{"id":"alj-H403137-2025-11-06","awcc_number":"H403137","decision_date":"2025-11-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Bobbie Laster","employer_name":"Little Rock School District","title":"LASTER VS. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H403137 November 06, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Laster_Bobbie_H403137_20251106.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Laster_Bobbie_H403137_20251106.pdf","text_length":14598,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H403137 \n \nBOBBIE LASTER, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER   RESPONDENT \n \nAR. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC. WCT, CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 6, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, Steven Porch, on September 2, 2025, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant was represented by Ms. Sheila Campbell, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  full  hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on September  2,  2025.  A  prehearing  telephone \nconference  took  place  on June 4,  2025.  A  prehearing  order  was  entered  on the  same  day. An \nAmended Prehearing Order was entered on June 11, 2025,  and subsequently entered into evidence \nas Commission Exhibit 1, without objection or amendment. The parties confirmed the stipulations \nand the issues at the hearing. 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. An employer/employee/carrier relationship existed on February 26, 2024, \nwhen  Claimant  allegedly  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  right \nshoulder. \n \n3. Respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n \n4. The  parties  stipulate  to  Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  of  $885.80, \nentitling her to temporary total disability (TTD) benefit rate of $591.00 \n\nLASTER H403137 \n \n2 \n \nweekly, and her permanent partial disability (PPD) benefit rate of $443.00 \nweekly \n \n \nThe parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder by specific \nincident. \n \n2. Whether Claimant filed timely notice of her claimed injury \n \n3. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment, mileage \nand benefits for her alleged injuries. \n \n4. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to Temporary Total  Disability  (TTD)  benefits  from \nFebruary 27, 2024, to a date to be determined. \n \n5. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nClaimant contents: \n \n That she sustained a compensable injury in the course and scope of her employment \nof  February  26,  2024, to  her  right  shoulder  from  lifting  for  which  she  should  be \ncompensated. \nRespondents contend: \n That Claimant did not suffer a compensable injury to her right shoulder on February \n26,  2024. Respondents  contend  that  Claimant’s  need  for  medical  treatment,  if  any, \nassociated with her right shoulder is related to pre-existing and underlying problems and \nnot an acute injury.  Respondents further contend that they did not get notice of a claimed \ninjury until May 8, 2024, and should not be liable for payment of any benefits prior to \nreceipt of actual notice of a claimed injury.  Respondents further assert that in the event \ncompensability is found, the medical documentation does not support entitlement to TTD \n\nLASTER H403137 \n \n3 \n \nbenefits during the period of time in question.  The Claimant continued to work for \nRespondent/Employer  through March 27, 2024.    Respondents  have  no  medical \ndocumentation indicating an off-work status subsequent to that time. \n(Addition) Based on post-date of injury wage information received from the Employer, it is \nRespondents’ position that Claimant would not be entitled to temporary disability benefits \nin the event her claim is found to be compensable, as it appears that she continued to \nreceive her salary.  Respondents will be relying upon these records once this matter is \nscheduled for a hearing. \n \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  failed  to  prove  by  the preponderance  of  the  evidence that  she \nsustained a compensable right shoulder injury by specific incident.  \n \n4. Based on my finding of no compensability, the remaining issues of notice, reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment, TTD, and a controverted attorney’s fee are moot, and \nwill not be addressed in this opinion. \n \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Claimant’s Exhibit 1, medical records, consisting of 31 pages; \nClaimant’s Exhibit 2, photographs, accident claim, and text messages, consisting of 10 pages; \nRespondents’  Exhibit  1, medical  records,  consisting  of 41  pages;  Respondents’  Exhibit  2, \n\nLASTER H403137 \n \n4 \n \ncorrespondence, wage records, text messages, and reports, consisting of 33 pages; Commission \nExhibit 1, Amended Pre-Hearing Order Filed June 11, 2025, consisting of 6 pages total. I have \nblue-backed into the record Claimant’s and Respondents’ post hearing briefs.  \nThe Claimant was employed as a Child Nutrition Manager for the Respondent/Employer \nduring the time of the alleged incident. Her job was to ensure that the children at her assigned \nschool received breakfast and lunch. On February 26, 2024, Claimant testified that she was putting \n25-pound breakfast bags onto a cart to deliver to the children at her assigned school. TR 14-18. \nWhen she placed the last bag onto her cart, she heard a pop in her right shoulder followed by \nimmediate weakness in her right arm. Id. The Claimant testified that she spoke to her immediate \nsupervisor Debra McElroy on the day of the alleged incident. Id. The Claimant further testified \nthat another co-worker, Ms. Holly, was present when she spoke to Ms. McElroy about her alleged \nright shoulder injury. TR 17-18, 31. However, this co-worker witness was not present to testify at \nthe hearing.  \nClaimant met with Dr. Lawrence O’Malley on the same day of her injury, February 26, \n2024. CL. Ex. 1, pp. 1-5. According to Dr. O’Malley’s progress note the Claimant came to see him \nfor a “follow-up evaluation of her bilateral shoulder pain.” Id. The note further states that her right \nshoulder pain has “continued to worsen.” Id. Dr. O’Malley further noted that Claimant’s right \nshoulder “has been bothering her for the past few years....”  