{"id":"alj-H404760-2025-06-18","awcc_number":"H404760","decision_date":"2025-06-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Bruce Golden","employer_name":"City Of Mccrory","title":"GOLDEN VS. CITY OF McCRORY AWCC# H404760 June 18, 2025","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","knee","back","concussion","fracture","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Golden_Bruce_H404760_20250618.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Golden_Bruce_H404760_20250618.pdf","text_length":27917,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H404760 \n \n \nBRUCE K. GOLDEN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF McCRORY, \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARK. MUN. LEAGUE, \n THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 18, 2025 \n \nHearing  before Chief Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on May  2,  2025,  in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by Ms. Mary K. Edwards, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On May 2, 2025, the above-captioned claim was heard in Jonesboro, Arkansas.  \nA prehearing conference took place on March 3, 2025.  The Prehearing Order entered \non that date pursuant to the conference was admitted without objection as Commission \nExhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the  stipulations,  issue,  and \nrespective contentions were properly set forth in the order. \nStipulations \n At  the  hearing,  the  parties  discussed  the  stipulations set  forth  in  Commission \nExhibit 1.  They are the following, which I accept: \n1. The Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (the  “Commission”) \nhas jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n2 \n \n2. The  employee/self-insured  employer/third-party  administrator relationship \nexisted among the  parties  on June  17,  2023,  when  Claimant  suffered \ncompensable  injuries  to  his  right  shoulder  and  left  knee  by  specific \nincident. \n3. Respondents  accepted  the  above  injuries  as  compensable  and  paid \nbenefits pursuant thereto. \nIssue \n At the hearing, the parties discussed the issue set forth in Commission Exhibit 1.  \nThe following was litigated: \n1. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  treatment  of  his  stipulated \ncompensable  injuries  in  the  form  of  surgery  recommended  by  Dr.  Joel \nSmith. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties read as follows: \n Claimant: \n 1. Claimant contends that he sustained admitted compensable injuries to the \nleft    knee    and    right    shoulder.        Surgical    intervention    has    been \nrecommended  for  these  body  parts;  but  such  has  been  denied  by \nRespondents. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n3 \n \n Respondents: \n1. Respondents  contend  that  Claimant  has  received  all  appropriate  medical \ncare  to  which  he  is  entitled.    He  saw  Dr.  Spencer  Guinn  for  his  right \nshoulder and left knee.  On March 25, 2024, Dr. Guinn returned Claimant \nto full duty.  In a follow-up dated May 20, 2024, Guinn placed Claimant at \nmaximum  medical  improvement  and  assigned  him  a  zero  percent  (0%) \nimpairment rating for both his shoulder and his knee.  The doctor did not \nrecommend  further  treatment  to  either  body  part.    Of  note,  Claimant  has \npre-existing issues. \n2. Claimant  changed  physicians  to  Dr.  Smith,  who  on  October  7,  2024, \nimmediately   recommended   surgery   for   both   the   left   knee  and   right \nshoulder  after  only  seeing  him  one  time.    Respondents  denied  further \ntreatment after this visit. