{"id":"alj-H404078-2025-03-21","awcc_number":"H404078","decision_date":"2025-03-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Marcie Hill","employer_name":"Silica Transport, Inc","title":"HILL VS. SILICA TRANSPORT, INC. AWCC# H404078 March 21, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","shoulder","rotator cuff","lumbar","cervical","fracture","ankle","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HILL_MARCIE_H404078_20250321.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HILL_MARCIE_H404078_20250321.pdf","text_length":32688,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H404078 \nMARCIE HILL, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nSILICA TRANSPORT, INC., EMPLOYER    RESPONDENT  \n \nARKANSAS TRUCKING ASSOCIATION \nSI FUND/CCMSI, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA    RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 21, 2025 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 4\nTH\n day of \nFebruary 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Mark Alan Peoples, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, \nArkansas. \nRespondent is represented by Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 4\nth\n day of February 2025, to determine the issue \nof compensability for claimed work-related injuries to the claimant’s back, side, shoulders, \nleg,  and acquired  PTSD, based  upon  a MVA that  the  claimant  was  involved  in on \nDecember 26, 2023, in the state of Tennessee.  Additionally, the claimant contends he is \nentitled to temporary total disability from January 6, 2024, to a date to be determined, and \nattorney fees.  All other issues are reserved.  The respondents contended that the claim \nwas initially accepted as medical only but was denied in its entirety on January 6, 2024.  \nIn addition, the respondents contended that although the claim was originally accepted \nas  compensable,  the  claimant  failed  to  go  for  available  medical  treatment  and  that \nconsequently, there are no objective findings relating to the alleged injuries. Respondents \nfurther contended that the claimant later had an additional motor vehicle accident on or \nabout January 6, 2024, which was not work related and the later accident was the reason \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nfor  the  claimant’s  required  medical  treatment. A copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  order  was \nmarked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part of the record without objection. The Order \nprovided  that  the  parties  stipulated  that  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation \nCommission  has  jurisdiction  of  the  within  claim  and  that  an  employer/employee \nrelationship existed on December 26, 2023, when the claimant was involved in a work \nrelated motor vehicle accident (MVA) where the claimant alleges he sustained injuries to \nhis back, side, shoulders, and leg, with PTSD arising out of the accident. The parties also \nstipulated that the claimant’s average weekly wage was $1276.90, on the day of the work-\nrelated accident which corresponds to a weekly indemnity rate of $835.00 for temporary \ntotal disability and a permanent partial disability rate of $626.00. In addition, the parties \nstipulated that the respondents initially accepted the claim but have since controverted \nthe claim in its entirety.   \n The claimant’s and respondent’s  contentions  are  set  out  in  their  respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing Questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. The witnesses consisted of Ginnie Hill, the claimant’s wife, and the claimant \nMarcie Hill. From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports and other \nmatters properly before the Commission and having had an opportunity to observe the \ntestimony and demeanor of the witnesses, the following findings of fact and conclusions \nof law are made in accordance with 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\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \n2. That an employer/employee relationship existed on December 26, 2023, \nwhen the claimant was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident in \nTennessee. \n3. That the claimant earned an average weekly wage of $1276.90, sufficient for \na TTD/PPD rate of $835.00/$626.00 respectively.  \n4. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof by a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that he sustained a compensable \nwork-related injury to his back, side, shoulders, and leg, and the resulting \nclaim of PTSD on December 26, 2023. \n5. That all remaining issues are moot. \n6. 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 exhibit of 90 \npages of medical records with an index that was admitted without objection. In addition, \nthe claimant submitted a second exhibit consisting of nine pages of non-medical records \nwith  an  index  that  was  admitted  without  an  objection. The  respondents submitted an \nexhibit  with  34  pages of  medical  records with  an  index  without  an  objection.  