{"id":"alj-H404478-2025-06-20","awcc_number":"H404478","decision_date":"2025-06-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Marilynn Vandever","employer_name":"Homebound Medical","title":"VANDEVER VS. HOMEBOUND MEDICAL AWCC# H404478 June 20, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","knee","cervical","hip","lumbar","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/VANDEVER_MARILYNN_H404478_20250620.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"VANDEVER_MARILYNN_H404478_20250620.pdf","text_length":29030,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H404478 \n \nMARILYNN G. VANDEVER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nHOMEBOUND MEDICAL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSUMMIT CONSULTING LLC, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 20, 2025 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by ZACHARY F. RYBURN, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On March 15, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort Smith, Arkansas. \nA  pre-hearing conference  was  conducted  on February  24,  2025, before  Judge  Kennedy, and  a  pre-\nhearing order was filed on that same date. After the entry of that order, this matter was transferred to \nthe Springdale Division of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission and assigned to this \njudge. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made a part \nof the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2 The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on are about June 12, 2024. \n3   The parties will be required to stipulate to the applicable TTD/PPD rates or submitting \nbriefs relative to any conflicting contentions concerning the average weekly wage, seven days prior to \nthe hearing.  \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \n\nVandever-H404478 \n2 \n \n \nwere limited to the following: \n1 Compensability of an injury to the low back. \n2 Medical treatment in regard to the low back injury. \n3 Temporary total disability benefits from June 12, 2024, to a date to be determined.  \n4 Attorney’s fees \n5 All other issues are reserved.  \n At the hearing, claimant announced she wished to reserve issues #3 and 4, and the matter \nwas tried on the issues of whether claimant suffered a compensable injury to her low back and if so, \nif she was entitled to medical treatment for that injury.  \nAs  modified,  the  claimant  contends  that “She injured  her  low  back  while  working  and  is \nentitled to medical treatment. The claimant reserves all other issues.” \nAs  modified,  the respondents contend that “This  claim  is  denied. There  are  no  objective \nfindings to substantiate the alleged injury. The claimant was not injured at work.”   \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the claimant \nand  to  observe  her  demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  are  made  in \naccordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on \nFebruary 24, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted \nas fact. \n 2.   Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a \ncompensable low back injury on June 13, 2024. \n\nVandever-H404478 \n3 \n \n \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant  was  the  only  witness  to  testify. She stated that  on  June  12,  2024,  she  worked  for \nrespondent Homebound Medical as a private duty nurse taking care of a 5-year-old girl. The client \nweighed  between  fifty  and  fifty-five  pounds,  and  required  total  care  which  included  dressing  her, \ngiving her a bath in the bed, taking her from the bed to put her in her chair, and then administering \nrespiratory treatments. Claimant’s shift was ordinarily from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. She testified that on \nJune 12, 2024, she twisted her upper torso while getting the child out of bed and had a sharp pain in \nher lower back and buttocks. After resting for a few moments, she got the client into the chair and \ndid  the  necessary  breathing  treatments. That  night  claimant  sent  an  e-mail to  her  employer,  not  to \nmake a workers’ compensation report but to have the matter on record if she did not get better. The \nfew  days  after  the  alleged  incident,  claimant  said  she  was  getting  progressively  worse  and  at  some \npoint, asked  respondent Homebound Medical to  send her  to  a  doctor. She believes  that  happened \nwithin two to four days after the incident she described. She related a conversation that she had with \na supervisor identified only as Gayla in which claimant requested to see a doctor and was asked what \npain medications she was taking. When claimant said that she took Hydrocodone to treat fibromyalgia \nand osteoporosis. Claimant testified that Gayla said, “If you want to file, go ahead and file, but I am \ngoing to turn you into the board of nursing if you do for taking drugs.”  