{"id":"alj-H403567-2026-01-12","awcc_number":"H403567","decision_date":"2026-01-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Dina Yugen","employer_name":"Pinnacle Car Service, Inc","title":"YUGEN VS. PINNACLE CAR SERVICE, INC. AWCC# H403567 January 12, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","cervical","wrist","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/YUGEN_DINA_H403567_20260112.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"YUGEN_DINA_H403567_20260112.pdf","text_length":29593,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H403567 \n \nDINA YUGEN, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nPINNACLE CAR SERVICE, INC., Employer RESPONDENT \n \nBROADSPIRE, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED JANUARY 12, 2026 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in   Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JASON M. RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On October  14,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Springdale, \nArkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on March  10,  2025,  and  a  Pre-hearing \nOrder  was  filed  on March  13,  2025.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked \nCommission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The  relationship  of  employee-employer-carrier  existed  between  the  parties on  May \n21, 2024. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n 4. The claimant’s weekly compensation rates will be determined at a later date. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-2- \n 1.  Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  neck  on  or  about  May  21, \n2024. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for her neck injuries. \n 3. Respondents request sanctions under ACA §11-9-717 in that Claimant failed to appear \nfor a scheduled deposition. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“Claimant  contends  she  is  entitled  to  medical  treatment  for  her \nneck and left shoulder. Claimant reserves all other issues.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“The  claimant  did  not  suffer  a  compensable  injury.  Sanctions \n(including  costs,  fees,  and  dismissal)  should  be  imposed  upon  the \nclaimant because she failed to appear for a duly noticed deposition \nand  Respondents  incurred  costs  and  attorney’s  fees  as  a  result. \nClaimant’s  treatment  thus  far  was  not  related,  reasonable,  or \nnecessary.    Claimant    suffers    from    preexisting    injuries    and \nconditions which were not caused or  affected by  the alleged work \ninjury.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 53-year-old  female who  alleges  to  have  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to her cervical spine on or about May 21, 2024. The claimant was employed \nwith  the  respondent  as  a  driver.  The  claimant  drove  motorcoaches,  minicoaches,  Cadillacs  and \nSuburbans for the respondent.  In direct  examination, the claimant gave the following testimony \nabout  the  incident  in  which  she  alleges  her  compensable  cervical  spine  injury  to  have  occurred \nand her reporting of that injury.  \nQ And what happened on May 21\nst\n in 2024? \n \nA It was track – it was the last track meet at the U of A, and I \nhad University of Arkansas, the Razorback men’s track team, and I \nwent  to  the  shop  to  get  the  bus  ready,  and  I  did  a  pre-trip,  and  I \nhurt myself on the luggage bay door, the first luggage bay door. \n \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-3- \nQ And how did you hurt yourself on the luggage bay door? \n \nA When  I  lifted  the  handle,  normally  the  bus – the  bay  door \nkind of just swings out. It has shocks  and so  I lifted it, and it was \nheavy, and  I lifted it and had to swing my wrist around to kind of \nget  under  it  so  I  can  use  my  weight  and  lift  it  up  into  the  locked \nposition. \n \nQ Are  those  doors  supposed  to  just  raise  automatically  when \nyou unlock them, or how does that work? \n \nA No,  you  unlock  them  and  then  the  springs  or  the  shocks \nassist, and you just kind of guide it up and then put it in the locked \nposition. \n \nQ And so was that system not working that day? \n \nA No. \n \nQ And how much force would you say it took you to pick that \nup? \n \nA I don’t know how much force, but I had to bend down and \nget under it to lift it. \n \nQ Did it feel difficult? \n \nA Well,  yeah.  