{"id":"alj-H403830-2025-09-16","awcc_number":"H403830","decision_date":"2025-09-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Caleb Tennis","employer_name":"Conway Regional Medical Center","title":"TENNIS VS. CONWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AWCC# H403830 September 16, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","strain","lumbar","fracture","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TENNIS_CALEB_H403830_20250916.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TENNIS_CALEB_H403830_20250916.pdf","text_length":30727,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H403830 \nCALEB TENNIS, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nCONWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, \nEMPLOYER         RESPONDENT \n \nCONWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA      RESPONDENT  \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 15\nTH\n day of July, \n2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Greg Giles, Attorney at Law, Texarkansas, Arkansas. \nRespondents are represented by Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A  hearing  was  conducted  on  the 15\nth\n day  of July, 2022, and  at  the  time  of  the \nhearing,  the issues before  the  Commission were whether  the  claimant  was  entitled  to \npermanent partial disability of at least five (5%) percent and attorney fees.  All other issues \nwere reserved.  A copy of the Pre-hearing order was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and \nmade part of the record without objection.  The Order provided that the parties stipulated \nthat the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission had jurisdiction of the within claim \nand an employer/employee relationship existed on or about February 6, 2023, when the \nclaimant sustained a compensable injury to his low back.  At the time of the injury, the \nclaimant  was  earning an  average  weekly  wage  of $721.07 entitling  him to a  TTD/PPD \nrate  of $481.00/$361.00,  respectively. The  claim  was  accepted  as  a  compensable \nmedical only claim. \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n2 \n \n The claimant contended that he is entitled to an impairment rating of at least five \n(5%)  percent and  is  entitled  to  permanent  partial  disability  benefits  associated  with his \ncompensable injury, plus attorney fees, with all other issues reserved.  The respondents \ncontended that all appropriate benefits were being paid with regard to the claimant’s injury \nsustained on February 6, 2023, that Dr. Bruffett released the Claimant as having reached \nMMI on May 22, 2023, and that he released the claimant to full duty with no rating.  If any \nrating applies, it is associated with a prior lower back injury sustained by the Claimant on \nOctober 27, 2021.  \n The claimant’s and respondent’s contentions are all set  out  in  their  respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing Questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection.  The sole witness was the claimant, Caleb Tennis.  From a review of the record \nas a whole, to include medical reports and other matters properly before the Commission, \nand having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witness, \nthe  following findings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law are made  in accordance  with  Ark. \nCode Ann. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this  \n      claim. \n2. That an employer/employee relationship existed on or about February 6, \n2023, when the claimant sustained a compensable injury to his low back. \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n3 \n \n3. That at the time of the injury, the claimant was earning an average weekly \nwage of $721.07, sufficient for a TTD rate of $481.00 and a PPD rate of \n$361.00. \n4. The claim was accepted as a compensable medical only claim.  \n5. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof by a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that he is entitled to a permanent \npartial disability rating (PPD) to the body as a whole. \n6. That as a result of the above finding, the issue of attorney fees are moot. \n7. If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay for the cost of the \ntranscript forthwith. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The  Pre-hearing  Order  along  with  the Pre-hearing  questionnaires of the parties \nwere admitted into the record without objection.  The claimant submitted an abstract of \nthe medical records that consisted of 4 pages that were admitted without objection.  