{"id":"alj-H403539-2025-11-03","awcc_number":"H403539","decision_date":"2025-11-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"David Wylie","employer_name":"Potlatch Corporation","title":"WYLIE VS. POTLATCH CORPORATION AWCC# H403539 November 03, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","herniated","hip","lumbar","knee","ankle","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WYLIE_DAVID_H403539_20251103.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WYLIE_DAVID_H403539_20251103.pdf","text_length":92545,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                             WCC NO.: H403539 \n  \nDAVID WYLIE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nPOTLATCH CORPORATION,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nSENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY,  \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                          RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2025 \n             \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Gregory R. Giles, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Jarrod S. Parrish, Attorney at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn August  6,  2025, the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for a hearing in El  Dorado, \nArkansas.  Previously,  a pre-hearing  telephone  conference  was  held in  this  matter on May  28, \n2025.  A Pre-hearing Order was entered that same day pursuant to the telephone conference.  Said \norder was admitted into evidence along with the parties’ pre-hearing information filings without \nobjection as Commission’s Exhibit 1. \nStipulations \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties agreed to \nthe following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \n         claim. \n\nWylie - H403539 \n2 \n \n 2. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed at all relevant times, \n     \n  including November 4, 2023, when the claimant allegedly sustained a compensable \n   \n             injury to his lower back.   \n \n3.  At the beginning of the hearing, the parties agreed to withdraw their stipulation \n  \n pertaining to the claimant’s average weekly wage.  \n       \n4.        The claimant reached maximum medical improvement for his back condition on  \n   \n           April 24, 2024.  \n \n5.        The claimant received short-term disability for a period of time.  The respondents    \n \n           are entitled to a credit in the event the claimant is awarded indemnity benefits.   \n       \n6.        The respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n7.        Therefore, all issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’  \n \n           Compensation Act.  \nIssues \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether the claimant sustained a compensable specific incident injury to his low  \n \nback November 4, 2023, while working for the respondent-employer. \n \n 2. Whether the claimant failed to give his employer notice of his alleged injury until \n                         \n  May 17, 2024. \n \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability/TTD compensation  \n \n beginning on November 5, 2023, and continuing until April 24, 2024. \n \n4. Whether the claimant’s medical treatment of record is reasonable and necessary  \n  \n medical treatment for his alleged back injury. \n \n5. Whether the claimant sustained an 8%\n1\n impairment rating for his back condition. \n \n \n1\n At the time of the hearing, the claimant’s attorney changed his request from a 10% impairment rating to \nan 8% rating.   \n\nWylie - H403539 \n3 \n \n6. Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n \nContentions \n \n The claimant’s and respondents’ contentions are set out in their response to the Pre-hearing \nQuestionnaire.  Said contentions are as follows: \nClaimant: \nThe claimant contends that the medical treatment received following November 24, 2023, \nwas reasonable, necessary, and related such that respondents should be ordered to pay for same. \nThe  claimant  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from \nNovember 5, 2023, through May 24, 2024.  \nAlso,  the  claimant  contends  he  is  entitled  to  an  impairment  rating  associated  with  the \nherniated disc which required surgery and resulted in an impairment rating of at least ten (10%) \npercent pursuant to the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition.  \nThe claimant contends  that  the respondents should be ordered to pay attorney’s fees as \nprovided by law. \nAt the beginning of the hearing, the claimant contended that the respondents had sufficient \nnotice of the claimant’s injury. \nRespondents: \n Claimant  did  not  suffer  a  compensable  injury  on  November  4,  2023,  while  working  for \nPotlatchdeltic.  In the event compensability is proven, the respondents cannot be responsible for \nbenefits before receiving proper notice of a work-related injury on May 17, 2024.  The claimant is \nnot entitled to temporary total disability benefits because he returned to work before giving notice \nof a work-related injury.  The respondents are entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit for the short-\n\nWylie - H403539 \n4 \n \nterm disability benefits the claimant received. \n                   FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nAfter  reviewing  the record  as  a  whole, including  the  medical  reports, the documentary \nevidence, and other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity \nto listen to the testimony of the witnesses and observe their demeanor, I hereby make the following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.     The proposed stipulations set forth above are reasonable and hereby accepted. \n \n          3.         The claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he sustained     \n          \n                       a compensable injury to his low back on November 4, 2023, during and in the course\n             \n                       of his employment with the respondent employer. \n  \n          4.          The claimant gave management proper notice of his compensable injury on the  \n   \n            morning of November 4, 2023, when he contacted his supervisor. \n \n          5.          The claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the medical  \n  \n                       treatment of record was reasonably necessary treatment in connection with the  \n  \n                      compensable back injury received by him on November 4, 2023. \n \n         6.             The claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence his entitlement to temporary  \n               \n                       total disability compensation from November 5, 2023, through April 24, 2024. \n \n         7.          The claimant proved his entitlement to an 8% anatomical impairment rating for  \n    \n                       his lower back injury. \n \n         8.           The parties stipulated that the respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n   \n                      Therefore, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n \n\nWylie - H403539 \n5 \n \n         9.          All issues not litigated herein or addressed in this Opinion are reserved under the Act.    \n                \nSummary of Evidence \nThe hearing witnesses were the claimant, Debra Sue Wylie, Tracey Sutherland, and Josh \nHarris.  \n            The  record  consists  of  the  hearing  transcript  of August  6, 2025, and the exhibits held \ntherein.  In addition to the Pre-hearing Order discussed above, the exhibits admitted into evidence \nin this case were Claimant’s Exhibit 1, an abstract of the medical records  consisting of five pages; \nClaimant’s Exhibit 2 includes one cover page and a compilation of his medical records consisting \nof 62 numbered pages; Respondents’ Exhibit l, another compilation of medical records consisting \nof 18 numbered pages; and Respondents’ Exhibit 2, consisting of seven pages of non-medicals.      \nTestimony \n The claimant is now 63 years of age.  Instead of graduating from high school, the claimant \nobtained  his  GED.   Subsequently,  he went  on  to complete four  years  of  training  in  a welding \nprogram.   The claimant has 14 different various certifications associated with his welding skills.  \nHe began working for Potlatch in November 2020.  Initially, the claimant went to work for Potlatch \nas a floor sweeper.  He held that position for seven months and then transitioned to the kiln area \nand began working as a forklift driver. \n According  to  the claimant,  the  forklift  truck  he  worked  with is  probably the  size  of  a \nPeterbilt truck  and weighs approximately 36,000 pounds.    The claimant described the  truck  as \nbeing like a large diesel-type piece of equipment.  He testified that the forklift is 10 feet wide and \n25 feet long.   \n The claimant explained: \n  Q.  All right.  What was the purpose of that forklift?  What were you moving?   \n                        What were you transporting at Potlatch, typically, in your job? \n\nWylie - H403539 \n6 \n \n \n  A.  I loaded the kiln and unloaded the kiln.  So, we put the boards on......The  \n  units of boards on little train cars and run them through a box that dries the wood,  \n                        and it goes in this door and my friend on the other end of the building sends me one \n  from his side, so we pass them to each other, and I unload the dry stuff from his \n  side.  He unloads the dry stuff from my side.  We do that in two different boxes.   \n  But my job was to unload and load both. \n \n At  the  time  of the claimant’s injury, his hourly  rate of  pay was  $28.50.    The claimant \nworked the night shift.  His normal working hours were from 5:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m.  According \nto the claimant, his shifts were normally twelve-hour shifts.  His supervisor was Tracey Sutherland.  \nHowever,  Mr.  Sutherland  worked on the  day  shift.   According  to  the  claimant, Mr.  Sutherland \ncommunicated with them by staying later to talk to them if he needed to discuss something with \nthem.  The claimant explained, “... Other than that, we’re grown men.  We just go to work.  We \nknow what we’re supposed to do, we know when we’re to be there.” \n He confirmed that office personnel were not present during the night shift.  The claimant \nfurther confirmed that at the time of his alleged injury that overall, his general health was good.  \nHe  testified  that  prior  to  going  to  work  for  Potlatch  in  2020,  he had worked  as  a  welder  for 30 \nyears.    The  claimant  retired  from welding  while living in  California.   However,  the claimant \ntestified  that  he returned to the workforce because  he  had  to  pay  off  a cancer bill totaling \n$40,000.00.   According  to  the  claimant,  he was  diagnosed  with  colon  cancer, for which  he \nunderwent surgery and got a clean bill of health.  Per the claimant, seven days out of the hospital, \nhe was cancer free.    \n Upon re-entering the workforce, the claimant worked at SeaArk for two years, and then he \nbegan working for Potlatch.  The claimant denied taking any medications on a regular basis prior \nto November 4, 2023.  He further denied any prior symptoms or problems with his back or legs.  \nAs far back as the claimant could recall, he has never injured his back.  The claimant confirmed \n\nWylie - H403539 \n7 \n \nthat during his deposition testimony, he stated that around the age of 20 or 30, he pulled a muscle \nin his back.  