{"id":"alj-H405537-2026-03-31","awcc_number":"H405537","decision_date":"2026-03-31","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Rachel Troedel","employer_name":"Uams","title":"HANELINE-TROEDEL VS. UAMS AWCC# H405537 March 31, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","shoulder","back","sprain","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TROEDEL_RACHEL_H405537_20260331.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TROEDEL_RACHEL_H405537_20260331.pdf","text_length":34431,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                             CLAIM NO.: H405537 \n  \nRACHEL HANELINE-TROEDEL,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                         CLAIMANT \n \nUAMS,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION,  \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                          RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 31, 2026 \n             \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented  by the  HONORABLE  MARK  ALAN  PEOPLES, Attorney  at  Law, Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES MCLEMORE, Attorney at Law, Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \n          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn January 21,  2026, the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for a hearing in Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  Previously,  on December  10,  2025,  I  conducted  a pre-hearing  telephone  conference \nwith the parties and entered a Pre-hearing Order that same day following our telephone conference.  \nSaid  order was admitted into evidence along with the parties’ pre-hearing  information  filings \nwithout objection and marked as Commission’s Exhibit 1. \nStipulations \n During the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties agreed to \nthe following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n2 \n \n2. The Claimant reported on January 5, 2024, that she had sustained work-related injuries \nto her right wrist and index finger on December 18, 2023. \n \n3. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed among the parties at all \nrelevant times, including on or about December 18, 2023.  At that time, the Claimant \nsustained admittedly compensable injuries to her right wrist and index finger.\n1\n \n \n4. That the Claimant’s average weekly wage on December 18, 2023, was $1,224.96.  This \namount entitles her to weekly compensation rates of $817.00 and $613.00, respectively \nfor temporary total disability/TTD and permanent partial disability/PPD benefits. \n \n5. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission Act. \n \n  Issues \n \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing were as follows:  \n1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to 18.3 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits \nwhich amounts to a 10% impairment rating to her right wrist. \n  \n2. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on any \nindemnity benefits awarded herein.  \n \nContentions \n \n The Claimant’s and the Respondents’ contentions are outlined below: \n \n Claimant:  \n \n The  Claimant  contends that  she  is  entitled to  permanent  partial  disability  benefits  in  the \nweekly amount of $613.00 paid over a period of 18.3 weeks for a total of $11,217.90.  \n The Respondents have refused to return Claimant to work in violation of Ark. Code Ann. \nSection 505 (a).\n2\n  Claimant is thus entitled to 52 weeks paid at her AWW for a total of $63,752. \n00. \n That the Commission should award her no less than $74,969.90 in benefits.    \n \n \n1\nAlthough the Claimant sustained an injury to her right index finger during the December 18, 2023, work-related \nincident, the main injury was to her right wrist.  Therefore, the focal point injury of this claim relates to her right wrist \ninjury. \n \n2\n The Claimant withdrew her request for 505 (a) benefits.  \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n3 \n \n That  Respondents controverted  the claim, and the undersigned (Claimant’s attorney) is \nentitled to maximum statutory attorney fees of no less than $18,872.48. \n Respondents \n The Respondents contend that the Claimant reported on January 5, 2024, having an injury \non  December  18,  2023,  to  her  right  wrist  and  index  finger.   The  Respondents accepted  as \ncompensable the Claimant's reported claim for injury.  The Claimant has been provided reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment for her injury, including treatment with  Dr. Mark Tait and Dr. \nJesse Abeler. \n On April 3, 2024, Dr. Tait released the Claimant at MMI with 0% permanent impairment \nrating.  The Claimant returned to Dr. Tait on June 12, 2024, for additional treatment.  The Claimant \nwas  granted  her  one-time  Change  of  Physician  to  Dr  Jesse  Abeler  on  December  2,  2024.   The \nClaimant was provided surgery on her right wrist April 9, 2025, performed by Dr Jesse Abeler. \n The Claimant  was  on  paid leave,  including  maternity  leave, from  November  1,  2024, \nthrough January 23, 2025.   \n Dr. Abeler took the Claimant off work February 14, 2025.  On March 10, 2025, Dr. Abeler \nassigned work restrictions of not using the right hand, which the employer accommodated.  The \nemployer  accommodated  the Claimant,  an  ultrasound  technician,  by  arranging  a  room  with \nequipment  set  up  for  her  to  use  her  left  hand  to run the  equipment.   However,  Dr.  Abeler  then \nassigned  restrictions  the  employer  could  not  accommodate,  including  no  use  of  ultrasound \nequipment with either hand, at which time the Claimant was paid TTD benefits. \n Dr. Abeler saw the Claimant August 25, 2025, wrote that the Claimant appeared to be at \nMMI, but gave work restrictions until a  Functional Capacity Evaluation  and impairment rating, \nwhich  the Claimant  completed  September  15,  2025.   The Claimant  reliably  completed  the  FCE \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n4 \n \nexamination in the Medium classification of work, with occasional bi-manual lift/carry of up to \n501bs, lifting/carrying of up to 20 lbs. on a Frequent basis, and an occasional RUE lift of 20 lbs. \nand LUE lift of 20 lbs. when lifting unilaterally from knuckle to shoulder level. The FCE examiner \nassigned a rating of 0% to the Claimant based on the objective results of measurements at the FCE, \nwhich Dr. Abeler signed on September 19, 2025, agreeing with the rating. \n The Claimant was paid TTD benefits from February 14, 2025, through March 10, 2025, \nand again from March 19, 2025, through October 2, 2025.  If the Claimant reached MMI before \nOctober 2, 2025, then the Respondents are entitled to a credit for overpayment of TTD benefits to \nthe Claimant.  Respondents are entitled to an offset for any TTD benefits the Claimant received \nwhile collecting unemployment benefits during the same period of time. \n The Claimant returned to Dr. Abeler on October 2, 2025, and in the report of that visit, Dr. \nAbeler  reiterated  that  the Claimant  was  at  MMI.  However,  Dr,  Abeler  then  assigned  a  10% \nimpairment rating to the Claimant's wrist due to her unique job requirements, loss of grip strength, \nand due to her pain with forceful gripping and circumduction or persistent wrist flexion creating a \nfunctional impairment, in spite of the objective results of the FCE. In the same report of this visit, \nDr. Abeler also released the Claimant to return to work to ultrasound with no formal restrictions \nper the FCE.  Respondents contend that this impairment rating is not supported by objective and \nmeasurable  physical  findings.  Furthermore,  the Guides adopted  by  the  Commission  shall  not \ninclude pain as a basis for impairment, and when determining physical and anatomical impairment, \nneither  a  physician,  any  other  medical  provider,  an Administrative Law Judge, the Workers’ \nCompensation Commission, nor the Courts may consider complaints of pain.   \n The Claimant’s employment ended and she apparently sought employment elsewhere as \nan  ultrasound  technician.   Respondent  employer  asked  the  Claimant  for  a  meeting  to  return  the \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n5 \n \nClaimant to suitable employment within her physical and mental limitations, but the Claimant had \nnot responded and evidently does not wish to work for Respondent employer.  \n Discovery  is  ongoing  in  this  matter,  and  the  Respondents reserve  the  right  to  raise \nadditional contentions, or to modify those stated herein, pending the completion of discovery. \n         FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nAfter  reviewing  the record  as  a  whole, including  the  medical  reports, the documentary \nevidence, and other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity \nto listen  to the Claimant’s testimony and  observe her demeanor, I  hereby  make the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.     The proposed stipulations set forth above are reasonable and hereby accepted. \n \n          3.         The Claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a \n           permanent anatomical impairment due to her December 18, 2023 compensable right \n           wrist injury. \n     Summary of Evidence \nThe only witness to testify during the hearing was the Claimant, Ms. Racheal Haneline-\nTroedel. \n            The  record  consists  of  the January 21, 2026, hearing  transcript and the exhibits held \ntherein.   In  addition  to  the Pre-hearing  Order  discussed above, the other exhibits  admitted  into \nevidence in this case are: Claimant’s Exhibit 1consisting of 18 numbered pages of the Claimant’s \nMedical Records and a one-page Abstract; Respondents’ Exhibit 1 is designated Respondents’ \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n6 \n \nMedical  Exhibit encompassing 47 numbered pages; and Respondents’ Exhibit 2 entails nine \ntotaled pages of the Respondents’ Documentary Exhibit.  \nTestimony \n On the date of the hearing, the Claimant confirmed her age as 41.  She testified that she \nhad worked at UAMS as an ultrasound technologist, performing ultrasounds on pregnant women.  \nAccording to the Claimant, the clinic specializes in very high-risk pregnant patients.  The Claimant \nprovided  an  extensive  overview  of  her employment duties,  which  involved  intensive  use  of  her \nright hand, to operate the ultrasound transducer, and ultrasound machine.  (Tr. p. 11-13) \n The Claimant agreed that she injured herself in December 2023.  According to the Claimant \nshe was ultra-sounding a pregnant patient carrying triplets when her injury occurred.  The Claimant \ntestified  that the  patient  was  extremely  obese,  and  to  get  a  particular  image  she  had  to  press \nextremely hard and that resulted in her hurting her wrist.  The Claimant did not report her injury \nthat day, but she eventually did and it was accepted by the Respondents.   \n She confirmed that they had sent her to Dr. Tait.  He did a steroid shot and ordered an MRI.  \nHowever, Dr. Tait did not take her off work at that time.  After going through a course of treatment \nwith Dr. Tait, the Claimant got a change of physician in October 2024 to treat with Dr. Abeler.   \nShe confirmed that Dr. Abeler performed surgery on her wrist in February 2025.  At that point, \nDr. Abeler took her off work.  The Claimant confirmed that the Respondents paid her temporary \ntotal disability compensation while she was off work for a period of time.  She testified that she \nwas  offered  modified  duty,  and  she accepted it.   The  Claimant  worked  at  a  desk  checking  in \npatients.  Per the Claimant, she used her left hand to work the mouse while performing tasks on \nthe computer.  The Claimant confirmed that she was off work for three weeks, and then she decided \nto undergo the surgery.  Since her surgery, the Claimant denied that she has worked for UAMS.   \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n7 \n \n Eventually, Dr. Abeler found the Claimant to be at maximum medical improvement, and \nshe has now gone to work somewhere else.  Currently, the Claimant works at the Baptist Women’s \nClinic in North Little Rock.  She confirmed that she is performing similar kind of work, except \nthey do  not  see  morbidly  obese  patients.   The  Claimant  testified that she  does suffer wrist pain \nwhile at work, but she is able to do her job.  She also testified that it hurts to drive once she gets \noff  work,  and  when  she  gets  home, she experiences  pain trying  to  do  normal  type  things.   The \nClaimant explained that something as simple as writing with a pen, steering her car wheel, picking \nup  her  one-year-old- son,  or cleaning her  countertops is  difficult due  to  pain  in  her  wrist.   She \nconfirmed that she is right-handed.  The Claimant testified that after writing with a pen, her wrist \nfeels very weak and it starts to hurt. \n On  cross-examination,  the  Claimant  confirmed  that  the  Respondents’ attorney  took  her \ndeposition  on  December  30,  2025.   She  stated  that  she  has  worked  in  the line  of  work  as  an \nultrasound technologist since 2009.  According to the Claimant, she worked at UAMS for eight \nyears doing the same job during the entire time that she was there.  She confirmed that she saw Dr. \nTait  and  Dr.  Abeler for  her  wrist  injury,  and  no  other  doctors.  According  to  the  Claimant,  Dr. \nAbeler  prescribed  medications after  her  surgery  in  the  form  of  Gabapentin,  then  a  steroid,  and \nMeloxicam.  She confirmed that Dr. Abeler was her treating physician, and he has not prescribed \nanything else for her wrist. \n The Claimant essentially testified that currently, she takes Propranolol, Amitriptyline, and \nTramadol for another condition unrelated to her wrist injury.  She confirmed that she takes these \nmedications for her fibromyalgia pain.  The Claimant testified that she had a baby during the time \nshe was being treated for her right wrist.  Therefore, there is a gap in her medical records between \nthe last time she saw Dr. Tait and until she saw Dr. Abeler.  During this time, in November 2024, \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n8 \n \nthe Claimant had her baby.  That was before her first visit with Dr. Abeler.  After her surgery, the \nClaimant underwent physical therapy sessions for twelve weeks, two times a week.  She admitted \nthat the physical therapy treatment improved her range of motion.  According to the Claimant, it \nwas just very slow.  \n The Claimant confirmed that she underwent a functional capacity evaluation on September \n14,  2025.    She  confirmed  that  it  was  very  thorough  test.    She  admitted  that  she  understood \neverything that she was being asked to do.  The Claimant agreed that she believes that she put forth \nher best effort on the test.  She admitted that she was asked to perform a number of tasks involving \nher hands, such as picking up objects and things of that nature.  