In \naddition, the claimant submitted 59 pages of medical records that were admitted without \nobjection.  The respondents submitted 24 pages of medical records which included an \nindex without objection.  In addition, the respondents submitted a second exhibit which \nconsisted  of three pages  of non-medical  documents  with  index, also  admitted  without \nobjection. \n The claimant, Caleb Tennis, was the only witness to testify and stated he was born \non January  9,  1993, and  was  thirty-two  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  hearing.    He  had \nobtained a GED and “some college.”  At the time of the hearing, he was working for SRM \nConcrete as a mixer truck driver, driving all over the state.  His accident occurred while \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n4 \n \nhe was working for Conway Regional back on February 6\nth\n, 2023, but he had previously \nsuffered an earlier injury also while working for Conway Regional back on October 27, \n2021.  He thought that he had started working for Conway Regional back in February of \n2021.    He  was  hired  as  a  gastroenterology  technician and handled equipment  for  the \ndoctors.  His job consisted of prepping and cleaning scopes, assisting the doctors during \na procedure to remove polyps, logging the samples and making sure that they get to the \nlabs, and at times assisting in the process of lifting and moving patients. (Tr. 6 – 8) \n He was initially injured while transporting a “rather large” patient from the patient \ntower to the GI lab, and in the process of moving the patient who was resting on a wheeled \nbed into the elevator, the bed’s wheels turned sideways in the doorway opening of the \nelevator and became stuck.  No assistance was available, so the claimant attempted to \npick up the patient’s bed in October of 2021, and the claimant suffered back pain and pain \nin  his  legs.  He  was  sent  to  company  doctor,  Johnson,  following  the  injury  where  he \nreceived  an  MRI,  and  was  prescribed  muscle  relaxers,  steroids,  and  physical  therapy.   \nHe was off work for a week which was covered under PTO.  He stated that he was initially \nplaced on light duty immediately following the accident and was later completely released \nafter being seen by Dr. Bruffett.  The claimant stated he felt “actually pretty normal” after \nhis release and returned to full duty at Conway Regional.  He required no treatment for \nany back or leg pain until February 6\nth\n, 2023. (Tr. 9 - 11) \n The  second  accident  on  February  6\nth\n,  2023,  occurred  while the  claimant  was \nworking in the decontamination room where equipment was washed and sanitized.  The \nclaimant stated he bent over to place a scope that weighed from five to ten pounds in the \nwasher and felt a sharp pain in his back.  “I felt fine until I bent forward with it.”  “When \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n5 \n \nthe pop happened, it was like severe pain.  I felt really inflamed, and then from there it \nshot down into my legs.  And I remember that I almost fell over and I had to grab my - - \nthe two washers to keep myself upright.”  After the incident, the claimant was sent home.  \nHe stated that he requested to see Dr. Johnson, and his claim and his request to see Dr. \nJohnson were accepted. (Tr. 13)  He was again treated with muscle relaxers, steroids, \nphysical therapy, and received another MRI.  He continued to work having sharp pains in \nhis  back  and  his  left  leg.   He  was again sent  to  Dr.  Bruffett one  or  two  times,  and  Dr. \nBruffett compared the MRI’s and placed the claimant at MMI on May 23, 2023.  He was \nreleased and not placed on any restrictions.  “After Injury Number One, I was fine, but \nTwo, even after I saw Bruffett, I still had the back and leg pain, nerve pain.”  After being \nreleased in regard to injury Number Two, “I still had my lower back pain, the same lower \nback pain, and the pain in my legs, or my leg.”  He went on to state that he returned to \nwork full time, didn’t seek any more additional medical treatment, and was just trying to \nwork and deal with it and continued to work for the respondent, Conway Regional. (Tr. \n14, 15) \nIn regard to no longer working at Conway Regional, the claimant testified that a \ndoctor left the hospital, and they started talking about reducing his hours.  He needed to \nsupport his family, so he looked for work elsewhere.  He then went to work for Crossroads, \nin  November  or December of 2023.    He  was  told  that  the new job  was  going  to be as \nneeded.   