{"id":"alj-H402480-2025-03-11","awcc_number":"H402480","decision_date":"2025-03-11","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Mark Ballard","employer_name":"U S Xpress, Inc","title":"BALLARD VS. U S XPRESS, INC. AWCC# H402480 March 11, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ballard_Mark_H402480_20250311.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Ballard_Mark_H402480_20250311.pdf","text_length":13189,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H402480 \n \nMARK BALLARD, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nU S XPRESS, INC., EMPLOYER   RESPONDENT \n \nGREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA   RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 11, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on  February  4,  2025,  in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented himself, Pro Se, Vilonia, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Mr. Eric Newkirk, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  full  hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on February  4,  2025.  A  prehearing  telephone \nconference took place on November 20, 2024. A  prehearing order was entered on that date  and \nsubsequently entered into evidence as Commission Exhibit 1. The parties’ stipulations are set forth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n \n2. The  employer/employee/carrier  relationship  existed  among  the  parties  on \nMarch 23, 2024, when Claimant allegedly sustained compensable injuries \nto his left elbow and left hip. \n \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n4. The  parties  stipulate  to  Claimant’s  Temporary  Total  Disability  (TTD) \nbenefits rate being $876.00 and Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) benefits \nrate being $657.00, weekly. \n \n \n \n\nBALLARD H402480 \n \n2 \n \nThe parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether  Claimant  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his  left  hip  and  left  elbow  by \nspecific incident. \n \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment and related \nexpenses, including mileage and out of pocket expenses. \n \n3. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  Temporary  Total  Disability  (TTD)  from  March  24, \n2024, to a date to be determined. \n \n All other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \nClaimant contends that: \n1. He passed out and fell on his left hip at Love’s Truckstop in Carthage, \nTexas. \n2. He was injured while working for U S Xpress. \n3. He reported the injury to the Respondent employer. \nRespondents contend that: \n1. They cannot establish a compensable injury on March 23, 2024, have no \nknowledge of a purported work incident and assert that no work-related \nevent/incident occurred on March 23, 2024. \n2. Alternatively, any issues that occurred were idiopathic in nature and in no \nway causally connect to any sort of work activities or specific work \nevent/incident. Thus, any resulting left hip or left elbow problems would \nnot be compensable or in any way work-related as they were instead \ntraceable to an idiopathic fall. \n \n \n\nBALLARD H402480 \n \n3 \n \n3. They are unaware of any objective medical findings of left hip or left \nelbow injury.  To the extent any objective medical findings do exist then \nsuch findings are traceable to pre-existing abnormalities and not work-\nrelated or causally connected to a compensable work event/incident on \nMarch 23, 2024. \n4. They plead an offset for any group medical insurance or group short-term \ndisability benefits paid to the Claimant or on his behalf.  Respondents also \nassert an offset for any unemployment benefits paid to the Claimant, to the \nextent allowed under Arkansas law. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and the \nevidentiary  record,  I  hereby  make  the  following  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The Claimant has not proven that he has sustained a left elbow and left hip injury with \nobjective findings nor was his passing out episode work-related.  \n \n4. Based  on  my  findings  of  no  compensability,  the  remaining  issues  of  reasonable  and \nnecessary medical treatment, and temporary total disability benefits are moot and will \nnot be addressed in this opinion \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Claimant’s Exhibit 1A and 1B, pictures, consisting of 2 pages \ntotal, Claimant’s Exhibit 2, payment records, that consists of 18 pages, Respondents’ Exhibit 1, \nmedical records, that consist of 93 pages, Joint Exhibit 1, driver message history, consisting of 128 \n\nBALLARD H402480 \n \n4 \n \npages, and Commission Exhibit 1, Pre-Hearing Order filed July 2, 2024, that consists of 5 pages. \nForms AR-C, AR-2, and AR-1 will be blue-backed and made a part of the evidentiary record. The \nClaimant was the only witness testifying at the full hearing.  \nClaimant was employed as a truck driver for the Respondent/Employer. On March 23, \n2024, Claimant passed out at a gas pump in Carthage, Texas after filling up his work truck.\n1\n The \nClaimant was rushed, by ambulance, to UT Health Carthage, emergency department. Resp. Ex. 1, \npp. 64 – 71. The attending provider was Dr. Orlando Beckum. After examining the Claimant, Dr. \nBeckum diagnosed Claimant’s fainting episode as syncope, the unspecified type. Id. The Claimant \nalleges he had injured his left elbow and left hip when he passed out. But did not introduce one \nscintilla of medical evidence into the record showing a left elbow or left hip injury. Moreover, the \nClaimant did not provide any documentary/medical proof demonstrating a nexus between his \nemployment and his fainting episode at the gas pump. The Claimant, however, did testify that he \ndid have an x-ray of his left hip that shows bone spurs, but did not produce the x-ray report. When \nasked why he did not produce the x-ray report he stated that the doctor’s office would not give him \nthe records. Trans. p.76, line 25, thru p. 78, lines 1 – 7.  \nThe Claimant’s testimony was speculative as to why he passed out resulting in the alleged \ninjuries to his left elbow and left hip. The Claimant alleges that he was on the road for fifteen days \nwithout his medication for his high blood pressure, diabetes, and other medical conditions. Trans. \np. 24, lines 19 – 25, thru p. 25, lines 1 – 3.; Trans. p. 38, lines 13 – 25, thru p. 39, lines 1 2. The \nClaimant testified that he did make it home to get his medication and was taking it two or three \n \n1\n Claimant alleges that his issues began with a spider bite that occurred inside the cab of his truck around September \n9, 2022, but healed a month later. Trans. p. 16, lines 21 – 25 thru p. 17, lines 1 – 25. I found the testimony \nconcerning the spider bite wholly irrelevant to Claimant’s March 23, 2024, passing out episode and subsequent \nalleged left hip and left elbow injury. The Claimant has never made a workers’ compensation claim for the spider \nbite. \n\nBALLARD H402480 \n \n5 \n \ndays prior to passing out at the gas station pump in Carthage, Texas. Claimant also testified that \nhe was going to get something to eat after getting gas for his truck. The Claimant blamed \nRespondent/Employer  as  the  reason  he  passed  out. The  Claimant  alleged that \nRespondent/Employer did not allow him to go home to get his medication during that fifteen-day \nstretch when he was without his medication. But contrary to his allegation, Claimant testified that \nhe didn’t ask Respondent/Employer to go home to get his medication during those fifteen days. \nTrans. p. 33, lines 9 – 16. The Claimant also testified that he did not tell the Respondent/Employer \nthat he wasn’t feeling well. Trans. p. 35, lines 2 – 25. \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left elbow and left hip by \nspecific incident. \nUnder Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), which I find applies to \nthe analysis of Claimant’s alleged injuries, defines “compensable injury”: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body . . . \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services \nor results in disability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a \nspecific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings that \ncannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16).  The element “arising \nout of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the claimant’s injury and \nhis or her employment.  City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987).  \nAn  injury arises  out  of  a  claimant’s  employment  “when  a  causal  connection  between  work \nconditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.”  Id. \n\nBALLARD H402480 \n \n6 \n \n If  the  Claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the \nrequirements for establishing compensability, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard means the evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; \nSmith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n Claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much \nweight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through \nconflicting evidence 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 translate into \nfindings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \nClaimant  has  not  proven  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable work-related injury to his left  elbow and left hip with objective findings. The \nClaimant has not proven that a specific work-related event occurred that caused the Claimant to \npass out at the gas pump resulting in the alleged left elbow and left hip injury. The Claimant argues \nthat it was his lack of medication for fifteen days that ultimately caused him to pass out. The \nClaimant has not provided any medical evidence to substantiate this claim. During my review of \nRespondents submitted medical records covering the day of the alleged incident, March 23, 2024, \nto August 29, 2024, there was no mention of a left elbow or a left hip injury. Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 66-\n89. As to the reason the Claimant passed out, the records refer to it as syncope, the unspecified \ntype. Id. at 64-71. The Claimant also testified that he never told his employer that he needed his  \n\nBALLARD H402480 \n \n7 \n \nmedication during those fifteen days. Trans. p. 33, lines 9 - 16. The Claimant further testified that \nhe has neglected his health and that he just messed up. Trans. p. 47, lines 9 – 24. I find by the \npreponderance of the evidence that Claimant’s passing out episode was idiopathic, likely a result \nof him not taking care of his own personal health, but not work-related.   \nMoreover, Claimant has not produced any medical evidence demonstrating an injury to his \nleft elbow and left hip. The Claimant has not introduced any medical records whatsoever into the \nevidentiary record. Nor did he specify the alleged work-related event that caused the Claimant to \npass out resulting in the alleged left elbow and left hip injury. Looking solely at Respondent’s \nsubmitted medical record, Dr. Beckum diagnosed the Claimant’s passing out episode as syncope, \nthe unspecified type. Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 64 – 71. Furthermore, Dr. Beckum did not link Claimant’s \nfainting episode with his employment. Thus why, I must find that the Claimant has failed to prove \nby the preponderance of the evidence that he has sustained a work-related injury, with objective \nfindings, to his left elbow and left hip. Therefore, Claimant’s claim must fail. Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \nMISCELLANEOUS ISSUES \n Based on my previous findings that Claimant has failed to prove he sustained a work-\nrelated injury by specific incident and the lack of objective findings of a left elbow and left hip \nwork-related injury, the remaining issues regarding reasonable and necessary medical treatment, \ntemporary total disability benefits, are moot and will not be addressed in this opinion.  \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, the parties \nshall act consistent with this opinion.  \n  \n\nBALLARD H402480 \n \n8 \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H402480 MARK BALLARD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT U S XPRESS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 11, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Steven Porch, on February 4, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkans...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:42:28.567Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402480-2025-03-11","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ballard_Mark_H402480_20250311.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}