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documents, and \nother  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear \nthe  testimony  of  Claimant  and  to  observe  his demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704 \n(Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n4 \n \n3. Claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \nentitled to additional treatment of his stipulated compensable left knee and \nright  shoulder injuries in  the  form  of surgery and  related  treatment \nrecommended by Dr. Joel Smith. \nADJUDICATION \nSummary of Evidence \n Claimant was the sole hearing witness. \n In  addition  to  the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  the  exhibits  admitted  into \nevidence in this case were Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of his medical  records, \nconsisting of one index page and 47 numbered pages thereafter; Respondents’ Exhibit \n1, another compilation of Claimant’s medical records, likewise  consisting  of  one  index \npage  and 25 numbered  pages  thereafter; and Respondents’ Exhibit  2, non-medical \nrecords related to this claim, consisting of one index page and seven numbered pages \nthereafter. \nAdjudication \n Introduction.   As  the  parties  have  stipulated—and  I  have  accepted—Claimant \nsustained compensable injuries to his left knee and right shoulder on June 17, 2023.  In \nthis  proceeding,  he  is  seeking  additional  treatment of  them.    This  would  come  in  the \nform   of surgery   by   Dr.   Smith,   who   has   recommended   that   he   undergo these \nprocedures.    Respondents,  on  the  other  hand, have  denied  that either  operation  is \nreasonably and necessary. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n5 \n \n Evidence.    In his  testimony,  Claimant described  how  his compensable injuries \noccurred.  A law enforcement officer, Claimant was at a house, attempting to apprehend \na suspect.  He related: \nWell,  around  the  corner  of  the  house—the  corner  of  the  house, [I] go  to \nthe back of the house, there is a porch there.  Instead of the door, she had \na sheet hanging up.  As I approached that sheet, I could hear somebody \nmoving around there.  It sounded like it went back inside the house.  So at \nthat time, I pulled my taser out, pulled the curtain back, and looked inside \nreal   carefully   and   stepped   up   on   the   porch.  And   the   lady   that \ncomplained—the complainant was standing inside, kind of to the left of the \nkitchen  table.  And I  did  like  this (indicating) and  she  pulled  it  over to my \nright-hand side.  And at that time, he came out to the table.  And I had to \ngo  back and  review  the  video .  .  . because  I  was  knocked  of  conscious \nwhen  I  fell.  And  in  the  camera  footage,  he  went  out  to—started  out  the \ndoor.  I went around the table, and I deployed my taser as I was going out \nthe  door.  And  it  was  like  a  two-block  foundation  of  that  house,  which  is \nabout  18,  20  inches [high].  And I don’t know if I missed the step or just \ntripped.  But  when  I  fell,  I  tased  him  as  I  was  going  out  the  door.  And  I \ntripped  and  fell  down  on  my  right  elbow,  which  injured  my  shoulder and \nmy  left  knee,  and  I  also  had a  concussion  with  a  big  knot  on  the  back  of \nmy head.  And my [body] camera, I landed on it, knocked the breath out of \nme  and  knocked  me  out.  When  I  come  too,  I  could  just  barely  see \ndaylight.  First thing I heard behind it was a lady screaming, “Are you OK?  \nAre you OK?“ \n \n Initially,  Claimant  was taken to the  emergency  room  at  White  County  Medical \nCenter.  The record of his June 17, 2023, visit to the hospital shows that presented with, \ninter alia, pain in his left knee and right shoulder.  The x-ray of his knee revealed “[n]o \nacute  findings”;  and  his  shoulder  x-ray  showed  only  degenerative  changes  of  his \nglenohumeral and acromioclavicular joints, with no fracture or dislocation. \n Thereafter, Claimant  visited  the  McCrory  Family  Clinic  on  four  occasions,  from \nJune 20, 2023, to October 10, 2023.  The reports of those visits show that Claimant still \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n6 \n \nwas complaining of left knee and right shoulder pain from his work-related fall.  Multiple \nphysical therapy sessions on the shoulder resulted in no improvement. \n On  December  7,  2023,  he  underwent  an  MRI  of  his  right  shoulder.    Per  Dr.  Bill \nRice,  who  was  the  radiologist  who  initially  reviewed the  MRI, and Dr.  