{"id":"alj-H403662-2025-01-15","awcc_number":"H403662","decision_date":"2025-01-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Chapman","employer_name":"White River Health System, Inc","title":"CHAPMAN VS. WHITE RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. AWCC# H403662 January 15, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CHAPMAN_JAMES_H403662_20250115.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CHAPMAN_JAMES_H403662_20250115.pdf","text_length":16720,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H403662 \nJAMES L. CHAPMAN, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \n \nWHITE RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. \nEMPLOYER         RESPONDENT  \n \nSI ADMINISTRATOR/RISK MANAGEMENT  \nRESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA    RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 15, 2025 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 4\nth\n day of \nDecember 2024, in Batesville, Arkansas. \nClaimant is Pro Se. \nRespondents are represented by Casey Castleberry, Attorney at Law, Batesville, \nArkansas. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 4\nth\n day of December 2024, to determine the issue \nof additional reasonable and necessary medical treatment and temporary total disability \nfrom May 25, 2025, to a date to be determined. A copy of the Pre-hearing Order dated \nOctober 1, 2024, was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part of the record without \nobjection. The Order provided that the parties stipulated as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n \n2. An employer/employee/carrier relationship existed on May 23, 2024, when \nthe claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right ring finger. \n \n3. Respondents have accepted the claim as a compensable medical only claim \nand have paid $1,128.55 in medical expenses  \n \n 4.  The claimant earned an hourly wage of $13.39 and worked a forty (40) week. \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \nThe  claimant’s  and  respondent’s  contentions were set  out  in  their  respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing  questionnaire and made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. The claimant contends that he was performing his job duties on May 23, 2024, \nsterilizing and cleaning a sink area in the operating room, when he wiped downward, and \nseverely sliced his ring finger on his dominant hand.  He further contended that he was \nwrongfully terminated due to filing a workers’ compensation claim on May 25, 2024, and \nhad been unemployed from that date until a date to be determined.  The respondent's \ncontended that the claimant’s injury on May 23, 2023, was transitory and temporary and \nthat he was released to return to work on May 25, 2024.  The claimant’s current problems, \nif any, were not causally related to his compensable injury of May 23, 2024.  Respondent \nhas accepted the claim as a compensable medical expense only claim and contend that \nno further benefits are owed to the claimant.       \n The sole witness to testify was the claimant, James L. Chapman.  The claimant \ndid not introduce any documents into the record, but the respondents introduced twenty-\none pages of documents into the record without objection, and these documents included \nthe documents that the claimant had brought to the hearing to introduce.  From a review \nof the record as a whole, to include medical reports and other matters properly before the \nCommission and having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of \nthe witness, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \n2. That an employer/employee/carrier relationship existed on May 23, 2024, \nwhen the claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right ring finger \nwhich the respondents accepted as medical only. \n \n3. The claimant earned an average hourly wage of $13.39 and worked a forty \n(40) hour week.  \n \n4. The respondents have paid the sum of $1,128.55 in medical expenses. \n \n5. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to prove by        \na   preponderance   of   the   evidence   that   additional   medical   treatment   is \nreasonable and necessary for the compensable ring finger wound. \n \n6. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to prove by \na preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total disability \nfrom May 25, 2024, to a date to be determined. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \nThe claimant, James L. Chapman, was the sole witness to testify.  He testified \nthat he  was  happy  to  have  been  working  for  the  respondent  and  was  performing  his \nduties, wiping down an area, when he sliced his finger “really bad.” He was wiping and \nsanitizing the sink area where the doctors washed their hands. His job was to turn the \noperating rooms. “So, I sliced my finger and one of the surgical techs come - - one of my \nformer employees came and butterflied it. It started bleeding really bad and they wrapped \nit up, sent me to HR to do the workers’ compensation thing. I went to the emergency \nroom. They put glue, glue in it, gave me a day off, told me to return back to work.” Later \nafter  working  around  water,  the  glue  opened  up  and  I  stated I  wished  that  they  had \nstitched it up. He went on to provide that he felt it was impossible to keep his hands dry \nand he figured he wasn’t getting a fair shake because his primary doctor also worked for \nthe respondent. He felt he needed to go to an outside doctor, so he obtained one in Heber \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \nSprings. He testified that he made an appointment with the doctor and when he told the \nrespondent about the appointment, he was terminated. (Tr. P. 8, 9) \nUnder cross examination, he admitted injuring his finger on May 23, 2024, and \nthen being seen in the ER on that day.  He also admitted that the ER doc gave him a note \nthat  released  him  to  return  to  work  on  May  25.  