{"id":"alj-H406236-2025-12-05","awcc_number":"H406236","decision_date":"2025-12-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Roy Baker","employer_name":"R & R Sheet Metal Heating & Air","title":"BAKER VS. R & R SHEET METAL HEATING & AIR AWCC# H406236 December 05, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","neck","shoulder","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BAKER_ROY_H406236_20251205.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BAKER_ROY_H406236_20251205.pdf","text_length":36562,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                             WCC NO.: H406236 \n  \nROY BAKER, JR., EMPLOYEE                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nR & R SHEET METAL HEATING & AIR,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nUNION STANDARD INSURANCE PROVIDENCE,  \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                          RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 5, 2025 \n             \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Daniel Wren, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable  Karen  H.  McKinney, Attorney at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn September 17, 2025, the above-captioned claim came on for a hearing in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Previously, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held in this matter on July 9, 2025.  \nA Pre-hearing Order was entered that same day pursuant to the telephone conference.  Said order \nwas  admitted  into  evidence  along  with  the  parties’  pre-hearing  information  filings without \nobjection from the attorneys 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 claim. \n \n2. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship among the parties on or about \nJuly 29, 2024, the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his cervical spine, for \nwhich the Claimant has received all appropriate benefits to this point with the exception \nof those being litigated. \n\nBaker – H406236 \n2 \n \n \n3. The Claimant earned an average weekly wage of $1,080.00 which entitles the Claimant \nto a temporary total disability benefits rate of $720.00 per week and a permanent partial \ndisability rate of $540.00 per week. \n4. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct.  \n \n 5.   This claim for additional benefits has been controverted by the Respondents.   \n \n  Issues \n \nBy agreement of the parties the issues to be litigated at the hearing are as follows: \n \n 1.   Whether the Claimant is permanently and totally disabled due to his admittedly  \n        compensable neck injury of July 29, 2024. \n \n 2.    Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on any                                                  \n                   indemnity benefits awarded pursuant to the hearing.  \n \nContentions \n \n The Claimant’s and the Respondents’ contentions are listed below: \n \nClaimant:  \n \n The Claimant suffered an admittedly compensable injury to his neck on August 1, 2024, \nwhen he fell from a ladder and landed on his shoulder.  He was noted to have muscle spasms in \nthe neck.  An MRI at Millennium MRI revealed right paracentral and foraminal disc herniations \nat C6/C7 and at C5/C6.   \nThe  Claimant  underwent  physical  therapy  as  well  as  epidural  steroid  injections  in  his \ncervical spine.  The physical therapy actually increased the Claimant’s pain.  The Claimant had no \nsignificant relief from the epidural steroid injections.   \nThe Claimant attempted to return to work on multiple occasions.  On each occasion, the \nClaimant had to stop working within a few days due to severe pain.   \n\nBaker – H406236 \n3 \n \nThe Claimant had a functional capacity exam performed on February 28, 2025, which was \ncompleted with 50 out of 50 consistency measures.  \n The Claimant cannot return to any employment due to his physical limitations, and due to \nongoing significant and severe pain. \nRespondents: \n The  Respondents  contend that  the  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  cervical  injury \nsupported only by objective findings of muscle spasms for which he has received all benefits to \nwhich he is entitled.  The Claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Jared Seale assessed the Claimant \nwith  a zero  (0%)  percent  permanent  rating.   