Guinn,  who  later \nreviewed it but termed the study a “poor quality” one, it showed him to have not only \nedema  in  the  shoulder,  but  a  suspected  SLAP  tear.    While  Guinn  wrote  that  Claimant \n“may”  have  such  a  tear,  Rice  opined  that its  existence  was  “probable.”    Dr.  Guinn \nreferred  Claimant  for  shoulder  injections  by  Dr.  Morgan  Benefield.   After  seeing  him \nagain on January 26, 2024, Dr. Guinn wrote: \nFor the right shoulder, he had 5 or 6 days of great relief, but then the pain \nhas  returned.    We  discussed  that  unfortunately  with  that  sort  of  relief,  he \nwill  most  likely  require  surgery.    He  had  a  very  poor  quality  non-contrast \nstudy  MRI  scan  of  his  shoulder,  so  we  also  discussed  the  possibility  of \nobtaining an MR arthrogram of the right shoulder. \n \nAs for the left knee, Dr. Guinn stated that Claimant had a “probable medial meniscus \ntear.”  Noting that that Claimant had only had x-rays of the knee, the doctor stated that \nhe and Claimant discussed his undergoing and MR arthrogram of the knee. \n On  February  19,  2024,  Claimant  underwent a  second  MRI of his  right  shoulder.  \nPer Dr. Ezekiel Shotts, who read the MRI, it showed Claimant to have a “[l]ow grade \npartial  articular  surface infraspinatus tendon  tear[.]”    That  same  day,  Claimant  also \nunderwent an MRI of his left knee.  Dr. Christopher Ryen authored the MRI report and \nwrote  that  the  test  showed  not  only “trace” effusion in the joint, but also “[f]ree edge \nfraying/tearing of the medial meniscus posterior horn with mild extrusion of [the] medial \nmeniscus body.” \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n7 \n \n Claimant returned to Dr. Guinn on February 23, 2024.  The doctor reviewed the \nshoulder MRI and wrote that it “reveal[ed] arthrosis of the AC joint . . . [with] very low-\ngrade  partial-thickness  articular-sided  tearing  of  the  infraspinatus.”    Likewise,  he \nreviewed the knee MRI and found that it reflected “mild fraying of the medial meniscus   \n. . . [with] no evidence of tearing . . . [but] mild chondrosis of the medial compartment.”  \nDr. Guinn’s report includes the following: \nImpression & Recommendations: \nASSESSMENT \n1.  Right shoulder pain \n2.  Left knee pain \n \nPLAN \nI had a lengthy discussion with the patient regarding his findings.  On the \nknee,  he  has  some  mild  fraying  and  some  mild  pre-existing  arthritis,  so \nthis  appears  to  be  nonsurgical.    I  have  discussed  treatment  options.    He \nwould like to receive a left knee injection. \n \nFor his right shoulder, the injury appears to be isolated to the AC joint and \nactually  the  edema  has  improved  since  his  original  film.    I  recommended \nthat we continue to treat this non-surgically and he agrees.  I will send him \nback to physical therapy 3 times a week plus a daily home program.  He \nwill follow up in 1 month. \n \n In a follow-up visit with Dr. Guinn on March 25, 2024, per the report thereof, the \ndoctor noted the following: \nHis  shoulder  is  doing  good.    He  had  to  avoid  doing  the  stretching  or \nanything  out.    He  can work  around  it,  but  he  has  a  little  range  of motion, \nbut he still has soreness in the muscle.  Picking something up very heavy \naggravates it.  Therapy is still helping with his range of motion, but it is not \nkeeping  him  from  hurting.    He  had  4  weeks of  physical  therapy 3  days a \nweek  and  would  like  1  more  day  left.    The  patient  states  that  he  had  an \narthritis treatment this morning. \n \nHis left knee felt better a couple of days after the injection.  He rates it as 2 \ncurrently.  He can feel a pulling sensation when he walks downhill. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n8 \n \n \n. . . \n \nIMPRESSION & RECOMMENDATIONS \nASSESSMENT \n1. Workman’s compensation injuries. \nPLAN \nHe   is still   having   difficulty   with   lifting   anything   heavy   overhead.  \nUnfortunately, due to his work schedule, therapy is very difficult for him to \nattend.  He will go one more time, switch over to a home program.  He will \ndo these daily on his own. \n \n. . . \n \nASSESSMENT \n2. Left knee pain. \nWe  had  a  discussion  about  options.    