \n \nLumbar  spine  x-ray  shows  mild  convex  left  lumbar  curve.    Grade  1 \nretrolisth[e]sis L3 on L4.  The lumbar spine is otherwise negative.  MRI of \nthe  lumbar  spine  shows  small  disc  protrusion  at  L5-S1  contacting  the \nright S1 nerve root.  No significant spinal canal or foraminal stenosis. \n \nNeurosurgery referral \n \nSaad wrote that Claimant “may return to work on 4/18/2024 or until Neurosurgery clears \nhim for work.” \n Next,  Claimant  went  to  NEA  Baptist  Clinic  on  April  15,  2024.    He  told  treating \npersonnel: \n[His  lower  back  pain]  was  caused  by  a  work  injury  that  occur[r]ed  in \nDecember 2023 felt a pop in his back working in an attic.  He lifted a 40-60 \npound  pipe weaving  through an  attic.   He felt  a  sharp burning  pain  in  his \nlower  back  and  buttocks.    He  has  been  off  work  since  the  symptoms \nbegan. \n \nThe report continues: \nTenderness to palpation in the middle to lower lumbar spine.  No muscle \nspasms noted. \n \n. . . \n \nRadiographic studies: \nI  have  personally  reviewed  the  images  listed  below  and  these  are  my \nfindings  from   looking   at   these   images.     These  findings   have   been \ndiscussed with the patient. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n27 \n \nLumbar MRI revealed:  20 February 2024 L3/4 diffuse bulge, L4/5 bilateral \nLRS secondary to facet and disc disease; L5/S1 interspace narrowing with \nright paracentral disc bulge. \n \nClaimant  was  diagnosed  as  having  lumbar  radiculopathy  and  was  referred  to  physical \ntherapy and pain management.  Also, the author of the report wrote:  “Remain off work \nuntil completing PT and PM due to increased pain with pressure on lower back.” \n When  Claimant  presented  to  the  NEA  Baptist  Pain  Management  Clinic  on  May \n15,  2024,  he  reported  that  he  had  been  having  “chronic  lumbar  pain  since  late \nDecember 2023, worsening recently.  Pt states he hurt his back when he was working in \nthe attic at work.”  Zhangliang  Ma,  M.D., wrote:  “I reviewed MRI of L-spine  done  on \n4/13/24  with  the  following  findings:    Disc  bulging  at  L5/S1  level  posteriorly  toward  the \nleft side.”  She diagnosed Claimant as having the primary diagnosis of lumbar radicular \npain, along with discogenic lumbar pain, lumbar disc disease, and lumbar spondylosis.  \nMa prescribed  him  Neurontin  and  Mobic,  and  scheduled  him  for  a  transforaminal \nepidural steroid injection at L5-S1 on the left. \n Thereafter,  from  May  28,  2024,  through  June  20,  2024, continued  to  undergo \nphysical therapy. \n Nonmedical Records.  These have been discussed in the context of the witness \ntestimony, supra. \n Discussion.   In  order  to  prove  the  occurrence  of  an  injury  caused  by  a  specific \nincident or incidents identifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must show \nthat:  (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course of his employment; (2) \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n28 \nthe injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services or \nresulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  the  injury  is  established  by  medical  evidence \nsupported by objective findings, which are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and \nis identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, \n56  Ark.  App.  126,  938  S.W.2d  876  (1997).    If  a  claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the  above  elements,  compensation  must  be \ndenied.   Mikel  v.  Engineered  Specialty  Plastics,  56  Ark.  App.  126,  938  S.W.2d  876 \n(1997).  The standard “preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence having \ngreater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415 \n(citing Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947)). \n Pursuant  to  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(a)  (Repl.  2012),  proof  of  rapid \nrepetitive  motion  is  not  required  to  establish  a  gradual-onset  back  injury.    However, \nClaimant must still prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged injury was \nthe major cause of the disability or need for treatment.  He must also show that a causal \nconnection  exists  between  the  injury  and  the  employment.   