The \nrespondents also  submitted an  exhibit of twenty  pages  of  non-medical  records  with  an \nindex as their exhibit two with no objection. The respondents final exhibit, the deposition \nof Arlette Williams, was admitted as their exhibit three without objection. \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \n Ms. Ginnie Hill, the wife of the claimant, was the first witness to testify. She testified \nthat she was the wife of the claimant, that they had been together for 10 years, and were \na married couple on December 26, 2023, the date of the accident. She testified that her \nhusband, the claimant, had been hurting all the time since the accident date. She stated \nthat the pain was mostly in his back, but also in his leg and he was also depressed. (Tr. \n5, 6) \n The claimant was the second and final witness to testify. The claimant testified that \nhe had worked for the Respondent for about five years at the time of the accident.  He \nworked  as  a  flatbed  truck  operator.  His  truck  would  be  loaded  by  others,  but  he  was \nrequired to  tarp and  strap  it,  which was a  very  physical  job.  On  December  26,  he  was \ndriving his truck from Kentucky and had made it to mile market 35 in Tennessee coming \nback west into Memphis. He realized that his hours for service were about to end, and he \nneeded to obtain something similar to a pass to get to his destination, so he pulled over \nonto the shoulder to place the change of duty of status since he was about 30 minutes \nfrom home. He put his flashers on, while pulling over on the shoulder to obtain the change \nof status and then pulled back on the highway when he was hit from behind. He thought \nthat he had been pulled over on the shoulder for about five minutes. He testified that he \nhad  gotten  up  to  about  55  miles  per  hour  when  he  was  rear  ended by  another  tractor \ntrailer. He stated he sustained injuries to his lower back and left shoulder. He again pulled \nover to the side and got out and that’s when he started noticing all the pain in his lower \nback and shoulder. An ambulance came and picked up the other driver who had hit him.  \nAfter the ambulance picked up the other driver, the claimant talked to the state trooper \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nand by this time, the claimant’s wife arrived and took him to the emergency room in West \nMemphis. (Tr. 7 – 11) \n The  claimant  stated  that  he  took  pictures  of  the  accident  scene  and  notified  his \nsupervisor. His wife took him to the hospital, and he was later released. He did not return \nto work the next day, but possible the next. (Tr. 12) He returned to work, but stated he \nwas  unable  lift  the  tarp  for  the  next  load  and  was  unable  to  do  anything  physical. He \ntestified that he told them what was going on and he needed to follow up with his doctors.  \nHe thought he had worked three days but had not worked for the Respondents since then.  \nHe went on to testify that he continued to suffer pain and discomfort in his shoulders and \nback. (Tr. 13, 14) \n The  claimant  was  then  questioned  about  a  picture  of  his  personal  vehicle.  The \nvehicle was involved in a later motor vehicle accident on January 6, when his car was hit \nwhile stopped at a stop sign. The claimant stated that he got out of the car to ask why the \ncar had hit him in the back and before he could obtain insurance information, it left the \nscene of the accident. (Tr. 15) He went on to testify that he was able to get his car repaired \nfor  $169.00, and if he sustained any injuries, he “couldn’t differentiate  what  was  what \nbecause  everything  that  was  happening,  I  was  already  experiencing  it,  anyway.  I  was \nalready in pain.” (Tr. 16) The claimant testified he eventually had surgery for a rotator cuff \ntear and a partial tear in his bicep on August 19, 2024, he believed. He was still having \nproblems  and  was  not  aware  of  any  doctor  releasing  him  to  return  to  work. He  also \ntestified that he told another employee about the accident, who in turn told the supervisor, \nwhich in turn caused more problems for his family. The conversation occurred on January \n7\nth\n, and on January 8\nth\n, he was told that workers’ comp would not be awarded anymore \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \ndue to the second accident. He stated that he has received no money from workers’ \ncompensation since January 8\nth\n, 2024. He thinks he is still employed by the respondent, \nand his health insurance has been paying for his medical treatment. He went on to state \nthat he was not able to physically work his old job. He still had a limited range of motion \ntrying  to put  his  arm  over  his  head,  and  the job  required him to  lift  tarps weighing 150 \npounds over  his  head.  