Id. He went on to state that Claimant \ndoes not “recall any traumatic injury.” Id. Dr. O’Malley ordered an MRI of her right shoulder and \nplaced her on an anti-inflammatory, Meloxicam. Id. The MRI was administered on March 4, 2024, \nwhere a complete “retracted tear is of the supraspinatus is seen with retraction to the level of the \nglenohumeral joint.” CL. Ex. 1, pp. 6-7. The report classified the retracted tear as “High-grade \nnear complete tear of most of the infraspinatus tendon is seen with only a few fibers of the \n\nLASTER H403137 \n \n5 \n \ninfraspinatus remaining.” Id. The report further read that “Moderate tendinosis of the superior \nfibers of the subscapularis is seen with articular sided tear of the superior fibers. The teres minor \ntendon is intact. Moderate supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscle atrophy is seen.” Id.  \nThe Claimant eventually had surgery to repair her right shoulder rotator cuff tear by Dr. \nO’Malley on March 27, 2024. CL. Ex. 1, pp. 13-14. The Claimant had a follow-up visit with Dr. \nO’Malley after her rotator cuff surgery on April 11, 2024. Id. at 15-19. There the Claimant reported \nthat she was doing well. Id. Dr. O’Malley ordered Claimant to start therapy and to continue to do \nelbow range of motion exercises. Id. Claimant testified at the full hearing that the surgery did in \nfact benefit her. TR 37. \nDebra McElroy, Claimant’s direct supervisor, testified that she does not recall Claimant \ntelling her that she injured her right shoulder until May 8, 2024, when Claimant signed a Form-N. \nTR  82-83,  85-90, Resp.  Ex.  2,  p.  31. Stephanie  Walker-Hynes,  Director  of  Nutrition  for \nRespondent/Employer, testified that she was not made aware, nor was it her job to be made aware \nof workers’ compensation issues except for specific incidents, i.e. ambulance being called, injury \nresulting in finger, or blood loss, etc. TR 56-57. Ms. Hynes testified that she was only made aware \nof the claim because months have passed since the incident occurred. TR 59-62. Ms. Hynes also \ntestified that Claimant was management and had a manager manual on the procedure for filing a \nworkers compensation claim. TR 67-69, 71, 73-77. She further testified that the school district \ndoes an annual review of the policies and procedures with management. Id. Despite this testimony \nthe Claimant stood firm on her claim that she reported her injury to Ms. McElroy. TR 99-102. But \ndid admit that she did not know that she had to make a workers’ compensation claim, not only with \nMs. McElroy, but also with Ms. Tracy Richardson, Ms. Hynes point of contact for workers \ncompensation claims involving Claimant. Id. \n\nLASTER H403137 \n \n6 \n \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder by specific \nincident. \n \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 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 \n\nLASTER H403137 \n \n7 \n \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 she has sustained a \ncompensable right shoulder injury that arose out of and in the course of her employment by specific \nincident. The Claimant testified that she spoke to her direct supervisor, Debra McElroy, about her \nalleged right shoulder injury in the presence of another co-worker on the date the incident occurred. \nTR 14-18, 31. However, the Claimant did not present this alleged witness to testify to those facts. \nId. Nor did Ms. McElroy recall any such conversation had ever taken place. TR 82-83, 85-90.  \nMoreover, my review of Claimant’s medical records show that she never mentioned her \nwork-related incident concerning the lunch bags to her healthcare providers. Rather, according to \nDr. O’Malley’s progress note dated the same date as her work-related incident, Claimant’s visit \nwas a “follow-up evaluation of her bilateral shoulder pain.” CL. Ex. 1, pp. 1-5. Dr. O’Malley \nfurther stated in his progress note that she claimed her right shoulder pain has “continued to \nworsen,” and that her right shoulder has been bothering her for the past two years. Id. Dr. O’Malley \nalso noted that the Claimant described “night pain” that would prevent her from sleeping, and that \nClaimant does “not recall any traumatic injury.” Id. I credit Dr. O’Malley’s progress note.  \nBased on Dr. O’Malley’s progress note the Claimant has been suffering from worsening \nright shoulder pain for the past few years. The pain has been of such a nature as to cause the \nClaimant to lose sleep even before the alleged work-related incident. The Claimant has the \nburden to prove a compensable work-related injury, and she has failed to meet that burden. I do \nnot believe Claimant’s right shoulder injury, a torn rotator cuff, was the result of the alleged \nFebruary 26, 2024, work-related incident. Thus why, I find that the Claimant has failed to prove \n\nLASTER H403137 \n \n8 \n \nby the preponderance of the evidence that she has sustained a compensable right shoulder injury \nby specific incident. Therefore, her claim must fail. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. \nApp. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \nMISCELLANEOUS ISSUES \n Based on my previous finding of no compensability, the remaining issues regarding notice, \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment, temporary total disability benefits, and a controverted \nattorney’s fee 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H403137 BOBBIE LASTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AR. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOC. WCT, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 6, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Steven Porch, on September 2, 2025, in Lit...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:16.668Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403137-2025-11-06","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Laster_Bobbie_H403137_20251106.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}