However, he denied having undergone an MRI or x-rays to his back prior to November \n4, 2023.  Nor has the claimant ever sought medical treatment from a chiropractor for his back.   \n On  the  night  of  the claimant’s  alleged  injury,  he  was assigned  to  work in  the  kiln \ndepartment.   At  the  beginning  of  the claimant’s shift, a coworker fainted due  to  blood  pressure \nproblems and was taken away by ambulance.  As a result, the claimant was given some different \ninstructions as  to  what  his employment  duties  were to  be  for  that night.   These directives were \ngiven  to the  claimant by  Ulysses, the  manager  of the  planer  mill (which  was  the  building next \ndoor).  According  to  the claimant,  Ulysses instructed him  to  drive  for  the  sawmill  that  night \nbecause  he was  the low man  on seniority of  the  three  drivers  there  that  night.  The claimant’s \nposition was classified by a union contract.   \n He explained what the job required him to do that night: \n  A.  When they make the new wood, you pick it up, mark what it is, put the  \n  four bys on top and then drive it out to the green yard and drop it off. \n \n  Q.  And when you say you pick it up, you’re talking about with your equipment? \n \n  A. With the forklift, yeah.  You have the machine pick it up, set it down, mark  \n  what it is and then take it up to the green yard and put it in the pile for everybody  \n  else. \n \n The claimant confirmed that he was transporting wood from one area of the mill to another.  \nHe confirmed that the distance he had to travel was anywhere from an eighth of a mile to three-\neighths of  a  mile  to  the  far  end  of  the  yard.  That  particular  night,  the claimant  worked  in  the \nsawmill from 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., which amounted to an 11-hour shift.  During the claimant’s \nshift, he transported from 80 to 90 loads, as he went back and forth that night.  He described the \nroad that he had to travel on with this piece of equipment, as being “some concrete, some gravel, \nsome dirt.”  The claimant testified that the transitions over the road were extremely rough.   \n\nWylie - H403539 \n8 \n \n Specifically, the claimant testified: \n  Q.  As you were transporting this product back and forth across this road that \n  evening, do you recall a specific event occurring where you complained of or \n  felt problems in your back? \n \n  A.  Yes, sir. \n \n  Q. Tell us about that. \n \n  A.  About 11:30, I was coming out of the sawmill, and the forklift was ten feet \n                        wide.  The road is only so wide, and the wood I’m carrying is twenty feet wide, so  \n  really you can’t go over here to get around some stuff.  You have to stay right here,  \n  so you have to run over whatever’s in the road, the potholes are in the road, because    \n  we ride over them eighty times a night. \n \n  Q.  All right.  So, you’re describing in the middle of the road, you just said the \n  word pothole. \n \n  A.  The potholes are in the road. \n \n  Q.  All right. \n \n  A.  We can’t really avoid them for the width of the lumber.  You can’t hit   \n  anything with this fork (forklift), or you get in major trouble. \n \n Upon further questioning, the claimant confirmed that the width of the wood is much wider \nthan the width of the forklift, which causes the wood to hang out from the forklift.  The claimant \ntestified that the pothole he hit was about “three feet around and eight inches deep.”  According to \nthe claimant, it was concrete, so it did not drop off and come back up.  Instead, the claimant further \ntestified that it went straight down and then straight back up.  He testified that the concrete was \n“broken  out” and  there  was a  piece of concrete missing  in  the  road.   The claimant’s incident \noccurred around 11:30 that night.  After his incident, the claimant was extremely uncomfortable \nin his right hip and lower back.  He agreed that he was in pain after the hitting the pothole.  The \nclaimant testified that he continued working because they were already one man down. \n\nWylie - H403539 \n9 \n \n According to the claimant, he was extremely sore when he left work around 5:00 a.m. that \nmorning.  The claimant testified that he sent Tracey (Sutherland) a text on Saturday, November 4, \n2023.  He was asked to read the text aloud, which states, “Morning, sir.  Drove for the sawmill last \nnight.  Woke up, my back locked up on me, right leg numb.”  He sent this text at 1:06 p.m.  The \nclaimant testified that he typically went to sleep at 6:00 a.m., and would get up roughly around \n1:30 p.m.  However, Mr. Sutherland did not respond at once.  Per the claimant, he then sent another \ntext saying that he could not move particularly good.  Mr. Sutherland responded to his second text \nstating that he would call him in about 15 minutes.   \n The claimant explained: \n  Q.  Can you tell us or recall, as best you can, what you and Tracey...... What you  \n  and Mr. Sutherland talked about in that conversation? \n \n        A. Hitting the pothole, my back went pop.  I need to go to the doctor, I guess,              \n  because now my whole side is numb.  I’m not going to be able to make it to work.   \n \n At that time, the claimant testified that “he was humped over like an old man.” According \nto the claimant, his entire right side was numb, including his leg, arm and everything on that side \nwas numb.  The claimant testified that he could hardly pick up his legs and feet at that point.  He \nagreed  that  he  was  in  severe  pain.    The claimant  denied  that there  was  any  conversation about \ncompleting  workers’  compensation  paperwork.   Nor  did Mr.  Sutherland give  the claimant \ninstructions on going to the doctor.  \n He  confirmed  that  he  saw his  primary  care  physician,  Dr.\n2\n Jesse  Bone,  on  November  7, \n2023.  After that appointment, the claimant sent Mr. Sutherland another text letting him know that \nhe needed to be off for another couple of days for the swelling to go down.   \n \n \n2\nAlthough Jesse Bone is referred to as Dr. Bone throughout the claimant’s attorney \nconfirmed, and the medical records show that Bone is in fact an APRN. \n \n\nWylie - H403539 \n10 \n \n Next,  the  claimant  was  questioned about Bone’s  medical  notes from  November  7.  \nSpecifically, the claimant denied having told Dr. Bone his pain started five days ago.  He further \ndenied having any problems before he went to work on November 4, 2023.  The claimant agreed \nthat it is not a correct statement that his pain started five days before he saw Dr. Bone.  He denied \ntelling Bone he saw a chiropractor for two visits, with no improvement.  In fact, the claimant stated \nthat  he  has  never  seen  a  chiropractor in  his  life.    However,  he explained that  his  wife  saw  a \nchiropractor after her stroke.  Although Bone noted that the claimant was driving a forklift at work \nand reported that the roads were very rough, he goes on to note that the claimant denied any fall \nor  injury.   The  claimant agreed that  he  did  not fall  out  of the  forklift.   However,  the claimant \ndisagreed with the statement of him having denied an injury because he was there because his back \nwas hurting.  He testified that he told Bone the same thing, which he was driving a forklift at work \nand hit a pothole and his back “went pop.”   \n According  to  the claimant,  no  one  would  believe  him  until  he  saw  Dr.  Simpson.   The \nclaimant confirmed that he told him the same story of hitting the pothole.  Dr. Simpson gave the \nclaimant some hydrocodone pills and muscle relaxers, but he did not recall getting a shot.  He also \npulled  the claimant  out  of  service.   According  to  the claimant,  he  gave the  note  to either Mr. \nSutherland or Michelle, who works in the front office.   \n At  that  point, Michelle  gave  the claimant the FMLA phone  number  for  him  to  call.  \nHowever, she did not give him any paperwork to complete.  The claimant testified that he had a \nphone interview with a lady from Arizona concerning his work-related incident.  According to the \nclaimant, she asked him some questions and told him his check was in the mail.  He confirmed \nthat the FMLA lady was with a place called Matrix, which is part of the respondents’ non-medical \npacket.  He denied having typed the answers to the questions on the form.  Per the claimant, he \n\nWylie - H403539 \n11 \n \ntold the lady the same thing, which was he got hurt on the forklift at work.  The claimant denied \nthat  he  was  given  the  form  for  his  review.    He  confirmed  that  he  began  receiving  short-term \ndisability. \n  The claimant confirmed that after he saw Bone a second time, he recommended that he \nundergo an MRI.  Per the claimant, after he got the MRI, Dr. Bone discussed the results with him.  \nHe referred the claimant to a specialist, Dr. P.B. Simpson.  At that time, the claimant was paying \nfor his doctors’ visits with his own personal health insurance, which was through  Potlatch.   He \nconfirmed seeing Dr. Simpson on December 20.  According to the claimant, Dr. Simpson was the \nonly person that listened.  Per this medical note, the claimant reported to him that he felt a pop in \nhis back while at work while operating heavy equipment.  The claimant complained of right lumbar \nback  pain  that  extended  to  his right lateral  lower  extremity.  He  consistently  reported  to  Dr. \nSimpson  that  the  next  day  after  his  incident,  he  had  severe  pain  in  his  back  and  anterior  lateral \nright  thigh  pain.    The  claimant stated that  he  provided  the  same  history  to  Dr.  Bone.    He  also \nconfirmed he provided this same history to his supervisor, Mr. Sutherland.   \n However, the claimant denied that Dr. Simpson performed his back surgery.  Instead, his \npartner, Dr. Bahgat performed his back surgery.  He continued to extend the claimant’s off work \nstatus, which he provided to his employer.  The claimant continued to receive short-term disability.  \nHe  had  surgery  on  March  4,  2024.    According  to  the  claimant,  the  surgery  relieved 90% of  his \nsymptoms.  \n He  confirmed  that  Dr.  Simpson  released  him  to return to  work  on  April  24,  2024.   The \nclaimant  returned  to  work  for  Potlatch,  but  not  immediately.  The  claimant  had  to  undergo  a \nfunctional capacity evaluation/FCE before returning to work.  He underwent that physical exam \non April 30, 2024, and returned to work on May 9.   \n\nWylie - H403539 \n12 \n \n Next, the  claimant  was  shown  the  Form  N  at  page  53  of  his  exhibit.    The  claimant \nconfirmed  that  he  signed  this  document  on  May  28,  2024.  According  to  the  claimant,  this \ndocument came from Little Rock rather than from his employer.  The claimant confirmed that he \nis aware that his employer is alleging he did not give notice of his injury until May 17, 2024.  He \nadmitted that he put the wrong date of injury on this form.  The claimant admitted to mistakenly \nputting November 13, 2023, instead of November 4.   \n According to the claimant, Potlatch instructed him to contact his supervisor if he was ever \ninjured  at  work.    He  confirmed  that  when  he  returned  to  work, Mr. Sutherland  was  no  longer \nworking for them.  The claimant left his employment with Potlatch on February 9, 2025, because \nhe retired altogether.   \n The claimant confirmed that as part of his medical packet, he provided unpaid bills for the \nsurgeon,  Dr.  