Dr. Seale described the Claimant’s CT and MRI \nfindings to reveal no “obvious fractures or acute injuries.  Patient has what’s probable autofusion \nof the posterior disc and facet joint on the left at C3/4” among other clearly degenerative findings.  \nDr. Seale ordered an FCE that found the Claimant capable of working in a Medium Duty Capacity.  \nDr. Seale recommended that the Claimant return to work per the FCE restrictions.  Dr. Seale placed \nthe Claimant at MMI as of February 20, 2025. \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 his 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\nBaker – H406236 \n4 \n \n          3.         The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that his  \n           compensable neck injury of July 29, 2024, rendered him permanently and totally  \n           disabled from earning meaningful wages in other employment.  \n          4.         All issues not litigated herein or addressed in this Opinion are reserved under the  \n           \n          Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.    \n                \nSummary of Evidence \nThe sole witness was the Claimant, Mr. Roy Baker, Jr. \n            The record consists of the hearing transcript of September 17, 2025, and the exhibits held \ntherein.  In addition to the Pre-hearing Order discussed above, the exhibits admitted into evidence \nin this case were Claimant’s Exhibit 1consisting of the Claimant’s medical records of 107 pages; \nClaimant’s Exhibit 2 consisting of non-medical records encompassing 27 pages.   \nTestimony \n The Claimant, age 62, worked for the respondent-employer in July of 2024.  He testified \nthat he fell off a ladder while performing HVAC work for R & R Metal and Air.  The Claimant \nhad worked at R&R for nine years.  His employment duties included installing, maintaining, and \nrepairing heating and air conditioning units for residential customers, and pretty much everything \nexcept for the actual duct work.  The Claimant holds a valid residential HVAC license.  According \nto the Claimant, he has performed HVAC work for 44 years.  Prior to that, the Claimant and his \ndad  worked  together in his  dad’s business.    The Claimant’s dad owned  an  appliance  repair \nbusiness, which served residential  customers, repairing, maintaining,  and  servicing household \nappliances, like refrigerators, washers, and dryers.  The Claimant denied that he obtained his GED.  \nAlthough the Claimant does not hold any other licenses or certificates, he can run equipment which \nrequires  a  state  license  to operate.  While  working  for  R&R, the Claimant performed  only \n\nBaker – H406236 \n5 \n \nresidential appliance  repair work.   Physically, the Claimant had to  be  able  to  lift  furnaces  into \nattics,  set  outside  units, which  required  that he be  able to roll around  and  do a  lot  of physical \nactivities.      He has always  had  a  helper  to assist him  with  lifting  the  furnaces.  However,  the \nClaimant testified that he used a mechanical lift to get the furnaces upstairs.  \n According  to  the  Claimant,  the  average  residential  furnace  weighs  approximately  200 \npounds.  The Claimant testified that he had to put a coil in the furnace and then the plenums on \neach end of it which the ductwork hooks onto.   He confirmed that he had to perform work while \nlying on his back.  The Claimant admitted that he had to constantly turn his head while working.  \nHe denied that he ever had any neck pain before his fall at work.  However, the Claimant admitted \nthat he did not have shoulder pain prior to his work-related fall.  He testified that after the fall, he \nmainly had pain in his shoulder and joint.  The Claimant confirmed that prior to his injury, he had \naches  and  pain  throughout  the  day  from  lifting, twisting, and  bending while  performing  his \nemployment duties.  According to the Claimant, once he got home, he would take Ibuprofen or \nsomething  and use his  electric  blanket  or apply ice packs to  help  relieve  his  symptoms.    The \nClaimant confirmed that he previously missed work occasionally due to physical problems.  His \nabsences totaled a couple of days every four or five months.     \n He explained the mechanism of his fall.  (Tr. 18-19) The Claimant essentially testified that \nhe was on a 10-foot ladder, and probably about five feet up from his feet when he fell.  He stated \nthat when he hit the floor, he fell on his right shoulder.  