{"id":"alj-H403425-2025-10-07","awcc_number":"H403425","decision_date":"2025-10-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"David Bonewell","employer_name":"Van Buren School District","title":"BONEWELL VS. VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H403425 October 07, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","strain","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BONEWELL_DAVID_H403425_20251007.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BONEWELL_DAVID_H403425_20251007.pdf","text_length":16790,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H403425 \n \nDAVID BONEWELL, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nVAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED OCTOBER 7, 2025 \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in  Fort  Smith, \nSebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JARROD S. PARRISH, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On July  10,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Fort  Smith, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on April 21, 2025, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas filed on April 22, 2025.   A copy of the Pre-hearing Order has been  marked Commission's \nExhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The  relationship  of  employee-employer-carrier  existed  between  the  parties on  March \n25, 2024 \n 3. The  claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  left  shoulder  on  or  about  March \n25, 2024. The respondents have controverted any injury to the claimant’s left elbow. \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-2- \n 4.  The  claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  him  to  compensation  at  the \nweekly rates of $552.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $414.00 for permanent partial \ndisability benefits. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left elbow on or about March \n25, 2024. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for his left elbow injury. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“a.   The   Claimant   contends   that   in   addition   to   sustaining \ncompensable injury to his left shoulder on March 25, 2024 he also \nsustained injury to his left elbow. \n \nb.  The  Claimant  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  temporary  total \ndisability benefits from whatever date the medical records support \nuntil a date yet to be determined. The  claimant acknowledges that \nhe is currently still working. \n \nc.  The  Claimant  contends  entitlement  to  reasonable  and  necessary \nmedical treatment. \n \nd.   The   claimant   contends   that   his   attorney   is   entitled   to   an \nappropriate attorney’s fee.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“Respondents contend that the treating physician has indicated that \nhis  need  for  surgery  is  related  to  preexisting  and  underlying \nproblems and not an acute injury. In light of this, it is Respondents’ \nposition  that  the  surgery  recommended  by  Dr.  Songy  is  not \nreasonable and necessary.” \n \n The claimant in this matter is a 74-year-old male who sustained a compensable injury to \nhis  left  shoulder  on  or  about  March  25,  2024,  while  moving  a  heavy  piece  of  furniture  for  his \nemployer.  The  claimant  alleges  that  he  also  sustained  an  injury  to  his  left  elbow  in  that  same \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-3- \nincident. On direct examination the claimant gave testimony regarding the incident and the injury \nhe alleges to his left elbow as follows: \nQ Tell us about your accident. What happened? \n \nA We had previously moved this one particular  room, all the \ncontents  to  the  library.  The  floor,  the  new  flooring  had  been  laid \nand  it  was  time  for  that  to  be  reinstalled,  all  the  desks  and  chairs \nand  the  teacher  equipment:  Armoires,  file  cabinets,  desks,  et \ncetera. \n \n And on that day there was no help. There was only two of \nus that were to move. We were told that we had to move all of the \ncontents from the library back into the room and have it set up for \nthe teacher’s classes for the next day. \n \n So  the  first  item  that  we  wanted  to  try  to  move  was  the \narmoire because we knew it would cause us the most problems and \nit  had  to  go  in  first.  The  only  way  to  move  the  armoire  is  two – \nthere is only two of us now – we both have to get on one side and \nraise up and we have one dolly on the floor and one of us with one \nfoot  would  kick  it  underneath,  kick  the  dolly  underneath  the \narmoire. We would let the armoire back onto that. \n \n Next, if two people pushed on the other side of the armoire, \nobviously, it would just roll, so one person had to stay on one side \nand  keep  it  from  moving  while  the  other  one  took  a  dolly  on  the \nother  side  and  raised  up  and  with  one  foot  kick  the  other  dolly \nunderneath. \n \n Whenever  I  raised  up,  my  shoulder  popped  and  blow  my \nelbow – it  felt  like  a  huge  rubber  band  popped.  I  felt  it.  And  the \nhelper asked what that noise was and I said, “My shoulder had \npopped.” I said, “I think I am all right,” so we went ahead and \nworked  and  finished.  