{"id":"alj-H404935-2025-01-23","awcc_number":"H404935","decision_date":"2025-01-23","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Marquette Johnson","employer_name":"At&t Services, Inc","title":"JOHNSON VS. AT&T SERVICES, INC. AWCC# H404935 January 23, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","neck","cervical","thoracic","shoulder","fracture","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_MARQUETTE_H404935_20250123.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JOHNSON_MARQUETTE_H404935_20250123.pdf","text_length":31207,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H404935 \n \nMARQUETTE R. JOHNSON, \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nAT&T SERVICES, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nOLD REPUBLIC INS. CO./ \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS  \nMGMT. SERVICES INC., CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 23, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), \nAdministrative  Law  Judge  (ALJ) Mike  Pickens,  in  Little  Rock,  Pulaski  County, Arkansas  on \nOctober 28, 2025. \n \nThe claimant was represented by the Honorable Gregory R. Giles, Moore, Giles & Matteson, \nPLLC, Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Rick Behring, Jr., Newkirk & Jones, Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nINTRODUCTION \n  \n        In the amended prehearing order, which the parties amended and affirmed on the record at the \nOctober 28, 2025, the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \n  jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed with the claimant at all \nrelevant times including July 18, 2024, the date the claimant sustained an admittedly \ncompensable injury to his lower back/lumbar spine in a motor vehicle accident \n(MVA) for which the respondents paid both medical and indemnity benefits.  \n \n3. The parties wish to reserve the issue of the claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) \nand the corresponding rates for temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent \npartial disability (PPD) for a later date. \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n2 \n \n \n4. The respondents have controverted the claimant’s alleged neck/cervical spine claim \nin its entirety. \n \n 5.       If the claimant’s subject alleged neck/cervical spine injury is deemed compensable, \nthe parties agree that pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-411 (2025 Lexis \nReplacement) the respondents are entitled to dollar-for-dollar offset/credit on the   \nmedical, short-term disability (STD), and long-term disability (LTD) paid to or on \nthe claimant’s behalf related to the subject alleged neck/cervical spine injury. \n \n 6. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation and/or \ndetermination. \n \n(Commission  Exhibit  1 at 1-2; Reporter’s Transcript  at 4-7). Pursuant  to  the  parties’  mutual \nagreement the issues litigated at the hearing were: \n1. Whether the claimant sustained a “compensable injury” within the meaning of the \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) to his neck/cervical spine as a result \nof the July 18, 2024, MVA. \n \n2. If the claimant’s alleged neck/cervical spine injury is deemed compensable, the \nextent to which he is entitled to medical and/or indemnity benefits. \n \n3. Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted fee on these facts. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 4-7). \n \n          The claimant contends that in addition to the admittedly compensable lower back/lumbar \nspine  injury he sustained in  the  July  18,  2024,  MVA,  he  also  sustained  a specific-incident \n“compensable injury” to his neck/cervical spine in this MVA. He contends the medical treatment \nhe has received on his neck/cervical spine since the July 18, 2024, MVA – including but not limited \nto his cervical spine surgery – was and remains related to and reasonably necessary for treatment \nof his July 18, 2024, neck/cervical spine injury. He further contends he is entitled to TTD benefits \nfrom on or about March 5, 2025, through November 4, 2025. The claimant contends he is entitled \nto PPD benefits based on Dr. Seales’s permanent anatomical impairment rating of ten percent (10%) \nbody-as-a-whole (BAW). Finally, the claimant contends his attorney is entitled to the maximum \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n3 \n \nstatutory attorney’s fee on this controverted claim; and he specifically reserves any and all other \nissues for future determination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2-3; T. 4-7; 79-83). \n          The respondents contend