Gerber  Products  v. \nMcDonald, 15 Ark. App. 226, 691 S.W.2d 879 (1985). \n The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that \nperson’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., \n72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through conflicting \nevidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \nto  believe  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness,  but  may  accept  and \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n29 \ntranslate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of \nbelief.  Id. \n Claimant undoubtedly has an objective finding of a back condition.  His February \n20, 2024, lumbar MRI revealed, inter alia, a disc bulge at L5-S1.  Furthermore, he has \nbeen diagnosed  as  having,  inter  alia,  lower  back  pain/lumbago  and  was prescribed \nCyclobenzaprine (Flexeril) for muscle spasms.  Muscle spasms can constitute objective \nmedical findings.  Estridge v. Waste Management, 343 Ark. 276, 33 S.W.3d 167 (2000); \nContinental Express, Inc. v. Freeman, 339 Ark. 142, 4 S.W.3d 124 (1999).  This, in and \nof  itself,  is  sufficient  to  establish objective  findings of a  lumbar  injury.   See  Bradford  v. \nStracener Bros. Constr. Corp., 2021 Ark. App. 316, 2021 Ark. App. LEXIS 334; Melius v. \nChapel  Ridge  Nursing  Ctr.,  LLC,  2021  Ark.  App.  61,  2021  Ark.  App.  LEXIS 67.  \nMoreover,  this condition caused  internal  or  external  physical  harm  to  his  body  and \nrequired medical services. \n As for whether this back condition arose out of and in the course of employment, \nand  was  caused  by  a  specific  incident  that  is  identifiable  by  time  and  place  of \noccurrence,  Claimant testified  that  it  was  due  to his carrying  pipes  through  the \ninterstitial/attic  at  the  ConAgra  plant  in  Russellville  on  December  10,  2023.   In  his \ntestimony, he related that while carrying a 12-foot section of pipe—which he estimated \nweighed  40  to  60  pounds—and  having  to  maneuver  around  the  other  pipes  in  the \ninterstitial, he felt a “pop” in his back. \n However, the first appearance in the evidentiary record of his suffering a “pop” in \nhis back was in his visit to NEA Baptist Clinic on April 15, 2024—over four months after \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n30 \nits  purported  occurrence,  and not  until at  least  his  seventh  visit  to  a  provider  for  his \nback.  Working with Claimant that day at ConAgra was Giovanni Suarez—an employee \nof  another  company.   According  to  Claimant,  Suarez  would  have  been  nearby—in  or \nnear  the  interstitial—when he suffered the “pop.”  But Mark  Chavers’s testimony  was \nthat  both Suarez  and his  employer,  Mike  Maggard,  told  Mark that  Claimant never  said \nanything to Suarez about being hurt.  I credit this.  Claimant claimed that he told Mark \non December 10, 2023, that he had been injured.  He admitted that while he supposedly \nfelt “kind of a shock and burning feeling” that came with the pop, he may not have \nrelayed  this  detail  to  Mark.    But  Mark  denied  that  Claimant  said  anything  to  him  at  all \nthat day about injuring his back.  To the contrary:  according to Mark, Claimant told him \nmore  than  once  that  he  was  not  sure  what  he  had  done  to  his  back  before  eventually \nclaiming  that  it  was  work-related.   After  assessing  both  of  these  individuals  during  the \nhearing, I credit Mark Chavers over Claimant. \n Claimant’s testimony was that Wattingly supposedly was a witness to the alleged \nconversation  between  Claimant  and  Mark.    However,  Wattingly  stated  that  the  only \nthing that he heard was Claimant stating “[i]n passing” that his back was hurting.  This \nremark occurred around 2:00 p.m.  Claimant never stated that the origin of the pain was \nsomething  work-related.    Because  of  this,  it  never  occurred  to  Wattingly  to  report  it.  I \ncredit his account. \n Claimant’s brother, Kyle Boyd—who, again, is a fellow employee of Respondent \nCWC—testified  that  he  saw  Claimant  between  December  10,  2023,  and  January  25, \n2024.  Yet he related that during that interim, Claimant never told him that he had been \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n31 \nhurt  at  work until  46  days  after  the  alleged  accident.    