He  also  stated  that  strapping  down  the tarps  involved a  lot  of \nkneeling and bending and stooping and climbing up on the top of the trailer. (Tr. 17- 21)  \n Under  cross  examination,  the  claimant  admitted  that  he  was  contesting  about \n$90,000 in child support arrearages. He explained that it was two separate child support \ncases for the same children, with one being in Tennessee and one in Mississippi. (Tr. 22) \nHe also admitted that during his deposition he did not remember hitting anything inside \nthe cab of his truck. He thought he lost control of his truck for a minute but gained control \nof it after the impact. He was not knocked off the interstate. His wife drove over and picked \nhim  up  and  took  him  to  the  Baptist  Emergency  Room.  He  also  admitted  that  in  his \ndeposition, he testified he had told the people at Baptist that he hurt his back, left leg, and \nshoulder. (Tr. 23, 24). \n The  claimant  admitted  that  his  adjuster,  Arlette  Williams,  had  scheduled  an \nappointment on the 9\nth\n with Doctor Meridith, but that he received a call the day before his \nscheduled visit that stated it had been cancelled. He also admitted he went ahead with \nthe visit and put it on his Blue Cross Blue Shield. He also admitted receiving short-term \ndisability which was no longer being paid. The payments for it were taken out of his check \nevery week. (Tr. 25) The claimant also admitted his doctors at Baptist in West Memphis \nonly took him off work for a few days and then asked him to follow up with his primary \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nphysician. He also admitted that he was driving his wife’s Jeep at the time of the second \naccident and that his wife was taken from the scene of the second accident by ambulance.  \nAdditionally, he admitted that he had testified in his deposition that he did not go anywhere \nfor treatment after the January 6\nth \naccident. He also admitted that prior to December 26, \nhe  had  been  told that he  had  bursitis in  his left  shoulder  by  Dr.  Miller  at  the  Campbell \nClinic back around 2018.  (Tr. 26, 27)  \n The claimant also admitted that he had gone to Levy Dermatology due to the fact \nhe thought the first motor vehicle accident caused him to lose hair on several spots on \nhis head. He also admitted going to the Baptist Emergency on December 27\nth\n, after the \nfirst accident. He was then questioned about a statement he made during his visit to the \nBaptist West Memphis Emergency Room about going 80 miles per hour at the time of the \naccident when he was hit, and he denied that he was going that speed at the time of the \naccident during his testimony. He was also questioned about the report providing that his \nshoulder was normal on the December 27\nth\n visit, and he stated that he was not aware of \nthat.  He  agreed  he  was  told  that  he  could  return  to  work  on  December  30\nth\n.  He  also \nadmitted to a lumbar spine study on January 4\nth\n, and a report from the Campbell Clinic \nthat  provided  he  had  bilateral  rotator  cuff  tendinitis  since  July  of  22.  He  was  then \nspecifically  asked  about  the  report  reflecting  he  was  at  the  clinic  for  cervical  and  left \nshoulder  symptomatology  he  thought  was  due  to  a  January  6\nth\n of 2024  motor  vehicle \naccident and he responded that “It was the wrong date, correct accident but the wrong \ndate, you know.”  He admitted he told the doctor that he was the driver of a Jeep Cherokee \nthat  was  struck  from  behind. He  was  also  questioned  about  a  report  from  Levy \nDermatology dated February 21\nst\n of 24 that provided that his chief complaint was hair loss \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \non the scalp which the claimant agreed to but not to the report providing that it was due \nto an accident in January of 24. (Tr. 26 – 31) On redirect, the claimant testified he never \nhad a torn rotator cuff, but that he did tell them about the bursitis. (Tr. 32)  \n   The claimant’s medical exhibit consisted of 90 pages including a two-page index.  \nThe claimant presented to the Baptist ER on December 27, 2023, with complaints of lower \nback, left side and left leg pain, following an incident that involved one eighteen-wheeler \nrear  ending  his eighteen-wheeler while  traveling  80  miles  an  hour  and  wearing  his \nseatbelt. The report provided for associated abdominal and back pain but no extremity \npain  and  loss  of  consciousness.  Imaging  was  negative  for  an  acute  fracture, but  soft \ntissue injuries were  noted.  