they paid all appropriate medical and indemnity benefits for the \nclaimant’s admittedly compensable July 18, 2024, lower back/lumbar spine injury. They contend \nthe claimant cannot meet his burden of proof pursuant to the Act in demonstrating he also \nsustained a specific-incident “compensable injury” to his neck/cervical spine as a result of the \nsubject July 18, 2024, MVA. They further contend the claimant failed to provide timely notice of \nany alleged neck/cervical spine injury arising out of the July 18, 2024. The respondents contend \nthe claimant’s alleged neck/cervical spine condition arose from a subsequent intervening event \nand was not the result of his employment and/or the subject July 18, 2024, MVA. The respondents \ncontend the claimant’s alleged neck/cervical spine problems and need for medical treatment, if \nany, are related to a preexisting and/or degenerative condition and not to his work or the subject \nJuly  18,  2024,  MVA. Alternatively, the  respondents  contend  that if the  claimant’s  alleged \nneck/cervical spine problems are compensable, the July 18, 2024, MVA merely constituted a \ntemporary aggravation of his preexisting neck/cervical spine condition for which he previously \nresumed his baseline condition. Finally, the respondents contend that if the claimant’s alleged \nneck/cervical spine problems are deemed compensable and he is awarded any medical and/or  \nindemnity benefits, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-411 (2025 Lexis Replacement) they \nare entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit/setoff in the amount of any and all benefits the claimant’s \ngroup health, short-term disability (STD), and/or long-term disability (LTD) carrier(s) paid to or \non the claimant’s behalf, as well as any and all unemployment benefits paid to or on the claimant’s \nbehalf. Finally, the respondents reserve the right to supplement their contentions and assert any \nand  all  additional  applicable  defense(s)  upon  the  completion  of  any  and  all  necessary  and \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n4 \n \nappropriate investigation and discovery; and they reserve any and all other issues for future \ndetermination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3-4; T. 4-7; 83-85). \n         The record consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein and \nattached thereto.   \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n       The claimant, Mr. Marquette Johnson (the claimant) was 37 years old at the time of the hearing, \nand he has a 12\nth\n grade education. In July of 2023 he began working for the respondent-employer, \nAT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T). After some specialized training the claimant worked as a “prem tech” \nfor AT&T, which required him to install and repair Internet services. He described the job as fairly \nphysical  in  nature  as  he  was  required  to,  among  other  things,  carry  a  ladder  that  weighed \napproximately 50-75 pounds and to climb it as well as to climb into attics and other places in order \nto run wires and do whatever was necessary to install AT&T’s clients’ Internet services. The \nclaimant worked alone without a partner and AT&T supplied him with a service van to drive as \nwell as a cell phone. The claimant was allowed to take the AT&T van home each day after work so \nhe could drive straight to his service calls each day as needed. The claimant testified he never had \nany problems performing his job duties with AT&T prior to the subject MVA. (T. 14-20).  \n       On the date of the subject MVA, July 18, 2024, at around 7:30-35 A.M. the claimant was \ndriving from his home in Jacksonville to his first service call in Sherwood when another driver ran \na stop sign and struck his van in the area between the rear driver’s side wheel and fender. The \nclaimant was wearing his seatbelt, but he said his body “bumped the steering wheel really hard.” \n(T. 23; 20-27). The police and an ambulance arrived at the scene and since the claimant’s back was \n“getting’ tight” the ambulance took him to the Jacksonville Hospital. (T. 26). The MVA resulted in \nminor damage to the service van, with damages estimated at around $2,000, and the collision did \nnot cause the van’s airbags to deploy. (T. 23, 67; Claimant’s Exhibit 2 at 1-111). \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n5 \n \n       The respondents accepted the claimant’s lower back injury as compensable, and he was treated \nconservatively  with medications  and  physical  therapy  (PT).  (T.  50-53). The  claimant  was \ndetermined  to  have reached  maximum  medical  improvement  (MMI)  for  the admittedly \ncompensable lower back injury in September 2024, and thereafter he had no residual problems \nrelated to his lower back injury. (T. 53; CX2 at 68).  \n       The claimant was involved in an MVA in 2020. He was 32 years old at that time. After this \n2020 MVA the claimant did not require an ambulance. He complained of both lower back and neck \npain after the 2020 MVA. The claimant really did not recall his neck being much of a problem back \nin 2020. He underwent conservative treatment related to the 2020 MVA which included PT visits \nand wearing a patch on his lower back for pain. He did not recall being prescribed any medication \nor having undergone an MRI following the 2020 MVA. He missed approximately one (1) month of \nwork as a result of the 2020 MVA, and he obtained an $8,000 third-party settlement as a result of \nthe 2020 MVA. The claimant did not have any physical limitations or restrictions related to the \n2020 MVA, and he never had any further problems with either his lower back or neck, was able to \nperform all his job duties with no problems, and he testified he returned to “full function” after the \n2020 MVA. The claimant did not sustain any lower back or neck injuries between the time of the \n2020 and 2024 MVAs. (T. 27-33; Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 1-30; CX 2 at 29-43). \n       According to the claimant this 2020 MVA and the resulting minor injuries were so insignificant \nhe forgot about them, as he admitted he had failed to mention this 2020 MVA and the resulting \ninjuries and treatment in his recorded statement, or to the physicians who treated him following the \nJuly 18, 2024, MVA and the resulting compensable lower back injury. (T. 27, 29-30; 64; 56-70; \nCX2 at 29-43, 106; RX1 at 1-30; Respondents’ Exhibit 2 at 1-4).  \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n6 \n \n       The claimant admitted he did not complain of neck symptoms or specifically identify any \nsymptoms related to his alleged neck/cervical spine injury following the July 18, 2024, MVA until \nhe experienced what he described as a \"crick\" in his neck soon after the July 18, 2024, MVA. He \ntestified he began to tell his treating providers about his neck pain/the ”crick” in his neck in late \nAugust of 2024. Trent Tappan, a Physician's Assistant (PA) who treated the claimant following the \nJuly 2024 MVA does not specifically mention any of the claimant’s alleged neck complaints in his \ninitial progress notes, but a note dated August 20, 2024, does state that one (!) of the symptoms of \nwhich the claimant was complaining was worsening symptoms while \"looking down.\" (T. 40-45: \nCX1 at 41).  \n       The claimant explained during his testimony at the hearing he did not feel like PA Tappan or \nthe physical therapist were seriously addressing the complaints he mentioned to them relating to \nhis neck. Consequently, the claimant went back to the original treating provider, Baptist Health \nUrgent Care (Baptist Urgent Care), the respondents had arranged for him to see immediately after \nthe July 2024 MVA. On September 9\n, \n2024, the claimant presented himself for treatment at Baptist \nUrgent Care complaining of \"difficulty turning his head, having sharp pains and unable to sleep\". \n(CX2 at 64a-64c). The doctor at Baptist Urgent Care gave the claimant specific instructions to use \na tennis ball to try and work through the muscle tension and prescribed him some muscle relaxers \nand ibuprofen for the symptoms, (CX1 at 64a-64c). \n       Thereafter,  and  although  the  claimant  testified  he  was  reporting  neck  pain  and  related \nsymptoms to them, neither the Farrer Physical Therapy or PA Trent Tappan's records make any \nreference to the claimant telling them about the same neck complaints he had just recently made to \nBaptist Urgent Care on September 9, 2024. (T. 41-46). PA Tappan did document the claimant’s neck \ncomplaints in an October 22, 2024, note, and he ordered an MRI of the claimant’s cervical and \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n7 \n \nthoracic spine. PA Tappan’s clinic note of 10/22/2024 reports, \"he states that he has had left sided \nshoulder, arm pain and neck pain since the injury as a result of the injury.\" (CX2 at 86-88). After \nnoting the claimant reported to him “significantly worsening” neck complaints, PA Tappan states: \n“I am not sure what is causing Marquette's pain in his neck...a common complaint that he has had \nfor a while (he acknowledges) but has gotten much worse more recently...I do not think there is \nmuch else to offer him. I really cannot speak to his neck.