I  knew  it  was  broke,  and  I  hurt  my  wrist,  my \nelbow. I just had lots of shooting pain come up. And then from my \nshoulder  to  my  neck  just  start  sharp,  stabbing  pains.  And  at  that \ntime, I called Julian. \n \nQ And who is Julian? \n \nA He was my direct manager, the team leader. \n \nQ And what did you tell Julian? \n \nA I told him, “The bay is broke and I need another bus.” \n \nQ Did you tell him that you had hurt yourself? \n \nA I did. \n \nQ And what did he say? \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-4- \n \nA He said, “We don’t have another bus and we don’t have \nanother person.” \n \nQ So did you continue working? \n \nA I did. I continued my pre-trip. I wrote it up on my pre-trip, \nand I took off to go get the track team, and I had to lift it up again. \nSo every time I went to a destination, I’d have to open up that \nluggage bay and do the same process. \n \nQ And how long did you continue working before  you saw a \ndoctor? \n \nA The  track  meet  lasted a  few  days,  so  five,  six,  seven  days, \nbecause the last day when I was done, they asked me to take over \nbecause  someone  ran  out  of  hours,  and  so  I  worked  till  midnight \nthat night. \n \nQ So in these days that you worked after the injury, did your \nsymptoms progress? \n \nA Yes. I told Julian I was putting a hot towel on my neck and \nshoulders once I would get up into my room for the evening. \n \nQ And why were you continuing to work during this time? \n \nA Because    they    had    no    replacement    driver    and    no \nreplacement bus. \n \n The claimant was asked on direct examination about whether the respondent sent her for \nmedical treatment. She testified that she was told she could go to a doctor of her own choosing. \nThe  claimant  was  seen  at  Mercy  Clinic  in  Bentonville,  Arkansas,  by  APRN  Albert  Prince  on \nMay 28, 2024. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nMusculoskeletal:   Positive   for   arthralgias,   joint   swelling   and \nmyalgias. \nWas lifting a luggage door on last Tuesday with her job, has had a \nleft  neck  pain  since  then.  Had  had  all  of  her  joints  hurt,  pain \ngetting out of bed, felt like needles. No other family members have \nbeen ill. Has not been tested for autoimmune problems in the past \nas this has not happened like this before. \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-5- \n \n*** \nCervical back: Normal range of motion. \nComments:  Edema  of  both  lower  extremities  which  is  pretibial. \nHas swelling of the joints of her hands and wrists. Has some mild \nswelling  and  tenderness  of  the  upper  trapezius  especially  on  the \nleft  side.  There  is  decreased  range  of  motion  of  the  cervical  spine \nin all planes. \n \n*** \nI  have  discussed  with  her  that  we  did  not  get  approval  from  her \nemployer for evaluation of Worker’s Comp prior to this visit.  \nShe needs to follow-up with her employer regarding the symptoms \nin her neck. \n \n The claimant was seen  at Conservative Care  Occupational Health in Springdale on May \n31, 2024, by PAC Daniel Nicholas. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nPATIENT DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT \nPatient states that she lifted a luggage door and suddenly felt pain \nin her neck. Patient states that the pain is radiating down to her left \nshoulder, left wrist and into her shoulder blade. Patient was seen at \na Walk-in clinic and ER and was given Prednisone. \n \nCHIEF COMPLAINT \nNeck injury. \n \nHISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS \nDiana’s primary problem is pain located in the neck. She describes \nit  as  aching,  stiff,  numb,  sharp,  burning.  She  considers  it  to  be \nmoderate.  The  problem  began  on  5/21/2024.  Dina  says  that  it \nseems  to  be  constant.  She  has  noticed  that  it  is  made  worse  by \nmoving. \n \nCOMMENTS ON HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS \nThis  is  the  first  time  I  have  seen  Dina  for  this  problem.  She  was \ninjured  10  days  ago  at  work.  