{"id":"alj-H402768-2026-02-19","awcc_number":"H402768","decision_date":"2026-02-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Callie Caldwell","employer_name":"Lonoke School District","title":"CALDWELL VS. LONOKE SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H402768 February 19, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CALDWELL_CALLIE_H402768_20260219.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CALDWELL_CALLIE_H402768_20260219.pdf","text_length":21075,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H402768 \n \nCALLIE CALDWELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nLONOKE SCHOOL DISTRICT,  RESPONDENT \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                 \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, TPA                         RESPONDENT   \n  \n \nOPINION FILED 19 FEBRUARY 2026 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge \nJayO. Howe on 3 December 2025 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nMr. Gregory R. Giles, Moore, Giles & Matteson, LLP, appeared on behalf of the claimant. \n \nMr. Jarrod Parrish, Worley, Wood & Parrish, PA, appeared on behalf of the respondents. \n \nI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A Prehearing Order was filed on 18 September 2025 and admitted to the record as \nCommission’s Exhibit No 1. For this litigation, and consistent with that Order, the parties \nagreed to the following at the hearing: \nSTIPULATIONS \n \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \n  jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n 2. Employee/self-insured employer/TPA relationship existed at all relevant  \n  times, including on 15 April 2024, when the claimant fell at work. She alleges \n  that she sustained internal injuries by specific incident on that day. \n \n 3. At the relevant time, the claimant was earning an average weekly wage of  \n  $1,592.47, which would entitle her to the maximum weekly benefits of $876  \n  for temporary total disability (TTD) and $657 for permanent partial disability \n  (PPD). \n \n 4. The respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n \n \n \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n2 \n \nISSUES TO BE LITIGATED \n \n 1. Whether the claimant sustained compensable internal injuries by specific  \n  incident as a result of a fall at work on 15 April 2024.  \n \n 2. Whether the claimant sustained compensable injuries to her left knee and  \n  left shoulder/bicep by specific incident as a compensable consequence of her  \n  injuries alleged to have occurred on 15 April 2024. \n \n 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to medical benefits associated with   \n  reasonably necessary past and future medical treatment related to her  \n  injuries. \n \n 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to TTD benefits for 16 April 2024 and  \n  the period between 18 April 2024 and 16 May 2024. \n \n 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \n All other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \n The parties’ Contentions are set out in their respective Prehearing Questionnaire \nresponses: \nClaimant  \n \nThe Claimant contends that she suffered a fall at school on April 15, \n2024, which caused her to suffer internal bleeding resulting in \nemergency room treatment on April 17, 2024. Before she could be \ndischarged from the hospital as a result of the loss of blood she blacked \nout and fell suffering injuries to her left knee and left shoulder/torn \nbicep.  \n \nClaimant contends that the medical treatment that she has had since \nthe fall has been reasonable, necessary and related such that \nRespondents should be ordered to pay for same associated with the \nblood loss and subsequent injuries to her left knee and left shoulder \nbicep.  \n \nClaimant contends that Respondents should be ordered to pay TTD \nbenefits at this point from on or about April 18, 2024, through May 16, \n2024.  \n \nClaimant contends that Respondents should be ordered to pay \nattorney’s fees as provided by law. \n \n All other issues are reserved.  \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n3 \n \nRespondent \n \nRespondents contend that Claimant did not suffer a compensable injury \non or about April 15, 2024. Respondents contend that in the event \ncompensability is found, Claimant’s need for medical treatment, if any, \nis related to preexisting and underlying issues unrelated to any incident \nthat occurred on April 15, 2024.  \n \nRespondents further contend that the medical records only support \nentitlement to TTD benefits from April 18, 2024 to May 16, 2024 in the \nevent compensability is found.  \n  \nThe Respondents reserve the right to amend their contentions and \nposition in all respects after additional discovery has been completed.  \n \n At the beginning of the hearing, the respondents amended their Contentions to \nmake clear that they deny that the claimant’s fall on 17 April 2024 was a compensable \nconsequence of any work-related accident of injury. \nII. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized below, \nand having heard testimony from the witnesses, observing their demeanor, I make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she  \n  suffered compensable internal injuries by specific incident on or about 15  \n  April 2024. \n \n4. Because the claimant has failed to prove a compensable injury, the remaining \n  issues are moot and will not be addressed in this Opinion. \n \nIII. ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts as outlined above are reasonable and accepted. It is settled that \nthe Commission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). A \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n4 \n \nclaimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \n The claimant was the only witness at the hearing. The record consists of the hearing \ntranscript and the following exhibits: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 23 September 2025 \nPrehearing Order); Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (a 13-page abstract of the claimant’s medical \nrecords); Claimant’s Exhibit No 2 (a two-page index, one page of wage records, and 350 \npages of medical records); Claimant’s Exhibit No 3 (a one-page Return-to-Work note); \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1 (one index page and 58 pages of medical records); and \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 2 (one index page and two pages of non-medical records). \n Claimant’s Testimony \n The claimant is a 54-year-old woman who works as a speech language pathologist \nfor the respondent-school district. She has relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and \nambulates with the assistance of walking sticks or other assistive devices regardless of \nwhether she is experiencing any disease-related symptoms. \n While at work on 15 April 2024, which happened to be an administrative day for \nmeetings with staff and parents, she tripped on her way to the restroom. She attributed her \nfall to catching her foot on a mat in the hallway just outside of the restroom doors. She \ndenied perceiving any injuries after falling, but she was unable to get up. She crawled into \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n5 \n \nthe restroom and eventually called for help from her cellphone. Staff attempted to help her \nup from the floor, but they were unable to lift her. The claimant’s sons eventually arrived to \nlift her from the floor. After being seen by the school nurse, the claimant completed a Form \nAR-N that denied any injury. At her principal’s suggestion, she went home early that day. \n The claimant stayed home from work the following day. She testified that she was \n“sore” but otherwise felt “fine.” [TR at 26.] She then returned to work the next day (17 April \n2024). At some point that afternoon, she felt light-headed and that her “stomach was \ngetting queasy.” Id. She went to the restroom and noticed that she passed blood and bloody \nstool in the toilet. She finished working that day without reporting any injury or illness to \nher employer. Later that evening she asked her husband to take her to the emergency \ndepartment for evaluation.  \n At the emergency department she “described the events of the day, seeing the blood, \nfeeling bad, and at this point, I was feeling weak.” [TR at 28.] She also reported that she \nhad experienced a workplace fall two days earlier. In her testimony, the claimant denied \nany history of passing blood. She acknowledged, though, that she had an established \nhistory of iron deficiency anemia. Her anemia would be treated with iron infusions, oral \niron supplements, or a combination of both, depending on her blood levels and \nresponsiveness to the treatment(s). \n The claimant testified that her hemoglobin levels continued to fall during her time \nin the emergency department; but she did not recall any treatment actually being \nadministered during that time. After some evaluation and diagnostic imaging in the \nemergency department, the claimant was diagnosed with diverticulosis and readied for \ndischarge with orders to follow-up with her PCP and for further GI evaluation. A \nwheelchair was brought into the exam room for her discharge. But she did not make it out \nof the exam room: “And I stand up just to transition—just to stand up, and then, sit right \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n6 \n \nback down and I barely got the phrase out, you know, ‘I’m gonna pass out,’ and I was down. \nI mean it was almost instantaneous.” [TR at 35.] The claimant passed out. She regained \nconsciousness a few moments later, sitting on the exam room floor with hospital staff \nchecking on her. After getting up and back into the exam bed, the claimant’s head and left \nshoulder were hurting from her collapse to the floor. \n According to the claimant, she ultimately received three units of blood and \nadditional diagnostic imaging, including a colonoscopy and gastroduodenoscopy and \nshoulder X-rays. She then remained inpatient for a few days. After being discharged (again) \nfrom the hospital, she had pain in her left shoulder and “realized that the knee, the left \nknee, was also hurting.” [TR at 41.] She then followed up with her PCP for her shoulder \nand knee complaints. \n On cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged her iron deficiency and anemia \nhistory and that she had previously testified that she had experienced no related issues in \nthe preceding 10 years. The records revealed that she had, however, been seen as recently \nas February and March of 2023 for anemia-related evaluation and treatment. She denied \nthat iron deficiency