\"...I would recommend an MRI of his \ncervical spine for more definitive evaluation of his ongoing symptoms in his neck, (CX2 at 86-88). \n       On November 11, 2024, the claimant finally underwent MRIs of his cervical and thoracic spine. \n(CX2 at 99-103). The thoracic spine MRI proved to be normal (CX2 at 102-103); but the cervical \ndisc MRI revealed a disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7. (CX2 at 100). In his MRI follow-up \nclinic note dated November 20, 2024, PA Tappan notes the MRI revealed objective findings of, \n\"disc protrusion on the left foraminal at C5-6 with nerve root abutment\", and he referred the \nclaimant to a specialist, Dr. Jared Seale, (CX1 at 104-105). \n       In his comprehensive letter report of December 18, 2024, Dr. Seale writes in pertinent part as \nfollows:  \nHistory of Present Illness:  \nThe patient is a 37 year-old male who presents today for: neck and arm pain following a \nmotor vehicle accident. The patient reports that the accident occurred on July le and \ninitially he experienced back and leg pain. He was prescribed ibuprofen and a muscle \nrelaxant, which masked the neck pain until he reduced his medication intake. The patient \ndescribes the neck pain as persistent, initially thinking it was a crick in his neck. By the \nend of August he began to experience abnormal sensations in his left arm, described as \ntingling, but not extending into the fingers. The patient has no prior history of neck issues \nand has not been treated by a doctor, chiropractor or therapist for such problems before \nthe accident. He sought care at an urgent care in August and later had an MRI that \nindicated a potential need for surgery. The patient works for AT&T and has been unable \nto perform his regular duties due to the pain. He has had physical therapy for his back but \nnot for his neck and has not received any injections in his neck...MRI of the cervical \nspine... . \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n8 \n \nAssessment: Degenerative disc disease C6-7 with foraminal narrowing left, C5-6, C6-7 \nwith left C6-7 radiculopathy.  \n \nPlan:  \nC6-7 epidural injection. Physical therapy for the cervical spine, including traction. Work \nrestriction of no bending, twisting or lifting over 20 pounds. Follow up in 2 months after \ninjection and physical therapy. Surgery would be a C5-6, C6-7 ACDF if he does not \nimprove. Discussion: Marquette Johnson, a 37 year-old male, presented with neck and \narm pain following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 18\n111\n. Initial treatments \nincluded Ibuprofen and muscle relaxants, which masked the neck pain. Upon cessation of \nmedication, persistent neck pain and tingling in the left arm were noted. Imaging studies \nrevealed degenerative changes and foraminal narrowing at C67. The patient has been \nunable to perform regular duties at work due to pain and has been placed on light duty... . \n \nWork compensation note:  \nThe patient's cervical MRI does not show fracture or disc protrusion. There are signs of \ndegeneration  and  stenosis  which  are  pre-existing.  There  are  no  objective  findings  of \nacute injury. However, the patient's symptoms began on and after the work injury. The \npatient has no history of pain in the neck or pain down the ann prior to the work injury. \nTherefore,  it  is  within  a  certain  degree  of  medical  certainty  that  at  least  51%  of  the \npatient's current symptoms are directly related to their work injury... . \n \n(CX2 at 106-107). \n \nDISCUSSION \n The Burden of Proof, Generally \n      When deciding any issue, the ALJ and the Commission shall determine, on the basis of the \nrecord  as  a  whole,  whether the  party  having  the  burden  of  proof  has  established  it  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2) (2025 Lexis Replacement). The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he is entitled to benefits. \nStone v. Patel, 26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-\n704(c)(3) (2025 Lexis Repl.) states that the ALJ, the Commission, and the courts “shall strictly \nconstrue” the Act, which also requires them to read and construe the Act in its entirety, and to \n \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n9 \n \nharmonize its provisions when necessary. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 \n(Ark. App.  2002).  In  determining  whether  the  claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proof,  the \nCommission is required to weigh the evidence impartially without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(4) (2025 Lexis Repl.); Gencorp Polymer Products v. \nLanders, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. \n196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). \n      All  claims  for  workers’  compensation  benefits  must  be  based  on  proof.  