The  claimant  was  prescribed  Flexeril  and  Ibuprofen  and \nadvised to follow up with his primary care provider. The clinical impression provided for \nmultiple contusions and back pain in an unspecified location. (Cl. Ex. 1 – 15) \n On January 9, 2024, the claimant presented to Dr. Trent Pierce for a follow-up to \nthe motor vehicle accident that the report stated occurred on January 6, 2024, when he \nwas taken to Baptist Crittenden ER, and was rear ended by a tractor trailer. The report \nprovided the claimant stated that he was having pain in his back and left leg and ankle \nand  also  suffering  from  tingling  in  his  leg.  The  report  also  provided  the  claimant  was \ninvolved in another motor vehicle accident on December 26, 2023, but that he did not go \nto the ER. The claimant was screened for PTSD. The assessment provided for a lumbar \nback injury with radiculopathy, and he was referred to the Campbell Clinic. Codeine was \nmentioned for anxiety, but the report went on to state that Xanax would be tried and that \n“I am not sure that this is work avoidance.” (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 16 – 19) \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \n On  January  27,  2024,  the  claimant  presented  to  Nurse  Practitioner  Angel  D. \nGulley. The report provided that the symptoms were continuous and gradually worsening \nand the claimant stated the pain was affecting his ability to function. Under assessment, \nthe report provided that the lumbar radiculopathy was worse and that there was chronic \nlow back pain with left-sided sciatica. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 20 – 23) \n On  February  9,  2024,  the  claimant  presented  to  Djuana  Smith,  LCSW, with  the \nchief  complaint  being stress  from accidents.  The  report provided  that  the  claimant had \nlittle  interest  or  pleasure  in  doing  things  and  had  sleeping  issues  and  felt  down  or \ndepressed. The assessment provided for current moderate episodes of major depressive \ndisorder with a prior episode and an acute distress disorder. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 24 – 26) The \nclaimant  returned  to  Djuana  Smith,  LCSW,  on  February  29,  2024. There  was  no  chief \ncomplaint  identified  by  the  claimant. The  diagnosis  provided for  a  major depressive \ndisorder “moderate, single episode.” The goal for treatment was an “Increase ability to \nget back to normalcy regarding routine.”  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 27 – 29) \n On March 5, 2024, Dr. Santos Martinez issued a return to work slip with a limitation \nof lifting not over 30 pounds. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 30) On March 13, 2024, the claimant presented \nto the Mitchell Family Clinic and Dr. Koch. The claimant reported chronic low back pain \nand left sided sciatica. The claimant provided he had been undergoing physical therapy \nwhich had been improving his pain and functionality. He rated the pain on the day of the \nvisit as 4 out of 10. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 31 – 33) The claimant then returned to Djuana Smith, \nLCSW, on April 5, 2024, and the report provided that the claimant’s anxiety level was \ndecreasing. The summary of the visit provided for circled PTSD. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 34 – 39) \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \n The claimant returned to Dr. Koch on March 14, 2024, and reported that his back \npain was improving but was exacerbated by increased activity which worsened at night. \nThe  claimant  also  reported  ongoing  pain  in  both  his  shoulders  and  his  neck  with \nmovement. The assessment provided for chronic bilateral low back pain with left sided \nsciatica. (Cl. Ex. 1, 40 – 43) \n The  claimant  returned  to  Djuana  Smith  LCSW  on  April  26,  2024.  The  claimant \ndescribed his mood as “excellent” on the visit. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 44 – 47) He then returned to \nMitchell Family Medicine on May 15, 2024, where he reported that his low back pain was \nimproving with the physical therapy but that he was still experiencing shoulder pain and \nhad been using a tens unit and cold packs for relief. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 48 – 49) The claimant \nthen presented to Campbell Clinic for physical therapy on June 4, 2024. The assessment \nprovided that the claimant tolerated today’s session well with no adverse reaction  but \nreported pain throughout the session. Neck pain, low back pain, and left shoulder pain \nwere mentioned. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 50, 51) The claimant received physical therapy on May 8, \n2024, and returned to the office of Dr. Koch on May 15, 2024, and Djuana Smith LCSW \non May 20, 2024. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 52 – 60) \n The claimant obtained an MRI on May 30, 2024. The MRI provided for a moderate \ngrade bursal sided partial tear at the anterior of the supraspinatus and supraspinatus and \nsubscapularis   tendinosis   with a posteroinferior   labral   tear   at  8 – 9  and   severe \nacromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis with periarticular osteophytes. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 61 - 62) \n A  letter  from  Djuana  Smith-McNeely,  LCSW,  provided  that  the  claimant  initially \npresented to East Arkansas Family Health Center, Inc. on February 9, 2024, to address \nbehavioral  and  emotional  charges  resulting  from  a  motor  vehicle  accident.  He  was \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \ndiagnosed   with   major   depressive   order,   single   episode,   moderate   with   anxiety, \nunspecified  and  post-traumatic  stress  disorder.  The  letter  provided  that  the  claimant \nwould benefit with continued treatment. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 63) \n Claimant  then  returned  to  Dr.  Martinez  on  June  10,  2024,  and  the  report  again \nprovided for unspecified low back pain. The doctor stated that he would request a lumbar \nepidural for  the  left  L4-5. (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  64,  65) The  claimant  was  then  again  seen  by \nDjuana Smith, LCSW, on June 13, 2024. The report provided that the claimant had been \nable  to  maintain  a  positive  attitude.  In  the  report,  the  claimant  acknowledged  that  the \naccidents were accidents and not anything that he had control of. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 66 – 72) \nOn June 18, 2024, the claimant returned to Dr. Brolin in regard to his left shoulder rotator \ncuff tear. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 73) On June 25, 2024, claimant presented to Dr. Rivera-Tavarez, \nfor an epidural left L4 transforaminal epidural steroid injection. (Cl. Ec. 1, P. 74, 75) The \nclaimant then returned to Dr. Martinez on July 2, 2024. Among other things, the medical \nreport mentioned left shoulder surgery on September 19, 2024. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 76 – 78) \nThe claimant again went to the office of Djuana Smith, LCSW, and expressed frustration \nwith his PCP’s office. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 79 – 85) On August 19, 2025, Dr. Brolin performed \nsurgery on the claimant’s left rotator cuff due a tear of the supraspinatus. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 86 \n– 88) \n Claimants  Exhibit  Two  consisted  of  eleven  pages  and  an  index.  A  Tennessee \nElectronic crash report provided that an accident occurred on December 26, 2023, and \nshowed that the claimant’s vehicle was rear ended, and he possibly suffered an injury.  \nThe vehicle that rear-ended the claimant’s vehicle suffered disabling damage. The report \nwent on to report that the lane was blocked at 8:51 p.m. on December 26 and opened \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nback up at 12:16 a.m. on December 27. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 1 – 7). The claimant also submitted \nphotographs of his personal vehicle that was involved in the second accident on January \n6, 2024, and this accident was non-work related. The photographs showed a Jeep, with \nan Arkansas tag that could use a car wash, with very little damage, and mainly suffering \nfrom a paint scrape. (Cl. Ex. 2, 8 – 10) \n The respondents also submitted 34 pages of medical records including an index.  \nThe records from Baptist Memorial Hospital provided that the claimant was traveling at \n80 miles per hour with his seat belt on, when he was rear ended. The record also provided \nthat the claimant came directly to the emergency department and that the accident had \nhappened  90  minutes  earlier.  (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  1-6)  An  x-ray  of  the  lumbar  spine  on \nJanuary 4, 2024, provided under impression, that arthritic changes involving L4 through \nS1 were noted but that no acute abnormality was identified. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 17) A chart \nnote from Dr. Martinez and the Campbell Clinic dated February 8, 2024, referred to the \nmotor vehicle accident on January 6, 2024, while driving a Jeep Cherokee in a stationary \nposition when he was hit from behind by another vehicle. The chart notes also referred to \nanother vehicle accident and the claimant stated that the low back pain was purely from \nthe Workers’ Compensation case back in December. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 18 – 20) A chart \nnote from Levy Dermatology provided that the claimant presented with hair loss after an \naccident in January. (Cl. Ex. 21, 22) \n The respondents also submitted two chart notes from Djuana Smith, LCSW, with \nthe first note dated April 26, 2024, which provided that the claimant’s mood was good.  \nThe  chart notes of  May  20,  2024,  provided  that  the  claimant  received  news  about  his \nreturn to work. The claimant reported that his primary care provided opined that he was \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nable  to  return  to  work  with  restrictions,  and  he  was  worried  about  reinjuring  himself.   \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 23 – 33)   \n The respondents also submitted twenty pages including an index of non-medical \nrecords. Page 1-6 provided for route schedules. Pages 7 -19 showed post injury wage \nrecords and along with deductions for various insurances and for the café plan. (Resp. \nEx. 2. P. 1- 19) \n The final exhibit for the respondents was the deposition of Arlette Williams. She \ntestified that she was the CCMSI area third party administrator and she obtained workers’ \ncompensation reports when people were injured on the job or when they file a claim. She \nhad been performing this type of work for a little over 35 years and was familiar with the \nclaimant’s file. She arranged for the claimant to obtain medical treatment because he was \nunable  to  return  to  driving  until  he obtained a  medical  release.  She  scheduled  an \nappointment  for  the  claimant  with  Dr.  Meredith  in  West  Memphis  and  instructed the \nclaimant he needed to bring a list of his medications and needed to get an x-ray of his \nlumbar spine, since he was complaining about it. He did not obtain the x-ray and did not \nbring  the  list  of  medications, but  did  go  to  the  appointment. Since  he  did  not  have  the \ninformation, the  appointment was rescheduled. She  then  contacted  the  claimant  and \nasked him why he did not do what he had been told to do but she did not remember the \nexact words of his response. \n She further testified she later learned that he had been involved in another motor \nvehicle accident through an ISO index report, prior to him returning to Dr. Meridith. She \nthen contacted the claimant, who stated that he was in worse pain after the accident, so \nthe treatment was not authorized. The claimant wondered how I found out about his motor \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nvehicle accident over the weekend, and she stated that she explained the index system, \nand that they had received a report about the accident.          \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn regard to the primary issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of \nproving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor his claimed injuries. In determining whether the claimant has sustained his burden of \nproof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party.  Ark. Code Ann 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavanaugh’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). \nHere, there appear to be multiple discrepancies in the evidence, some probably \naccidental,  but  still  present. The  claimant  testified  during  the  hearing  that  he  was  rear \nended by an eighteen-wheeler after he pulled back out on the highway in the eighteen- \nwheeler that he was driving, after reaching a speed of 55 miles per hour. The police report \nprovided that the vehicle that rear ended him suffered disabling damage. The driver of \nthe vehicle that hit the claimant left in an ambulance and the claimant left with his wife \nwho drove him from the accident scene in West Tennessee back to the Baptist hospital \nin West Memphis. The claimant’s medical report provided he was involved in an accident \nwhile traveling 80 miles per hour. Additionally, the report provided that the claimant was \nnot experiencing extremity pain and there were no immovable extremities and no loss of \nconsciousness. The  claimant  admitted,  however, that he  stated in  his  deposition that \nwhile he was at the Baptist Emergency Room in West Memphis, he told them he had hurt \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nhis  back,  left  leg,  and  shoulder. During  his  testimony,  he also admitted  he  had  been \ndiagnosed  with  bursitis  in  his  left  shoulder  prior  to  December  26, by  Dr.  Miller  at  the \nCampbell Clinic. \nThe  claimant  was  scheduled by  Arletta  Williams,  the  CCMSI  for  the  area,  for  a \ndoctor’s appointment with Dr. Meredith. He was instructed to bring x-rays  of  his  lower \nback and a list of his medications. The claimant appeared for the appointment but failed \nto bring the items requested and it was consequently rescheduled. Before he could return \nfor  the  appointment,  he  was  involved  in  another  motor  vehicle  accident  where  he  was \nagain rear ended  at  a stop  sign and  the vehicle  that hit the  rear  of his  vehicle, left  the \nscene. The vehicle the claimant was driving appeared to have received very little damage, \nbut his wife who was a passenger in his vehicle, was taken from the accident scene by \nambulance. \nMs. Arlette Williams testified that she learned that the claimant had been involved \nin  another  motor  vehicle  accident  through  an  ISO  index  report  prior  to the  claimant \nreturning to Dr. Meridith, so she contacted the claimant. She testified that the claimant \nstated  that  he  was  in  worse  pain  after  the  accident,  so  the  visit  to  Dr.  