Sometime  after  that,  he  requested  a \nchange of physician to a Dr. Henry Wallace in Heber Springs, and an appointment was \nmade for the claimant to see Dr. Wallace on July 11. He further agreed that he did not \nmake the appointment because he couldn’t. He went on to testify that he suffered from \ntotal disability  due  to  mental  and  physical  impairments under the  Social  Security \nAdministration. He stated that his mother was killed three days before his birthday and at \nthat time “My mother got killed in front of me, so my body got a funny way of letting me \nknow when that time comes around and I’m going in and out, going in and out. I made \nthe appointment, missed it.” “It was when I was a child, so - - And she got raped, murdered \nright in front of me, you know, so - - three days from my birthday, so that’s kind of tough \ntime for me.  You guys don’t know that you know.”  (Tr 10, 11) \nHe admitted that he did not make an effort to change his appointment.  He again \nreiterated that “I go in and out, man, so I required a caretaker, but I had a problem with \nthe  caretaker  where  she  could  no  longer  be  my  caretaker.  She  took  care  of  my \nappointments and things of that nature, you know, getting me to my appointments.”  The \nclaimant wasn’t sure if he had seen any other medical professionals in regard to his finger.  \nHe agreed that he was actually terminated on June 3. (Tr. 12, 13) \nIn regard to the documentary evidence, the First Report of Injury provided that \nthe claimant was injured on May 23, 2024, when he cut his finger on a sharp object while \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \nwiping down a sink area. The N Form corresponded to this information. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. \n1 - 3) The claimant filed a Form C on or about June 6, 2024, describing his injury as he \ntestified, and stated that he was asking for additional medical, temporary total disability, \nand attorney fees. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 6)   \nA  letter  from  Risk  Management  dated  June  5,  2024, provided that  it  was  their \nunderstanding that the claimant did not wish to return to the respondent for treatment and \nthey offered to make the claimant an appointment with a physician that was not affiliated \nwith  the  respondent.  (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  7) A Change  of Physician  Order  to  Dr.  Henry \nWallace was obtained from the Commission, dated the 24\nth\n day of June 2024. (Resp. Ex. \n1, P. 10, 11) The employer also filed a Form 2, dated June 10, 2024, stating that this was \na medical only claim. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 12) \nA White River Health Personnel Report provided that the claimant was given off \nthe day of Friday following his injury. The next day of available work was the following \nTuesday and when the claimant did not appear for work, he was contacted and responded \nsaying that he was going through some stuff and needed to speak to workmans’ comp \nbefore returning to work.  The claimant came to work on May 29 and the 30\nth\n but left early \ndue to the fact that he had received a ride from another employee. On May 31, he made \nHR aware that he would not be to work due to the pain becoming extreme in his finger. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. P. 13, 14) \nThe Patient Registration Form for the claimant on his visit to the respondent’s \nER on May 23, 2024, provided that the claimant cut his right ring finger while cleaning at \nwork and that he suffered from a simple .5 cm superficial finger laceration, that he was to \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \nkeep the area clean and dry, that the Dermabond used to treat the cut would come off on \nits own, and that he could return to work on May 25, 2024. (Resp. Ex. 1, P.  15 – 21) \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn the present matter, the parties stipulated the claimant sustained a compensable \ninjury to his right ring finger on May 23, 2024.  The claimant is therefore not required to \nestablish “objective medical findings” in order to prove that he is entitled to additional \nbenefits. Chamber Door Indus., Inc. v Graham, 59 Ark. App. 224, 956 S.W.2d 196 (1997) \nIn determining whether the claimant has sustained his required burden of proof, \nthe  Commission  shall  weigh  the  evidence  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the \ndoubt  to either  party.   Ark.  Code  Ann  11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298  Ark. \n364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 (1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty to translate evidence \non all issues before it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., \n54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nThe claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to benefits under \nthe  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act  and  must  sustain  that  burden  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence. Dalton v. Allen Engineering Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 635 \nS.W. 2d 823 (1982).  Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater \nweight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark App. 263, \n101  S.W.3d  252  (2003).    Further,  pursuant  to  Ark.  Code  Ann.  11-9-509  (a),  medical \nbenefits owed under the Workers’ Compensation Act are only those that are reasonable \nand necessary.  Employers must promptly provide medical services which are reasonably \nnecessary for treatment of compensable injuries. A.C.A. 11-9-508 (a).  However, injured \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \nemployees  have  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the \nmedical treatment is reasonably necessary for the treatment of the compensable injury. \nOwens  Plating  Co.  v.  Graham,  102  Ark.  