I  do  not  appreciate  any  surgical \nindications for the knee.  He did have some pre-existing arthritis.  He is on \nsystemic arthritis therapy.  He would like to have another injection. \n \n On May 20, 2024, Claimant went to Dr. Guinn for the last time.  That report reads \nin pertinent part: \nHistory of Present Illness: \nBruce Golden is a 59-year-old male who is here for follow-up of his work-\nrelated  injuries  to  his  right  shoulder  and  left  knee.    At  his  last  visit  2 \nmonths ago, I injected his right shoulder. \n \nThe patient’s shoulder condition remains unchanged, limiting his ability to \nengage in activities such as throwing a baseball or washing his hair. \n \nThe patient reports that the previous injection administered to his knee did \nnot  alleviate  his  pain,  and  he  continues  to  experience  pain  the  following \nday.    He  experiences  pain  when  moving  his  foot  to  the  left  or  right  side, \nparticularly when his foot is hit by an object. \n \n. . . \n \nImaging \nMRI of the right shoulder shows arthritis at the end of the collar bone and \nmild inflammation of the rotator cuff.  MRI of the left knee shows a little bit \nof arthritis and a frayed spot on the meniscus, but no tear. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n9 \n \n \nImpression & Recommendations \nASSESSMENT \nWork-related injuries to the right shoulder and left knee. \n \nPLAN \nThe patient’s  condition  has  unfortunately  plateaued,  with  no  significant \nimprovement  observed.    Prior  to  this  injury,  he  was  under  the  care  of  a \nhand  surgeon  for  his  rheumatoid arthritis  and  was  scheduled  for  surgery.  \nHowever,  due  to  his  ongoing  treatment  for  his  workers’  compensation \ninjury, he opted for a release.  Currently, the patient is at full duty and is at \nmaximum  medical   improvement.     His   impairment   can   be   calculated \nseparately. \n \n. . . \n \nAccording  to  the  American  Medical  Consultation  [sic]  Guides  to  the \nEvaluation  of  Permanent  Impairment  for  [sic]  4\nth\n edition,  the  patient  is \ndeemed  fit  for  full  duty  at  his  workplace.   He  has  a  0  percent  impairment \nrating for his shoulder and knee injuries. \n \n Claimant’s testimony was that he has undergone injections to both his left knee \nand  his  right  shoulder.    However,  only  his  injured  shoulder  has  been  addressed  in \nphysical therapy sessions.  His testimony, which is corroborated by the medical records \nhighlighted  above,  is  that  he  is  still  experiencing  pain  in  both  and  knee  and  in  the \nshoulder.  Claimant described feeling a “grinding” sensation in both of them.  His knee \ndiscomfort  is  so  problematic  that  he  feels  pain  even  when  sitting  in  a  recliner  and \nelevating his left leg. \n According  to  Claimant,  he  anticipated  both  his  knee  and  his  shoulder  being \ntreated  surgically  while  he  was  under  Dr.  Guinn’s  care.    But  that  did  not  end  up \nhappening. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n10 \n \n As   a   result,   Claimant   sought   a   one-time   change   of   physician   from   the \nCommission.  This was granted in an Order entered on September 19, 2024.  Pursuant \nto  this  order, Claimant  saw  Dr.  Smith on  October  7,  2024.   Claimant  related  that  he \nbrought  his  medical  records—including  his  MRIs—with  him  to  that  appointment  for \nSmith to review.  The report of that visit reads in pertinent part: \nChief Complaints: \n1.  Right Shoulder Pain \n2.  Left Knee Pain \n \nHPI: This is a 59 year old male who: \n1.  is  right  hand  dominant  and  is  being  seen  for  a  chief  complaint  of \nshoulder  pain,  involving  the  right  shoulder.    This  occurred  in  the \ncontext  of  an  injury  at  work  on 06/17/2023  (Police  officer  chased \nafter  someone  and  fell  off  a  two  foot  drop)  and  has  been  treated \nwith   activity   modification,   muscle   relaxant,   NSAIDs,   naproxen, \nphysical therapy, and subacromial steroid injection.  He has had no \nsurgical  procedures.    The  shoulder  pain  occurs  randomly.    