She  continued  working  in  pian.  She \ngot  much  worse  5  days  ago.  She  was  seen  at  two  different  clinics \nand started prednisone taper 3 days ago. Her swelling is improving, \nbut her pain is not. \n \n*** \nASSESSMENT \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-6- \nI  have  no  explanation  for  her  systemic  swelling  that  occurred  5 \ndays ago. I agree with the treatment of steroids and they seem to be \nreducing her swelling. \nNumber   and   Complexity   of   Problems   Addressed:   1   acute \ncomplicated injury. \nRationale: the injury is extensive, Evaluation of body systems that \nare  not  directly  part  of  the  injured  organ,  Treatment  options  are \nmultiple. \n \nTREATMENT PLAN \nShe will finish her steroid pack. She will start physical therapy for \nthis problem. \n \nCONSULTATION/REFERRAL REQUEST \nPhysical therapy. \n \nMEDICAL CAUSATION \nThe cause of this problem appears to be related to work activities. \n \nRECOMMENDED WORK STATUS \nDina’s recommended work status is Restricted Duty. \nReturn  to  work  plan  discussed  with  patient  and  communicated  to \nthe employer. \n \nThe claimant was referred to physical therapy at that time. \n On January 24, 2025, the claimant was seen at Mercy Clinic Primary Care by APRN Paul \nPrince. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nCervical back: Normal range of motion. \nComments;  Decreased  vocal  spine  range  of  motion  in  all  planes. \nHas   muscle   spasms   of   both   upper   trapezius,   and   posterior \ncervicals,  as  well  as  levator  scapulae  on  the  left.  Decreased  range \nof  motion  of  the  wrist.  Is  unable  to  fully  supinate  and  pronate  her \nleft  arm.  Has  weakness  of  the  left  hand  and  wrist  following  an \nulnar distribution. \n \n The claimant was again seen by APRN Prince on March 11, 2025. At that time, an MRI \nof the claimant’s cervical spine was ordered. Following are portions of that medical record: \nHistory of Present Illness \nThe patient is a 52-year-old female who presents for follow-up on \nher neck, shoulder, and wrist pain. \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-7- \nShe reports persistent pain in her neck, shoulder, and wrist, which \nhas  not  shown  significant  improvement  despite  ongoing  physical \ntherapy. The pain originated from an injury sustained at the end of \nMay 2024, and she sought medical attention in June 2024. She was \nseen  here  on  01/24/2025.  She  has  retained  some  mobility  in  her \nfingers,  but  the  pain  radiates  from  her  shoulder  to  her  neck.  She \nhas  not  yet  consulted  with  Dr.  Johnson  for  an  EMG  due  to \ninsurance  constraints  requiring  completion  of  physical  therapy \nfirst. She has approximately 4 to 5 more physical therapy sessions \nremaining. Her workers’ compensation claim has been denied, and \nshe  is  currently  managing  her  medical  bills  through  a  payment \nplan.  She  is  doing  home  program  at  home.  She  does  not  have  a \npacemaker,  is  not  pregnant,  has  no  recent  brain  aneurysm  clips  or \nvascular  stents,  and  does  not  have  a  known  piece  of  metal  in  her \neye.  She  has  been  taking  gabapentin  at  night  but  reports  no \nnoticeable  relief.  She  has  not  attempted  to  take  it  during  the  day \ndue to potential drowsiness. Her physical therapy includes manual \ntraction,  which  she  finds  beneficial,  and  assisted  exercises.  She \nalso uses a TENS unit and heat application but is uncertain of their \neffectiveness. \n \n*** \n1. Cervicalgia. \nShe  reports  persistent  pain  in  her  shoulder  and  neck,  radiating \ndown  to  her  shoulder  blade,  with  limited  progress  from  physical \ntherapy. The pain is described as radiating from the shoulder to the \nneck  and  down  the  shoulder  blade.  An  MRI  of  the  cervical  spine \nfrom  2018  showed  some  abnormalities.  