App.  299,  284  S.W.  3d  537  (2008).    What \nconstitutes reasonable and necessary treatment is a question for the Commission. Anaya \nv. Newberry’s 3N Mill,  102  Ark.  App.  119,  282  S.W.  3d  269  (2008).    When  assessing \nwhether medical treatment is reasonably necessary for the treatment of a compensable \ninjury,  we  must  analyze  both  the  proposed  procedure  and  the  condition  it  is  sought  to \nremedy.  See Wright  Construction  Co.  v.  Randall,  12  Ark.  App  358,  676  S.W.2d  750 \n(1984) Also, the respondent is only responsible for medical services which are casually \nrelated to the compensable injury.  Treatments to reduce or alleviate symptoms resulting \nfrom a compensable injury, to maintain the level of healing achieved, or to prevent further \ndeterioration  of  the  damage  produced  by  the  compensable  injury  are  considered \nreasonable  medical  services. Foster  v.  Kann  Enterprises,  2019  Ark.  App.  746,  350 \nS.W.2d 796 (2009).   \nIn the present matter, the claimant was seen at the respondent’s ER on the day of \nthe incident and the ER records provide that a .5 cm superficial wound was glued shut.  \nHe was given the following day off and there were then a few days before he was required \nto return to work, which he did but not for a full day.  He continued to complain with pain \nand felt that he was not getting a fair shake for his treatment with a physician associated \nwith the respondent, so a Change of Physician Order was obtained and an appointment \nwas made with a physician in Heber Springs.  The claimant admitted that he never made \nthe appointment. There was no evidence in the record to recommend either more or a \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \ndifferent type of treatment, with the exception of the claimant’s statement where he stated \nthat he should have received stitches for his wound.  \nBased upon the above evidence and the applicable law, the claimant has failed to \nsatisfy the  required  burden  of  proof  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence that \nadditional medical treatment is reasonable and necessary for the compensable ring finger \nwound. \nIn regard to the issue of temporary total disability regarding the claimant’s .5 cm \nsuperficial cut to the claimant’s ring finger, the treating physician gave the claimant the \nfollowing day off and told him that he could then return to work.  Due to the schedule, the \nclaimant was not required to return to work until a few days later.  At that time, he caught \na ride into work for a couple of days with another employee but had to leave early because \nthe  employee  was  sent  home  early  for  some  reason.  The  claimant felt that he wasn’t \ngetting a fair shake with treatment by the physician affiliated with the respondent, so an \nappointment with an out-of-town physician was set up, but the claimant failed to make the \nappointment and failed to attempt to set up another appointment. \nThe claimant contends that he is entitled to temporary total disability from May 25, \n2024,  to  a  day  to  be  determined.    It  appears  that  suitable  work  was  available  with  the \nrespondent.  A.C.A. 11-9-526 provides that if an injured employee refused employment \nsuitable to his or her capacity offered to or procured for him or her, he or she shall not be \nentitled to any compensation during the continuance of the refusal, unless in the opinion \nof  the  Workers’  Compensation  Commission,  the  refusal  is  justifiable.    Suitable \nemployment is a condition precedent to applying Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-526. It is also noted \nthat it is the function of the Commission to determine the credibility of the witnesses and \n\nJames L. Chapman – H403662 \nthe weight to be given their testimony.  Johnson v. Riceland Foods, 47 Ark. App 71, 844 \nS.W.2d626 (1994) Furthermore, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony \nof the claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only \nthose portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Here, the weight of the credible \nevidence is sufficient to show that suitable employment was in fact available and that a \n.5  cm  superficial  cut was  not  sufficient  to  prevent  the  claimant  from  returning  to  work.  \nConsequently, the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to prove by \na preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total disability from May \n25, 2024, to a date to be determined. \nBased  upon  the  above  evidence  and  the  applicable  law,  and  after  weighing  the \nevidence  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  either  party, there  is  no \nalternative but to find that the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof \nby  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that additional  medical  treatment  is  reasonably \nnecessary  for  the  treatment  of  the  compensable  injury.   In addition,  after  weighing the \nevidence  impartially  and  applying  the  applicable  law,  without  giving  the  benefit of  the \ndoubt to either party, it is found that the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden \nof proof by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total disability \nfrom May 25, 2024, to a date to be determined.  If not already paid, the respondents are \nordered to pay the cost of the transcript \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H403662 JAMES L. CHAPMAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WHITE RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SI ADMINISTRATOR/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 15, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Ken...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:21.932Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403662-2025-01-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CHAPMAN_JAMES_H403662_20250115.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}