The \nshoulder  pain  is  described  as  sharp  and  popping  and  associated \nwith   arm   weakness,   difficulty   sleeping,   worse   with   overhead \nactivity,  and  worse  with  forward  elevation.    The  shoulder  pain \nwas/is 8 out of 10 on an average day.  He reports often functional \nlimitations. \n2.  presents  for  left  knee  pain  located  on  the  front  of  the  knee.  \nSymptoms  began  as  a  result  of  an  injury  at  work  on 06/17/2024 \n(Chasing  a  guy  and  fell  off  a  2  foot  ledge).  The  pain  constantly \noccurs  and  is  aching  and  dull.  In  addition,  the  patient rates  their \npain as 3 out of 10 on an average day.  The pain is associated with \nstiffness and the knee giving way.  He has been treated with steroid \ninjection(total  number  of  injections =  2),  rest,  ice,  and  elevation, \nmuscle   relaxants,   and   NSAIDs.  He   has   had   no   surgical \nprocedures.  He has had the following diagnostic studies:  MRI.  He \nreports often functional limitations. \n \n. . . \n \nSpecial: \nRight  Shoulder:    AC  cross  chest:    painful,  Hawkin’s  impingement:  \npositive, and Neer impingement:  positive \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n11 \n \n \n. . . \n \nSpecial: \nLeft Knee:  Apley Grind Test:  positive medial \n \n. . . \n \nMRI Interpretation Knee \nMRI:  left MRI Knee \nMRI  of  the  left  knee  was  reviewed,  demonstrating  the  following  findings:  \nFree  edge  fraying  of  the  medial  meniscus  w  extrusion.    Low  grade \nchondromalacia.  Remaining exam is normal \n \n. . . \n \nMRI Interpretation Shoulder \nMRI:  right MRI Shoulder \nMRI  of  the  right  shoulder  was  reviewed,  demonstrating  the  following \nfindings:  Partial thickness infraspinatus tear.  AC joint arthrosis \n \nImpression/Plan: \n1.  Medial Meniscus Tear, Acute, Left \nOther  tear  of  medial  meniscus,  current  injury,  left  knee,  initial \nencounter (S83.242A) \nDistributed on the left knee joint and left knee \nPain Intensity:  3.0 – 3/10 Pain \n \n. . . \n \nAfter counseling the patient, we decided on the following plan for the LEFT \nKNEE:  Partial Meniscectomy \n \n. . . \n \nHe has tried an injection and PT without improvement or resolution of his \npain.  At this point, I think he is a candidate for a knee scope with PMM. \n \n. . . \n2. Rotator Cuff Tear, Partial, Right \nIncomplete  rotator  cuff  tear  or  rupture  of  right  shoulder,  not  specified  as \ntraumatic (M75.111) \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n12 \n \nAssociated    diagnoses:        Acromioclavicular    Arthritis    and    Shoulder \nImpingement \nPain Intensity: 8.0 – 8/10 Pain \n \n. . . \n \nAfter  counseling  the  patient,  we  decided  on  the  following  plan  for  the \nRIGHT  shoulder:    Athroscopic  subacromial  decompression  and  Mumford \nProcedure \n \n. . . \n \nThis  has  been  going  on  for  over  a  year  without  resolution  with  injections \nand PT.  He has AC joint arthritis, but did not have pain from that until this \ninjury.  He has had an exacerbation of the arthritis and inflammation from \nhis injury now resulting in pain.  At this point, I recommend a right shoulder \nscope  with  SAD/DCR  and  possible  RCR  depending  on  intra-operative \nevaluation.  I do believe his AC joint pain is from his injury last year. \n \n Asked  about  Dr. Smith’s  above  recommendations  that  he  undergo  surgery on \nboth his left knee and right shoulder, Claimant testified that he agrees with both of those \nrecommendations and is willing to undergo those procedures.  He elaborated: \nI can’t function.  I can’t do anything that I need to do around the house in \nthe way it’s been.  Things that need to be done but I can’t do it myself.  I \ncan’t afford to pay for it.  I’m not—I don’t have any income except for my \nretirement check. \n \nBecause of his shoulder issues, Claimant has limitations concerning how much he can \nlift  with  it.    When  lying  on  his  back,  his  right  upper  extremity  is  practically  useless.  \nWalking  hurts  his  left  knee.    Placing  pressure  on  it  causes  it  to  hurt.   