Bahgat, that  have  not  been  paid in  the  amount  of  $7,389.00  and  the  hospital  bill \ntotaling $31, 321.50.  He confirmed that his health insurance did not pay those bills.  However, the \nclaimant denied he has received any unpaid bills from his PCP, Dr. Simpson, or for the MRI.    \n He denied having ever physically seen Dr. Calhoun for an office consultation.  However, \nDr. Calhoun reviewed the claimant’s medical records and assigned him an 8% impairment rating.  \nThe respondents have not paid this rating.  The claimant confirmed that he is asking for payments \nfor unpaid TTD benefits, the impairment rating, medical benefits, and a  controverted attorney’s \nfee.   \n On cross-examination, the claimant confirmed that his deposition was taken in 2024.  The \nclaimant admitted that he told Dr. Simpson he was ready to get back to work, because he believed \nthat he could do his job.  He verified that he returned to work for Potlatch and received a pay raise \nfor a couple of dollars in December under his union contract.  As of the date of his deposition and \n\nWylie - H403539 \n13 \n \nat  present,  the  claimant  does  not  have  any  return medical visits  for  his  back with  a  medical \nprovider.  The claimant confirmed that he does not take any medication for his back, except over-\nthe-counter  medication for occasional soreness.  He  confirmed  that  his  deposition  testimony \nreflects that his symptoms were at a one out of ten on a ten-point scale, which is still the case.    \n The  claimant  confirmed  that  it  was  important  for  him  to  be  truthful  with  his  medical \nproviders when talking to them about what happened or caused his injury.  Likewise, he agreed \nthat it is important for him to be truthful and thorough with his employer and short-term disability \nadministrator when talking and reporting to them.   \n Under  further  questioning,  the  claimant  admitted  that Tracey  (Sutherland) was  his \nsupervisor and if they were not working the same shift, if he had a problem, he was supposed to \ncall him about it.  The claimant confirmed that if he reported anything in this case, he reported it \nto Tracey.  He admitted that his text message of November 5, 2023, to Tracey does not say anything \nabout him hitting  a pothole  or his  back  popping.    The  claimant  further  admitted  that in  his text \nthere is no mention of any specific incident involving his back at work.  He agreed that the text \nmessage says he woke up at home with symptoms.   \n According to the claimant’s deposition testimony, he testified that with the exception of \nhis allegation regarding Tracey, up through May 17, 2024, as far as the folks at Potlatch knew,  he \nwas treating for a non-work-related condition through his private health insurance. The claimant \nagreed he made a formal request for a workers’ compensation claim when he went to Josh Harris.  \nHe admitted that he reported an injury to Josh, and they turned the claim over to Sentry, but they    \ninvestigated the claim and denied it.  He admitted that his May 17 visit with Josh occurred after he \nhad returned to work on May 9.  The claimant further admitted that his visit with Josh was after \n\nWylie - H403539 \n14 \n \nhe undergone his back surgery in March.  This was also after his April 24 release from care by Dr. \nSimpson.   \n The claimant explained that what happened was down the road, someone asked him from \nthe insurance company what had happened, and he explained it to them.  At that point, his health \ninsurance company told him they would not be paying for the surgery because it was a workers’ \ncomp  claim.  Therefore,  the  claimant  contacted  the  administration  at  Potlatch  to start a  formal \nworkers’ compensation claim.   \n During his deposition testimony, the claimant denied that he had any problems, complaints, \ncriticism, issues, or communication problems with the doctors at Mainline, specifically none with \nDr. Bone.  He agreed that his first medical visit after talking to Tracey was on November 5, with \nNurse Bone.    The  claimant denied having  reported to  Dr. Bone  his  pain  started  five  days  ago \n(which was on November 7), which would put his date of injury to November 2.  He further denied \nmaking the statement to the people in radiology that he did not have an injury.   \n He admitted to seeking treatment from Dr. Bone in 2019 for some hurt ribs, and in 2021, \nwhen he had a knee pop out of place while at work.  The claimant agreed that Dr. Bone documented \nthese  office  visits correctly.  He  admitted  to  using  his  private  health  insurance  to  pay  for  his \nmedical care under Drs. Simpson and Bahgat.  The claimant further  admitted that his insurance \npaid for everything up to time for his surgery.   \n Under further questioning, the claimant explained: \n Q.  And before that May 17, 2023, encounter where you come in and   \n formally request workers’ compensation benefits, you had not told anyone  \n at Potlatch that you wanted workers’ comp benefits, had you?  \n     \n   A.  I didn’t know what they were.  I didn't know.  No, I didn't tell anybody. \n The claimant confirmed that he applied for both short-term disability and FMLA.  He also \n\nWylie - H403539 \n15 \n \n agreed that both are administrated by Matrix on behalf of Potlatch.  The claimant confirmed that \nhe was truthful when talking with the representative from Matrix when providing information for \nhis application, which was done over the telephone. \n He testified that after his insurance carrier denied the surgery, they sent him a Form N to \nfill  out,  and  he simply did  what  he  was  told to  do.    The  claimant  admitted  that  he  went  to  Dr. \nBone’s office and had a conversation with the folks in his office about how his office visit was \ndocumented  in the  medical  report.      However,  he testified that  their  conversation  and  what  Dr. \nBone wrote down does not sound like the discussion they had during his office visit.  \n Specifically, the claimant explained: \nQ.  Well, if it was understood by everyone that you had this specific work incident \ninvolving a pothole, why would you need to go back and get the visits reclassified \nor rephased...              \n \nA.  I just asked him about workman’s comp, he said all he does is check a box on \nthe top of his computer.   \n \n The  claimant  confirmed  that  he  did  not  challenge Nurse Bone’s statement about  him \ntreating with a chiropractor; or the November 2 onset date; and that his condition was considered \nnon-work-related condition.  However, the claimant testified that those are all wrong.  According \nto the claimant, he did not know that they had written any of this down until his attorney told him \nabout it.  Again, the claimant denied challenging anybody.  Instead, he testified that when he went \nin  for another office visit with  Bone, and he asked about “workman’s comp.”  The  claimant \nexplained: “I didn’t tell him what he had to do it.\"   \n He confirmed that he was injured by a specific identifiable occurrence and that he described \nthe crater as  being  six  to  seven  feet  across.   The  claimant  admitted that  he testified  during  his \ndeposition that all his symptoms started with the pothole at a specific time doing a specific activity.  \nHe  maintained  that  he  consistently  told  administration and  medical  providers  about  his  specific \n\nWylie - H403539 \n16 \n \nincident.  According  to  the  claimant, no  one would  listen  to  him  until  he  saw  Dr.  Simpson.  \nHowever, the claimant readily admitted that he did not have any explanation for why no one would \nlisten to him.  He specifically stated that he was in the doctor’s office curled over telling them that \nhe was hurting and his back popped in the forklift, but he does not know what they reported.  The \nclaimant testified that he told the doctor he hit a pothole, his back popped, and he had an immediate \nonset of pain with electrical shock.      \n With further questioning, the claimant agreed that it was an incredible coincidence that all \nthree (Dr. Bone, Matrix, and the radiologist) reported that he denied a work-related injury.   \n On  redirect  examination,  he  testified  that  he  told Mr. Bone,  Dr.  Simpson,  and  his \nsupervisor, the  same  story  about  hitting  the  pothole and  feeling  something  pop  in  his  back.  \nHowever,  the  claimant  explained  that  Dr.  Simpson  was  the  only  person  that  listened  to  him \nthroughout  the  whole  ordeal.   According  to Dr. Simpson’s report, the claimant reported feeling \nsomething pop in back while at work operating heavy machinery.  He confirmed that he worded it \nexactly like that to Mr. Sutherland and Dr. Bone.  The claimant confirmed that he testified in his \ndeposition that he used the word “moon crater” with Dr. Simpson, but the word is not mentioned \nin his report.  However, the claimant agreed that if he used the word “moon crater,” it is described \nin a different way because “a hole in the ground is a hole the ground.” \n The  claimant  confirmed  that  when  he sent  Tracey  Sutherland  the  text message on  the \nmorning of November 4, he told him he drove for the sawmill last night.  He confirmed that he \ndrove 11 hours for the sawmill that night.  The claimant agreed that the purpose of the text was to \nlet Sutherland know that he had been injured in his forklift and needed to go to the doctor.  He \nagreed that he did not say that specifically in the text, but in a later conversation they talked about \n\nWylie - H403539 \n17 \n \nwent down.  The claimant confirmed that he believes when he talked to Tracey, he told him about \nthe pop in his back. \n On re-cross examination, the claimant testified that he that he would agree that the text to \nTracey has no mention of a pothole or his back popping.  The claimant was asked to explain why \nhis text message to Tracey was vague when putting it in writing.  He replied: “Because I don’t text.  \nI use one finger really slow.”   \n THE  COURT:  I  asked  the  claimant  to  clarify  his  testimony regarding him  having  hurt \nsome ribs in an on-the-job injury while working for another employer/SeaArk, in the boat yard.  \nHe denied having received any paperwork from his employer stating that he needed to report this \nas a work-related injury.  However, the claimant testified that he injured his kneecap while working \nfor Potlatch.  The claimant confirmed that he reported the injury to his boss, and he got his knee \nfixed on his own.  According to the claimant, he used his own private health insurance to pay for \nmedical  care.  The  claimant  specifically  denied  ever  having  a  work-related  claim  before  this \nincident.     \n On recross- examination, the claimant confirmed that he has not had any problems with his \nback since his release after surgery in 2024. \n  Mrs. Debra Wylie      \n Mrs. Wylie testified on behalf of her husband.  They have been married for 43 years.  She \nconfirmed that before November 4, 2023, her husband was healthy and active.  She denied that he \nhad any problems performing his twelve-hour shifts.  Mrs. Wylie testified that she did recall the \nclaimant having a problem within the first year of his employment with Potlatch.  She stated that \nhe hurt his knee climbing in and out of the forklift and had to have surgery.   \n\nWylie - H403539 \n18 \n \n Following the November 4, 2023, incident, Mrs. Wylie testified that the claimant was in \nextreme  pain.    Per  Mrs.  Wylie,  she  had  never  seen  her  husband  in  that  type  of  pain,  other  than \nyears ago when he had cancer.  