Meridith  was \ncancelled.  She  also  testified  that  the  claimant  wondered  how  she  found  out  about  his \nsecond motor vehicle accident over the weekend and that was when she explained the \nindex system, how it worked, and how they had received a report in regard to the accident.          \nUnder workers’ compensation law in Arkansas, a compensable  injury  must  be \nestablished  by medical  evidence  supported by  objective  findings  and  medical opinions \naddressing  compensability and must  be  stated  within  a  degree  of  medical  certainty. \nSmith-Blair,  Inc.  v.  Jones,  77  Ark.  App.  273,  72  S.W.3d  560  (2002).  Speculation  and \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nconjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence. Liaromatis v. Baxter County Regional \nHospital,  95  Ark.  App.  296,  236  S.W.3d  524  (2006).  More  specifically,  to  prove  a \ncompensable injury, the claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) \nan injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal \nor external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in A.C.A. 11-9-\n102 (16) establishing the injury and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident \nand identifiable by time and place of occurrence. If the claimant fails to establish any of \nthe requirements for establishing the compensability of the claim, compensation must be \ndenied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 s.W.2d 876 (1997). \nAn  injury for  which  the  claimant  seeks  benefits must  be  established  by  medical \nevidence supported by objective findings which are those findings that cannot come under \nthe voluntary control of the patient. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16). It is also important to note that \nthe claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Lambert v. Gerber Products \nCo.  14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985).  \nThe claimant in this matter is a likeable, well-dressed, and well-spoken gentleman.  \nHowever,  there  are  multiple  discrepancies  in  the  evidence  that  appear  to  result  in \nspeculation and conjecture in an attempt to satisfy the necessary requirements of proof.  \nSome of this may have resulted simply by accident due to the motor vehicle accidents \noccurring so close together. There are no specific objective medical findings in regard to \nhis  claimed  injuries. With  that  said,  it  is  clear  that  the  burden  of  proof  cannot  be \nestablished by speculation and conjecture. It is also noted that a claimant is not required \nto establish a casual connection between a work-related incident and an injury with an \n\nMARCIE HILL – H404078 \nexpert  medical  opinion.  See Walmart  Stores,  Inc.  v.  VanWagner,  337  Ark.  443,  990 \nS.W.2d 522 (1999).     \nAs stated above, the workers’ compensation claimant bears the burden of proving \na compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (4) (E) (i). A \ncompensable injury is one that was the result of an accident that arose in the course of \nhis employment and that it grew out of or resulted from the employment. See Moore v. \nDarling  Store  Fixtures, 22  Ar.  App  21,  732  S.W.2d  496  (1987) Preponderance  of  the \nevidence  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or  convincing  force. Metropolitan \nNat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark App. 263, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). Based upon the \navailable evidence in the case at bar, there is no alternative but to find that the claimant \nhas failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that his claimed injuries are in \nfact  work  related and compensable under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.  \nConsequently, all remaining issues are moot. \nAfter weighing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to \neither party, there is no alternative but to find that the claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance  of  the  credible  evidence that  his claim for injuries  from  the  Tennessee \nmotor  vehicle  accident  on  December  26,  2023, is a compensable claim  under  the \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. If not already paid, the respondents are ordered \nto pay the cost of 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. H404078 MARCIE HILL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SILICA TRANSPORT, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS TRUCKING ASSOCIATION SI FUND/CCMSI, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 21, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 4...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:43:00.067Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404078-2025-03-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HILL_MARCIE_H404078_20250321.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}