However, the Claimant insisted that he hit \nonly his right shoulder down to about his elbow because he was almost upside down, and then the \nrest of his body came down.  The Claimant testified that he called his boss and sought treatment \nfrom Baptist Urgent Care, in Benton at the Baptist Family Clinic, under the care of Dr. Jeffrey S. \nMayfield.       He  also treated  with  Dr. Jared Seale.    Per  the  Claimant,  he  underwent diagnostic \n\nBaker – H406236 \n6 \n \nimaging, and sessions of physical therapy.  The Claimant denied that the physical therapy helped \nto relieve his pain.  During the day, he insisted that his pain occurs four  or five times a day, as \nshooting pain through his head.  Currently, the Claimant takes Oxycodone 7.5 for his pain.  The \nClaimant testified he relieves his pain by kneeling or sitting down, holding his neck, and hoping it \ngoes away.  His pain ranges from a five to 10 on a scale of 10.  \n As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant was living at a motel.  The Claimant confirmed \nthat he tried to work after his injury.  However, he testified that the longest amount of time he was \nable to work was three consecutive days.  Per the Claimant, he was unable to work due to the pain.  \nThe Claimant testified that he had to sell his car, and now he drives a borrowed truck that he uses \nfor transportation.  He testified that he has difficulties driving because he has problems with turning \nhis  head  to  look  at  traffic  at  any  point.  Also, the Claimant insisted that  he has  problems  with \nshifting his body to look for oncoming traffic.  \n About  the functional capacity evaluation/FCE,  the Claimant  confirmed  undergoing  the \nevaluation and that he put forth a 100% on it.  However, the Claimant testified that the day after \nthe test, his pain level worsened.  The Claimant  agreed that Dr. Jeffery Mayfield is his primary \ncare  physician.    Dr.  Mayfield prescribes  his  pain  medication  and  a  muscle  relaxer  for  his \nsymptoms.    Although  the Claimant  had  Medicaid,  it  has  been  canceled.    He  confirmed  that  he \napplied for Social Security Disability benefits, and his claim has been  approved, but he has not \nreceived a check yet.  His benefits will be about $1,790.00 a month.  The Claimant admitted that \nhe is willing to return to other kinds of work if he is unable to do HVAC work.   \n He agreed that his present circumstances have taken an emotional toll on him.  According \nto the Claimant, he takes walks, reads and watches TV during the day.  He has tried to ride with a \nfriend of his that has a heat and air company.   \n\nBaker – H406236 \n7 \n \n On cross-examination, the Claimant admitted that Dr. Mayfield has been his primary care \nphysician  for  a  number  of  years.    He  is  very  comfortable  with Dr  Mayfield  and has  even  had \nTelemedicine/Telehealth visits with  him.   The  Claimant  denied that  he  was  previously on \nTramadol.  Instead, the Claimant claimed that he was on Lorazepam due to anxiety.  He claimed \nthat he did not know he has bone spurs but does not have any reason to dispute what the medical \nrecords show.  The Claimant agreed that he has continued to treat under the care of Dr. Mayfield \nvia Telemedicine appointments since his injury.  He had at least 11 Telehealth appointments with \nDr. Mayfield between the date after his injury and through the middle of November, which was \nfor a four-month period.  \n He confirmed that he underwent an MRI of the brain.  It revealed a benign brain tumor.  \nThe  Claimant  admitted to treating with Dr.  Vargas, who  is  affiliated  with OrthoArkansas.   Dr. \nVargas ordered physical therapy.  The Claimant underwent four sessions of therapy and then had \nhis  first  injection in his  cervical spine.  Dr.  Vargas  referred  the  Claimant  to  Dr.  Seale.    The \nClaimant agreed that he saw Dr. Seale on February 3, 2025, and by that time he had already been \nthrough physical therapy and some injections.  He further agreed that Dr. Seale explained to him \nthe findings shown on the MRI of his neck.  Dr. Seale ordered a CT scan of the Claimant’s cervical \nspine.  He admitted that  Dr. Seale assured him that there was no concern  about further damage \nfrom the pain, and that the restrictions could be removed if his condition improved.  