She testified that she had put him to bed that morning, which was \nhard  for  her  to  do  because  she  could  not  get  him  on  the  bed,  since  she  is  a  stroke  survivor.  \nAccording to Mrs. Wylie, her husband screamed so, until she cried.  Following the incident, she \nagreed that the claimant’s condition dramatically changed.   \n She  confirmed  that  she  went on the first doctor’s visit with him on  November  7,  2023, \nunder the care of Dr. Bone.  Mrs. Wylie denied that the claimant ever treated with a chiropractor \nbefore.  The claimant testified that they told Mr. Bone that she was just leaving an appointment \nthat morning with her chiropractor.  She confirmed that Dr. Bryant is her chiropractor.  Mrs. Wylie \nconfirmed that her husband told Dr. Bone that he was driving the forklift at work and hit a pothole \nand it twisted his back, and after that he felt a surge of pain.       \n Mrs. Wylie confirmed that she went to the claimant on his office visit with Dr. Simpson.  \nShe confirmed that as she recalls it, a correct history of what was provided to him is in the medical.  \nSpecifically, according  to this  record,  the  claimant  reported  feeling  something  pop  in  his  back \nwhile at work operating heavy machinery.  \n On cross-examination, the claimant denied that she was aware that the radiologist’s report \nshows no injury.  She further denied that she was aware that his Matrix application for short-term \ndisability and request for FMLA denies that he had a work-related injury.  Mrs. Wylie admitted \nthat  she  was  not present  when  her husband made  statements over  the telephone about either \napplication. \n She admitted that  they  found  out  after her husband’s back surgery,  that it fell  under \nworkers’ comp.  Mrs. Wylie confirmed that up to that point, everything was paid for by his private \n\nWylie - H403539 \n19 \n \nhealth insurance.  She admitted that she did not know specifically what happened because she was \nnot  there with  him  when  the  incident  occurred.   According  to  Mrs.  Wylie,  she  heard  from  her \nhusband and other forklift drivers how bumpy the roads are at his workplace. \n On  redirect  examination,  Mrs. Wylie testified  that when  the  claimant  left for work  that \nmorning, he was in good health.  However, when he came home from work that day, he was in a \nlot of pain, the kind of pain she had never seen him in before.  \n On  further  redirect  examination,  Mrs.  Wylie  testified  that  the  claimant  was  supposed  to \nhave gone to work but was unable to do so.  She confirmed that on the day the claimant left for \nwork, he seemed to have been in perfect health.  \n Under  further  cross-examination,  the  claimant  testified  she  was  awake  and  up  when  the \nclaimant came home at 5:00 a.m.  She confirmed that he was displaying symptoms at that point.  \nAccording  to  Mrs.  Wylie,  she  was  aware  that  the  claimant  was  in  pain,  but she  did  not  know \nanything about the numbness.  She denied knowing anything about the text message the claimant \nsent to Tracey on the morning of the November 5.   \n  Tracey Sutherland \n The  respondents  called  Mr.  Sutherland  as  a  witness.    He  confirmed  that  he  worked  for \nPotlatchDeltic in November 2023.  Mr. Sutherland confirmed that he is employed elsewhere.  He \nconfirmed that he does not have any ties or affiliation with PotlatchDeltic.   \n Mr. Sutherland testified that he was the kiln supervisor when he worked for Potlach.  He \nwas the claimant’s supervisor, and the person, he was supposed to report a work injury or incident.  \nMr. Sutherland maintained that the claimant would not get in trouble if he reported an injury to \nanybody other than him.  He agreed with the claimant’s testimony about them working different \nshifts.  However, Mr. Sutherland agreed that it was not uncommon for someone to contact him to \n\nWylie - H403539 \n20 \n \nto report an injury when he was not on the premises.  \n He confirmed that he interacted with the claimant on November 4, 2023 (which was on a \nSaturday) about some back problems.  He testified: \n A. Saturday?  Okay.  Yeah.  So, Mr. Wylie called me on Saturday morning and said \n that he had to find coverage ......  That I needed to find coverage for him for that \n night, the next night, because of all of the up and down, so Mr. Wylie was actually \n pulling double duty on the job, because we had  a man go home that night, so he \n was actually ..... He was the kiln forklift driver, so he was having to pull from the \n sawmill and the kilns.       \n   \n  Q.  Okay. \n \n  A.  So, he was doing a bunch of getting up and down on the forklift. \n \n Mr. Sutherland explained by coverage he meant “getting someone else to work in his place \nthat night.”   However, Mr. Sutherland admitted that they had a conversation, but the claimant did \nnot  mention anything  to  him  about  hurting  himself  after  driving  over  a  pothole  in  the  forklift.  \nAccording to Mr. Sutherland, the claimant told him his problems were not work-related or were \nrelated to something else.  He testified that best as he recalls, the claimant told him his problems \nwere related to a past injury to his back.  Mr. Sutherland denied that the claimant indicated to him \nhe needed to pursue a workers’ compensation claim.  He further denied that the claimant ever came \nback to him and tried to remind him of a supposed reporting of a back injury at any point after \nNovember 4.   \n Per  Mr.  Sutherland, had the claimant reported  a  work-related injury that  would  have \nprompted  him  to  do  an investigation  He denied  being  reprimanded  or  fired  or  anything  dealing \nwith the handling of the claimant’s workers’ compensation claim.   However,  Mr.  Sutherland \ntestified that he called Josh Harris and explained the situation to him, and at that point it was kind \nof out of his hands.  He confirmed that it was his duty to take the report, do an incident report and \ncontact safety. \n\nWylie - H403539 \n21 \n \n Mr. Sutherland testified: \nQ.    Okay.    Had  you  done  that  in  the  past  when  employees  had  reported  alleged \nwork-related injuries? \n \nA.  Yes, sir.  Several, several, several different times. \n \nQ.  And do you make any determination about whether this is a legit report or not?   \n \nA.  No, sir. \n \nHe denied getting any type of bonus from PotlatchDeltic while working as an employee, \nfor  not  reporting  a  work  comp claim.   Mr. Sutherland  confirmed  that  he  has no employment \naffiliation with them anymore.  He denied that he heard anything from the claimant about hitting \na pothole while driving a forklift and having a pop in his back prior to the filing of his claim.  He \nfurther  denied  that  the  claimant  ever  contacted  him between  November 4 and  May  17 when he \nformally  started pursuing  a workers’  comp claim.   Mr. Sutherland  officially  retired  from \nPotlatchDeltic on August 9, 2024.  He admitted to calling the claimant to see what was going on \nafter he received the subpoena to appear for the hearing.  According to Mr. Sutherland, during this \ntelephone conversation, the claimant told him about his back injury and that workers’ comp was \nnot wanting to pay for it.   He denied that the claimant reminded him during their conversation that \nhe had reported  a work-related injury to him.  Specifically, Mr. Sutherland testified they talked \nabout motorcycles and stuff and that was it.      \nOn cross-examination, Mr. Sutherland testified: \n      Q.  If I’m understanding you sir, you don’t recall anything about a text  between  \n      you and Mr. Wylie back on November 4, 2023? \n      A.  I don’t recall it sir. \nNext, Mr. Sutherland was shown a copy of the text message that the claimant sent him on \nthe morning of November 4, which read, “Drove for sawmill last night.  Woke up and my back \n\nWylie - H403539 \n22 \n \nlocked up.  Right leg numb.  Mr. Sutherland confirmed that now that he has seen the text message, \nit  does  ring  a  bell.   He  confirmed  that  his reply  to the claimant’s text was: “I’m just  seen this \nmessage.”  Ultimately, Mr. Sutherland told the claimant he would call him.   \n Under further questioning, Sutherland testified: \n Q.  So let me ask you, what’s your interpretation of that text when he wrote to you \n that morning, drove for the sawmill last night.  Woke up and my back locked up, \n right leg numb.  What does that mean to you, sir?     \n \nA.  It sounds like a back injury.   \n \nQ.  How would you say that you thought he was saying that he injured his back?   \n \nA.  So, during our phone conversation, when I did call him, his response was that, \n you know, he had to get up and down off the forklift a lot, and I understood that \n because that’s a fact. \n \nQ.   So, as you’re recalling it, you thought it was because of him getting up and \n down  from the forklift? \n \nA.  Yes.  Yes, sir. \n                                                        * * * \n \nQ.  You actually were telling him you’d better wait and do that ...... \n \nA.  And I was like, yes, sir, I was like please wait on that.  I said let’s talk to Mr. \nJosh and we’ll go from there. \n \nAccording to Mr. Sutherland, he ended up calling Josh and telling him what the situation \nwas and after that it was out of his hands.  He went on to explain: \nQ.   Okay.  So do you know whatever transpired after that as far as anything Mr. \n Josh might have done? \n \n A.   No sir. \n  Although Mr. Sutherland  was  employed  with  Potlatch  until  August  9,  2024,  he  did  not \nrecall being asked to review the paperwork that the claimant filed on May 28, 2024, for workers’ \ncompensation  benefits.    He  further  testified  that  he  honestly  did  not remember, or  recall  being \n\nWylie - H403539 \n23 \n \nasked to review or write any statements or give any information as the claimant’s supervisor with \nrespect to the filing of his claim in May 2024.  Yet, he further testified, “They may have called me \nback in there and I just repeated what little bit I knew about the situation.” \n  However, on redirect examination, Mr. Sutherland agreed that when he called Josh Harris \nback, he told him that the claimant was not saying he had a work injury.  Mr. Sutherland also stated \nthat it seems like that is reason they did not go any further.   \n  Mr.  Sutherland  maintained  that  after his conversation  with  the  claimant  and what  he \nrelayed to Mr. Harris, he did not know anything about a workers’ comp claim being pursued or \nthat anything was going on.  According to Mr. Sutherland, after that, it was kind of above his pay \ngrade so to speak, and if anything had been happening, it would have been between the claimant \nand Josh.   \n On recross-examination, Mr. Sutherland testified that the claimant was a good worker and \nworked twelve-hour shifts regularly up until November 4, 2023.  He also agreed that after looking \nat the text message (Woke up.  My back locked up.  Right leg numb.) that morning, he interpreted \nthat as meaning that the claimant had hurt himself working at the sawmill.   \n Counsel for the respondents had further redirect examination of Mr. Sutherland. He was \nspecifically asked if he had come out of the conversation with the understanding that the claimant \nwas not saying he had a work-related problem. He answered: “At that point, that was understanding \nand that is what I relayed to Josh.”  \n Mr. Sutherland specifically agreed that when he talked to the claimant, there was absolutely \nno mention of him hitting a crater or pothole or a crack in the concrete with his forklift and having \nhis back pop.  