{"id":"alj-H404087-2025-04-23","awcc_number":"H404087","decision_date":"2025-04-23","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Rebekah Moore","employer_name":"North Arkansas Regional Medical Center","title":"MOORE VS. NORTH ARKANSAS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AWCC# H404087 April 23, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MOORE_REBEKAH_H404087_20250423.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MOORE_REBEKAH_H404087_20250423.pdf","text_length":19988,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H404087 \n \nREBEKAH MOORE, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nNORTH ARKANSAS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED APRIL 23, 2025 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Harrison, \nBoone County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant   represented   by MARK   ALAN   PEOPES,   Attorney   at   Law, Little   Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MELISSA WOOD , Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On March  20,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at \nHarrison, Arkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on December 11, 2024, \nand  a pre-hearing order  was  filed on that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order \nhas  been  marked  Commission's  Exhibit  No.  1  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The  Arkansas  Workers'  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  this \nclaim. \n 2.  The  employee/employer/carrier  relationship  existed  among  the  parties  at  all \nrelevant times. \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-2- \n At  the  time  of  the  hearing,  the  parties  agreed  to  stipulate  the  claimant  earned \nsufficient wages to be entitled to the maximum compensation rate for 2024. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n 1. Compensability of injury to claimant’s low back on March 24, 2024. \n 2. Claimant’s entitlement to medical treatment. \n 3.  Claimant’s  entitlement  to  temporary  total  or  temporary  partial  disability \nbenefits. \n 4. Attorney’s fee. \n At  the  time  of  the  hearing,  the  parties  indicated  that  in  the  event  the  claim  is \ncompensable  they  would  be  able  to  work  out  the  dates  claimant  would  be  entitled  to \ntemporary   total   disability   or   temporary   partial   disability   benefits;   therefore,   her \nentitlement to those benefits is not an issue at this time. \n The claimant contends that she hurt her back on the job on March 28, 2024, and \nthat she is entitled to medical treatment and a controverted attorney’s fee. \n The  respondents  contend the claimant’s lower back injury was initially accepted \nas  compensable,  and  some  benefits  were  paid  through  July  16,  2024;  however, \nrespondent  now  contends  that  claimant  did not  suffer  a  compensable  injury  to  her  low \nback  on  March  28,  2024.  Respondents  assert  that  claimant  sustained  an  intervening \nincident  or  new  injury  on  June  5,  2024,  and  that  any  need  for  treatment  is  associated \nwith that incident/injury. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-3- \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted on December 11, 2024, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same \ndate are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. The parties’ stipulation that claimant earned sufficient wages to be entitled to \nthe maximum compensation rate for 2024 is also hereby accepted as fact. \n 3. Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she suffered a compensable injury to her low back on March 28, 2024. \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n On  March  28,  2024,  claimant  was  working  for  respondent  as  a  paramedic  and \nresponded  to  a  call  involving  an  elderly  woman  who  was  in  a  bed;  comatose,  but \nlethargic.  She  was  covered  with  feces  and  vomit.  Claimant  testified  that  in  order  to \nmove  the  woman  they  used  a  MegaMover – a  device  that  looks  like  a  blanket  with \nhandles.  After  rolling  her  onto  the  device,  claimant  and  others  were  in  the  process  of \ncarrying  her out  of  the  house  to  place her  in  an ambulance.  As they  were going  down \nsome steps “...I felt a sharp pain in my lower right back.” \n After  arriving  back  at  their  station,  claimant  reported  this  incident  to  her  direct \nsupervisor,  Brent  Rouse.  She  also  completed  an  incident  form  but  did  not  seek  any \nmedical treatment. After that date, claimant continued to perform her regular job duties \nas  a  paramedic  for  respondent.  On  June  5,  2024,  claimant  had  Rouse  take  her  to \nUrgent Care for complaints of low back pain.  \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-4- \n After  receiving  conservative  treatment  for  her  back  complaints  which  included \nmedication,  injections,  physical  therapy,  and  work  restrictions;  claimant  underwent  a \nlumbar MRI scan which was interpreted as showing a disc herniation at L5-S1. Claimant \nunderwent a microdiscectomy by Dr. Evans on July 25, 2024.  \n The  medical  records  indicate  that  claimant  did  well  following  her  surgery  for \nabout a week before she had a sudden onset of recurrent pain. Another MRI scan was \nordered  which  showed  a  recurrent  disc  herniation.  A  second  surgical  procedure  was \nperformed by Dr. Evans on August 27, 2024. The medical records indicate the claimant \ndid well for about a month after the second surgery, but claimant again returned to Dr. \nEvans with complaints of recurrent low back and leg pain. Another MRI was performed \nwhich  again  revealed  a  recurrent  disc  herniation  at  L5-S1.  Dr.  Evans  recommended  a \nfusion and he performed that procedure on December 26, 2024.  \n Respondent  originally  accepted  this  claim  as  compensable  but  subsequently \ndenied  compensability.  As  a  result,  claimant  has  filed  this  claim  contending  that  she \nsuffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  low  back  on  March  28,  2024.  She  requests \npayment  of  related  medical  treatment  for  her  compensable  injury  and  a  controverted \nattorney fee. \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant contends that she suffered a compensable injury to her low back as a \nresult of moving an elderly woman to an ambulance on March 28, 2024. Claimant’s \nclaim is for a specific injury, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  \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 \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-5- \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of \nemployment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body which required \nmedical  services  or  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific \nincident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Odd Jobs and More v. Reid, 2011 \nArk. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \nAfter reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof. \nFirst,  I note  that  there  is  no  question  that  claimant  reported  an  injury  to  her  low \nback  on  March  28,  2024.  Claimant  testified  that  when  she  returned  to  the  station, she \nreported the incident to her supervisor, Brent Rouse, and completed an incident report. \nRouse confirmed that claimant reported having low back pain on March 28 after going \non  a  call.  Likewise,  other  employees,  Leah  Decker  and  Amanda  Perse,  also  testified \nthat claimant mentioned having low back pain after going on a call on March 28.  \nHowever,   simply   reporting   an   injury   does   not   satisfy   all   the   elements   of \ncompensability.  For  reasons  discussed  below,  I  do  not  find  that  claimant  has  met  her \nburden of proof.  \n Although claimant did report an injury to her supervisor, she did not request any \nmedical  treatment  that  day.  On  direct  examination,  claimant  was  asked  whether  she \nbelieved she needed medical treatment on March 28.  \nQ Do you believe you were in need of medical treatment \nat that time? \n \nA Yes and no. I’m a stubborn person so – and I was – it \nwas, I believe, 11:00 o’clock in the morning, a half an hour \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-6- \nafter I started my shift. And I didn’t ask for medical treatment, \nI wasn’t advised. \n \nAt  her  deposition,  claimant  indicated  that  she  did  not  feel  that  she  needed  medical \ntreatment on March 28. \nQ I asked you in deposition, this is on page 30, “Did you \nthink you needed treatment that day?” Your response was, \n“No.” Is that correct? \n \nA Correct. \n \n Rouse testified at the hearing that when claimant reported the incident to him he \nasked  her  if  she  wanted  to  see  Rachael  Boles  in  human  resources  who  handles \nrespondent’s workers’ compensation claims. He stated that claimant replied, “Not right \nnow.” Rouse testified that he informed claimant to let him know if anything changed. He \nfurther testified that after being off work for her normal three days, claimant returned to \nwork for respondent and performed her normal job duties until June 5, 2024. Although \nclaimant testified that after March 28 she mentioned continuing back pain to Rouse, he \ntestified  that  he  did  not  recall  claimant  complaining  of  any  continuing  back  pain  and  if \nclaimant  had  done  so  he  would  have  asked  her  if  she  wanted  to  see  Boles  or  get \nmedical treatment.  \n Claimant  has  acknowledged  that  after  March  28  she  continued  to  perform  her \nregular  job  duties  at  her  regular  hours  as  a  paramedic.  She  also  testified  that  after \nMarch  28  there  were  many  times  that  she  felt  something  needed  to  be  done  for  her \nback  because  just  going  up  the  steps  into  the  ambulance  was painful. She  stated that \nshe was using ice, heat, and her husband’s TENS unit, but they did not help. Despite \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-7- \nthese  apparent  complaints,  claimant  admitted  that  she  did  not  tell  Rouse  that  she \nneeded medical treatment.  \nQ And  you  told  me  you  didn’t  tell  him  you  needed \ntreatment, just that your back hurts. Is that right? \n \nA Yes. \n \n Claimant testified at her deposition that after the incident on March 28 she did not \nsee a doctor until she went to Urgent Care on June 5, 2024. This is incorrect. On April \n25,  2024,  claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  her  primary  care  physician,  Dr. \nRobert Foy, for “flu-feeling” symptoms. Other than flu-like  findings,  the  report  indicates \nthat  a  general  examination  showed  claimant  to  be  in  no  acute  distress.  Claimant \nreturned to Dr. Foy for a follow-up visit on May 6, 2024, at which time her diagnosis was \nacute bronchitis and asthma aggravation. Again, the general physical exam reflects that \nclaimant was in no acute distress. Significantly, even though it is claimant’s testimony \nthat there were many times that even going up the steps into the ambulance was painful \nand that she was using heat, ice, and her husband’s TENS unit, there is no mention of \nany back complaints in either of Dr. Foy’s medical reports. \n I also note that claimant testified that she had no lower back problems or sciatica \nbefore  the  incident  on  March  28.  However,  on  June  13,  2024,  claimant  was  seen  for \ncomplaints  of  back  pain  by  Bailey Savage,  APRN  for  Dr.  Foy.  Her  report  of  that  date \nstates:  \nHer  lumbar  spine  xray  was  unchanged  from  2023 and \nshowed mild degenerative disc disease on L5/S1. (Emphasis \nadded.) \n \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-8- \n Obviously,  there  was  something  about  claimant’s  low  back  in  2023  that  was \nsignificant enough for Dr. Foy to order an x-ray.  \n Perhaps the most important evidence in this claim involves the events of June 5, \n2024. On that date during some downtime, claimant and a coworker engaged in some \nexercises while “goofing around”. Testifying at the hearing was Leah Decker, who works \nas a dispatcher for respondent. She testified: \nThey  were  sitting  in  their  chairs  twirling  their  arms  like  this, \npicking  their  legs  up  and  spinning  around  their  knees  and \ntheir ankles. They did a couple of toe touches like this. They \nwere laughing, they were watching a office exercise video on \nher phone and that’s what they were mimicking. \n \n*** \nQ Do  you – if  you  know,  do  you  know  why  they  were \ndoing this? \n \nA Because  they  thought  it  was  funny  and  they  were \ntrying out new ways to get exercise in the office area instead \nof just sitting there, new ways to exercise. \n \nDecker  went  on  to  indicate  that  based  on  her  observation  of  claimant,  she  had  no \nreason to believe that claimant had injured herself that day. Amanda Perse, dispatcher \nand  part-time EMT,  also  testified at the  hearing.  She  participated  in  the exercises  with \nclaimant and testified as follows: \nWe were sitting in a chair and just doing like chair exercises, \nour arms, our legs, just, I don’t know.  \n \n*** \nQ Why? \n \nA Just goofing around. \n \n Perse  also  testified  that  she  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  claimant  had  injured \nherself while doing the exercises.  \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-9- \n Jackie Cooper, a nurse case manager, testified at the hearing that she scheduled \nclaimant’s  appointment  with  Josh  Trinkle,  PA,  on  July  2,  2024,  and  attended  the \nexamination.  Cooper  testified  that  claimant  indicated  that  she  was  performing  some \nexercises at work; twisted; and felt fire and a feeling like she was paralyzed. \n The medical report from Savage date June 13, 2024, states: \nPatient  reports  she  initially  injured  her  back  a  couple  of \nmonths  ago  lifting  a  patient.  Heat  relieved  the  pain  at  that \ntime.  The  pain  has  come  and  gone  since  then  for  short \nperiods  of  time. However,  she  reports  the  lower  back  pain \nwith right sided sciatica came back last week when she went \nto  urgent  care  and  has  been  constant  since  that  time. \n(Emphasis added.) \n \n Trinkle, in his report of July 2, 2024, stated: \nStates that  the back  pain  was  pretty  significant  at that  point \nand time on 3/28/2024. In turn she states that she did report \nthe  injury  in  March  following  the  incident.  However,  no \ntreatment  was  initiated.  In  turn she  states  that  she  had  a \nrecurrent  injury  where  she  was  twisting  in  the  process  of \ndoing  a duty at  work and  felt  an  excruciating  amount  of  low \nback pain with right lower extremity pain that shot down the \nback of the leg. States this was in the beginning on June to \nwhere  she  went  and  had  an  x-ray  of  her  lumbar  spine \nunderwent. (Emphasis added.) \n \n This  twisting  incident  was  the  exercises  on  June  5.  