The Claimant confirmed that she \nperformed  these  tasks  pretty  well.   The  Claimant  further  confirmed  that  the  examiner  did  some \nmeasurements of  her  arm, hand, and wrist.    She  agreed  that the examiner  used  a  tool  called  a \ngoniometer, to measure the angles.  It also has the degrees of movement.  The examiner found that \nthe Claimant had full range of motion in both wrists.  She confirmed that she did some griping of \nthe machine more than once using both her left and right hand.  Per this report, the Claimant gave \na completely reliable effort in each of these examinations.  The Claimant denied that she had any \nreason to doubt the findings of this report.   \n She confirmed that after undergoing the functional capacity evaluation, she saw Dr. Abeler.  \nAt that point, he was no longer recommending any kind of treatment and assessed the Claimant \nwith  a  0%  permanent  impairment  rating.  The Claimant essentially admitted that  she  asked  for \nanother doctor’s appointment and the Respondents allowed her to have an additional office visit.  \nThis was her last medical visit for her wrist.  At that point, the Claimant expressed that she had \nsome issues with pain in her wrist.  The Claimant stated that she also wanted to talk to Dr. Abeler \nabout the functional capacity test.   \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n9 \n \n Under  further  questioning,  the  Claimant  admitted  that  when  she  reported  the injury  and \nfilled out some forms.  The Claimant admitted that she signed a Form N.  She further admitted that \nwhen her employment with UAMS ended, she received a letter from the  human resource office \ninviting  her  to  come  back  to work  there.    They asked to meet  with the  Claimant to  discuss the \nposition.  However, by that time, the Claimant had already started to work at Baptist.  The Claimant \nconfirmed  that  the  patients  at  Baptist  are  not  high-risk,  and  they are not  morbidly  obese.  As  a \nresult, now it is easier for her to perform the ultrasounds.  She confirmed that the pressing with \nmore force is what caused her wrist injury.  The Claimant agreed that it was her testimony earlier \nthat she had to operate the device on the ultrasound machine with her right hand, and she had to \npress harder with larger patients.  She also had to maneuver her hand back and forth to get certain \nangles and images while performing the ultrasounds.  The Claimant agreed that the pressing with \nmore force in combination with having to twist and turn her wrist caused her injury.  \n   During the Claimant’s deposition, she testified that her hobbies include photography work.  \nShe  admitted  that  her  last  paying  job  as  a  photographer  was  in  October  2025.    She  was  paid \n$350.00.  The Claimant confirmed that she operates the camera with her right hand.  However, the \nClaimant claimed that the majority of the weight of the camera is supported by her left hand.  She \ntestified that she occasionally must turn the camera up and down or from different angles to take \ndifferent photos.   According to the Claimant, she does most of this activity with her left hand.  She \nadmitted that she has to turn the lens.   \n The Claimant confirmed that she has three horses on her property.  She last rode her horse \nin  October  2025.    According  to  the  Claimant,  a  friend  saddled her horse, and  she  rode  for  45 \nminutes.  The Claimant denied that it hurt her wrist to ride the horse.  She claimed that she used \nher left hand to control the horse with the reins.  The Claimant agreed that she uses her right hand \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n10 \n \nwhen feeding the horses and brushing them.  She admitted that she drove three-and-a-half hours \nto  Monroe,  Louisiana  roundtrip,  and  spent  Christmas  there.    She  did  not  recall  whether  the  trip \nhurt her wrist.  \n According  to  the  Claimant,  she  is  not  being  accommodated in  any manner at  Baptist \nHealth.  She confirmed that there is nothing limiting what she can do as an ultrasound technician.   \nMedical Records \n On January 16, 2024, the Claimant had a telehealth appointment with Tracey M. England, \nAPRN, CNP, due to pain in her right wrist and right index finger.  However, the Claimant denied \nany numbness or loss of function.  The Claimant was placed on activity restrictions of sedentary \nwork  only, which  included no  lifting,  grasping, or  carrying  more  than  ten  pounds.  England \nsuggested that the Claimant continue to rest, apply ice, and to take home medications as tolerated.  \nShe recommended that the Claimant follow up with an orthopedic specialist as needed. \n The Claimant was seen at the UAMS Ortho Clinic, on Autumn Road on February 28, 2024, \nunder the care of Dr. Mark Tait.  Per these clinic notes, the Claimant was patient with the clinic \nwho sustained an injury to her right wrist.  She continued to work as an ultrasound technician.  