He admitted that there are a lot of potholes, but not “six feet” as what the claimant \ndescribed.  Next, Mr. Sutherland denied that the claimant reported an injury to him over the phone.    \n\nWylie - H403539 \n24 \n \n Under  further  recross  examination, Mr. Sutherland confirmed  that the  road  that  the \nclaimant had to go back and forth on was made of concrete.  He admitted that there were rough \nspots in the road but denied that they were eight inches deep and several feet wide.  Per Sutherland \nthe claimant was able to do his job regularly and routinely up until November 4, 2023.   \n Specifically, Mr. Sutherland tried to explain:  \nQ.  Now, but in some form or fashion after, you’re saying that you had this conversation \nwith him on November  4\nth\n, you somehow got the impression that he was saying that, in \nspite of what he told you, his back was hurting from something that was not work-related? \n \nA.  To the best of my recollection ...... I mean, the best way I can remember it is I asked \nhim was it was job related, and he said no, but I went ahead and called Josh because I didn’t \nknow ...... I knew that if he was going to the doctor that we needed to involve Josh, so that \npart if there. \n \n Mr. Sutherland agreed that if you read further in the claimant’s text messages, it states that \nhe needed a couple of days for the swelling to go down.  He agreed that it was clear that a doctor \nwas involved. Mr. Sutherland agreed that at that point, he thought there would have been Josh’s \ninvolvement with some paperwork.  However, Mr. Sutherland admitted that the claimant was not \ngiven paperwork for a workers’ comp. claim.  \n Next, Mr. Sutherland provided the following information regarding the claimant’s prior \nwork-related knee injury with Potlatch.  \n  THE COURT: Do you remember when he had an injury with his knee? \n A.  Yes, I do. \n  THE COURT: Was that a work-related injury? \n A.  Yes.  I believe it was. \n  THE COURT: Was it reported as a work-related injury? \n A.  Yes.  \n      \n\nWylie - H403539 \n25 \n \n On further redirect examination, Mr. Sutherland testified that the claimant did not indicate \nthat  he  was  going  to  the  doctor  on  his  own.    According  to Mr. Sutherland,  that  was  their  final \nconversation, and then he immediately called Josh to inform him of what was going on.  At that \npoint, he maintained that he was kind of done from that point on.  Mr. Sutherland confirmed that \nin November 2023, the claimant never told him that he called Josh and a conversation took place.      \n  The following exchange took place: \n THE COURT: My other question is what happened in 2021?  What was the \nprotocol for this knee injury that you ...... What steps did you take? \n \nA. Well, I believe, that was right as I was transferring into the kiln department, and \nso I actually had nothing...... I didn’t have anything to do with that, ma’am.  It was \nalready in progress when I took over being the supervisor in that department. \n \n THE COURT: So, you’re changing your testimony now?  You were not the \nsupervisor? \n \nA.  I might have been, ma’am.  I don’t really remember.  I do not have the exact \ndate that I went to that area, but I knew that he was having the knee surgery.  \n \n THE COURT: And it was reported as a work-related injury? \n \nA.  I’m not sure, ma’am, to be honest. \n \n  Josh Harris \n \n Mr.  Harris  testified  on  behalf  of  the  respondents.    He confirmed  that  he  is the  Safety \nManager for PotlatchDeltic.  He confirmed that he worked in this position in November 2023.  Mr. \nHarris began working there in May 2023.  According to Mr.  Harris, he first heard in May 2024 \nthat the claimant was contending he hit a pothole in a forklift and injured his back.  Per Mr. Harris, \nTracey called  him  Saturday  and  stated  that  the  claimant needed to  go  to  the  doctor  because  his \nback was hurting.  However, he maintained that Tracey told him the claimant was saying he hurt \nhis back in a previous injury. \n\nWylie - H403539 \n26 \n \n He agreed that if a person indicates their condition is not work-related, he does not need to \ndo anything, paperwork-wise, for work comp purposes.  Mr. Harris denied having heard from the \nclaimant  after  his conversation  on Saturday with  Tracey.  He  further  denied  hearing  from  the \nclaimant  before  May  17  about  him  maintaining that  he  had a  work  injury.   In  fact, Mr. Harris \ntestified  that  the  first  time  he  spoke  with  the  claimant was  in May  2024,  which  was  in  the \ninvestigation of him starting a comp claim.  Mr. Harris confirmed that there were supervisors and \nlead employees on the overnight shift who could have received a workers’ comp claim if someone \nhad an injury. \n  Per Mr. Harris, he talked with the claimant once he started pursuing a work-related claim, \non May 17, 2024.  Per Harris, he asked the claimant to describe the incident and that is when he \ntold him the incident happened on November 3, 2023, between 11:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.  Per Mr. \nHarris, the claimant told him he hit a bump in the road, and “his leg went numb.”  The claimant \ntold him the incident occurred “somewhere between the green yard and the stacker.  However, Mr. \nHarris testified that he asked the claimant if he reported the incident and he said, “No, that there \nwas no one available to the report the incident to.”  Mr. Harris also maintained that the claimant \ntold  him  that  he  did  not  report  the  incident  to  Tracey.   According  to Mr. Harris, he  asked the \nclaimant what  had  changed since  November  3, 2023, until then,  and that  point,  the  claimant \ninformed  him  that  he  received  a  letter  in  the  mail  from  his  personal health insurance company \nasking questions and stating that his condition should be filed under workers’ comp.  Mr. Harris \ndenied that the indicated he had no other way to pay for his medical bills. \n Mr. Harris confirmed that if a person suffers a work-related injury, typically that will result \nin  a  denial of short-term  disability.    He  denied  that  there  are  six-foot  potholes  with  six  to  eight \ninches of depth at Potlatch.  However, Harris admitted that there may be some rough or bumpy \n\nWylie - H403539 \n27 \n \nroads, but there are not any moon craters six foot wide.  He confirmed that they have a protocol \nfor maintaining the roads and keeping everything level.  According to Harris, they keep a load of \ncrushed asphalt and a load of SB2 on location.  He also pointed out that if there are an potholes of \nthat nature, it would be the employee’s job to report that to a supervisor and then they would follow \nup with a work order, and then that work would be completed by one of the maintenance personnel.   \n However, Mr. Harris denied that he was aware of any incidents where the holes would fill \nup  with  water  because  mains  were  being  driven  over.   He  confirmed  that  the  forklift  itself  is \nequipped with a safety feature on the forklift that would address a situation such as someone hitting \na pothole or running over something.  According to Mr. Harris, all the forklifts are equipped with \nair ride suspension seats that float with the equipment for going over rough terrain.  He specifically \ntestified  that the forklifts are the  same  model  and  manufacturer used  in  the  kilns  and  shipping \ndepartments and are equipped with that particular safety feature. \n About the claimant’s prior work-related knee injury, Mr. Harris confirmed that he does not \nhave any knowledge of the 2021 knee claim.  According to Mr. Harris, if Tracey had indicated to \nhim that the claimant was saying he had suffered a work-related injury, the first step would be for \nhim to gather a statement from the claimant.  The next thing would have been for him to contact \nthe workers’ compensation carrier to start initiating the claim and then conduct the investigation.  \nHe confirmed that he took action to initiate the claim when the claimant came to him on May 17, \n2024.  Mr. Harris  confirmed  that  he  did  not  any  contact  with  the  claimant  on  that  Saturday  (in \nNovember 2023). \n On cross-examination, Mr. Harris maintained that Mr. Sutherland never explained to him \nthat he had a written text message from the claimant reporting a work-related injury.  Mr. Harris \nfurther maintained that Mr. Sutherland just told him that the claimant had called and said that his \n\nWylie - H403539 \n28 \n \nback was hurting and he needed to go to the doctor.  According to Mr. Harris, Tracey asked him \nwhat he needed to do, and he asked him if the claimant was claiming that the incident was work \nrelated.  Per Harris, Tracey replied, “No.”  However, he denied that Tracey informed him that he \nhad a text from the claimant indicating that he had a work-related injury.   \n Next, counsel for the claimant showed Mr. Harris the text that the claimant sent to Tracey \non November 4, 2023, and asked him to read it aloud, which he did do.  He specifically stated that \nhe interpreted it as the claimant “woke up” with his back locked up and his right leg was numb.  \nMr. Harris agreed that the claimant also stated that he had been driving for the sawmill that night.  \nHe denied that he interpreted the claimant’s text as an  attempt  to  provide  his  supervisor  with  a \nwritten report about a work-related injury.  Mr. Harris explained that it just appeared to him that \nthe claimant was making a notification to his supervisor that his back was hurting after he woke \nup.  Counsel for the claimant asked whether it was because the claimant had been driving for the \nsawmill all last night; and Mr. Harris answered, “There’s nothing specific that says, “Hey, while I \nwas at work, I hit a bump and my back is hurting because of hitting a bump while at work.”  \nHowever, Mr.  Harris finally  agreed  that  he  interpreted the  text  message to say that something \noccurred at work. \n With further questioning, Mr. Harris confirmed that after the claimant reported an injury \non May 17, 2024, an investigation of the claim was conducted.  He testified that Mr. Sutherland \nwas called in to provide a written statement, although the statement was not given to the claimant’s \nattorney for his review. \n The following exchange took place: \n  THE COURT: If a person or employee is going to the doctor for a   \n reason unrelated to work, is it the norm for you to be involved in the   \n process?  \n \n\nWylie - H403539 \n29 \n \n A.  If they’re going to the doctor for a reason unrelated to work, then no. \n \n  THE COURT: So why were you involved in this instance? \n \n  A.  I was asked about what to do from the supervisor so after the phone call.... \n \n*** \n    \n   THE COURT: And how long had Mr. Sutherland worked for the company? \n \n  A.  From my understanding, Mr. Sutherland had [sic] been with the company forty \n  or so years. \n \n   THE COURT: Okay.  So, he was well aware of the process then? \n \n  A.  Yes, ma’am.  \n \n   THE COURT:   But yet he still called you and asked you what to do? \n \n  A.  Any time that there is an incident, they have to report those through management \n  and safety ...... \n   \n   THE COURT: An incident? \n \n  A.  ..... because we’ll lead the investigation.  We initiate the claims.  The supervisor \n  will not be part of initiating the workers’ comp claim. \n \n   THE COURT: So, there was an incident for you to be involved? \n \n  A.  There would have to be an incident for me to be involved, and that incident  \n  would need to be work-related.  \n \n However,  on  re-direct  examination,  Mr.  Harris  explained  that Mr.  Sutherland was \ncontacting  him  and  just  asking  for  advice.    He  again  maintained  that  Tracey  told  him  that  the \nclaimant said his back was hurting and he needed the doctor.  According to Mr. Harris, it was his \nunderstanding  that  Mr.  Sutherland wanted  to  know  if  there  was  anything he  needed  to  do.    Mr. \nHarris continued to maintain that the claimant was saying his back condition was not work-related.  \nAs a result, Mr. Harris testified that he informed Mr. Sutherland that there was nothing else that \nneeded to be done about the matter.                 \n\nWylie - H403539 \n30 \n \nMedical Evidence  \n On  November  4,  2023,  the  claimant sought  initial  medical  treatment  for  his  back  from \nAPRN, Jesse Bone at Mainline Health Systems.  His chief complaint was pain in his right hip that \nradiated into the right lower extremity that started five days.  He denied an injury.  This office note \nsays that  the  claimant  had been seen by a  chiropractor  twice  with  no  improvement.   Bone \nspecifically noted that the claimant drives a forklift at work and reports the road is very rough but \ndenied any  fall  or  injury.   He  provided  a  history  of  no  previous  back  injuries.    The  claimant \nreported not being able to find a comfortable position, worse with sitting or standing for extended \nperiods, with no relief of symptoms with over-the-counter pain medications.  Nurse Bone assessed \nthe  claimant  with: “1. Midline  low  back  pain  with  right-sided  sciatica,  unspecified  chronicity.  \nM54.41(Primary) 2.  Benign essential hypertension,” for which therapeutic injections were given \non the left gluteus.   \n Pursuant to a medical note authored on November 7, 2023, Nurse Bone wrote, in relevant \npart, “Please excuse the above name patient [David Wylie] who was seen in our clinic today.  He \nmay return to work on Monday, November 13 (2023).”  On that same day, the claimant underwent \nx-rays of the lumbar spine with an impression of “Mild lumbar degenerative disc disease.” \n The claimant returned for a follow-up with Nurse Bone on November 13, 2023, due to a \nchief complaint of severe lower back pain with radiation down his right leg.  The claimant reported \nno improvement since his last visit.  His assessments were, “1.  Midline low back pain with right-\nsided sciatica, unspecified chronicity.  M54.41 (Primary).  2. Degenerative lumbar disc – M51.36,” \nfor which he was referred to Drew Memorial Hospital for an MRI of lumbar of his lumbar spine.  \nAt that time, Bone excused the claimant from work until November 20, 2023.   \n\nWylie - H403539 \n31 \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was performed on November 19, 2023, with the \nfollowing impression: \n 1. Mild distal vertebral body heights with normal alignment. \n 2. Degenerative disc disease at all levels of the lumbar spine with mild  \n canal stenosis L1/L2, moderate canal stenosis at L2/L3, L3/L4 and L5/S1 \n with severe canal stenosis at L4/L5. \n 3. The neural foramina are patent at all levels with the existing nerve roots  \n being normal.   \n \n The claimant returned to Nurse Bone on November 22, 2023, to discuss his MRI results.  \nHis  MRI  showed  multilevel  degenerative disease  and  spinal  stenosis,  canal  stenosis  severe  at \nL4/L5.   He  has  been  unable  to  work  due  to  ongoing  back pain.    Therefore,  Bone  instructed the \nclaimant to remain off work until he could be evaluated by neurosurgery.   \n On  December  20,  2023,  the  claimant  underwent  initial  evaluation  by  neurosurgery.  Dr. \nPervie  Blanton Simpson evaluated  the claimant for  lower  back  pain,  extending  into  his  lower \nextremity worse in the right hip since November 2023.  He reported feeling something pop in his \nback while at work operating heavy machinery.  The claimant had severe back pain and anterior \nshin area down to his ankle.  He reported the buckling of his right knee when he tried to go up and \ndown  stairs.  Per  this  medical  note,  the claimant  had  no  left-sided  symptoms.    However,  the \nclaimant’s symptoms had mildly improved although he had not had any physical therapy.  Dr. \nSimpson stated  that  he  had  reviewed  the  MRI.    Specifically,  he  opined  that  the  claimant  had  a \nlarge, extruded fragment down below the space at L3-4 on the right.  He could see the upper edge \nof it on  the  axial  image.   Dr. Simpson opined that the  claimant had  symptoms  with  an  absent \npatellar reflex on the right side compared to +2 on the left side and weakness of his quadriceps.  \nHe  went  over  the  MRI  with  the  claimant  and  his  wife.    Dr. Simpson explained  to  them  that he \nrecommended the claimant undergo surgical intervention in the form of a discectomy for removal \n\nWylie - H403539 \n32 \n \nof what he believes was “an extruded free fragment.”  His assessment was “lumbar radiculopathy \non the right, with right leg weakness.”   \n The claimant underwent an evaluation for physical therapy on January 22, 2024, at South \nArkansas Rehabilitation due to his back injury.    \n On February 29, 2024, the claimant saw Dr. Bahgat for an office visit at BH Neurosurgery \nDrew County Memorial due to a chief complaint of pain and discomfort in the right leg down to \nhis foot.  At that time, the claimant had continued complaints of numbness and paresthesia in his \nlower extremity.  His diagnoses included “Primary lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy and  \nspinal stenosis of lumbar region without neurogenic claudication.”  Dr. Bahgat recommended that \nthe claimant plan for right L3-4 discectomy and right L4-5 lateral recess decompression.    \n The claimant underwent an evaluation by Dr. P.B. Simpson on March 20, 2024, for a six-\nweek  post-operative office  visit,  per  Dr.  Bahgat’s recommendation.   At  that  time,  the  claimant \nreported that his lower back pain and symptoms had mostly resolved.  Also, during that office visit \nthe claimant reported that he did not need pain medication.  Dr. Simpson stated that he would keep \nthe claimant off work until his next visit in five weeks.   His primary diagnoses were: “Primary \nlumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy and spinal stenosis of lumbar region without neurogenic \nclaudication.”  \n On April 24, 2024, the claimant returned for a post-op follow-up visit under the care of Dr. \nSimpson. At   that   time,   the   claimant   was   diagnosed   with   S/P   lumbar   laminectomy and \ndecompression on March 4, 2024.  The claimant reported to Dr. Simpson during this office visit \nthat  he  was  doing  well enough to  return  to  his  normal job activities.    Dr.  Simpson  released  the \nclaimant from his care per his request but excused him from work that day.     \n\nWylie - H403539 \n33 \n \n The claimant presented to the Functional Testing Centers on April 30, 2024, for the purpose \nof undergoing  a Functional Capacity Evaluation/FCE to figure out his current functional status.  \nThe results of this evaluation show that the claimant put forth a reliable effort.  Analysis of the \ndata collected during this evaluation shows that the claimant put forth a consistent effort and passed \nall  criteria  for  a  reliable  effort  indicating  that  a  significant  degree of  effort  was  put  forth.  He \nshowed the  ability  to  perform an  occasional  bi-manual  lift/carry up  to  fifty  pounds. Hence,  the \nclaimant completed functional testing on the above date with reliable results.  Overall, the claimant \ndemonstrated the ability to perform work in the MEDIUM classification of work as defined by the \nUS Dept. of Labor’s guidelines over the course of a normal 8-hour workday with limitations as \nlisted above.  When comparing the shown physical abilities with that of a written job description \nfor the position of Kiln-Head Forklift Driver with Potlatch, the evaluator opined, “he DOES MEET \nall of the physical demands of this position as described.”    \n On July 21, 2025, the claimant’s attorney wrote a letter to Dr. J. Micheal Calhoun asking \nthat he address what the appropriate impairment rating is for the claimant pursuant to AMA Guides, \n4\nth\n Edition based on the medical history provided.  \n Dr. Calhoun sent the following response to the claimant’s attorney in a letter on July 22, \n2025: \n I  have  reviewed  the  available  medical  records  on  David  Wylie.    Mr.  Wylie  was \ninjured on the job on November 4, 2023.  He underwent a lumbar MRI on November 17, \n2023.  Initially, the interpreting radiologist missed a large right L3-4-disc fragment inferior \nto the L3-L4 disc space.  The interpretation was subsequently corrected with an addendum. \n The patient was  evaluated  by  Dr.  P.B.  Simpson  on  December  20, 2023, who \nidentified the right L3-4 extruded fragment and the severe stenosis at L4-5.  He contacted \nthe radiologist to correct his interpretation.    \n The patient underwent a right L3-4 discectomy and L4-5 decompression with Dr. \nBahgat. \n He did well and underwent a Functional Capacity Evaluation/FCE which showed a \nreliable effort.  He has returned to work.  \n\nWylie - H403539 \n34 \n \n The patient suffered a right L3-4-disc herniation which required surgery.  Because \nhe underwent surgical treatment with residual symptoms, he is awarded an 8% impairment \nof the whole person.  This is according to Table 75, page 113, of the Fourth Edition of the \nAMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.  \n \n On November 4, 2023, the claimant sent a text message to his supervisor, Tracy Sutherland.  \nBoth gave extensive hearing testimony relating to the messages and their telephone conversations \nconcerning the claimant’s back injury.      \n           Adjudication \nA. Compensability/low back  \nIn that regard, for the claimant to establish a compensable injury as a result of a specific \nincident, the following requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), must be \nestablished:  (1)  proof  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  of  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the \ncourse of employment; (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury caused internal \nor external physical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102 (4)(D), establishing the injury; and (4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time  and place of occurrence.   Mikel v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).   \n A  compensable  injury  must  be proven by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings \nthat  cannot  come  under  the  voluntary  control  of  the  patient.   Id.  §  11-9-102(16).  The  element \n“arising out of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the claimant’s \ninjury  and their employment.   City  of  El  Dorado  v.  Sartor,  21  Ark.  App.  143,  729  S.W.2d  430 \n(1987).  An 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\nWylie - H403539 \n35 \n \n If  the claimant does not establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the \nrequirements  for showing compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.   Mikel  v.  Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard means evidence that \nhas greater weight or more 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 Based on my review of the record as a whole, and without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party, I find that the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that \nhe sustained a compensable back injury on November 4, 2023, during and in the course and scope \nof his employment with the respondent-employer/Potlatch while performing his job duties. \n The claimant worked as a welder for the respondent-employer.  He is 63 years of age and \nin good health after having fully recovered from colon cancer.  \n  On November 4, 2023, the claimant was told by management to work at the sawmill after \na coworker collapsed on the jobsite and had to be transported to the hospital.  The claimant credibly \ntestified that his back popped when he hit a pothole while driving a forklift on November 4, 2023.  \nHis  testimony shows that  he  promptly  reported  his  injury  to his  supervisor.    While  there  was \nextensive  testimony elicited from  the  claimant  and  his  supervisor in  this  regard,  the  credible \nevidence shows that claimant reported the injury to Mr. Sutherland via text messages and during \ntheir telephone conversation that morning.  I am convinced that there were some discussion and \nindication of an injury based on the fact that Mr. Sutherland had to check with the safety person \nprior to the claimant seeking medical treatment.  I did not find Mr. Sutherland’s credible.  He at \none  point  testified  that  the claimant  reported  an  injury,  and  at  other  times  in  his  testimony \nmaintained that the claimant told him his problems were due to an old injury.  For these and all the \nabove noted discrepancies in Mr. Sutherland’s testimony, I am persuaded the claimant sustained \n\nWylie - H403539 \n36 \n \nand reported an injury to him the morning after his November 4, 2023, incident.  The Claimant’s \ntestimony shows that he is not proficient with text messaging, which is illustrated by his use of \none finger to text.  However, his text message clearly infers that his back pain and numbness of \nthe  leg resulted  from  driving  at  the  sawmill.  I thus find  that  the  claimant  told Mr.  Sutherland \nduring their telephone conversation that he hurt his back after hitting a pothole with his forklift at \nwork the previous night.    \n Furthermore, although Nurse Bone’s medical notes say that the claimant reported that he \ndid  not  sustain an  injury, which could  be logically reasoned in the claimant’s mind.   Bone also \ndocumented in his clinical notes that the claimant reported that he did not sustain an injury such \nas a fall, which is correct.  However, the claimant offered a reasonable explanation for the denial \nof an injury in the traditional sense.  He essentially testified that he did not have an injury, such as \nin the form of physical trauma involving a cut, bruising of the skin, wound, or fracture. \n  Bone’s medical notations have other portions of it incorrectly documented.  Particularly, \nthe claimant credible denied having reported to Bone that his pain started five days ago.  I found \nhim to be credible in this regard, and this medical note is not consistent with his text message and \nother  portions  of this  medical  report  wherein  the  claimant indicated that  his  pain  resulted  from \ndriving the forklift.   Also, there is a medical report authored by Bone showing that the claimant \nhad been treated by a chiropractor for his back, both the claimant and his wife credibly testified \nthat the claimant has never received  any chiropractic treatment for his back.  Instead, they both \ncredibly testified that the claimant’s wife sought chiropractic treatment following her stroke.  The \nrecord before me is void of any evidence whatsoever showing that the claimant had any type of \ncomplaints or medical treatment for his back.  The most significant medical condition for which \nthe claimant sought prior medical treatment  was  colon cancer, which is now in remission.  The \n\nWylie - H403539 \n37 \n \nclaimant’s wife testified that they told Bone they had just left her appointment with the chiropractor \nbefore coming to see him.  I found Mrs. Wylie very credible, and she displayed mannerisms and \nresiduals of a stroke.  Hence, Mrs. Wylie offered a reasonable explanation for this inaccuracy.   \n Nevertheless,  the  claimant  did  not  find  out  his  claim  was  being  denied  by  his  health \ninsurance company until after his surgery of March 2024.  However, when the claimant saw Dr. \nSimpson in December 2023 which was clearly prior to any indication that his surgery was being \ndenied; he provided a history of having hit a pothole while operating a forklift at work, caused his \nback  to  pop,  which  was  accompanied  by an immediate onset  of  back  pain.  I  found that the \nclaimant’s testimony concerning his prior work-related injury at Potlatch to be extremely credible.  \nThe evidence shows that his prior knee injury was handled by both the claimant and management \nat Potlatch as a nonwork-related claim, in a remarkably similar manner as this matter, except in \nthat instance, his private health insurance carrier never questioned the validity of the claim. The \nclaimant credibly testified that he did not know what a workers’ compensation claim was prior to \nnow.  Mr. Sutherland and the claimant’s testimony clearly establishes that the claimant  was  an \nexemplary employee who did not call in off work.  I am persuaded that the claimant’s underlying \nconcern was the repair of his back so he could get back to work.  The above reasons also would \naccount for the reporting of a non-work-related injury being made to Matrix. \n The record is replete with objective medical finding of a back injury.  In that regard, the \nclaimant’s undwernt a lumbar MRI on November 17, 2023, which revealed a large right L3-4-disc \nextruded fragment inferior to the L3-L4 disc space.  Ultimately, after conservative care failed, Dr. \nBahgat performed a right L3-4 discectomy and L4-5 decompression.  Here, the instant claimant \nhas never experienced any prior problems with his back.  Prior to this incident, the claimant had \nbeen  able  to  perform  laborious  employment  activities  without  any  problems  or  complaints.  \n\nWylie - H403539 \n38 \n \nConsidering the afore facts, I am compelled to find that these MRI findings are causally related to \nthe claimant’s work-related incident of November 4.   \n The claimant underwent surgical intervention for his back, in March 2024, with satisfactory \nresults. Following his back surgery, on March 20, 2024, Dr. Simpson assessed the claimant with: \n“Primary lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy and spinal stenosis of lumbar region without \nneurogenic claudication.”  Ultimately, Dr. Simpson released the claimant to return to work in April \n2024, at his request.  \n Accordingly, the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence all the necessary \nelements to  prove  he  sustained  a compensable back injury when his forklift hit a  pothole  while \nperforming his employment duties for Potlatch on November 4, 2023. \nB. Lack of Proper Notice of Injury \n Here, the claimant contends that he gave proper notice of his injury to his supervisor, \nTracy Sutherland the morning after his injury, via a text message and a telephone conversation.   \nSpecifically, the claimant sent the text and talked with his supervisor in this regard on November \n4, 2023. \n The respondents contend that they did receive notice of the claimant’s alleged back injury \nuntil May 17, 2024.  As such, they contend that they are not responsible for payment of any benefits \nbefore receiving proper notice of the work-related injury.  \n The  applicable  statutory  provision  is  found at Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-701 (Repl.  2012), \nwhich provides: \n(a)(1) Unless an injury either renders the employee physically or mentally unable \nto do so, or is made known to the employer immediately after it occurs, the \nemployee shall report the injury to the employer on a form prescribed or approved \nby the Workers’ Compensation Commission and to a person or at a place \nspecified by the employer, and the employer shall not be responsible for \n\nWylie - H403539 \n39 \n \ndisability, medical, or other benefits prior to receipt of the employee’s report of \ninjury.... \n \n(b)(1) Failure to give the notice shall not bar any claim: \n \n(A) If the employer had knowledge of the injury or death;  \n(B) If the employee had no knowledge that the condition or disease arose out of \nand in the course of the employment; or \n(C) If the commission excuses the failure on the grounds that for some satisfactory \nreason the notice could not be given. \n \n  The credible evidence before me clearly shows that the claimant gave proper notice of his  \n back injury to his supervisor, Tracey Sutherland, the morning after his work-related incident of \nNovember 4, 2023.  I found the claimant’s testimony to be extremely credible in this regard.  \n  Hence,  the claimant’s testimony  is significantly corroborated  by  the  contemporaneous \nmedical records, namely, that of Dr. Simpson’s medical report of December 2003, and is pointedly \nbolstered by the testimony of Mr. Sutherland, whom I did not find to be a credible source. \n   My inference in this regard is established via the text message and the testimony elicited \nby both parties during the hearing regarding their telephone conversation.  Mr. Sutherland conceded \nthat he did not recall the details of their conversation, while admitting that he told the claimant he \nneeded to talk to management before he could seek medical attention.  This statement within itself \nindicates  to  me  that  the  claimant  reported  an  injury.   Otherwise,  there  would  not  have  been  any \nrational reason for Mr. Sutherland to seek guidance from management before the claimant could \nsee  a  doctor.   Mr. Sutherland  admitted  that  it  is  not customarily  a  prerequisite for  him  to tell an \nemployee he needs to speak with management before they seek medical attention when they call in \ndue  to a  personal  illness  such  as a cold, or  the  flu.   He  confirmed  that  it  is  only  when  there  is  a \nsuspected  work-related  injury that  an  employee  is  instructed  to wait before seeking medical \nattention.  Considering that Mr. Sutherland gave conflicting and confusing testimony regarding the   \n\nWylie - H403539 \n40 \n \n reporting of an injury, I found his testimony to be incredulous, self-contradictory, and unworthy of \nbelief.  The evidence preponderates that the claimant promptly and properly reported an injury per \nhis employer established policy before he sought medical attention for his back injury.  \n  Specifically, I find that the claimant gave his employer/ Mr. Sutherland proper notice of \nhis injury on the morning of November 4, 2023.  Therefore, the respondents are responsible for \npayment of benefits on this claim beginning on the date of injury. \n C.  Medical Benefits \n An employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as \nmay be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012).  The claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance \nof the evidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary.  Stone v. Dollar General Stores, \n91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W. 3d 445 (2005).    \n After  reviewing  the  evidence  in  this  case  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefits  of  the \ndoubt to either party, I find that the claimant has met his burden of proving that all of the medical \ntreatment of record that he received for his back injury, including the surgery performed by Dr. \nBahgat  and  accompanying  hospitalization, and  all  of  the  diagnostic  testing was reasonably \nnecessary in connection with the injury he received on November 4, 2023.  \n Specifically, the treatment modalities utilized were ordered for the purposes of diagnosing, \nevaluating, and treating his back condition.  The claimant had no symptoms in his back prior to \nhis November 4 injury that were causative and the reason for his current back problem and need \nfor treatment. I expressly find that the medical treatment provided for the claimant at the level of \nL3-4  was  reasonably  necessary  in  connection with  the  claimant’s  compensable  injury.   Of \nimportance is  the  fact  that  the  claimant  received  significant  relief  of  his  back  pain  and  related \n\nWylie - H403539 \n41 \n \nsymptoms from the back surgery. The is no evidence whatsoever showing that the claimant had \nany  prior  complaints  with  his  back  before  his  work  accident.    The claimant  proved  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that all the medical treatment of record is causally connected to the \nwork-related back injury received by him on November 4, 2023.   \n Hence,  the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  medical  treatment of  record received  by  the \nclaimant for his back was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). \nThe  respondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  all  the  claimant’s  medical  treatment  for  his \ncompensable back injury of November 4, 2023.   \n D.  Temporary Total Disability Compensation  \nHere, the Claimant contends that he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits for his \nlow back injury beginning November 5, 2023, and continuing until the date he was released from \nmedical care of his back surgery, by Dr. Simpson, occurring on April 24, 2024.     \nThe claimant suffered a back injury, which is an unscheduled injury.  An injured employee \nfor  an  unscheduled injury is entitled  to  temporary  total disability compensation  during  the  time \nthat he is within his healing period and totally incapacitated from earning wages.  Arkansas State \nHighway  and  Transportation  Department  v.  Breshears,  272  Ark.  244,  613  S.W.2d  392  (1981).  \nThe healing period is that period for healing of the injury which continues until the employee is as \nfar restored as the permanent character of the injury will allow.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).    If  the  underlying  condition  causing  the  disability  has \nbecome stable and nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that condition, the healing \nperiod has ended.  Id.  Temporary total disability cannot be awarded after the claimant’s healing \nperiod has ended. \n\nWylie - H403539 \n42 \n \n In  the  present  case,  the  claimant  sustained  a  compensable  back  injury  on  November  4, \n2023.  He initially sought medical treatment from his primary care provider for his back condition,  \nJesse Bone, APRN.  The claimant was given off work slips by Nurse Bone.  When the claimant’s \ncondition did  not improve, Bone recommended that  he  undergo a  lumbar  MRI,  which  was \nperformed on November 17.  This MRI revealed that the claimant sustained a “right extruded free \nfragment,” and severe right L3-4 disc herniation, accompanied by severe stenosis at L4-5 on the \nright side.  On November 22 Bone referred the claimant to a neurosurgeon, and he also restricted \nthe claimant from working until he could undergo this evaluation.  The claimant was evaluated by \nDr.  Simpson on  December  20, and he diagnosed the  claimant with  a large  extruding  fragment \ndown below the space, and a severe herniated disc at L3-4, for which he recommended surgical \ntreatment.  The claimant underwent back surgery on March 4, 2024, by Dr. Bahgat.  This surgery \nrendered the claimant physically unable to perform his regular job duties at Potlatch until April \n24, 2024.  At that point, the claimant was released from care by Dr. Simpson at his request to return \nto work.   \nThe claimant credibly testified that he was unable to work following his work incident of \nNovember 4, 2023, until April 24, 2024.  His credible testimony of his inability to return to work \nfollowing his November 4 back injury due to severe back pain and related symptoms of the leg \nuntil his release from care is corroborated by the medical evidence of record.  The parties stipulated \nthat the claimant reached maximum medical improvement for his back condition/injury on April \n24.  Temporary total disability compensation cannot be awarded after the claimant’s healing period \nhas ended. \n   Accordingly,  based  on all the  foregoing,  I  find  that  the  claimant  proved  his  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability compensation from November 5, 2023, until April 24, 2024.     \n\nWylie - H403539 \n43 \n \n E.  Permanent Anatomical Impairment    \n  Permanent  impairment  is  any  functional  or  anatomical  loss  remaining  after  the  healing \nperiod has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  \nThe  Commission  has  adopted  the  American  Medical  Association Guides  to  the  Evaluation  of \nPermanent  Impairment (4\nth\n ed.  1993)  to  be  used  in  assessing  anatomical  impairment.   See \nCommission  Rule 099.34 (now codified  at  11  C.A.R. § 25-129);  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-522(g) \n(Repl. 2012).  It is the Commission’s duty, using the Guides, to determine whether the Claimant \nhas proved he is entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment.  Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. \nApp. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).      \n Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by \nobjective  and  measurable  physical  findings.   Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-704(c)(1)  (Repl.  2012).  \nObjective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  \nArk.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012).    Although  it  is  true  that  the  legislature  has \nrequired medical evidence supported by objective findings to prove a compensable injury, it does \nnot follow that such evidence is required to establish each element of compensability.  Stephens \nTruck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).  All that is needed is that the \nmedical evidence be supported by objective findings.  Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. \n59, 244 S.W.3d 709 (2006).      \nPermanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a determination  that  the  compensable \ninjury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a) \n(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of \nmajor cause shall be established according to a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-102(14) (Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence that has greater \n\nWylie - H403539 \n44 \n \nweight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).   \nThe claimant contends that he sustained an 8% permanent impairment rating for his back \nfor his compensable work-related back injury of November 4, 2023.  The respondent contends that \nthe claimant did not sustain an anatomical impairment due to his work-related injury. \nI  am  persuaded  that  the  claimant  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \nentitled to an award of an 8% permanent anatomical impairment to his low back due to his work-\nrelated  injury  of  November  4,  2023.    The  basis  for  my determination  of  the  existence  of  this \nimpairment rating is outlined below.    \nSpecifically, on December 20, 2023, Dr. Simpson recommended that the claimant undergo \nsurgical intervention to remove an “extruded free fragment.” Dr. Simpson identified a right L3-4 \nmigrating disc herniation as well as L4-5 right lateral recess severe stenosis following an MRI of \nthe claimant’s lumbar spine, which  was performed  on  November  17,  2023.    The  claimant \nunderwent back surgery by Dr. Bahgat on March 4, 2024, in the form of a right L3-4 discectomy \nand L4-5 decompression.         \nOn July 21, 2025, Dr. J. Michael Calhoun assigned the claimant an 8% permanent physical \nimpairment for  his  work-related  back  injury,  utilizing  the AMA  Guides to  the  Evaluation  of \nPermanent Impairment, Fourth Edition.  Per his medical note, Dr. Calhoun assessed the claimant \nwith an 8% impairment because he underwent surgical treatment with residual symptoms. There \nare no expert opinions to the contrary. Dr. Calhoun’s expert opinion is well reasoned and comports \nwith my review of Table 75, page 3/113 of the Guides, which assigns “Whole Person Impairment \nPercents Due to Specific Spine Disorders.” Prior  to his compensable injury of November 4, the \nclaimant’s testimony shows that he had no history of any complaints or problems relating to his \n\nWylie - H403539 \n45 \n \nback.  I found his testimony to be extremely credible in this regard.  In fact, the claimant’s credible \ntestimony regarding no prior back problems is corroborated by the lack of any medical evidence \nindicating a prior history of any medical treatment or diagnostic tests such as an MRI or x-rays \nhaving been performed on his back.  There is no evidence whatsoever indicating that the claimant \nmissed any work due to any ongoing complaints of the back and any related symptomatology.  The \nevidence  before  me  clearly  proves  that  prior  to  his  work injury, the claimant’s  pre-existing \ndegenerative disc disease was asymptomatic.  I am persuaded that Dr. Calhoun’s expert opinion is \ncorrect and well-reasoned, with no evidence or expert opinions to the contrary.  Therefore, I have \nattached significant evidentiary weight to Dr. Calhoun’s expert opinion.  For these reasons, I am \nalso convinced that the major cause of the claimant’s permanent anatomical impairment, which \nresulted from his work-related injury of November 4, 2023.   \n F.  Attorney’s Fee \n The parties stipulated that the respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  As \nsuch, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on all indemnity benefits \nawarded herein to the claimant, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. (2012). \n                                                                    AWARD \n Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set forth \nherein this Opinion.   \n All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without a discount, and this award shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).  \n  Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the claimant’s attorney is entitled to \na 25% attorney’s fee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein.   \n \n\nWylie - H403539 \n46 \n \n This fee is to be paid one-half by the insurance carrier and one-half by the claimant.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                                                            ______________________                       \n                         CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO.: H403539 DAVID WYLIE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT POTLATCH CORPORATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, Arkansa...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:08.342Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403539-2025-11-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WYLIE_DAVID_H403539_20251103.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}