And  at  the  end  of  the  day,  I  started – my \nelbow started swelling up. \n \nQ Okay. Let me stop you at this point. \n \nA Sure. \n \nQ The  medical  records  say  that  you  reported  that  you  felt  or \nhad a snap in your elbow. Is that what you are talking about when \nyou are describing your elbow? You said it was like a rubber band? \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-4- \n \nA It felt like a rubber band popped between my elbow and my \nforearm. \n \n The  claimant  did  not  immediately  report  his  injury.  However,  the  next  day  the  claimant \ndid  report  his  injury and  was  seen  by  the  respondent/employer’s  nurse.  Direct  examination \ntestimony by the claimant about the reporting of his March 25, 2024, incident follows: \nQ And  did  you  report  that  to  somebody  in  the  supervisory \ncapacity? \n \nA I did not report it that day. I did not want to go through the \npaperwork to report it. I honestly didn’t think it was all that serious \nat all. It didn’t bother me the rest of the day. And the next day I \nkept ice on it. \n \n And one of – the principal was coming by me and asked me \n– I  had  a  bandage,  I  believe,  an  Ace  bandage  around  my  elbow – \nasked me what was wrong and I told him and he said, “Well, it \nlooks awful swollen.” He said, “You need to report that.” \n \n So that was on a Wednesday and I reported it and the next \nmorning it was swollen and they suggested I have the nurse look at \nit. \n \n So the nurse – \n \nQ You can’t tell me what the nurse told you or any of that, but \nyou went and had the nurse look at it; is that correct? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And  were  you  referred  to  get  medical  treatment?  Did  your \nemployer send you somewhere to get medical treatment? \n \nA On  Thursday  morning,  they  sent  me  to  Occupational  at \nRegions Park in Fort Smith. \n \n  The respondent sent the claimant for medical treatment at Mercy Occupational Medicine \nFort Smith on March 28, 2024. At that time the claimant was seen by APN Tawni Glander. The \nclaimant was diagnosed with a strain of muscle and tendon of the rotator cuff, left shoulder, and \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-5- \nlateral epicondylitis, left elbow. The report from that visit also states, “This is the first visit for the \nleft  shoulder  and  elbow  injury.  X-rays  without  bony  abnormality,  due  to  weakness  in  the  left \nelbow  and  arm  with  associated  symptoms  to  his  left  hand,  recommend  MRI  left  elbow  and  left \nshoulder. Follow-up once complete.” \n On  April  7,  2024,  the  claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  his  left  elbow  at  Mercy  Hospital \nFort Smith. Following is a portion of that diagnostic report: \nIMPRESSION: \n1. Prominent osteoarthritis left elbow with joint effusion and loose \nbodies present. \n2.  Complete  tear  radial  collateral  ligament  and  likely  lateral  ulnar \ncollateral ligament.  \n3.  Some  mild  tendinosis  common  flexor/extensor  groups  with  a \npossible  mild  strain  common  flexors  with  some  associated  soft \ntissue edema. \n \n On  April  8,  2024,  the  claimant  was  again  seen  at  Mercy  Occupational  Medicine  Fort \nSmith and the claimant’s diagnosis regarding his left elbow was changed to “traumatic rupture of \nleft  radial  collateral  ligament  and  traumatic  rupture  of  left  ulnar  collateral  ligament.”  The \nclaimant was referred to an orthopedic doctor at that time.  \n Medical records and the claimant’s testimony are in agreement that the claimant’s left \nelbow  was  not  focused  on  at  the  start  of  his  treatment  with  an  orthopedist.  Instead,  his \ncompensable left shoulder injury and a non-work-related right shoulder problem were dealt with \nfirst. On January 16, 2025, the claimant began treatment for his left elbow injury with Dr. Chad \nSongy,  whom  is  an  orthopedic  surgeon.  Following  is  a  portion  of  the  medical  report  from  that \nvisit: \nHistory of Present Illness: \nDavid  Bonewell  is  a  74  y.o.  male  who  is  here  today  for  his  left \nelbow.  He  is  a  left-hand  dominant  male  who  works  for  the  Van \nBuren  School  System.  He  sustained  an  injury  at  work,  this  is  a \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-6- \nworker’s Comp injury. Injury was on 03/25/2024. The patient was \nmoving  a  storage  cabinet  and  he  felt  a  pop  in  his  shoulder  and  a \nsnap in his elbow. We have treated him  for both  his right and left \nshoulder.  He  has  had  elbow  pain  is  entire  time,  but  we  have \nfocused on the shoulders 1\nst\n. Here today to discuss his left elbow. \n \n*** \nPlan \nDavid Bonewell is a 74 y.o. male who is here today to discuss his \nleft elbow. He had a worker’s Comp injury which has affected both \nthe  right  and  left  shoulder  as  well  as  his  left  elbow.  He  has \nundergone rotator cuff repairs of both shoulders. Today’s visit is \nspecifically to discuss his left elbow. \n \nThe   patient   has   advanced   elbow   arthritis   affecting   both   the \nradiocapitellar  and  ulnohumeral  joint.  This  arthritis  was  certainly \npre-existing and is associated with intra-articular  loose bodies. He \ncertainly  could  have  had  an  arthritic  flare  with  this  injury  (acute \nworsening of a pre-existing problem), but the osteoarthritis and the \nloose  bodies  were  pre-existing.  I  also  suspect  the  majority  of  the \ndamage  to  his  tendons  were  present  as  well  associated  with  the \ndegenerative  changes  in  the  joint,  but  we  are  unable  to  determine \nthis  without  a  pre-existing  MRI.  The  patient  also  has  moderate  to \nsevere  ulnar  nerve  neuropathy/cubital  tunnel  syndrome.  