The \nClaimant reported that she did not have any improvement with buddy taping of the index finger or \nwith the oral steroid Dosepak.  She was also sent for an MRI evaluation.  At that point, the Claimant \ncomplained  of  right  finger  pain  as  well  as  pain  on  the  ulnar  palmar  surface.   On  physical \nexamination,  the  Claimant  showed  tenderness  over  the  pisiform  with  palpation.    She  had  with \nresisted ring and small finger flexion.  However, she had no pain with Watson maneuver or pain \nover the dorsal aspect of the wrist.  Also, the Claimant had no pain over the PIP joint of the index \nfinger and some mild pain over the DIP.  There was no instability of the distal radial ulnar joint.  \nHowever,  there  was  some  mild  pain  of  the  TFCC.   Radiograph revealed degenerative  TCFF \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n11 \n \nfraying with some mild TFCC fluid and edema.  Mild degeneration of the SL and small ganglion \ncyst.  Impression was: “1.  Persistent right index finger pain after collateral ligament sprain.  2. \nRight wrist pisotriquetral tenderness,” for which the Claimant was given a therapeutic injection of \nthe pisotriquetral joint and topical anti-inflammatories for the index finger. \n Dr. Tait saw the Claimant for a follow-up visit on April 3, 2024, for her wrist injury and \ncontinued pain and related symptoms.  On physical examination, Dr. Tait found that the Claimant \nhad continued tenderness over the pisiform.  There was no tenderness over the ulnar fovea.  There \nwas  stability  of  the  distal  radial  ulnar  joint.    Dr.  Tait  noted  the  previous  MRI  showed  some \ndegenerative changes of the TFCC and a small ganglion cyst dorsally.  The Claimant reported that \nshe had 50% recovery and still had pain with lifting and gripping.  His impression was “Improved \nright  pain  some  persistent  pain  with  heavy  lifting  over  the  pisotriquetral  joint  without  advance \nosteoarthritis or pisiform fracture or edema on MRI.”  At that time, Dr. Tait stated that the Claimant \nhad reached MMI and he continued to put her on full duty without restrictions.  In accordance with \nthe American Medical Association guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment 4\nth\n ed., she \nhas no permanent impairment. \n On January 30, 2025, the Claimant was evaluated by Dr. Jesse Abeler for follow-up of the \nright wrist.  She had been wearing her current active armor cast on a consistent basis over the last \nweeks after multiple adjustments of the cast.  At that point, Dr. Abeler’s impression was: Right \nwrist  FCU tendinitis, and  Pisiform insertional  tendinitis.  Dr.  Abeler  recommended  continued \nimmobilization  with  the  active  armor  case and  decompression  of  the  sensitive  area  along  the \nPisiform.   He continued her current level of restrictions.           \n An Orthopedic Operative Note/Operative Report was authored by Dr. Abeler on April 9, \n2025: \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n12 \n \n Pre-Op  Diagnosis:  Right  Wrist  Flexor  carpi  ulnaris tendinous,  pisiform-triquetral  joint \n arthrosis. \n \n Post-Op Diagnosis: same. \n \n Procedure(s): \n 1) Right Wrist flexor capri ulnaris repair with autograft palmaris longus (25265) \n 2) Right wrist excision of Pisiform (25210) \n \n The Claimant returned to Dr. Abeler’s office for follow-up of the right wrist, July 14, 2025.  \nShe continued to have soreness along the ulnar border of the hand; some sensitivity localized to \nthe  incision  area.   However,  Dr.  Abeler  stated  that  the  Claimant did  not show any  evidence  of \ninfection.  Dr. Abeler instructed the Claimant to continue occupational therapy to begin transition \nout  of  the  brace  more  consistently.    He  did  a  repeat  or  the  oral  steroids  and  continued  her  on \nGabapentin.  The Claimant was scheduled for a six-week follow-up visit.  At that time, Dr. Abeler \nstated that he would consider a referral for a functional capacity evaluation examination with MMI \nrating at the time of the Claimant’s follow-up visit.          \n  On  August  25,  2025,  the  Claimant  returned  to  Dr. Abeler  for  a  follow-up  visit  for \nrevaluation of her compensable wrist injury.  She continued to have soreness along the ulnar border \nof  her  hand  some  sensitivity  localized  to  the  surgical  incision.   However,  the  Claimant proved \nduring this evaluation that she continued to with some progress of range of motion.  At that point, \nDr.  Abeler  opined  that  the  Claimant  appeared  to  be  at  maximum  medical  improvement.    As  a \nresult, he recommended that the Claimant undergo a functional capacity evaluation for final work-\nrelated restrictions and final impairment rating. \n The Claimant underwent a Functional Capacity Evaluation on September  15, 2025.  Per \nthis evaluation, the Claimant put forth a reliable effort, with 52 out of 52 consistency measures \nwithin  expected  limits.  