He  had  second  thoughts  about  the  new  job,  so  he  contacted  his previous \nsupervisor, Kayce O’ Conner, and asked if he could return to Conway Regional and work \nin a different department.  He stated that his supervisor was agreeable.  He then went to \nan orientation  at  Conway  Regional  but  was  then  called  by  the  hiring  manager  of \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n6 \n \nCrossroads, who wanted to hire him as a full-time CDL driver.  As a result of that request, \nhe decided to stay at Crossroads, and sent a resignation notice to his former manager at \nConway  Regional.  (Tr.  16,  17)    The  claimant  went  on  to  state that he  would  return  to \nConway Regional today, but was still having issues with his back and leg.  In regard to \nhis pain, “If I am more active one day than the other, if I’m lifting more stuff up, it’s very \nnoticeable and I’ll feel the back in my lower back and the nerve pain in my leg.  It just kind \nof depends on how active or what I’m really doing that day.”   \nThe claimant stated that he has continued to work at Crossroads and admitted he \nalleged a work-related injury while working for them and it was referenced in the doctor’s \nrecords of January 29.  He was lifting a box when he felt a weird pain in his back which \nwas the same pain he felt before.  Consequently, he received another MRI and was again \nsent  to  Dr.  Bruffett.  (Tr.  18,  19)    Dr.  Bruffett  had  no recommendations  and  nothing \nchanged nor did his situation worsen after the Crossroads incident.  “Some days I’ll still \nhave the back pain and the leg pain just depending on basically how active I am.  You \nknow, if I go out and I lift like 400 pounds of feed, I’m going to feel it the next day, but it’s \npretty much the same.”   In regard to his current job, he stated he just sits in the truck and \nhas a remote control that controls his truck when he is pouring the concrete. (Tr. 20)  The \nclaimant denied seeing any doctors in regard to his back and leg pain since his last visit \nto Dr. Bruffett on April 3\nrd\n, 2024.  The claimant denied ever talking to Dr. Shane McAlister \nor Dr. Michael Calhoun.  He went on to state that he felt he had never really full recovered \nfrom the second injury. (Tr. 21) \nUnder  cross  examination,  the  claimant  admitted  he  had  previously  stated  in  his \ndeposition that once he got into the elevator at Conway Regional on October 27\nth\n, 2021, \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n7 \n \nsomehow the elevator became unlevel, and he had to lift the bed three inches out of the \ncrack.  The patient on the bed weighed between 400 to 450 pounds.  He also admitted \nthat he had earlier stated when he got up from his stool in the operating room, he felt a \nshooting pain in his back.  The pain initially traveled to his left leg, but after a couple of \nhours, the  pain went  down  both  legs.  Additionally,  he admitted  he  had  stated  that  his \nlower back was on fire and also that his groin was also pretty bad.  He also admitted that \nDr. Johnson had prescribed pain pills, but he did not take them, due to a family history of \nabuse.  (Tr.  22, 23)    The  claimant  also  stated  that  in  response  to a  discussion  with  Dr. \nBruffett after the October 21\nst\n injury (the first injury), there had been a discussion about \nsurgery.  He admitted that he had stated in his deposition that he did not want surgery at \nthat time with one of the issues being his age. (Tr. 24) \n  In  regard  to  the  second  injury  while  cleaning  the  scopes, he  admitted  that  he \nagain performed light duty afterwards, just like the first injury, and then continued full duty \nuntil the end of 2023, when he left due to the possibility of his hours being reduced.  He \nadmitted then going to work for Crossroads Building Supply and being sent for a physical \nto obtain his CDL. (Tr. 25)  He thought that he obtained his CDL in November of 2023 \nand would have then received his physical, and his CDL was still good on the day of the \nhearing.  He also admitted that he settled his claim that involved him picking up a box that \nweighed  100  pounds, and  at  the  time  of  his  deposition  was  working  for  Ridout,  which \ncontinued until his most recent job.  He admitted to working 40 to 55 hours a week and \nlifting  pieces of  wood  that  weighed up  to  50 pounds.    He also  admitted  he  is  currently \nworking 40 to 60 hours a week. He responded “No” to the question in his deposition, “Is \nyour back keeping you from doing anything right now?”  