Speculation  and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Corrections v. Glover, 35 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 595 \nS.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility of \nthe witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardees, 51 Ark. App. 116, 912 \nS.W.2d 14 (Ark. App. 1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any \nother witness’s testimony, but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions of the \ntestimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. \nApp. 1989); Farmers Coop. v. Biles, supra. \n      The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical evidence just as it does any other evidence, \nand its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Williams v. Pro \nStaff Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). It is within the Commission’s province to weigh \nthe totality of the medical evidence and to determine what evidence is most credible given the \ntotality of the credible evidence of record. Minnesota Mining & Mfg’ing v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 \nS.W.2d 151 (1999). \n Compensability \n        For  any  specific  incident  injury  to  be  compensable,  the  claimant  must  prove  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that her injury: (1) arose out of and in course of his employment; \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n10 \n \n(2) caused internal or external harm to her body that required medical services; (3) is supported  by \nobjective findings, medical evidence, establishing the alleged injury; and (4) was caused by a \nspecific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4); \nCossey v. Gary A. Thomas Racing Stable, 2009 Ark. App. 666, at 5, 344 S.W.3d 684, 687 (Ark. \nApp. 2009). The claimant bears the burden of proving the compensable injury by a preponderance \nof the credible evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i); and Cossey, supra.  \n       Moreover, the claimant must prove a causal relationship exists between her employment and \nthe alleged injury. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Westbrook, 77 Ark. App. 167, 171, 72 S.W.3d 889, 892 \n(Ark. App. 2002) (citing McMillan v. U.S. Motors, 59 Ark. App. 85, 90, 953 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Ark. \nApp. 1997). Objective medical evidence is not always essential to establish a causal relationship \nbetween the work-related accident and the alleged injury where objective medical evidence exists \nto prove the existence and extent of the underlying injury, and a preponderance of other nonmedical \nevidence establishes a causal relationship between the objective findings and the work-related \nincident in question. Flynn v. Southwest Catering Co., 2010 Ark. App. 766, 379 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. \nApp. 2010).   \n     “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the \npatient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A); Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, at 80, \n250 S.W.3d 263, at 272 (Ark. App. 2007). Objective findings “specifically exclude subjective \ncomplaints or findings such as pain, straight-leg-raising tests, and range-of-motion tests.” Burks v. \nRIC, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 862 (Ark. App. 2010).  \n      It is a black letter principle of workers’ compensation law that an employer takes the employee \nas he finds him; and an employment-related incident that aggravates a preexisting condition(s) is \n(are) compensable. Heritage Baptist Temple v. Robison, 82 Ark. App. 460, 120 S.W.3d 150 (Ark. \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n11 \n \nApp. 2003). Stated another way, a preexisting disease or infirmity does not disqualify a claim if the \nwork-related incident aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce \nthe disability for which the claimant seeks benefits. Jim Walter Homes v. Beard, 82 Ark. App. 607, \n120 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. App. 2003). The aggravation of a preexisting, otherwise non-compensable \ncondition by a compensable injury is itself compensable. Oliver v. Guardsmark, 68 Ark. App. 24, \n3 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. App. 1999). An aggravation is a new injury resulting from an independent \nincident. Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (Ark. App. 2000) (Emphasis \nadded). Of course, since it is a new injury resulting from an independent cause, any alleged \naggravation of a preexisting condition must meet the Act’s definition of a “compensable injury” in \norder for the claimant to prove compensability. Farmland Ins. Co. v. Dubois, 54 Ark. App. 141, 923 \nS.W.2d 883 (Ark. App. 1996). \n      Concerning the proof required to demonstrate the aggravation of a preexisting condition, our \nappellate courts have consistently held that since an aggravation is a new injury, a claimant must \nprove it by new objective evidence of a new injury different than the preexisting condition. Vaughn \nv. Midland School Dist., 2012 Ark. App. 344 (Ark. App. 2012) (citing Barber v. Pork Grp., Inc., \n2012 Ark. App. 138 (Ark. App. 2012); Grothaus v. Vista Health, LLC, 2011 Ark. App. 130, 382 \nS.W.3d 1 (Ark. App. 2011); Mooney v. AT & T, 2010 Ark. App. 600, 378 S.W.3d 162 (Ark. App. \n2010). Where the only objective findings present are consistent with prior objective findings or \nconsistent with a long-term degenerative condition rather than an acute injury, this does not satisfy \nthe objective findings requirement for the compensable aggravation of a preexisting condition \ninjury. Vaughn, 2012 Ark. App. 344, at 6 (holding that Arkansas courts have interpreted the Act to \nrequire “new objective medical findings to establish a new injury when the claimant seeks benefits \nfor the aggravation of a preexisting condition”); Barber, supra (affirming the Commission’s denial \nof an aggravation of a preexisting condition claim where the MRI findings revealed a degenerative \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n12 \n \ncondition, with no evidence of, and which could not be explained by, an acute injury) (Emphases \nadded).  \n        As always, both attorneys did an excellent job presenting the cases of their respective clients. \nThe attorney’s briefs were well written and helpful in setting forth both the applicable law and the \nfacts favorable to their respective clients’ contentions. Based on the applicable law as applied to the \nfacts of this case I am compelled to find the claimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating \nhe sustained a compensable neck/cervical spine injury as a result of the subject July 18, 2024, MVA, \nfor the following reasons. \n       First, while I found the claimant to be a rather poor historian, based upon his demeanor and \nother relevant factors that are evident from the hearing transcript I found the claimant to be a sincere, \ncredible witness. I do not believe he was  attempting to mislead the respondents, his medical \nproviders – especially Dr. Seale, the specialist and treating physician for his neck/cervical spine \ninjury – or this Commission when he failed to recall the obviously minor 2020 MVA and the details \nassociated with it. Indeed, the medical records related to the 2020 MVA reveal the claimant’s lower \nback and neck injuries for which he underwent conservative treatment were minor and temporary in \nnature, and neither resulted in any residual symptoms, impairment, or disability. Indeed, the record \nis completely devoid of any evidence, medical or otherwise, that reveals the claimant had any \nongoing lower back or neck/cervical spine complaints or symptoms after he fully recovered from \nhis minor injuries, or that he was unable to perform his work duties after the minor 2020 MVA. The \nclaimant’s job at AT&T obviously was rather strenuous in nature, requiring him to carry a 50-75 \npound ladder, to climb it, and to climb into AT&T’s clients’ attics and other spaces in order to install \ntheir Internet services, and there exists no evidence whatsoever he was unable to perform those \nduties before the subject July 18, 2024, MVA and the resulting lower back and neck/cervical spine \ninjuries.  \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n13 \n \n       Second, the MRI of November 2024 revealed objective medical findings – the herniated disc at \nC5-6 – for which Dr. Seale ultimately performed the successful anterior cervical discectomy and \nfusion (ACDF) surgery in 2025.  \n       Third, Dr. Seale himself opined the claimant’s C5-6 herniated cervical disc was “more than \n51%” related to the subject July 18, 2024, MVA. And while Dr. Seale apparently was unaware of \nthe claimant’s minor 2020 MVA and the fact the claimant had been treated for obviously minor, \ntemporary lower back and neck/cervical spine problems at that time, there exists no evidence in the \nrecord this lack of knowledge would have changed his causation opinion on the specific facts of this \ncase.  \n       Fourth, both common sense and the preponderance of the evidence reveal that Dr. Seale’s \ncausation opinion on the specific facts of this case was not dependent on the fact he was unaware of \nthe minor 2020 MVA and the treatment related thereto since there exists no objective medical \nevidence, nor does their exist any diagnostic test results such as an MRI, or any medical records \nwhatsoever that demonstrate the claimant had sustained a herniated cervical disc as a result of the \nobviously minor 2020 MVA. This is especially true in light of the fact there exists no reasonable \ndispute the claimant remained symptomatic – either constantly or intermittently – after the 2024 \nMVA. \n      Fifth, the claimant was asymptomatic with respect to any neck/cervical spine problems after the \n2020 MVA and he was able to perform his work duties. And it was not until a relatively short time \nafter  the  subject  July  18,  2024,  MVA that  the  claimant  began  experiencing  symptoms  of  a \nneck/cervical spine injury which worsened over time and necessitated the November 2024 MRI \nwhich revealed the claimant’s herniated cervical disc at C5-6 on which Dr. Seale performed the \nsuccessful  ACDF.  Again,  consistent  with  Dr.  Seale’s  causation  opinion  as  well  as  all  the \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n14 \n \naforementioned relevant evidence, the claimant’s herniated cervical disc at C5-6 more likely than \nnot was the result of the subject July 18, 2024, MVA. To find otherwise on these facts would \nconstitute  sheer  speculation  and  conjecture;  and  the  Commission  may  not  rely  upon sheer \nspeculation and conjecture to either support or to deny a claim for compensation. See, Deana, supra.        \n       Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n \n2. The stipulations set forth in the amended prehearing order filed October 29, 2025, \nhereby are accepted as facts.  \n \n3. While the claimant was not a particularly good historian, based on his demeanor \nand other relevant factors, I found him to be sincere and credible. \n \n4. The  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proof  in  demonstrating  his  alleged \nneck/cervical spine injury of July 18, 2024, constitutes a “compensable injury” \nwithin the Act’s meaning.  \n \n5. The  claimant has  met  his  burden  of  proof  in  demonstrating  he  is  entitled  to \npayment of his related, reasonably necessary medical treatment for his July 18, \n2024, compensable neck/cervical spine injury.  \n \n6. The claimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating he is entitled to TTD \nbenefits for his compensable neck/cervical spine  injury of July 18, 2024, from \nMarch 5, 2025, through November 4, 2025.   \n \n7. The claimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating he is entitled to PPD \nbenefits  commensurate  with  Dr.  Seale’s  10%  BAW  permanent  anatomical \nimpairment rating. \n \n8. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-411, the respondents are entitled to a \ndollar-for-dollar  credit/set-off  in  the  amount  of  any  and  all  medical,  STD  and \nLTD benefits paid to or on the claimant’s behalf. \n \n9. The claimant’s attorney is entitled to the maximum statutory attorney’s fee on \nthese facts.  \n \n \n \n \n\nMarquette R. Johnson, AWCC No. H404935 \n \n15 \n \n       AWARD \n           The respondents hereby are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the “Findings of \nFact and Conclusions of  Law” set forth above. All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without \ndiscount, and this award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \nSection 11-9-809, and Couch v. First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 \n(Ark. App. 1995); Burlington Indus., et al v. Pickett, 64 Ark. App. 67, 983 S.W.2d 126 (Ark. App. \n1998); and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Sauer, 358 Ark. 89, 186 S.W.3d 229 (2004).   \n       IT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n                                              \n \n       Mike Pickens \n       Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404935 MARQUETTE R. JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AT&T SERVICES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO./ SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT. SERVICES INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 23, 2026 Hearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Compens...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:09.939Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404935-2025-01-23","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JOHNSON_MARQUETTE_H404935_20250123.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}