Claimant  has  not  testified \nabout  any  other  specific  twisting  incident  occurring  at  work  while  performing  any  job \nduties that resulted in recurrent pain. \n Finally, Dr. Evans in his report of July 15, 2024, stated: \nSymptoms  never  resolved  but then worsened  again at  work \nin June. This occurred while twisting in her office chair doing \nfiling work.  \n \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-10- \n Again,  claimant  has  not  testified  as  to  an  injury  while  twisting  in  an  office  chair \nwhile  filing  in  June.  She  was  twisting  in  an  office  chair  in  June  while  performing \nexercises with a coworker. \n With  regard  to  June 5,  claimant  testified  at  her  deposition that  she did not  even \nthink she was at work on June 5, but subsequently admitted that she had no reason to \ndispute her timecard showing that she was there for a period of time. She also testified \nthat she did not recall telling anyone that the exercises caused an increase in her pain \nor  that  she  said  anything  to  Dr.  Evans  or  his  assistant  about  the  exercises.  Claimant \nacknowledges  that  the  exercises  did  not  have  anything  to  do  with  her  job,  but  denies \nthat she injured herself in the performance of those exercises. \n Significantly,  it  was  the  day  claimant  engaged  in  these  exercises  that  she \nrequested  medical  treatment.  Rouse  testified  that  claimant  indicated  that  she  was \nhaving  severe  back  pain;  was  having  trouble  walking;  and  did  not  feel  that  she  could \nclimb  into  the  ambulance.  She  indicated  that  she  wanted  to  go  to Urgent Care  and \nRouse  took  her  there  for  treatment.  Rouse  also  testified  that  he  asked  claimant  if  her \nneed for medical treatment was related to a work related injury.  \nI  asked  her  if  it  was  a  work-related  injury  because  if  it  was, \nwe had to go through HR. And she said she didn’t feel like it \nwas. \n \n It should be noted that while Dr. McAlister made reference to the June 5, 2024, \nvisit in his report, the actual medical report of June 5, 2024, is not in evidence. \n In  summary,  I  do  not  find  that  claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  low  back  on \nMarch 28, 2024. While claimant did report an injury to her supervisor and coworkers on \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-11- \nthat day, I do not find that sufficient to prove a compensable injury given the remaining \nevidence.  Claimant  testified  that  after  this  incident  she  continued  to  have  pain  while \ngetting in the ambulance and treated her pain with heat, ice, and a TENS unit borrowed \nfrom  her  husband.  Despite  these  complaints,  claimant  did  not  request  any  medical \ntreatment,  and  she  continued  to  perform  her  regular  job  duties  as  a  paramedic. \nClaimant  even  sought  medical  treatment  from  her  primary  care  physician  for  flu \nsymptoms  on April  25,  2024,  and  May  6,  2024,  but did  not  complain  of  low  back pain. \nTo  the  contrary,  Dr.  Foy  noted  that  claimant  was  in  no  acute  distress  during  both  of \nthose visits. \n Claimant did not seek any medical treatment for complaints of low back pain until \nJune 5, 2024, more than two months after March 28. This was the same day she was \nperforming  exercises  with  a  coworker  while  “goofing  around”.  Admittedly,  these \nexercises  were  not  related  to her  job activities  with  respondent.  Although  claimant  has \ntestified  that  she  did  not  injure  herself  while  performing  those  exercises,  the  events  of \nthat day were significant enough for her to seek medical treatment for her back for the \nfirst  time  and she mentioned  additional  complaints  beginning  in  early  June  to  her \nmedical  providers.  Furthermore,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Rouse,  claimant’s \nsupervisor who took her to Urgent Care on June 5, he asked claimant if her complaints \nthat day were work related and claimant that “she didn’t feel like it was.” \n Accordingly, based upon the evidence presented, I find that claimant has failed to \nmeet  her  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  suffered  a \ncompensable injury to her low back on March 28, 2024. \n \n\nMoore – H404087 \n \n-12- \nORDER \n Claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she \nsuffered a compensable injury to her low back on March 28, 2024. Therefore, her claim \nfor compensation benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n Respondents are liable for payment of the court reporter’s charges for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $634.70. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H404087 REBEKAH MOORE, Employee CLAIMANT NORTH ARKANSAS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Employer RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 23, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Harrison, Boone Count...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:55.333Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404087-2025-04-23","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MOORE_REBEKAH_H404087_20250423.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}