anemia and passing bloody stool could be complications associated with \nher history of gastric bypass surgery. \n While the claimant testified that she believed her bleeding and syncope episode was \nattributable to an intestinal polyp that ruptured when she fell on 15 April 2024, she \nacknowledged that the medical records made no such indication. She agreed that the \nmedical records only showed “diverticulosis with no evidence of diverticulitis, no other acute \nfindings.” [TR at 80.] \n \n \n \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n7 \n \nMedical Records \n Pre-Incident   \n The claimant provided an extensive set of medical records. The records confirm a \nhistory of iron deficiency anemia, gastric bypass surgery, and MS. A CARTI \nHematology/Oncology note from 22 February 2016 indicated that the claimant was having \nto manage her need for iron supplementation versus related severe abdominal cramping \nand a history of gastric bypass surgery. No active rectal bleeding was reported at that time. \nThe outside lab results noted in the record indicated low hemoglobin levels on 30 July 2015. \n[Cl. Ex. No 2 at 3.] A subsequent visit note from 5 October 2016 represented previously low \nhemoglobin values on 9 September 2015 and on 21 October 2015. [Id. at 7.] \n On 5 January 2020, the claimant presented to an urgent care clinic in Lonoke with \ncomplaints of left knee pain and swelling after experiencing a fall at home. Lab results from \nthat visit also showed low hemoglobin values. [Id. at 12.] \n On 23 February 2023, the claimant established care at a Baptist Health clinic in \nLonoke. Her chief complaint was listed as anemia. The record indicated that her \nhemoglobin was again low at the time. [Id. at 19.] Fatigue, weakness, numbness, Vitamin D \ndeficiency, Folic acid deficiency, Vitamin B12 deficiency, arthritis, and lower extremity \nedema were also noted as problems during that visit. \n Post-Incident \n The claimant presented to the Baptist Emergency Department on the night of 17 \nApril 2024. Her complaint upon arrival was listed as “GI bleed, fell on Monday.” [Id. at 29.] \nThe treatment flowsheet in the records shows that the Chief Complaint was later updated \nto Rectal Bleeding with “Fall” being struck-through. [Id. at 32.] Her hemoglobin was again \nfound to be low. She was diagnosed with an unspecified gastrointestinal hemorrhage and \niron deficiency anemia due to chronic blood loss.  \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n8 \n \n A physician’s note from the emergency department includes the following: \n... presents with blood in the stool and some left lower quadrant pain. She \nalso has some aches and pains from a fall yesterday but does not have any \nobvious deformity and is more concerned about the blood in the stool. \nDifferential diagnosis includes GI bleed, diverticulosis, diverticulitis, internal \nhemorrhoid, anemia. \n. . .  \nCT of the abdomen/pelvis shows diverticulosis without evidence of \ndiverticulitis. No evidence of colitis. CT otherwise negative. We discussed \nadmission for further workup and management versus outpatient follow-up \nwith primary care doctor and gastroenterology. At this time she would prefer \nto go home. I think that is reasonable since she has normal vital signs and \nhemoglobin of 9 with no evidence of active bleed on CT and no signs of colitis \nor other acute abnormality. \n \n[Id. at 68.] Her inpatient admission record states, “patient stood up to leave after discharge \nand became very lightheaded and then had a syncopal event....” [Id.] \n One note from her inpatient stay indicates that the claimant experienced “acute \nblood loss anemia due to hematochezia from perspective diverticular bleed.” [Id. at 81.] The \nCT scan of her abdomen showed: “1. Colonic diverticulosis. No evidence of diverticulitis. 2. \nNo evidence of bowel obstruction. 3. Normal appendix. 4. No other acute findings. 5. \nIncidental findings as described.” [Id. at 84.] It was further noted that a history of gastric \nbypass “can have nutritional deficiencies contributing to anemia.” [Id. at 98.] \n Another note from her stay, dated 21 April 2024, shows that she experienced a \nbloody bowel movement the night before and an associated drop in hemoglobin and \nhematocrit levels. The doctor stated that the claimant would “benefit from EGD and \ncolonoscopy given her longstanding [iron deficiency anemia], to be completed tomorrow.” \n[Id. at 105.] Those imaging studies confirmed diverticulosis. The impression listed “suspect \nresolved diverticular bleed with underlying [iron deficiency anemia] related to her [gastric \nbypass surgery].” [Id. at 110.] Small internal hemorrhoids were also noted on the EGD \nreport. [Id. at 152.] She was eventually discharged home with orders for physical therapy. \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n9 \n \n The claimant followed up at the Baptist Health clinic on 30 April 2024. She \ncomplained of ongoing shoulder pain, which was misattributed to her fall at school versus \nher fall in the emergency department. [Id. at 217.] At a subsequent follow-up, she noted \nongoing pain in her left knee that she attributed to her fall in the emergency department. \n[Id. at 226.] She continued pursuing treatment afterwards for complaints of left knee and \nleft shoulder pain. \nDISCUSSION \nThe initial matter in