An  MRI  of  the  cervical \nspine will be ordered to further evaluate her condition. A referral to \nneurosurgery will be made, contingent upon the completion of the \nMRI. She is advised to contact Dr. Johnson’s office to schedule an \nEMG. The current dose of gabapentin will be continued, and she is \nencouraged  to  take  it  during  the  day  on  weekends  to  assess  its \nimpact on her daily activities, particularly driving. If tolerated, the \ndose may be increased. She is also advised to consider purchasing \na  TENS  unit  for  home  use  and  bring  it  to  physical  therapy  for \noptimal placement and usage. Physical therapy will be reordered to \ncontinue working with her. \n \n The claimant underwent an MRI of the cervical spine on April 2, 2025. Following are the \nfindings and impressions from that MRI as read by Dr. Jay Hedgecock: \nIMPRESSION: \n2 mm anterior sublaxation of C5 and C6 \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-8- \n \nMultilevel   degenerative   disc   disease,   canal   stenosis.   Neural \nforaminal encroachment as described above, most advanced at C4-\nC5. \n \n*** \nFINDINGS: \n2  mm  anterior  subluxation  of  C5  and  C6  is  identified.  There  is \nstraightening    of    the    normal    cervical    lordotic    curve.    Disc \ndesiccation   is   seen   at   each   level   the   cervical   spine   without \nsignificant    reduction    of    vertical    disc    space    height.    The \ncraniocervical  junction  is  normal.  The  cervical  cord  is  of  normal \ncaliber and signal characteristics throughout its length. \n \nC2-C3: Normal level \n \nC3-C4:  Normal  level.  Left  neural  foraminal  narrowing  due  to \nposterior projecting osteophytes. \n \nC4-C5:   Diffuse   posterior   annular   disc   bulge   and   marginal \nostephytic  ridging.  There  is  effacement  of  ventral  and  dorsal  CSF \nspaces, marked cord flattening and mild canal stenosis. The neural \nforamina   are   mildly   narrowed   bilaterally   due   to   posterior \nprojecting osteophytes. \n \nC5-C6:   Mild   canal   stenosis   secondary   to   a   diffuse   posterior \nannular  disc  bulge.  There  is  a  small  superimposed  central  disc \nprotrusion. There is effacement of the ventral CSF space, mild cord \nflattening  and  mild  canal  stenosis.  The  neural  foramina  are  patent \nbilaterally. \n \nC6-C7: Normal level. \n \nC7-T1: Normal level. \n \n On  April  8,  2025,  the  claimant  was  seen  by  Nurse  Practitioner  Kaitlyn  Terrell  at  Mercy \nRogers Neurosurgery. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nHISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: \nDina  “Michelle”  is  a  52-year-old   female   presented   to   the \nneurosurgery  clinic  today  for  evaluation  of  symptoms.  Patient \nreports  that  this  is  a  result  of  an  injury  in  May  2024.  She  has \nworked   and   lifted   a   broken   luggage   off   a   charter   bus   and \nimmediately  felt  pain.  She  states  that  since  that  time  symptoms \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-9- \nhave  been  consistent.  She  states  that  she  has  left-sided  neck  pain \nthat radiates down into the left chest and into the axilla as well as \ndowns  the  back  of  the  left  side  of  the  neck  into  the  left  shoulder \nentire shoulder and then also down the left shoulder blade to below \nthis. She states that in the arm it radiates down into the tricep and \ndown  the  internal  arm  and  out  the  thumb  and  pointer  finger.  She \nstates most the pain is into the thumb joint. At first she was unable \nto close her fist on the left side as the pinky and ring finger would \nnot move correctly. She states that she is also starting to have some \ntenseness  and  pain  in  her  anterior  neck.  She  also  has  static  white \nnoise in her head at all times. She states she does have a little bit of \nright  sided  neck  pain  with  left  greater  than  right.  Patient  reports \nthat   the   pain   is   burning,   sharp/stabbing,   with   numbness   and \ntingling.  She  states  that  the  pain  is  a  jabbing  pain  along  with \nstiffness  and  tense.  She  reports  on  average  pain  is  5-6  out  of  10. \nShe    states    that    massage    makes    the    pain    better    while \nsleeping/working makes it worse. She does report she continues to \nhave  weakness  in  the  left  arm.  She  is  left  hand  dominant.  She \nstates she is dropping objects as well as has difficulty with opening \nobjects.  She  does  report  a  decrease  in  fine  motor  skills  and \ndecrease  in  handwriting.  