Claimant  stated that \nrespondent Homebound Medical knew that she had this prescription when she was hired, but upon \nhearing  this,  claimant  said  she  panicked and  told Gayla to forget it and did not file a workers’ \ncompensation claim. Claimant denied taking Hydrocodone during the day while she was working as a \nnurse. \n Claimant  said  she  sought  legal  services  when  she  was  not  improving. She did  not use  her \npersonal insurance because she did not think it was legal to use that on a workers’ compensation case. \n\nVandever-H404478 \n4 \n \n \nOnce the claim was filed, the respondent’s carrier sent claimant to MedExpress for an evaluation. \nHowever, when claimant was referred to an orthopedic doctor, she said the carrier told her to go for \nsuch a visit, but she could not get in. She eventually went to the West Washington County Clinic where \nshe  received  an  MRI  on  her  back  and  neck  as  well  as  some  physical  therapy. Dr.  Brent  Weilert \nadministered an injection in the SI joint. She said that she received some relief from that treatment as \nwell  as  physical  therapy  but  as  of  the  hearing,  she  testified  that  she  has  to  be  careful  and  limit  her \nactivities. She still has an occasional pain in her buttocks and does not believe that she could do the \nlifting that was required to perform her duties as a nurse. Claimant testified that she had not been able \nto go back to work, although at one point it was discussed with Gayla that she could review charts \nfrom home.  \n Claimant said that prior to the incident she described, she had not had any low back pain like \nwhat  she  is  now  suffering. It  differed  from  the  fibromyalgia  in  that  the  pain  following  the  lifting \nincident was like an electrical shock pain stemming from her back to her knee on her left side. She \ntestified that she took hydrocodone at night as well as during the night or early morning hours if she \nwoke up and needed it. If she stayed busy, her muscles did not hurt as much as when she was idle. \n Claimant concluded her direct testimony by referring to an e-mail (Cl. NMX 1), in which she \nasked for a lift to get the child out of bed. \n On cross-examination, respondent pointed out that claimant listed fifty-three active medical \nproblems for which she was treating before this incident. Among other conditions, claimant had been \ntreated  for  anxiety,  arthralgias  of  both  hands, osteoarthritis,  bursitis  in  her  hips,  leg  cramps,  and \nfibromyalgia before June 12, 2024. She said that the treatment for cervical radiculopathy and chronic \nlow  back  pain  began  after  the  lifting  incident\n1\n. Claimant said  prior  to  June  12,  2024, she  had been \n \n1\n As set forth in the issues to be tried, claimant did not seek any benefits for a cervical injury in this hearing. \n\nVandever-H404478 \n5 \n \n \ntreated by her rheumatologist for right hip and left hip.  \n Regarding reporting the injury, claimant acknowledged that she sent an e-mail on the night of \nJune 12, 2024, at which time she thought that she had more than a strained muscle. She was provided \nworkers’  compensation  paperwork  on  the  morning  of  June  13,  2024,  to  begin a  workers’ \ncompensation claim. However, she e-mailed the respondent Homebound Medical to state that she did \nnot want to file a workers’ compensation claim. Claimant testified: \n“I thought I just had a strained muscle, and I think that is what I sent is, ‘I \ntalked to Gayla. I don’t want to file’ that was after Gayla threatened the board \nof nursing. ‘I don’t want to file now. Just talked to Gayla.’  She coerced me \nand threatened me not to file a workers’ compensation claim so I didn’t.”  \n (TR.25) \n \nClaimant was read a portion of the e-mail she sent to Gayla:   \n“I sent an injury report this morning and I think it was misunderstood. I got a \nmessage from workers’ comp, and I was surprised, as I didn’t mean I wanted \nto file a claim. I appreciate the concern, but I'm sure I have just pulled a muscle. \nI don't want to file a claim. I just needed to let you all know I couldn't work \ntoday  and  why.  Please  retract  the  report  to  summit  because  I  don't  need \nmedical attention. I'm off until next Friday, so between now and then I'm sure \nI'll be back to normal period I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.”  \n(Cl. NMX. 6)  \n \n She was then asked: \nQuestion  (By  Mr.  