The Claimant \nagreed that Dr. Seale has released him to return to work in accordance with his functional capacity \nevaluation restrictions, which showed that the Claimant was physically able to perform work in a \nmedium duty capacity.  \n He agreed that his job was a heavy-duty type of job.  The Claimant testified that his boss \nat R & R said he could return to work there.  However, he admitted that he took himself off work.  \n\nBaker – H406236 \n8 \n \nThe Claimant agreed that he worked for the respondent-employer for nine years.  The Claimant \nearned $1,000.00 a week and worked 40 hours a week.  He agreed that he tried to go back to work \nabout a month after his injury.  Per the Claimant, he tried at least three times to return to his job.  \nHowever, each time, the Claimant worked restricted hours due to his pain.  He confirmed that he \nhas not worked since November.  The Claimant admitted that he received temporary total disability \nbenefits  until  Dr.  Seale released  him  to  be  at  maximum  medical  improvement.   He  stopped \nreceiving checks from workers’ comp in February 2025.  The Claimant admitted that he did some \nodd jobs in July of 2025, for which he was paid for his services.  \n Since November 4, 2024, the Claimant testified that he has done some work in the form of \ncleaning some air conditioners.  Specifically, the Claimant asked to explain this process: \n A.  When you get a job, you’ve got to be able to show up at a certain time work until a \n certain time.  They don’t work with your hours.  You work with theirs.  That’s what hinders   \n everything.  I can’t say I’m gonna be at work a certain five days a week from 8:00 to 5:00. \n I can’t tell ‘em that because I’d be lyin’ and it won’t happen. \n \n Q.  But you can work. \n \n A.  Yeah, I can work hopefully Monday maybe, or maybe Wednesday, but they don’t let \n you choose your hours, is what I’m saying.  \n \n Q.   If  you  could  have  a  job  where  you  could choose your  hours,  you  could choose  your \n hours, you could do that though, wouldn’t you? \n \n A.  Yeah, I want my money.  \n \n On redirect examination, the Claimant testified that he does some work for Alan Levart, \nwashing the outside of air conditioners.  The Claimant testified that Levart is a one-man heat and \nair  company.   According  to  the  Claimant,  he  trained  Levart  about  35  years  ago.    However,  he \ndenied that Levart expects him to do a full day’s work.  According to the Claimant, it takes him \nabout 15 minutes to wash the outside coils of an air conditioner.  He confirmed that he told Dr. \n\nBaker – H406236 \n9 \n \nSeale he had tried to return to work on three separate occasions and found it to be a disaster due to \npain.  \n The Claimant testified on redirect-examination: \n Q.  With accommodations you said you could work. \n A.  Yes.  I don’t know what, but yes.  I mean – \n Q.  All right. \n A. - - I’m not dead yet. \nMedical Evidence \n On August 1, 2024, the Claimant sought medical treatment from the Benton Family Clinic, \nunder the care of Dr. Jeffery S. Mayfield.  The Claimant presented for evaluation of complaints of \nneck and shoulder pain.  He reported a history of having fallen from a 10-foot ladder, landing on \nhis shoulder, without any impact on his neck.  Immediately after the fall, he was unable to move \nhis arm but regained some mobility after driving half a mile.  He reported that it was at that point, \nthen that he began to experience severe neck pain.  The Claimant’s pain was localized in the middle \nof his shoulder blades and extended down to his buttocks.  He described his pain as being sharp, \nradiating from his neck and encircling his body.  The Claimant reported that he sought emergency \ntreatment and had imaging studies taken at that facility which revealed a slipped disc in his neck, \nfor which he was recommended to consult with an orthopedic specialist but was unable to secure \nan appointment without a referral.  He reported that he tried to work but the pain was unbearable.  \nDr.  Mayfield  assessed  the Claimant  with a slightly slipped  disc,  for  which  he  prescribed  a \nmedication  regimen.   X-rays  revealed an  impression  of: “1....No vertebral body height loss  is \nappreciated.    2.  T1  spinous  process  tip  avulsion,  likely  chronic.    3.  Moderate  to  advanced disc \n\nBaker – H406236 \n10 \n \ndegenerative changes,  greatest  at  C5-C6  and  C6-C7.”  Dr.  Mayfield  prescribed  oxycodone  and \nordered an MRI.  