We  have \npreviously  tried  an  intra-articular  steroid  injection  without  lasting \nrelief  or  improvement.  The  patient  states  he  had  no  pre-existing \npain  or  problems  in  this  left  elbow  are  issues  with  the  numbness \nand  tingling  in  his  hand.  This  is  an  acute  worsening  of  a  pre-\nexisting problem. If he were to have treatment for the left elbow, I \nwould   recommend   a   left   elbow   arthroscopy   with   extensive \ndebridement,  loose  body  removal,  and  cubital  tunnel  release.  He \nwould need a CT scan prior to that. \n \nIn  order  to  prove  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a  specific  incident  that  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \nevidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-7- \nand More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \n The  claimant  does  have  objective  medical  findings  regarding  his  left  elbow.  Some  of \nthose  findings  are  due  to  pre-existing  degenerative  changes  in  the  claimant’s  left  elbow. \nHowever, the MRI also revealed a traumatic rupture of the claimant’s left radial collateral and \nleft  ulnar  collateral  ligaments  as  diagnosed  in  his  April  8,  2024,  visit  to  Mercy  Occupational \nMedicine after his MRI of the left elbow. Dr. Songy also states that “this is an acute worsening \nof  a  pre-existing problem.” The claimant told Dr. Songy that he had no pre-existing  pain  or \nproblems with his left elbow before his March 25, 2024, incident. The claimant gave testimony \nconsistent with that statement at the hearing in this matter as follows: \nQ Okay.  There  is  a  report  from  Dr.  Songy  that  is  dated \nJanuary 16 of 2025 – it’s on Page 17 of Claimant’s Exhibit, Judge \n– and he says that, “He has had elbow pain the entire time, but we \nfocused on the shoulders first.” Is that what happened? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And  then  on  Page  21  of  that  same  report  it  says – talking \nabout  your  elbow – “This is an acute worsening of a preexisting \nproblem.” \n \n Now,  as  far  as  any  preexisting  problem  is  concerned,  was \nthere anything visibly wrong with your elbow before this accident \nthat happened on March the 25\nth\n of 2024? Could you look at your \nelbow and tell if there was anything wrong with it? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Did  you  limit  your  activities  in  terms  of  the  use  of  your \nelbow,  your  left  elbow,  in  any  way  before  this  March  25,  2024 \naccident? \n \nA No. \n \nQ When  did  you  first  become  aware  that  you  had  any  issue \nwith your left elbow? \n \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-8- \nA After the accident. \n \nQ Have you injured your elbow at any other time? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ Could  you  have  performed  the  job  duties  that  you  have \ndescribed here today if your left elbow was in the condition before \nthe March 25, 2024  accident than it was after the March 25, 2024 \naccident? In other words, with your elbow in its current condition, \ncould you have done all that work that you did before the accident? \n \nA I could before. Not after. \n \n The  claimant  has,  since  his  March  25,  2024,  incident,  consistently  reported  pain \nassociated with his left elbow. Dr. Songy’s January 16, 2025, report states, “He has had elbow \npain  is  [SIC] entire time,  but  we  have  focused  on  the  claimant’s  shoulders  first.”  In  the \nclaimant’s first visit to a medical provider on March 28, 2024, the claimant complained of left \nelbow difficulties. The claimant is able to establish a causal connection between the incident he \nalleges on March 25, 2024, and the objective medical findings in his left elbow. The claimant is \nable to prove by a preponderance of the  evidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his \nleft elbow on March 25, 2024, while lifting a heavy piece of furniture for his employer.  \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe  witness  and  to  observe his demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nApril 21, 2025, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed April 22, 2025, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n\nBonewell – H403425 \n \n-9- \n 2. The  claimant has  proven by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to his left elbow on or about March 25, 2024. \n 3.  The  claimant has  proven by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \nmedical treatment for his compensable left elbow injury. \n ORDER \nThe  respondents  shall  pay  for reasonable  and  necessary medical treatment associated \nwith the claimant’s compensable left elbow injury.  \nPursuant  to  A.C.A.  §11-9-715(a)(1)(B)(ii),  attorney  fees  are  awarded  “only  on  the \namount of compensation for indemnity benefits controverted and awarded.”   Here, no indemnity \nbenefits were controverted and awarded; therefore, no attorney fee has been awarded.   Instead, \nclaimant’s attorney is free to voluntarily contract with the medical providers pursuant to A.C.A. \n§11-9-715(a)(4). \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H403425 DAVID BONEWELL, Employee CLAIMANT VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 7, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Ar...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:15.349Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403425-2025-10-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BONEWELL_DAVID_H403425_20251007.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}