She  does  report  a  decrease  in  grip  but \nthinks that this is related to thumb. She is not unsteady on her feet. \nPatient has been working with physical therapy and has completed \n7  sessions  at  this  time  and  has  completed  another  round  by  Dr. \nInjury.  She  has  tried  chiropractic  and  massage  therapy  which \nprovide  temporary  relief.  She  does  not  take  any  medications.  She \ndenies  Any  contacts.  Patient  has  any  bladder  or  bowel  continence \nany   saddle   anesthesia.   Patient   has   a   past   medical   history   of \ninsomnia, restless leg syndrome, asthma. \n \n*** \nASSESSMENT AND PLAN: \nMs. Yugen is a 60-year-old female presents the neurosurgery clinic \ntoday for evaluation of cervical radiculopathy and injury at work. I \nrecommend  patient  be  sent  to  pain  management  for  possible \nepidural  steroid  injections.  I  am  also  going  to  send  patient  for \ncervical flexion-extension x-rays today in office. Due to weakness \nin  the  left  hand  and  get  nerve  conduction  studies  EMG/NVS  for \nfurther  evaluation.  Patient  will  follow-up  in  approximately  12 \nweeks.   Patient   verbalized   understanding   all   questions   were \nanswered.  Patient  knows  she  may  contact  our  office  for  any \nquestions, concerns, worsening symptoms. \n \n1. Cervical radiculopathy (Primary) \nAMB REFERRAL TO PAIN CLINIC \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-10- \nAMB REFERRAL TO NEUROSURGERY \nXR CERVICAL SOINE 4 OR 5 VIEWS: Future \n \n2. Weakness of left arm \nAMB REFERRAL TO NEUROSURGERY \n \n Dr. Adam Green with  Mercy  Interventional  Pain  Clinic saw  the  claimant  on  April  30, \n2025, and performed an C6-7 cervical epidural steroid injection on the claimant with thorascopic \nguidance of his needle placement.  \n The claimant was then seen by CNP Brandi Flecter at Mercy Interventional Pain Clinic. \nFollowing is a portion of that medical record: \nHISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: \nDina Michelle Yugen is 52 y.o. female who presents for follow-up \nmanagement of neck pain. She had C6/7 interlaminar ESI and she \nreports 50% relief, improved quality of life, and improved level of \nfunctioning since having these procedures.  \n \nPain is located in neck, left shoulder  and radiates into LUE to her \nhand.  Pain  is  rated  (using  a  Visual  Analog  Scale)  5-10  at  worse, \n2/10  at  best,  &  3/10  usually.  Pain  is  characterized  as  cramping, \nsharp/stabbing,  and  changes  with  severity  but  is  always  present. \nPain  is  aggravated  by  standing  and  exercise.  Pain  is  alleviated  by \nsitting, standing, heat, and touch/massage. \n \n*** \nPlan: \nXR left shoulder \nDiscussed left shoulder inj vs ESI after review of imaging \nContinue  with  OTR  meds  PRN – Tylenol,  ibuprofen,  Aspercreme \nwith lidocaine, Voltaren gel \nContinue HEP \nCounseling \n \n The claimant was again seen at Mercy Interventional Pain Clinic by APN Madhari Patel. \nFollowing is a portion of that medical record: \nCHIEF COMPLAINT: Neck pain and left shoulder pain \n \nHISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS:  \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-11- \nDina Michelle Yugen is a 52 y.o. female who presents for follow-\nup management of neck pain and left shoulder pain. \n \nPatient is s/p Left Glenohumeral Joint  Injection  with Steroid, Left \nAcromioclavicular Joint Corticosteroid Injections and reports 50% \nimprovement  in  pain  and  function  for  a  few  weeks  then  pain \nreturned to baseline. \n \nPain  is  rated  (using  a  Visual  Analog  Scale)  8/10  at  worse,  2/10  at \nbest, & 4/10 usually. Pain is characterized as cramping, numbness, \ntingling/pins and needles, and  changes with severity but is always \npresent.   