At that point, he also continued the Claimant’s off work status. \n On  September  11,  2024,  the Claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  the cervical  spine,  which \nrevealed extensive degenerative  disc  disease,  which  included revealed  right  paracentral  and \nforaminal disc herniations at C6/C7 and at C5/C6.   \n 1. Broad based posterior, right paracentral and foraminal herniation of C6-7 disc,   \n causing mild-to-moderate narrowing of the central canal and neural foramina,   \n bilaterally.  The herniation measures approximately 6 mm in size.  Mild facetal and  \n and uncovertebral arthropathy is detected at this level adding to neural foraminal   \n stenosis. \n \n 2. Broad based posterior, left paracentral and foraminal herniation of' C5-6 disc,   \n causing mild narrowing of the central canal and neural foramina, bilaterally (right  \n more than left).  The herniation measures approximately 5 mm in size.  Mild facetal  \n and uncovertebral arthropathy is detected at this level adding to neural foraminal   \n stenosis. \n \n 3. Posterocentral bulge of C3-4 disc, causing mild narrowing of the central canal and  \n neural foramina, bilaterally.  The bulge measures approximately 3 mm in size.  Mild  \n facetal arthropathy is detected at this level. \n \n 4. Posterior right paracentral and foraminal bulge of C4-5 disc, causing mild  \n narrowing of the central canal and left neural foramen.  The bulge measures   \n approximately 3 mm in size.  Mild-to-moderate facetal arthropathy is seen at-this   \n level adding to neural foraminal stenosis. \n \n 5. Posterior and right paracentral bulge of C2-3 disc, without any significant central  \n canal or neural foraminal narrowing.  The bulge measures approximately 2 mm in  \n size.  Mild facetal arthropathy is detected at this level. \n \n 6. Diffuse bulge of C7-T1 disc, without any significant central canal or neural   \n foraminal narrowing.  The bulge measures approximately 2 mm in size.  Mild facetal  \n arthropathy is detected at this level. \n \n 7. Mild vertebral offsets at few levels. \n \n 8. Marrow appears mildly heterogeneous in signal intensity.  This can be due to   \n combination of degenerative changes, residual red marrow, fatty conversion, work  \n compensation injury.  Please correlate clinically. \n \n\nBaker – H406236 \n11 \n \n 9. Subtle altered marrow signal intensity is seen in relation to the posterior arch   \n elements of C7 and T1 vertebrae, bilaterally.  This can represent mid degenerative  \n or traumatic edema.  Please correlate clinically. \n \n 10. There is suggestion.  of presence of focal lesion in the sellar-suprasellar location as  \n described.  This can represent pituitary macroadenoma.  Please correlate clinically.  \n Further evaluation with dedicated imaging of the sella and suprasellar region may   \n be done as clinically indicated. \n \n 11. Degenerative changes are seen in the atlantoaxial joint. \n On November 24, 2024, the Claimant sought medical treatment from Dr. Jared Seale. At \nthat time, the Claimant reported problems included degeneration of cervical intervertebral, cervical \ndisorder with radiculopathy and impingement syndrome of his right shoulder region.  Dr. Seale \nassessed  the  Claimant  with: “1.   Suboccipital  pain,  work  related  fall,  question  etiology.   2. \nDegenerative disc disease of the cervical spine worse at C-6-7.”  He opined that the Claimant had \nsuboccipital pain and spasms, which are challenging to treatment and have not responded to initial \nmedication.    According  to  this clinic  note,  Dr.  Seale  specifically  stated  that  the Claimant  has \ndegenerative  disc  disease  of  the  cervical  spine,  with  significant  foraminal  narrowing  and  facet \natrophy  contributing  to  his  persistent  neck  pain.    At  that  time,  Dr.  Seale  recommended  that  the \nClaimant continue physical therapy and work with restrictions of no bending, twisting, or lifting \nover  20  pounds.  Dr.  Seale  opined  that  the  MRI  did  not show any  objective  findings  of  injury.  \nHowever, he correlated the Claimant’s current symptoms and need for treatment to his work injury.      \n On December 3, 2024, the Claimant presented to the office of Dr. Gary Frankowski due to \ncontinued persistent upper cervical neck pain, along with posterior occipital headache symptoms.  \nClinically  the Claimant  presented  as  occipital  neuralgia  bilaterally.   Dr.  