He also admitted that he was not \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n8 \n \ntaking  any  pain medication  except maybe  a Tylenol  every  once  in  a  while  and  that  he \nmight develop an issue when he had lifted 400 pounds of feed for his farm animals with \nthe bags weighing fifty (50) pounds each. (Tr. 26 – 28)  \n The  claimant’s  exhibit  one  consisted  of  an  abstract  of  the  table  of  contents \ncontaining  four  pages.    The  actual medical  records  consisted  of fifty-nine  pages  which \nincluded  a  table  of  contents.    The  medical  records  provided that  the  claimant  initially \npresented to Dr. Gil E. Johnson, a physician at the College Park Family Clinic on February \n7, 2023.  The progress note provided that the claimant had injured his back when he lifted \na scope while leaning forward.  He developed a sharp pain which he related as a 10 out \nof 10.  He suffered a previous back injury on October 27, 2021, and was then also seen \nby Dr. Johnson on November 23, 2024.  His workup at that time included an X-ray, MRI, \nMedrol Dosepak, muscle relaxants, physical therapy, and light duty restrictions.  The MRI \nshowed  spine  spondylosis  with  a mild  disc bulge and  a  left  paracentral  protrusion  with \nmass effect on the left lateral recess with moderate neural foraminal narrowing at L5.  At \nthe time of the previous injury, the claimant was last seen by Dr. Johnson on March 1, \n2022,  who  then  referred  him  to  Dr.  Bruffett.    A  follow-up  visit  was  scheduled  with  Dr. \nBruffett but for some reason the claimant failed to appear.  At that time, the orthopedist \nnoted in his chart notes that he could not state the source of the claimant’s pain was the \nbulging disc at L5 – S1.  The report went on to provide for conservative management with \nMedrol dose packs, physical therapy, application of a heating pad, and sedentary duty. \n(Cl. Ex. 2, P. 2, 3) \n Claimant returned to Dr. Johnson on February 7, 2023, and the report provided he \nhad suffered a new injury consisting of an acute strain on February 6, 2023.  Claimant \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n9 \n \nwas  placed  on  sedentary  work  with  a ten-pound  lifting  limit.    A  Medrol  dose  pack  and \nZanaflex were prescribed. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 4 - 6)  The claimant then returned to Dr. Johnson \nfor a “follow up for the new injury” on February 10, 2023.  The report recommended \nstarting physical therapy. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 7 - 10)  The claimant again returned to Dr. Johnson \non March 3, 2023, and the report provided that there was less pain when palpating the \nL5 – S1 area.  The MRI on February 23, 2022, was reviewed by Dr. Johnson. (Cl. Ex. 2, \nP. 10 – 12)  Claimant then returned for another follow up with Dr. Johnson on March 14, \n2023.  The report provided that a referral to a specialist may be required. (Cl. Ex. 2, 14, \n15)  Claimant again returned to Dr. Johnson on March 31, 2023, and the report provided \nhe has in pain while sitting, which was a new problem since the injury.  Additionally, he \nhad pain when bending forward with most of his pain coming from L5 – S1.  A new MRI \nwas recommended. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 16 – 18) \n  The MRI report of April 11, 2023, provided for a normal lordotic curvature of the \nlumbar spine with a 2 mm grade 1 retrolisthesis of L5 on S1 which appeared degenerative \netiology.  No acute fracture was noticed due to the imaging.  There was no spinal cord \nstenosis at T12 – L1.  Under impression, the report provided for spondylosis with a mild \ndisc bulge and left paracentral to left foraminal disc herniation with moderate mass effect \non the left lateral recess and contact of the descending left S1 nerve root by herniated \ndisc, moderate right and moderate to severe left neural foraminal narrowing, which has \nmildly progressed since that previous study. The report also stated that the remainder of \ndegenerative changes as above with no other spinal canal stenosis or other moderate to \nhigh-grade neural foraminal narrowing. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 18 – 20)  Dr. Johnson then referred \nthe claimant to an orthopedic specialist on April 19, 2023. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 22). \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n10 \n \n Claimant  then  presented  to  Dr.  Wayne  Bruffett  on  May  22,  2023.  The  report \nprovided  that  the  claimant  still  had some  mild  residual  symptoms  “but  is  not  really \nimpaired by this any longer.”  “There may be some subtle progression at L5 – S1 of the \nlateral or lateral recess bulging disc.  Some of this is probably disc osteophyte complex.  \nIt is not a great quality scan.  