this claim is whether the claimant sustained compensable \ninternal injuries by specific incident after a fall at work on 15 April 2024. To prove a \ncompensable injury by specific incident, she must establish four (4) factors by a \npreponderance of the evidence: (1) the injuries arose out of and in the course of her \nemployment; (2) the injuries caused internal or external harm to the body that required \nmedical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) the injuries are established by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings, which are those findings which cannot \ncome under the voluntary control of the patient; and (4) the injuries were caused by a \nspecific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty \nPlastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). The employee has the burden of proving \nby a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury. Id. § 11-9-\n102(4)(E)(i). 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 \n252 (2003). If a claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any of the \nrequirements for establishing a compensable injury, compensation must be denied. Mikel, \nsupra. \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n10 \n \n\"Objective findings\" are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary \ncontrol of the patient. Id. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). The requirement that a compensable injury \nmust be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings applies only to the \nexistence and extent of the injury. Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 \nS.W.2d 472 (1997). \nThe claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained compensable internal injuries as a result of her workplace fall on 15 April 2024. \nThere is no question that the claimant tripped and fell that day. And she acknowledges that \nshe completed a Form AR-N on the same day indicating that she suffered no injuries in her \nfall. [Resp. Ex. No 2.] She now argues, however, that she actually sustained internal injuries \nthat were unknown to her at the time that she completed her post-accident paperwork; that \nthose injuries caused internal bleeding and eventual blood loss; and that an unanticipated \nsyncope event, while being discharged from the emergency department for the evaluation of \nthe alleged internal injuries, resulted in additional injuries to her left knee and left \nshoulder. The knee and shoulder injuries from the second fall, she says, are compensable \nconsequences of the unbeknownst internal injuries that she sustained in her workplace fall.  \n The credible evidence, however, does not support her claim of a compensable injury \nin the first instance. The records show that the claimant has an established history of iron \ndeficiency anemia and low hemoglobin. She has received iron infusions and courses of iron \nsupplementation over the years to address the problem. When she established care at a new \nclinic about a year before her workplace fall, fatigue and weakness were noted along with \nchronic anemia and vitamin deficiencies. \n The claimant presented to the emergency department after she experienced rectal \nbleeding on April 17\nth\n, two days after her workplace fall. Through the course of her \nevaluation and treatment, she underwent CT imaging and upper and lower GI scope \n\nC. CALDWELL- H402768 \n11 \n \nstudies that revealed no indication that the bleeding or the anemia were related to a recent \ntrauma or blunt force injury. There are no objective findings that support her notion that \nthe fall at work was a mechanism of any sort of internal hemorrhagic injury. The medical \nrecords simply do not relate her workplace fall to the bleeding that she happened to have \nexperienced days later. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that the claimant was \ndiagnosed with a diverticular bleed that the medical reports and opinions suggested was \nrelated to her chronic anemia, which was possibly an ongoing complication from a past \ngastric bypass surgery. Finding now that the claimant’s bleeding episode was related to her \nworkplace fall would require engaging in speculation and conjecture, which cannot stand in \nthe place for actual proof. Dena Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 575 S.W.2d 155 \n(1979). Accordingly, the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she suffered compensable internal injuries as a result of her workplace fall.  \n Because the claimant has failed to prove a compensable injury, the other issues in \nthis claim are moot and will not be addressed in this Opinion. \nIV.  CONCLUSION  \n Consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this claim for initial \nbenefits is DENIED and DISMISSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H402768 CALLIE CALDWELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LONOKE SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESPONDENT SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 19 FEBRUARY 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law J...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:11.212Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402768-2026-02-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CALDWELL_CALLIE_H402768_20260219.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}