Ryburn)  But  are  you  saying  this  e-mail  was  done  under \nthreat or coercement; is that correct? \n \nAnswer (By claimant) No sir that’s not what I said. \n \nQ. Okay so you meant to retract your claim and not make a claim on June 13, \n2024. \n \nA. Yes because that was – I was just filing a report of injury. I wanted it on \nrecord in case I didn’t get better. It’s to cover me and to cover them. \n \n       Claimant said on June 21, 2024, that she was offered a night shift job in a different home but \n\nVandever-H404478 \n6 \n \n \ncould not take that because she has to care for her husband at night. On July 9, claimant sent a text \nmessage stating that she could not come back to work because of her injury that read as follows:  \n“I am sorry I haven’t contacted you both. I am not able to stand very long, \nnor can I get up without help at times. I am some better, though. I am trying \nto recover on my own. This is just hard to do. I have had more improvement \nthis week than any other week since my injury.” \n \n Claimant explained that when she was offered a night job, she reminded her employer that \nwhen she was hired, she was not available for such work. \n Claimant  acknowledged  that  she  received  treatment  for  pain  in  her  left  and  right  hip  on \nFebruary 21, 2024. Claimant was first referred to an orthopedic doctor for low back pain, left hip \npain, bilateral left butt/hip pain. The orthopedic doctor’s office told her that she needed to go to a \nneurologist. She had an x-ray on her hips and lower back which showed mild degenerative disc disease \nof the lumbar spine with no acute findings. Claimant testified that she had an MRI on December 30, \n2024, and understood that the findings were that there were no acute paraspinal abnormalities seen. \nClaimant said that she believed Dr. Brent Weilert made an objective medical finding as to her injury \non June 12, 2024, because he would not have injected her as he did if she didn’t have something \nwrong with her back. \n Claimant was asked about a discrepancy in her initial evaluation at Star Physical Therapy on \nJanuary 2, 2025, which listed the date the condition began as June 6, 2024, and stated that it was not \na  work-related  injury. Regarding Claimant’s Medical Exhibit pages 32 and 33, claimant had the \nfollowing exchange with the Court: \nQuestion. (The Court) She definitely says on page 32 that she was lifting and \ntransferring a patient, but on 33 it says the condition began six days earlier and \nwasn’t a work-related injury and she said no, according to this, so I would like \nto hear her explanation. \n \nAnswer. (By claimant) You are asking about is this is a work-related injury, and \n\nVandever-H404478 \n7 \n \n \nI said no. I did say that, but I was using my private insurance, and I didn’t want \nto  get  in  trouble. Because they wouldn’t help me, I  had  to  use  my  private \ninsurance and I wanted it to keep going because it was helping, so I lied. I said, \n“No, it’s not work-related,” but he knows it is. \n \nThe Court. You have answered the question. I just wanted to make sure that \nwhoever entered this did not enter it wrong and you are telling me that they \ndid not because it is what you said. \n \nA. Yes. I am not going to lie about it. \n \n Respondent resumed its cross-examination: \nQuestion. (By Mr. Ryburn) So you have no problem in your words, lying to \nmake an insurance company pay for an injury based on a lie; is that correct? \n \nAnswer.  (By  claimant)  Listen. I  was  miserable. My company wouldn’t help \nme get any help. I needed to get some therapy. I have been a nurse for thirty-\nseven years. Therapy would have made me well and it is working. So, yes, I \nlied  to  keep  myself  out  of  trouble  because  you  can’t  use  your  private \ninsurance, I thought. So, I am sorry I did that, but I do have a problem with \nlying. It is eating me up. \n \nQ.  Would you lie to obtain workers’ compensation benefits? \n \nA.  No. Never. \n \nQ.    You  retracted  your  injury. When  you  first  reported  it,  you  retracted  it \nfearing for, I guess your license. And then you were going to take off work \nbecause of your husband’s condition. And then you came back saying now \nyes, I do have an injury. Are you manipulating the facts to make it fall within \nworkers’ compensation? \n \nA. No. I explained about the thing about my husband’s injury. I used it in a \nreminder that I can’t work nights, and they wouldn’t leave it alone. So, I didn’t \nmention anything about not having an injury there. They wanted to send me \nto another home to another client that doesn’t need anything, just sit there \nfor six hours a night. That is bull because why are they on the service if they \ndon’t need help? He was a trachea patient, a little boy. So, I told them when \nI went to work there that I wasn’t working nights. And I retracted the claim \nbecause I am not going to be yelled at and abused and coerced and threatened \nover an injury that – my license means a lot to me. It’s thirty-seven years of \nexemplary service.  \n \n Claimant said she had finished her course of physical therapy and on the day that she was \n\nVandever-H404478 \n8 \n \n \ndischarged, said she was doing pretty good; as of the day of the hearing, she said that she was not the \nsame, but she used her back brace when she worked.  \n When asked about a conversation with the owner of the company, the following exchange \ntook place: \nQuestion  (By  Mr.  Ryburn)  You  talked  about  threatening  to  report  a  drug \nreport to the nursing board, it that correct? \n \nA. (By claimant) Yes sir. \n \nQ. The e-mails you submitted into the record do not reflect this conversation \nat all. Is that your understanding as well? \n \nA.  Well, it was a telephone conversation. \n \nQ.  I am saying that they don’t reflect the conversation occurred. In fact, they \nseem to be trying to hire you back. Is that what happened? \n \nA.  They were going to put me in a different placement but then they dropped \nme. I didn’t drop them. They dropped me. \n \nQ.  When you say dropped, you mean like didn’t schedule you? \n                        \nA.  Right, I haven’t heard from them since, like I said, that day they were going \nto set me up in my home to do medical record review until I could get back to \nwork. \n \nClaimant understood that she worked in a field that was in high demand but did not think \nthat anyone would hire her until she received a full release. She conceded she had not attempted to \nreturn to work, even at a desk, because she did not have a doctor’s release. When asked who or which \ndoctor had taken her off work, claimant simply said that she could not work and is not sure that she \ncould work now. \nOn redirect-examination, claimant stated that the date of the injury on the physical therapy \nintake form that said June 6, was incorrect. She had not had the symptoms of muscle spasms in her \nback and buttocks or stool leakage prior to June 12, 2024. There was then this exchange between \n\nVandever-H404478 \n9 \n \n \nclaimant and her attorney: \nQuestion. (By Ms. Brooks) Earlier Mr. Ryburn was asking you about these e-\nmails. On June 12, you emailed. On June 13, you e-mailed saying I don’t want \nto file a formal claim. At what point did you have the conversation with Gayla \nabout her threatening to turn you into the license board? \n \nA.    I  think  it  was  between  the  12\nTH\n and  the  13\nTH\n. It  could  have  been  the \nmorning of the 13\nTH\n or whenever because I remember telling them to talk to \nGayla. “You need to talk to Gayla. I am not going to file a claim.” \n \n Claimant said that about a week or so after her initial report, she called Gayla and told her she \nthought she needed to go to a doctor and Gayla said “no.”   \n The Court then questioned claimant to establish the timeline of the events of June 12 and 13, \n2024. This exchange will be set forth in the adjudication section of this opinion.  \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n Claimant submitted eighty-seven pages of medical records, including thirteen pages of records \npredating her alleged date of injury, June 12, 2024. The progress notes from February 21, 2024, of Dr. \nSong Zang recorded that claimant had bilateral hip pain which was consistent with hip bursitis. She \nwas given steroid injections in each hip.  \n Consistent with claimant’s testimony, she did not seek medical treatment for her alleged injury \nuntil September 12, 2024, when she saw APRN Donna Long at MedExpress. APRN Long diagnosed \nclaimant with lower back pain and left hip pain with radiculopathy. She ordered x-rays which showed \n“No focal area of soft tissue swelling is appreciable. No acute fracture or subluxation is evident on \nprovided  views. There  are  no advanced  degenerative  changes  are  evident. No  radial  dense  foreign \nbodies are identified.”  The impression was: “No acute osseous abnormality.” APRN Long referred \nclaimant to an orthopedic surgeon.  \n Although  there  was  not  a contemporaneous medical  record  with  claimant’s  visit  to \n\nVandever-H404478 \n10 \n \n \nWashington Regional Medical Center on November 7, 2024, claimant was again x-rayed at the request \nof  Dr.  Jennifer  Cheatham. The  findings  were,  “Two  view  lumbar  spine  demonstrates  mild \ndegenerative  disk disease. Atherosclerotic  calcification  of  the  abdominal  aorta. Mild  facet  joint \narthropathy  of  the  lower  lumbar  spine. No compression fracture.”  The impression was, “Mild \ndegenerative disc disease and facet joint arthropathy of the lumbar spine. No acute findings.” \n On  December  19,  2024, claimant  was  seen  at  West  Washington  County  Clinic  in  Lincoln, \nArkansas where she presented with a history of illness of low back pain with radiculopathy into her \nlower left extremity which began on June 12, 2024, when she was lifting a patient. Claimant related \nthat the pain radiated into her left buttock and down the posterior thigh but did not radiate past her \nknee. The examination of claimant’s lumbar/sacral spine demonstrated tenderness at the left sciatic \nnotch but not the lumbar spine, the left paraspinal, the right paraspinal, or the right sciatic notch. The \nSLR test and the Faber test was both positive on the left side. The assessment was that claimant had \nlow back pain radiating into her lower left extremity and sacroiliac joint pain. The plan was for claimant \nto begin a course of physical therapy and have an MRI on her spine. Claimant was treated that day by \nPhysician’s Assistant Kacy Enlow and the report was reviewed by Dr. Cheatham. \n On  December  30,  2024,  claimant  was  seen  at  Washington  Regional  Medical  Center  for  an \nMRI of her lumbar spine. The findings were as follows: \nThe  vertebral  bodies  of  the  lumbar  spine  maintain  normal  height  and \nalignment.  