To  treat  his \nsymptoms,  Claimant  relies  on  over-the-counter  pain  medications,  along  with  muscle \nrelaxers that he has been prescribed for his back. \n Claimant’s understanding is that Dr. Smith took him off work.  He is now simply \nwaiting  for  approval  to  have  these  two  operations.  It  is  his  belief  that  without  these \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n13 \n \nsurgeries,  he  will  be  unable  to  resume  his  duties  as  a  law  enforcement  officer.    He \nreasoned  that  his  duty  belt  and  other  equipment  would  be  too  difficult  to  carry  in  his \ncurrent  condition, and that  physical  activities such as  handling a  suspect  would not  be \nphysically  possible.    Claimant  denied  suffering  any  other  injury  that  has  caused  his \ncurrent left knee and right shoulder conditions. \n Discussion.   Claimant’s testimony is that he wishes to have  the  two  operations \nthat Dr. Smith has recommended to treat his left knee and right shoulder issues.  I credit \nthis along  with his  other  testimony  as  outlined  above.  A claimant’s testimony is never \nconsidered  uncontroverted.   Nix  v.  Wilson  World  Hotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d \n457 (1994).  The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much weight to accord \nto that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural \nEnt.,  72  Ark.  App.  309,  37  S.W.3d  649  (2001).    The  Commission  must  sort  through \nconflicting  evidence  and  determine  the  true facts.   Id.    In  so  doing,  the  Commission  is \nnot  required  to  believe  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness,  but  may \naccept  and  translate  into  findings  of  fact  only  those  portions  of  the  testimony  that  it \ndeems worthy of belief.  Id. \n Arkansas  Code  Annotated  Section  11-9-508(a)  (Repl.  2012)  states  that  an \nemployer shall provide for an injured employee “such medical . . . services . . . as may \nbe reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.”  See \nWal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.  v.  Brown,  82  Ark.  App.  600,  120  S.W.3d  153  (2003).    The \nclaimant  must  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that the  subject medical \ntreatment  is  reasonable  and  necessary.   Id.; Geo  Specialty  Chem.  v.  Clingan,  69  Ark. \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n14 \n \nApp.  369,  13  S.W.3d  218  (2000).    The  standard  “preponderance  of  the  evidence” \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 \nArk.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415; Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove  Barium  Corp.,  212  Ark.  491,  206 \nS.W.2d 442 (1947).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a \nquestion  of  fact  for  the  Commission.   White  Consolidated  Indus.  v.  Galloway,  74  Ark. \nApp.  13,  45  S.W.3d  396  (2001); Wackenhut  Corp.  v.  Jones,  73  Ark.  App.  158,  40 \nS.W.3d 333 (2001). \n In   order   to   prove   his   entitlement   to   the   requested surgeries   and   related \ntreatment,   Claimant   must   prove   that they   are causally   related   to   his stipulated \ncompensable knee and shoulder injuries.  See Pulaski Cty. Spec. Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, \n2013 Ark. App. 569, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 601.  Both Drs. Guinn and Smith have opined \nthat Claimant’s left knee and right shoulder problems—which  are  well-documented  in \ntheir  reports  in  evidence—relate  to  the stipulated  work-related June  17,  2023, incident \nwhen  Claimant  fell  while  attempting  to  apprehend  a  suspect.  Per Wal-Mart  v.  Van \nWagner,  337  Ark.  443,  990  S.W.2d  522  (1999),  medical  evidence  is  not  ordinarily \nrequired to prove causation; but if a medical opinion is offered on causation, the opinion \nmust be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(16)(B)  (Supp.  2023).    But  the  Arkansas  Supreme  Court  in Freeman  v.  Con-Agra \nFrozen  Foods,  344  Ark.  296,  40  S.W.3d  760  (2001)  stated:    “This  court  has  never \nrequired . . . that the magic words ‘within a reasonable degree of medical certainty’ even \nbe used by the doctor.”  