{"id":"alj-H404308-2025-05-28","awcc_number":"H404308","decision_date":"2025-05-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Verlencia Gatewood","employer_name":"Trinity Rail Maintenance Service","title":"GATEWOOD VS. TRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SERVICE AWCC# H404308 May 28, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gatewood_Verlencia_H404308_20250528.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Gatewood_Verlencia_H404308_20250528.pdf","text_length":9540,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H404308 \n \nVERLENCIA GATEWOOD, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nTRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SERVICE, EMPLOYER   RESPONDENT \n \nACE AMERICAN INS. CO, CARRIER/TPA   RESPONDENT \n \nBROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., TPA   RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 28, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on April  11,  2025,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented herself, Pro Se, Jonesboro, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Mr. Jason Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A full hearing was held on this claim on April 11, 2025. A prehearing telephone conference \ntook  place  on January 22,  2025.  A  prehearing  order  was  entered  on January  23,  2025, and \nsubsequently  entered  into  evidence  as  Commission  Exhibit  1,  without  objection  or  amendment. \nThe parties confirmed the stipulations and the issues at the hearing. The parties’ stipulations are \nset forth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n \n2. The employer/employee/carrier/TPA relationship existed among the parties \non December 14, 2023, when Claimant allegedly sustained a compensable \ngradual onset injury to her right shoulder. \n \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n\nGATEWOOD H404308 \n \n2 \n \n \nThe parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether  Claimant  sustained a compensable  injury  by  gradual  onset  to  her  right \nshoulder. \n \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment and related \nexpenses, including mileage and out of pocket expenses. \n \n3. Whether Claimant is entitled to Temporary Total Disability (TTD) from June 6, 2024, \nto a date to be determined.\n1\n \n \n4. What is Claimant’s average weekly wage and TTD compensation rate.\n2\n \n \n All other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n Claimant contends that she has injuries to her shoulder, neck and arm from \npainting a railcar with a paint brush. She also contends that she obtained a fungus \ninjection from the rainwater that accumulates in the shop area. \n Respondents contend the Claimant did not suffer a compensable injury and is \nunclear which benefits are being requested. Respondents also contends that there are two \ninjuries alleged which seem to be separate, distinct, and should not be considered under \nthe same claim number. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and the \nevidentiary  record,  I  hereby  make  the  following  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n1\n Claimant clarified that she was never off work due to her shoulder injury but was terminated on June 6, 2024, for \nallegedly abandoning the job. However, the Respondents allege illegal drug use as the basis for the termination. \nNevertheless, the Claimant is seeking TTD from the time she was fired, June 6, 2024, to a date to be determined. \n2\n The parties could not reach an agreement as to average weekly wage and compensation rates which has now \nbecome an issue for the Commission to resolve. \n\nGATEWOOD H404308 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The Claimant has not proven that she has sustained a gradual onset right shoulder injury \nwith objective findings.  \n \n4. Based  on  my  findings  of  no  compensability,  the  remaining  issues  of  reasonable  and \nnecessary  medical  treatment,  temporary  total  disability  benefits,  and  average  weekly \nwage along with compensation rates are moot and will not be addressed in this opinion \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Commission Ex. 1, Pre-Hearing Order Filed January 23, 2025, \nconsisting  of 5 pages  total,  Claimant did  not  properly  enter  any  exhibits  into  the  record. \nRespondents did not enter any evidence into the records. Forms AR-C, AR-2, and AR-1 will be \nblue-backed and made  a part of the evidentiary record. The Claimant was the only witness \ntestifying at the full hearing.  \nClaimant was employed as a career painter for the Respondent/Employer. The Claimant \nstarted working for the Respondent/Employer in June 2023 doing touch up work on rail cars. The \nClaimant would touch up five to seven cars daily, five days a week, ten hours a day. These rail cars \nwere 50 feet long. On December 14, 2023, the Claimant’s right shoulder became worse, so she \ntold Respondent/Employer about her right shoulder pain. The Claimant did not go and see a doctor, \nrather she took paid time off to give her shoulder time to heal and continued painting rail cars. \nHowever, the Claimant’s pain in her right shoulder reached a fever pitch on June 3, 2024. This \nresulted in a call to HR about her right shoulder pain. The Claimant then sought treatment at a \nmedical clinic recommended by Respondent/Employer on June 4, 2024. The Claimant was drug \ntested at the clinic and was positive for marijuana.  \n\nGATEWOOD H404308 \n \n4 \n \nThe Claimant, according to her testimony, was terminated for neglecting/abandoning her \njob immediately after her doctor’s appointment. Respondents dispute this narration and alleges she \nwas  fired  for testing  positive  for  drugs. The  Claimant  did  not  provide  any  medical  records \nwhatsoever showing objective findings of a right shoulder injury.  \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder by \ngradual onset. \n Regarding regular injuries sustained by gradual onset, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii) \n& (a) (Repl. 2012) reads: \n(ii) An injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body and arising out \nof and in the course of employment if it is not caused by a specific incident and is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, if the injury is: \n \n(a) Caused by rapid repetitive motion. \nIn addition to rapid repetitive motion, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits for such \na gradual-onset injury must prove that:  (1) the injury arose out of and in the course of his \nemployment; (2) the injury caused internal or external physical harm to the body that required \nmedical services or resulted in disability or death; and (3) the injury was the major cause of the \ndisability or need for treatment.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii) & (E)(ii) (Repl. 2012).  In \nMalone v. Texarkana Public Schools, 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998), the Arkansas Supreme \nCourt held that there is a two-part test for determining whether an injury is caused by rapid \nrepetitive motion:  (1) the tasks must be repetitive; and (2) the repetitive motion must be rapid.  If \nthe first element is not met, the second is not reached.  Id.; Westside High School v. Patterson, 79 \nArk. App. 281, 86 S.W.3d 412 (2002).  Moreover, “even repetitive tasks and rapid work, standing \nalone, do not satisfy the definition.  The repetitive tasks must be completed rapidly.”  Malone, \nsupra. \n\nGATEWOOD H404308 \n \n5 \n \nClaimant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that she has sustained a \ncompensable injury to her right shoulder by gradual onset. The Claimant must first prove an injury \nthat arose out of and in the course of her employment. The Claimant has failed to prove a right \nshoulder injury. Though she testifies she has a right shoulder injury, she has not entered one \nscintilla of medical evidence into the record demonstrating that such an injury exists. Trans. p. 18, \nlines 18-25, thru p. 19, line 1.  The Claimant did go to a medical clinic, but she does not remember \nthe name of it. Trans. p. 15, lines 2-25, thru p. 16, lines 1-18. While at the unnamed clinic, she was \nnot administered an x-ray for Claimant’s alleged right shoulder injury. See Trans. p. 17, lines 1-2. \nThe Claimant testified that the clinic prescribed pain medication that she didn’t take. Trans. p. 19, \nlines 13-25, thru p. 20, lines 1-2. Moreover, there is no evidence of pain medication being \nprescribed.  \nIn summary, the Claimant did not enter any medical records into evidence whatsoever. \nWhen I asked Claimant at the end of the hearing what does she feel she has proven today. Trans. \np. 53, lines 4-14. Claimant stated, “To be honest, I don’t feel like I’ve proven anything.” Id. I \nconcur with her statement. Thus why, I must find that the Claimant has not proven by the \npreponderance of the evidence that she has sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder \nby gradual onset.  \nMISCELLANEOUS ISSUES \n Based on my previous findings that Claimant has failed to prove she sustained a work-\nrelated right shoulder injury by gradual onset, the remaining issues regarding reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment, temporary total disability benefits, are moot and will not be addressed \nin this opinion.  \n \n\nGATEWOOD H404308 \n \n6 \n \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, the parties \nshall act consistent with this opinion.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       ____________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404308 VERLENCIA GATEWOOD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SERVICE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACE AMERICAN INS. CO, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 28, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, St...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:24.255Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404308-2025-05-28","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gatewood_Verlencia_H404308_20250528.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}