But it may have progressed just a little.”  “I would say he is \nnow at maximum medical improvement from this February incident.  I think he can return \nto work without restrictions. I do not think he is impaired to the extent where he needs an \nimpairment rating per se.”  A return to work with regular duty note was issued by Dr. \nBruffett. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 23 -28) \n A third MRI occurred on March 4, 2024, which provided that compared to the prior \nexam, the degree of stenosis had increased slightly.  There was a mild to moderate diffuse \ndevelopmental canal narrowing with L3-4 and L4-5 small broad-based central herniation \nproducing  mild  canal  and  bilateral  recess/foraminal  stenosis.    At  L5-S1,  there  was \nmoderate broad-based left paracentral herniation producing severe left recess, moderate \nright recess, and moderate to severe bilateral foraminal stenosis. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 29, 30) \nThe claimant then returned to Dr. Bruffett on April 3, 2024.  The report provided that after \nreviewing the MRI prior to the work event and the one afterwards, Dr. Bruffett did not see \nany  evidence  of  an  objective  injury  on  the  imaging  that  could  be related  to  the  work \naccident on January 29, 2024.  He stated he would not recommend any further treatment, \nand the claimant was at maximum medical improvement with no rating and could return \nto his regular job.  (Cl. Ex. 2, 31 - 33)     \n A Records Review Report by Dr. Shane McAlister, dated January 19, 2025, and \nprovided  at  the  request  of  Ms.  Cassidy  Santillan,  CAWC,  of  Cadence  Insurance  Risk \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n11 \n \nManagement  Resources,  provided  for  a  diagnosis  of  degenerative  disc  disease  of  the \nlumbar spine.  The report provided that Dr. McAlister reviewed the medical records of the \nclaimant that involved his lower back, including the MRI scan that occurred prior to the \nwork  injury, and an MRI  scan afterwards on  April  11,  2023,  and  also one on  March 4, \n2024.  The report by Dr. McAlister provided there was a disparity in pain complaints and \npain behavior.  In regard to the dermatomal map that the report provided, the left sided \ndisc protrusion would have created a left L5 radicular distribution to be symptomatic, and \nthere was nowhere in this record suggesting that.  Nor was there any evidence of spinal \ninstability.    There  was  never  any  finding on the  diagnostic  imaging  of  any  bony  or  soft \ntissue damage that would be necessary to define a traumatic injury.  No traumatic injury \nwas identified. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 35 – 54) \n A letter to Dr. Michael Calhoun from claimant’s counsel dated March 31, 2025, was \nalso made part of the record and the letter provided Dr. Bruffett had given the claimant a \n0% impairment rating.  Dr. Calhoun of Pain Treatment Centers of America in Little Rock, \nArkansas, and certified by the Board of Neurological Surgery on May 17, 1995, provided \nin a letter also dated March 31, 2025, that he had reviewed the medical records available, \nwhich  included  the  MRI  prior  to  the  work-related accident and then the two MRI’s that \noccurred after the work- related accident.  He opined that since the claimant had suffered \na lumbar disc herniation with some residual symptoms, “he is awarded a 5% impairment \nof the whole person.  This is according to Table. 75, page 3/113, of the Fourth Edition of \nthe AMA Guidelines to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.” (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 55 – 59) \n The respondent also submitted medical records without objection, a report by Dr. \nBruffett dated May 22, 2023, and a Review of Records and Radiology Films by Dr. Shane \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n12 \n \nMcAlister dated  January  19,  2025.  (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  1 – 23)    Both  have  been  earlier \nreviewed and discussed.  Respondents also submitted two pages of non-medical records \nthat  were admitted  without  objection.    The  claimant  submitted  a  letter  of  resignation  to \nConway  Regional,  the  respondent,  on  January  3,  2024,  thank  ing  the  hospital  for  the \nsupport and opportunities that they had provided. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 1.) \nRespondents also submitted the AR-C Form dated June 12, 2024, that provided that the \nclaimant, while lifting scopes that appeared to have weighed 80 to 100 pounds, felt a pop \nand felt a “burning” and that this occurred on January 22, 2024. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 2)   \nDISCUSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nThe claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe is entitled to compensation benefits under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law.  \nIn determining whether the claimant has sustained the burden of proof, the Commission \nshall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party.  \nArk. Code Ann 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 \n(1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty to translate evidence on all issues before \nit into findings of fact.  Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 \nS.W.2d  179  (1996).  This  includes the Commission’s province to reconcile conflicting \nmedical evidence.  Arkansas Health Ctr. v. Burnett, 2018 Ark. App. 427, 558 S.W. 3d 408.   \nThere is no dispute that the claimant sustained a compensable work-related injury \nto his lower back while cleaning and picking up scopes used in colonoscopies and that \nthe scopes weighed between five to ten pounds.  On the date of the injury on January 22, \n2024, the claimant was employed by the gastroenterology department of the respondent, \nConway Regional Medical Center.  The claimant had suffered an earlier injury to his lower \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n13 \n \nback on October 27, 2021, while moving a patient for the respondent. The respondents \naccepted the  January  22,  2024, claim as  medical  only, and the claimant was initially \ntreated  by  Dr.  Gil  Johnson  of  Conway  Regional  Medical  Center,  who  had  previously \ntreated  the claimant  for  his  earlier  back  injury.    The claimant  was  then  referred  to  Dr. \nWayne Bruffett, who had also earlier treated him for his previous back injury.  Dr. Bruffett \nsaw the claimant on May 22, 2023, for further treatment with the report providing that the \nclaimant had mild residual symptoms “but is not really impaired by this any longer.”  Dr. \nBruffett went on to opine that the claimant was at maximum medical improvement and he \ndid not think that he was impaired to the extent that he required an impairment rating and \nreturned  the  claimant  to  work,  regular duty.   Later the Claimant  received another  MRI, \nand Dr. Bruffett’s report provided that he compared and reviewed the earlier MRI with the \nlatest one and opined that he did not see an objective finding of an injury on the imaging \nthat  could  be  related  to  the  work  accident.    He  also  stated  that  the claimant  was  at \nmaximum medical improvement and that he could return to his regular job. \nDr. Shane McAlister, who never physically saw the Claimant, provided and issued \na Records Review Report at the request of Insurance Risk Management Resources and \nprovided a report, dated January 19, 2025, which provided for a diagnosis of degenerative \ndisc disease of the lumbar spine of claimant.  The report went on to state that there was \na disparity in the claimant’s pain complaints and his pain behavior and then provided a \ndermatomal map that showed that the left sided disc protrusion should have produced a \nleft L5 radicular distribution to be symptomatic, and there was no-where in the medical \nrecords that suggested that finding, nor any evidence of spinal instability or of traumatic \ninjury. \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n14 \n \nDr. Calhoun, who also never physically saw the Claimant, received a request from \nthe claimant’s counsel to review the records, and he issued a  report  on  the  day  of the \nrequest.    Dr.  Calhoun  stated  he  had  also  reviewed  the  medical  records  available, \nincluding the MRI’s, and he disagreed with Dr. Bruffett’s impairment rating due to the fact \nthat the claimant suffered a disc herniation with some residual symptoms and the claimant \nconsequently should be awarded  a  five  percent  impairment  rating  to  the  whole person \nbased on Table 75, page 3/113 of the 4\nth\n Edition of the AMA Guidelines for the Evaluation \nof Permanent Impairment. \nThe parties agreed that the primary issue to be litigated before the Commission is \nthe permanent impairment rating.  Permanent impairment is any permanent functional or \nanatomical loss remaining after the healing period has been reached. Johnson v. General \nDynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  Any determination of the existence \nor extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical \nfindings. A.C.A. 11-9-704 (7)(B).  