Pain   is   aggravated   by   any   movement   and   changing \npositions. Pain is alleviated by heat and touch/massage. \n \nShe  continues  to  report  neck  and  shoulder  pain,  can  travel  to  her \nelbow. Feels tight/stiff in her neck, like her tongue gets stuck, her \njaw is stiff, she has been seeing PT and getting dry needling which \nhelps. She saw neurosurgery 08/20/25. \n \n*** \nPlan: \nPatient  has  tried  and  failed  3  months  of  conservative  treatment \nincluding  PT,  OTC  and  prescription  medications  and  injections \nand continues to experience shoulder pain. \nMRI   left   shoulder   without   contrast,   consider   ortho   referral \nthereafter. \nConsider repeat CESI \nContinue  to  OTC  meds  PRN – Tylenol,  ibuprofen,  Aspercreme \nwith lidocaine, Voltaren gel. \nContinue HEP. \n \n The  respondent  in  this  matter  has  filed  a  Motion  to  Supplement  the  Record  and  the \nclaimant has responded to that motion and the respondent then replied. The respondent as stated \nin  his  motion  has  moved  to  place  additional  medical  records  in  record  of  this  case  after  the \nconclusion of the hearing in this matter. After review of the motions submitted by both parties, I \nfind the addition of these medical records to be appropriate due to the respondent’s attempts \nprior to the hearing to collect them and the confusion of the claimant’s name change. \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-12- \nIn order to address adequately this matter under A.C.A. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012) \n(Commission must “conduct the hearing . . . in a manner which best ascertains the rights of the \nparties”), I have blue-backed to the record documents from the Commission’s file on the claim, \nconsisting of 50 pages.  In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 \nArk. App. LEXIS 549, these documents have been served on the parties in conjunction with this \nopinion. I note that those medical records preexist the claimant’s alleged compensable cervical \nspine injury of May 21, 2024. \n The  claimant  has  asked  the  Commission  to  determine  if  she  sustained  a  compensable \nneck or cervical spine injury on or about May 21, 2024. \nIn  order  to  prove  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a  specific  incident  that  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \nevidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs \nand More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \n The  claimant  has  certainly  had neck  or  cervical  issues  that  predate  her  May  21,  2024, \nalleged  injury  date.  The  claimant  gave  testimony  as  such  and  medical  records  in  evidence \nsupport  her  prior  neck  or  cervical  spine  difficulties.  The  claimant  must  be  able  to  prove  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence the existence of objective medical findings regarding the injury to \nher neck or cervical spine she alleges. In the claimant’s May 28, 2024, medical record by APRN \nPrince he declines to treat her for her alleged work injury, stating, “I have discussed with her that \nwe did not get approval from her employer for evaluation of workers’ comp prior to this visit. \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-13- \nShe needs to follow-up with her employer regarding the symptoms in her neck.” However, in the \nAssessment  and  Plan  section  of  that  same  medical  record,  APRN  Prince  does  note,  “Neck \nmuscle spasm.” The claimant’s cervical MRI of April 2, 2025, reports several objective findings \nincluding a C4-C5 annular disc bulge and a C5-C6 diffused posterior annular disc bulge. \n The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  the  existence  of  objective  medical  findings.  The  claimant \nmust also prove a causal connection between the  incident she alleges and  the objective medical \nfindings.  The  claimant  testified  that  she  was  lifting  a  malfunctioning  side  compartment  on  the \nexterior  of  the  bus  she  was  to  drive  when  she  injured  her  neck  or  cervical  spine.  While  the \nclaimant  does  have  a  history  of  prior  difficulties  in  that  area  of  her  body,  reports  to  medical \nproviders have been consistent with her testimony and the objective medical evidence submitted \nin this record. I find that the claimant is able to prove a causal connection between her objective \nmedical findings and the incident she alleges. \n The  claimant  has  asked  the  Commission  to  determine  if  she  is  entitled  to  medical \ntreatment for her compensable neck or cervical spine injury. \nEmployers  must  promptly  provide  medical  services  which  are  reasonably  necessary  in \nconnection  with  the  compensable  injuries, A.C.A.  §11-9-508(a).    