This evaluation showed that  the  Claimant  demonstrated  the  ability  to \nperform functional work tasks equivalent to the MEDIUM classification of work as defined by \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n13 \n \nthe US Dept. of Labor’s guidelines over the course of a normal 8-hour workday.  The evaluator \nspecifically stated that there was no noted atrophy of the Claimant’s right forearm.  There were no \ngross  deformity  or  other  abnormalities  in  the  muscle  bulk  or  any  asymmetrical  bony  defects \nobserved of her right arm or hand.  Sensation was reported diminished the incision area.  She had \nfull motion of the upper right elbow, and wrist PROM was within the normal limits.  The evaluator \nspecifically stated that the Claimant’s pain was not taken into account to figure out the impairment \nrating.    No  other  ratable  finding  was  found  related  to  the  right  upper  extremity.   As  such,  the \nClaimant was assessed a 0% impairment to the upper extremity, centered to a 0 % whole person.     \n The Claimant presented to Dr. Abeler for follow-up for her right wrist on October 2, 2025.  \nDr.  Abeler  noted  that  he  had  an  extensive  discussion  with  the  Claimant  about  her  rating  on  the \nfunctional  exam.    She  had  well  maintained  range  of motion, however  the  complexity  of  her \navailable wrist range of motion and the motion specifically needed for using an ultrasound probe \ndoes create limitations in her complete recovery.  At that time, the Claimant had shown excellent \nprogress with occupational therapy, and regaining range of motion.  However, she continued to \nhave pain with forceful gripping  and  circumduction  or  persistent  wrist  flexion,  creating a \nfunctional impairment.  Dr. Abeler specifically opined:  \nAccording to the American Medical Association “guides to the evaluation of permanent \nimpairment, fourth edition” page 3/83 under the heading “other musculoskeletal system \ndefect additional impairment may be assigned when the severity of clinical findings may \nnot correspond to the extent of a musculoskeletal defect.   She demonstrates limitation of \nthe wrist with functional use despite her excellent range of motion due to limited sustained \ngrip strength and loss of endurance.”   \n \nBased on her unique job requirements and the specified movements required precisely of \nultrasonography I recommend a 10% impairment to the wrist/upper extremity, according \nto table 3 on page 3/20 this correlates to a 6% whole person impairment rating. \n \n     \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n14 \n \n               Adjudication \n Permanent Partial Anatomical Impairment Rating     \n  Permanent  impairment has  been  defined  as any  functional  or  anatomical  loss  remaining \nafter  the  healing  period  has  been  reached.   Johnson  v.  Gen.  Dynamics,  46  Ark.  App.  188,  878 \nS.W.2d 411 (1994).  The Commission has adopted the American Medical Association Guides to \nthe  Evaluation  of  Permanent  Impairment (4\nth\n ed.  1993)  to  be  used  in  assessing  anatomical \nimpairment.  See Commission Rule 099.34 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-129); Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-522(g) (Repl. 2012).  It is the Commission’s duty, using the Guides, to determine whether \nthe Claimant  has  proved she  is  entitled to  a  permanent  anatomical  impairment.   Polk  County  v. \nJones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).      \n Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by \nobjective  and  measurable  physical  findings.    Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-704(c)(1)  (Repl.  2012).  \nObjective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012).    All that is needed is that the medical evidence \nbe supported by objective findings.  Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244 S.W.3d \n709 (2006).      \nPermanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded only  upon  a  determination  that  the  compensable \ninjury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a) \n(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of \nmajor cause shall be established according to a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-102(14) (Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence that has greater \nweight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).   \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n15 \n \nIn the present matter, I am unable to find that all the statutory requirements have been met \nto prove a permanent anatomical impairment to her right wrist.   \nThe Claimant worked as an ultrasound technician for UAMS.   In late December 2023, the \nClaimant sustained admittedly compensable  injuries to  her  right  wrist and  index  finger at  work \nwhile performing an ultrasound on a patient.   \nThe  Claimant  reported  her injury, and  the  Respondents  accepted  this  as  a  compensable \nclaim and began paying reasonable and necessary medical benefits.  The Claimant treated with Dr. \nTait and Dr. Abeler.   \nIn April 2024, Dr. Tait released the Claimant to be at maximum medical improvement for \nher compensable injury.  At that time, Dr. Tait assessed the Claimant with a zero percent permanent \nanatomical  impairment  for  her  wrist  injury.    He  also  returned  the  Claimant  to  work  full  duty \nwithout any restrictions. \n Ultimately, the Claimant obtained a change of physician to treat with Dr. Abeler.  April 9, \n2025, Dr. Abeler performed surgery on the Claimant’s right wrist.  Her  diagnoses for both pre- \nand post-operative care were “Right Wrist Flexor carpi ulnaris tendinous, and pisiform-triquetral \njoint  arthrosis.” Following  the  Claimant’s surgery,  Dr.  Abeler  recommended that the  Claimant \nundergo an FCE.  The Claimant in fact underwent an FCE on September 15, 2025, with reliable \nresults of 52 out of 52 consistency measures.  She demonstrated the ability to perform work in the \nmedium  classification of  work as defined by the US Department of Labor’s guidelines over  a \nnormal workday.  The examiner assessed the Clamant a 0% impairment rating based on objective \nmeasurements at the FCE.  The Claimant was found to have full range of motion of her upper left \nupper extremity.  She had no atrophy or any other muscle loss or objective medical findings or \ndeficits.  On that same day, Dr. Abeler agreed with the rating and findings of the Claimant’s FCE. \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n16 \n \n However, the Claimant returned to Dr. Abeler on October 2, 2025.  At that time, Dr. Abeler \nassessed the Claimant with a 10% impairment to her wrist due to her compensable injury.    He \nbased this increased rating on subjective deficits demonstrated by the Claimant such as loss of grip \nand strength.  The Claimant also had complaints of pain.  During the hearing, the Claimant testified \nthat she has now returned to work at full duty at Baptist Health in the capacity as an ultrasound \ntechnician.  She confirmed that she currently works more hours than she worked at UAMS, but \nshe insisted that the work is less strenuous.   I found the Claimant to be a credible witness.  She \ncredibly testified that she experiences some pain in her wrist, especially after work.  However, the \nClaimant admitted that she has been able to engage in hobbies and activities such as a photography \nwork and horseback riding.  There is no medical evidence to support a finding that the Claimant \nhas sustained any physical impairment to her wrist due to swelling, atrophy, or any measurable \nobjective medical findings in her wrist resulting from her compensable injury so as to prove her \nentitlement  to permanent  anatomical  impairment  rating.    Although  Dr.  Abler  changed  his \nimpairment rating of the Claimant’s right wrist, this rating is based on the Claimant’s complaints \nof pain.  There have been no measurable objective findings documented of record to support the \nfinding of a permanent physical impairment to the Claimant’s right wrist.   \n Under these circumstances, I have assigned inconsequential weight to Dr. Abeler’s second \nfinding of a 10% impairment to the Claimant’s right wrist.  I find that the FCE evaluator’s finding \nof   a   0%   impairment   is correct and   well-reasoned.    Most  significantly,  the  examiner’s \nmeasurements and physical examination of the Claimant’s right wrist clearly demonstrated a lack \nof any measurable physical deficits to support a permanent partial anatomical impairment to her \nwrist.  As  a  result,  I  am  unable  to  find the  existence  of a  remaining  anatomical  loss  to  the \nClaimant’s wrist supported by objective and measurable physical findings.   \n\nHaneline-Troedel – H405537 \n17 \n \n It  is  widely  recognized under workers’ compensation law in Arkansas that  pain  is  not \nrecognized  as  an  objective  medical  finding.   For  this reason,  I  am compelled  to  find  that  the \nClaimant failed to prove her entitlement a permanent impairment rating or functional anatomical \nloss remaining due to her compensable wrist injury of December 2023.   \n                                                               ORDER \n This claim for a permanent anatomical impairment is hereby respectfully denied and \ndismissed in its entirety. \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                                                            ______________________                       \n                         CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H405537 RACHEL HANELINE-TROEDEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UAMS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 31, 2026 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge CHANDRA L. BLACK, in Little Rock, Pulaski County,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:29.006Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H405537-2026-03-31","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TROEDEL_RACHEL_H405537_20260331.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}