Objective findings are those findings which cannot come \nunder the voluntary control of the patient. A.C.A. 11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  Although it is true \nthat the legislature has required medical evidence to establish a compensable injury, it \ndoes  not  follow that  such  evidence  is  required  to  establish  each  and  every  element  of \ncompensability. Stephens  Truck  Lines  v.  Millican, 58  Ark.  App.  275,  950  S.W.2d  472 \n(1997).  Medical  opinions  addressing  impairment  must  be  stated  within  a  reasonable \ndegree  of  medical  certainty.  A.C.A.  11-9-102(16)(B).    Permanent  benefits  shall  be \nawarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause of \nthe disability or impairment. A.C.A. 11-9-102(F)(ii)a.  “Major cause” means more than fifty \npercent (50%) of the cause. A.C.A. 11–9-102(14). \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n15 \n \nIn  the  present  matter, Doctor Bruffett,  the  treating  physician, who  had  the \nopportunity to have a hands-on evaluation of the claimant, opined that the claimant had \nreached maximum medical impairment, could return to regular work, and that there were \nno objective findings that the claimant’s injury was work related.  He opined that the \nclaimant  had  a  zero  percent  impairment  rating.    Dr.  McAlister,  who  did  not  have  the \nopportunity to personally evaluate the claimant, but did have an opportunity to evaluate \nthe medical records and MRI’s,  opined in  his  report  that  there  was  a  disparity  in  the \nclaimant’s pain complaints and pain behavior and then provided a dermatomal anatomical \nmap to show that the claimed pain did not correspond to the disc protrusion at L5.  Only \nDr. Calhoun, who also did not have the opportunity to physically evaluate the claimant but \nalso had an opportunity to evaluate the medical records and the MRI’s, provided that the \nclaimant’s  disc  herniation  and  residual  symptoms should result  in  a  five  percent \nimpairment  rating  to  the  body  as  a  whole, based  upon  the 4\nth\n Edition  of  the AMA \nGuidelines.  \nIt is well settled that the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence \nand the authority to determine its medical soundness and probative force. Williams v. Ark. \nDept. of Cmty. Corr., 2016 Ark. App. 427, 502 S.W. 3d 534 (2016).  Although Dr. Calhoun \nissued  a permanent  partial  disability  (PPD) rating  to  the body as  whole  of five percent \n(5%), after a review of the medical records and the MRI’s, the opinion issued by Doctor \nBruffett of a zero percent (0%) permanent partial disability (PPD) rating to the body as a \nwhole is found to be entitled to a more significant evidentiary weight than the opinion of \nDr. Calhoun, due to Doctor Bruffett’s personal examinations of the claimant, and is found \nto be controlling.  Additionally, Dr. McAlister’s opinion, which was also admittedly based \n\nCALEB TENNIS – H403830 \n16 \n \nonly upon a review of the medical records, tends to bolster the opinion of Dr. Bruffett, due \nto Dr. McAlister pointing out that there was a disparity in the claimant’s pain complaints \nand pain behavior, and in also providing a dermatomal map to show that the claimed pain \ndid not correspond to the disc protrusion at L5.  It is also noted that the claimant testified \nthat he is currently driving a cement mixer truck and develops a soreness in his back after \nmoving 400 pounds of feed in 50-pound bag increments.  He also admitted moving wood \nthat weighed up to 50 pounds. \nSince the claimant is found to not have a permanent partial disability rating to the \nbody as a whole or having zero percent (0%), all other issues are moot. \nCONCLUSION \nBased upon the available evidence, and after weighing it impartially without giving \nthe benefit of the doubt to either party, it is found that the claimant has failed to satisfy the \nrequired burden of proof by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he is entitled \nto a permanent partial disability rating (PPD) to the body as a whole.  Due to this finding, \nall other issues are moot.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the cost \nof the transcript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _____________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H403830 CALEB TENNIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CONWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CONWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:24.452Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403830-2025-09-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TENNIS_CALEB_H403830_20250916.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}