Frankowski  performed \noccipital nerve blocks bilaterally. \n A CT without contrast of the Claimant’s cervical spine was performed on December 18, \n2024, with an impression of: \n\nBaker – H406236 \n12 \n \n 1. No acute abnormality in the cervical spine. \n 2. Moderate to advanced multilevel spondylosis of the cervical  \n spine and reversal of the normal cervical lordosis at the C4-C7 levels. \n 3. Moderate to severe right foraminal stenosis at C6-C7. \n 4. Moderate left foraminal stenosis at C3-C4. \n 5. Moderate right foraminal stenosis at C4-C5. \n 6. Mild canal stenosis at C6-C7. \n  \n The Claimant presented to Dr. Frankowski again on January 6, 2025, with a chief complaint \nof  neck  pain.    At  that  time,  his  assessment  of  the  Claimant  was  cervical  spondylosis.    Dr. \nFrankowski  performed  bilaterally  C2-C3, C3-C4, and C4-C5  Therapeutic  Facet  Joint  Injection \nunder fluoroscopy end sedation. \n On  February  3,  2025,  the Claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Seale  due  to  problems  including \n“cervical   spondylosis,   displacement   of   cervical intervertebral,   degeneration   of   cervical \nintervertebral   disc,   cervical   disc   disorder   with   radiculopathy,   cervical   radiculopathy,   and \nimpingement syndrome of right shoulder region.”  At  that  time,  the  Claimant  reported  that the \nseverity of his pain was nine, and the quality of symptoms sharp, shooting and stabbing.  Dr. Seale \nassessed the Claimant with a 0 % impairment rating because there were no objective findings of \nan injury.  The Claimant told Dr. Seale he was unable to work due to pain.  Therefore, Dr. Seale \nrecommended that he undergo a functional capacity evaluation/FCE. \n The  Claimant  underwent  an  FCE  on  February  28, 2025, with  50  out  of  50  consistency \nmeasures within reliable expected limits.  Per this medical report, the Claimant’s evaluation was \nperformed  at  the  OrthoArkansas  Physical  Therapy  Clinic  in  Little  Rock,  Arkansas.    He \ndemonstrated  the  ability  to  perform  an  occasional  bi-manual  lift  and  carry  up  to  40  pounds.  \nOverall, the Claimant proved the ability to perform work in the MEDIUM classification of work \nas defined by the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s guidelines over the course of a normal 8-hour work- day \nwithin the physical limitations noted above.   \n\nBaker – H406236 \n13 \n \n On March 26, 2025, Dr. Seale wrote the following letter finding the Claimant’s FCE to be \nvalid.  As a result, Dr. Seale returned the Claimant to medium classification of work.  Dr. Seale \ndeclared that the date of maximum medical improvement for the Claimant was February 20, 2025, \non the same date as limitations were defined.  He noted the Claimant’s functional capacity exam \nis directly related to his  symptoms.  Dr. Seale stated that the Claimant does not have  any acute \nfindings.    He  also  stated  that  at  least 51% of the Claimant’s current symptoms and physical \nrestrictions are related to the Claimant’s work injury.  \nDeposition of Dr. Seale \n \n On examination by the Claimant’s attorney, Dr. Seale confirmed he saw the Claimant for \noffice visits and performed evaluations of his cervical spine.   He admitted that he reviewed the \nactual  MRI  imaging  of  the  Claimant’s neck.    Dr.  Seale  explained  that  the  Claimant  was \ncomplaining of pain in the suboccipital area, basically the back of his head, below the skull, in the \nupper cervical spine.  According to Dr. Seale, the Claimant told him he sustained a fall off a ladder \nwhile  at  work.   At  that  point,  the Claimant  had  already undergone some  physical  therapy  and \nepidural steroid  injections  into  his  cervical  spine  when  he  saw  him.   He  confirmed  that  he \ncorrelated the Claimant’s pain to his work-related injury although he had no resulting objective \nfindings.   Dr.  Seale  testified  that  the  Claimant’s  x-rays,  MRI, and CT  scan  had  no  objective \nfindings  of  an  injury  such  as a fracture,  disc herniation,  or acute  findings.  Instead, Dr.  Seale \ntestified that there were only degenerative findings.  Dr. Seale opined that a new injury from the \nClaimant’s fall could not be discernable upon multiple imaging.       \n Under further questioning, Dr. Seale was asked to explain the findings revealed on the CT \nscan performed on December 18, 2024, which showed there was a reversal of the cervical lordosis \nat the C4 through C7 levels.  