However,  injured  employees \nhave  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  medical  treatment  is \nreasonably  necessary.   Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.,  86  Ark.  App.  230,  184  S.W.3d  31 \n(2004).    What  constitutes  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  fact  question  for  the \nCommission,  and  the  resolution  of  this  issue  depends  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence.  \nGansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). \nI  have  reviewed  the  medical  evidence  in  this  matter  and  find  that  the  medical  treatment \nand evaluation of the claimant’s neck or cervical spine submitted and accepted into the record in \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-14- \nthis  matter  dated  after  May  21,  2024,  is  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  for  her \ncompensable neck or cervical spine injury. \n The respondent has asked the Commission to sanction the claimant under A.C.A. §11-9-\n717(b) in that the respondent alleges the claimant has failed to appear for a scheduled deposition. \nThe respondent’s motion is found at Respondents’ Exhibit 2, pages 1-3. The claimant’s response \nto that motion is found at Claimant’s Exhibit 4, page 1-3. The respondent’s reply in support of \ntheir motion is found at Respondents’ Exhibit 2, pages 5-8.  \n A.C.A. §11-9-717(b) states: \nAppropriate   sanctions,   including   the   amount   of   reasonable \nexpenses and attorney’s fees, may also be imposed against a party \nor its attorney which, without good cause shown, fails to appear for \na   hearing,   deposition,   or   any   other   matter   scheduled   by   the \ncommission   or   administrative   law   judge,   or   frivolously   joins \nanother party. \n \n This  is  a  singular  incident  which  the  claimant  states  she  was  unaware  of  the  deposition \nuntil  she  received  a  phone  call  about  the  deposition  on  that  very  day.  In  fact,  the  claimant  was \nworking  that  day  driving  a  bus  for  a  soccer team in  Pensacola,  Florida.  After  review  of  the \nevidence in this matter, I have determined that the respondent’s motion for sanctions under \nA.C.A. §11-9-717(b) should be denied. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact  and conclusions of law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-15- \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nMarch 10, 2025, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed March 13, 2025, are hereby accepted \nas fact. \n 2. The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to her neck or cervical spine on or about May 21, 2024. \n 3.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  entitled  to \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment for her neck or cervical spine injury. \n 4. The respondent’s request for sanctions under A.C.A. §11-9-717(b) in that the claimant \nfailed to appear for a scheduled deposition is hereby denied. \n 5. The respondent’s motion to submit additional medical evidence is hereby granted. \n ORDER \nThe respondents shall pay the reasonable and necessary medical expenses associated with \nthe claimant’s May 21, 2024, neck or cervical spine injury, that is to include medical treatment \nand evaluation for that injury. \nPursuant  to  A.C.A.  §11-9-715(a)(1)(B)(ii),  attorney  fees  are  awarded  “only  on  the \namount of compensation for indemnity benefits controverted and awarded.”   Here, no indemnity \nbenefits were controverted and awarded; therefore, no attorney fee has been awarded.   Instead, \nclaimant’s attorney is free to voluntarily contract with the medical providers pursuant to A.C.A. \n§11-9-715(a)(4). \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n \n\nYugen – H403567 \n \n-16- \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H403567 DINA YUGEN, Employee CLAIMANT PINNACLE CAR SERVICE, INC., Employer RESPONDENT BROADSPIRE, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 12, 2026 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claimant re...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:42.648Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403567-2026-01-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/YUGEN_DINA_H403567_20260112.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}