No  fracture seen.  There  is  normal  marrow  signal.  The  conus \nmedullaris terminates at L 1-2 and is normal in signal and morphology. There \nis no acute paraspinal abnormality seen. \n \nAt L 1-2, no abnormality. \nAt  L2-3,  mild  loss  of  disc  height  and  disc  desiccation  is  seen.  There  is  mild \nannular  disc bulging.  There  is  thickening  of  the  ligamentum  flavum.  No \nsignificant neural foraminal narrowing or central canal stenosis. \n \nAt L3-4, disc desiccation is demonstrated with annular disc bulge. There is left \nforaminal disc  fissuring.  No  central  canal  stenosis  or  neural  foraminal \n\nVandever-H404478 \n11 \n \n \nnarrowing. Mild bilateral facet osteoarthritis. \n \nAt  L4-5,  there  is  mild  posterior  disc  bulge.  There  is  mild  thickening  of \nligamentum flavum and mild facet hypertrophy and osteoarthritis. There is no \nsignificant  central  canal  stenosis seen.  There  is  mild  left  neural  foraminal \nnarrowing. \n \nAt  L5-S1,  no  disc  herniation.  No  central  canal  stenosis  or  significant  neural \nforaminal narrowing. \n \nThe  impression  was  mild  lumbar  spondylosis  without  evidence  of  high-grade  central  canal \nstenosis or neuroforaminal narrowing. \n Claimant began her physical therapy at STAR on January 2, 2025. As was brought out during \nher testimony, claimant gave the history of her current condition was “Picking up something heavy \nand she had to put it down quickly, so she twisted to put it on the counter.”  However, in the subjective \nportion of the report, claimant stated that she was lifting and transferring a patient when she twisted \nher back, causing instant pain to her low back and left hip.  \n Claimant  returned  to  the  West  Washington  County  Clinic  on  February  17,  2025. The \nexamination  of  claimant’s  lumber/sacral  spine  shows,  “A  left  SI  joint  TTP  and  compression. \nExtension was painful. Lateral left flexion was painful. Rotation to the left was painful. Special test \npositive hip thrust, faber.” Claimant was given a SI joint injection.  \nClaimant  returned  to  see  PT  Wewers  on  February  28,  2025,  and  said  that  the  injection \nprovided a slight change. On March 14, 2025, claimant stated that she did not think there had been \nany improvement in the past week but there was improvement after the injection. On March 26, 2025, \nclaimant reported that she had not had any glute pain since her last appointment of March 17, 2025, \nalthough she still had pain in her back at that visit. PT Britney Wewers discharged claimant on April \n23, 2025; during that final visit, claimant stated that she was doing a lot better and denied any pain \ndown in her glutes since February. PT Wewers stated in her assessment that “The patient’s discharge \n\nVandever-H404478 \n12 \n \n \nprognosis  is  good. Patient  is  improved  a  full  ROM  of  the  lumbar  spine  without  limitations. She \ncontinues to report fatigue of her low back and at times and requires a back brace. Patient has met her \ngoals at this time.” \n Claimant submitted nine pages of non-medical evidence which consisted of e-mails dated from \nMay 6, 2024, through June 24, 2024, and a text message of July 9, 2024. The relevant e-mails and texts \nwill be discussed below in the Adjudication section of this Opinion. \nADJUDICATION \n \n To  prove  a  compensable  injury,  the  claimant  must  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence:  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  that  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; \n(3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16) \nestablishing the injury; and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident and identifiable by time \nand place of occurrence. If the claimant fails to establish any of the requirements for establishing the \ncompensability of the claim, compensation must be denied. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. \nApp.  126,  938  S.W.2d  876  (1997). I  find  claimant  has  failed  to  meet  her  burden  of  proof  that  the \nalleged injury caused harm that required medical services.  \n On direct examinations, claimant said she withdrew her claim for benefits because Gayla had \nthreatened  to  report  her  to  the  nursing  board  for  drug  use. (T.10-11) During cross-examination, \nclaimant then  said  she did  not  send  the  email  to  Gayla  under threat  or coercion (T.27)  but then \nrepeated that she had been coerced into not filing a claim, (T.42). Because I had heard contradictory \nstatements from claimant on this critical issue, I requested that she clarify the sequence of events that \noccurred on June 12 and 13, 2024. From her testimony, I determined this was the timeline:  \n1.  10:11 p.m. June 12, an email was sent to Brook Buchanan an employee of \nrespondent. \n\nVandever-H404478 \n13 \n \n \n \n2.  10:24 a.m. June 13, claimant received a form from Rachel Miller that needed \nto be returned. \n \n3.  11:55 a.m. June 13, claimant sent an e-mail to Gayla saying, “I sent an injury \nreport this morning and I think I was misunderstood.” \n \n4.  11:57 a.m. claimant sent an e-mail to Rachel Miller that said “Please talk to \nGayla. I am not, nor do I need to file a workers’ compensation claim.” \n \n5.  A few days after numbers 1-4, claimant had her telephone conversation with \nGayla. (T.49-50) \n \n I simply do not believe claimant was threatened with the loss of her nursing license by Gayla \nor anyone else associated with respondent Homebound Medical to get her to retract her claim. The \nsequence of the events of June 13, 2024, shows that claimant had sent an email after normal business \nhours on June 12, 2024, and the next morning, respondents acted appropriately in providing claimant \nthe information she needed to begin her workers’ compensation claim. Claimant’s testimony was that \nafter she declined to pursue the injury claim, Homebound Medical offered to send her to another job; \nno one raised an issue about claimant’s medications. Claimant declined because it was an overnight \nposition, but the fact remains that instead of trying to jeopardize her nursing license over drug use, \nrespondents were willing to continue to use her services.  \n Because I have questions about claimant’s veracity as to the circumstances around her alleged \ninjury and her failure to compete the forms to report it, her testimony failed to persuade me that the \ninjury for which she eventually sought treatment was more than the pulled muscle she related to her \nemployer on June 13, 2024. The Arkansas Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 \nArk. 443, 447, 990 S.W.2d 522, 524 (1999) stated:   \n\"The plethora of possible causes for work-related injuries includes many that \ncan be established by common-sense observation and deduction. To require \nmedical proof of causation in every case appears out of line with the general \npolicy of economy and efficiency contained within the workers' compensation \nlaw. To  be  sure,  there will  be  circumstances  where  medical  evidence  will  be \n\nVandever-H404478 \n14 \n \n \nnecessary  to  establish  that  a  particular  injury  resulted  from  a  work-related \nincident but not in every case.\" (Emphasis added.)  \n \n Because of claimant’s inconsistent statements and her delay in seeking medical treatment, a \nmedical provider needed to opine that what was being treated was the probable result of the alleged \ninjury of June 12, 2024, in order for her to establish the connection between her alleged work-related \ninjury and the low back injury for which she was treated. I recognize the records contain numerous \naccounts from claimant as to how the injury took place, but none of the medical providers expressed \nan opinion that what claimant was being treated for was connected to that incident. Additionally, the \nradiographic  evidence as  set  forth  above is  inclusive for the  necessary objective  finding of  a \ncompensable injury.  \nBased on the foregoing, I find that claimant has failed to meet her burden of proving by a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that she  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  lower  back while \nworking for respondent on June 12, 2024. \nORDER \n \nClaimant has failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe  suffered  a  compensable injury  to  her  low  back  on  June  12,  2024.  Therefore,  her claim  for \ncompensation benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \ntranscript in the amount of $ 623.00. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404478 MARILYNN G. VANDEVER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HOMEBOUND MEDICAL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING LLC, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 20, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansa...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:55.756Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404478-2025-06-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/VANDEVER_MARILYNN_H404478_20250620.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}