Asked  to  explain  this,  Claimant \nstated that his brother had simply forgotten that he had been told.  But having had the \nopportunity to view both witnesses and assess their respective testimonies, I credit Kyle \nBoyd over Claimant. \n In the days after this alleged back injury supposedly occurred, Claimant—who as \nthe evidence reflects, was acquainted with the workers’ compensation process—did not \nact  like  someone  who  had  suffered  a  work-related  injury.    The  day  after  the  alleged \nincident,  December  11,  2023,  Claimant  contacted  the  office  of  CWC  to  find  out  how \nmuch paid time off he had accumulated.  When he was told that he had three days’ \nleave,  he  returned  to  work  the  next  day  and  resumed  his  regular  duties.    His  medical \nexhibit  does  not  include  a  report  of  his  December  14,  2023,  visit  to  Dr.  Cain.    But  as \ndiscussed  above,  a  later  report  references  it—and  indicates  that  on  that  date,  Cain \n“reviewed”  Claimant’s  “Active  Problem  List,”  which  included  “[l]umbar  back  pain.”  \nAnother report shows that this list was later “updated.”  When was the list first updated \nto  reflect  that  Claimant  was  presenting  with  lumbar  pain?    This  is  unknown,  since  the \nfirst St. Bernards report in evidence\n4\n was for the February 12, 2023, visit.  Yet what is \nknown is that just four days after this incident, Claimant presented to his physician with \ncomplaints  of  back  pain.    Asked  at  the  hearing  why  he  did  not  disclose  this,  he \nresponded, remarkably, that he did not recall this appointment. \n \n \n4\nWhile  Claimant  saw  Dr.  Cain  on  January  31,  2024,  only  an  off-work  slip  from \nthat visit is in evidence. \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n32 \n Again, the evidence reflects that Claimant was in fact suffering from a back issue \nduring this time frame.  But instead of attempting to report it as being work-related—as \nhe ultimately did on January 25, 2024—he texted Buffy on January 18, 2024, to see if \nhe could be added to their group health insurance policy.  Only after he learned that this \nwas not possible because it was not during the open enrollment period did he finally tell \nCWC one week later that he had been hurt on the job. \n In  light  of  the  foregoing,  I  cannot—and  do  not—credit  Claimant  concerning  the \ncircumstances surrounding his alleged back injury.  He has not shown that his purported \ninjury  arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  his  employment.    For  that  reason,  he  has  not \nproven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  back \ninjury by specific incident. \n As for his alternative allegation that his back injury was gradual-onset in nature, \nthe  evidence  as  highlighted  above  does not  establish  that  a  causal  connection  exists \nbetween his  back  condition  injury  and his  job  at  Respondent  CWC.  Consequently,  he \nhas not met his burden of proof under this theory, either. \n For  me  to  find  otherwise  would  require  that  I  engage  in  speculation  and \nconjecture.  But such cannot serve as a substitute for proof.  Dena Construction Co. v. \nHerndon, 264 Ark. 791, 796, 575 S.W.2d 155 (1979).  In sum, he has not proven that he \nsuffered a compensable injury to his back. \nB. Remaining Issues \n Because Claimant has not shown that he sustained a compensable injury to his \nback, the remaining issues—whether he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits \n\nBOYD – H400805 \n \n33 \nand to a controverted attorney’s fee, and when did he furnish notice of his alleged \ncompensable injury—are moot and will not be addressed. \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim for initial benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H400805 CHASE BOYD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CWC MECHANICAL LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND INS. CO. AMER., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 1, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on July 5, 2024, in Jonesboro, Craighead Cou...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:47:03.641Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H400805-2024-10-01","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Boyd_Chase_H400805_20241001.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}