Instead, the opinion will pass muster if the opinion language \nused  by  the  physician  goes  beyond  mere  possibilities  and  establishes  the  causal \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n15 \n \nconnection between the injury/condition in question and Claimant’s work.  Both Guinn \nand Smith in their reports supra met this standard. \n But  the  opinions  of  the  two  doctors diverge  when  it  comes  to  recommending \nsurgical treatment of Claimant’s left knee and right shoulder problems.  Guinn  did  not \nrecommend   that   Claimant   be   operated   on   for   these   conditions.      Instead,   he \nacknowledged that Claimant was still having knee and shoulder symptoms and had not \nhad  significant  improvement,  but  opted  to  release  him  from  treatment  anyway  without \nany  further  recommendations—despite  the  fact  that  early  on,  he  had  stated that \nClaimant  would  “most  likely”  need  surgery  on  his  shoulder  in  order  to  obtain  lasting \nrelief.    Smith,  on  the  other  hand,  having  benefits  of  the  same  diagnostic  studies,  has \nopined that  surgery  is appropriate  at  this  point because  of  the  well-documented  failure \nof  conservative  treatment.    After  close  scrutiny  of  the  evidence,  I  credit  the  opinion  of \nDr.  Smith  over  that  of  Dr.  Guinn  on  this.    The  Commission  is  authorized  to  accept  or \nreject  a  medical  opinion  and  is  authorized  to  determine  its  medical  soundness  and \nprobative  value.   Poulan  Weed  Eater  v.  Marshall,  79  Ark.  App.  129,  84  S.W.3d  878 \n(2002); Green Bay Packing v. Bartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 692 (1999). \n As  the  Arkansas  Court  of  Appeals  has  held,  a  claimant  may  be  entitled  to \nadditional treatment even after the healing period has ended, if said treatment is geared \ntoward management of  the  injury.  See Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc., 86  Ark.  App. \n230,  184  S.W.3d  31  (2004); Artex  Hydrophonics,  Inc.  v.  Pippin,  8  Ark.  App.  200,  649 \nS.W.2d 845 (1983).  Such services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the \nnature and extent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms resulting \n\nGOLDEN – H404760 \n \n16 \n \nfrom  the  compensable  injury;  maintaining  the  level  of  healing  achieved;  or  preventing \nfurther  deterioration  of  the  damage  produced  by  the  compensable  injury.   Jordan  v. \nTyson  Foods,  Inc.,  51  Ark.  App.  100,  911  S.W.2d  593  (1995); Artex, supra.    The \nevidence adduced above shows that the surgeries and related treatment outlined by Dr. \nSmith above to address his left knee and right shoulder injuries meet this standard, and \nthus are reasonable and necessary.  In short, Claimant has met his evidentiary burden \nand by establishing by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  his  entitlement  to  these \nprocedures and related treatment at the expense of Respondents. \nCONCLUSION AND AWARD \n Respondents are directed to pay/furnish benefits in accordance with the findings \nof fact and conclusions of law set forth above.  All accrued sums shall be paid in a lump \nsum  without  discount,  and  this  award  shall  earn  interest  at  the  legal  rate  until  paid, \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. 2002).  See Couch v. First State Bank of \nNewport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995). \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H404760 BRUCE K. GOLDEN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF McCRORY, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARK. MUN. LEAGUE, THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 18, 2025 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on May 2, 2025, in Jonesbor...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:45.204Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404760-2025-06-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Golden_Bruce_H404760_20250618.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}