Dr. Seale testified that in simple terms it means the neck has a natural \n\nBaker – H406236 \n14 \n \narch  to  allow  the  head  to  look  forward  or  upward  and  the Claimant had  lost his  natural arch.  \nAccording to Dr. Seale, in the Claimant’s case, it was due to multiple levels of degeneration or \nloss  of  disc  space  heights.    He  further  explained  that  in  other  words,  that  is  a  finding  that  the \nClaimant  had  prior  to  his  injury.  With  respect  to  the  lordotic  curve,  Dr.  Seale  opined  that  it  is \nhighly unlikely that this was produced by an acute injury given his degenerative changes.  Per Dr. \nSeale, the Claimant’s lordosis occurred due to multiple years of wear and tear on his neck.  He \nagreed that the FCE was correct, consistent, and reliable.  According to Dr. Seale, the Claimant \nhas real pain, but that is a subjective finding, and he was unable to apply an impairment rating.  \nDr. Seale testified that he normally does not check for muscle spasms.         \n The Claimant was assessed with degenerative issues in the cervical spine resulting in neck \npain.    He  specifically  confirmed  that  the MRI’s before and after the Claimant’s fall would be \nunchanged due to his pre-existing degenerative disc disease.  Dr. Seale confirmed that the Claimant \nhad an onset of pain after his fall.  However, Dr. Seale was unable to decide the exact cause of the \nClaimant’s symptoms because he has degeneration everywhere. \n On recross examination by the Respondents’ attorney, Dr. Seale confirmed that if the \nClaimant has muscle  spasms,  they  are  more  than  likely  going  to  be  chronic.    He  stated  that  he \nwould  not  assess  the Claimant  with  a  permanent  impairment  for  a  muscle  spasm.   Dr.  Seale \ntestified that when he looked at the MRI, it revealed multiple levels of degenerative disc disease, \nwith the worse degenerative discs at C5-C6 and C6-7.  According to Dr. Seale, the Claimant has \nModic endplate changes at C6-7, which is basically advanced degeneration or the body’s reaction \nto degenerative disc disease.  He also testified that there was no stenosis at C2-3, but there was \nmild  stenosis  at  C3-4,  with  mild  stenosis  at  C3-4  and  severe  stenosis  on  the  right  at  C4-5.   Dr. \n\nBaker – H406236 \n15 \n \nSeale further testified that there was some moderate to severe foraminal stenosis on the right at \nC5-6, and severe bilateral foraminal narrowing C6-7 and C7-T1.     \n Dr. Seale confirmed that he released the Claimant to MMI sometime in February of 2025.  \nHe gave the Claimant three options, which included filing for disability, finding lighter work or he \ncould just continue to work.  However, Dr. Seale opined that from a spine standpoint, the Claimant \nwas fine to go back to doing his job based on the MRI, CT, and x-rays.  Dr. Seale confirmed that \nhe returned the Claimant to medium work based on the FCE.  Dr. Seale agreed that his opinion \nwas within a reasonable degree of medical certainty regarding the Claimant’s ability to return to \nwork at a medium duty capacity.          \n                        Adjudication \n The Claimant asserts that he has been made permanently and totally disabled because of \nhis compensable neck injury of July 29, 2024.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-519(e)(1) (Repl. 2002) provides: \"Permanent total disability\" means \nan inability, because of compensable injury or occupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages \nin the same or other employment.  Furthermore, the statute provides that the burden of proof shall \nbe on the injured employee to prove their inability to earn any meaningful wages in the same or \nother employment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-519(e)(2) (Repl. 2002).  \n The burden of proving permanent total disability is on the Claimant.  The Claimant must \nprove  entitlement  to these  benefits  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.   Preponderance  of  the \nevidence means the evidence that has greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank \nv. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \nThe Claimant is 62 years of age and holds a valid license in residential HVAC.  He had \nworked  for  the R&R Sheet  Metal  Heat  &  Air for  nine years, performing  employment  duties  in \n\nBaker – H406236 \n16 \n \nconnection with the servicing, maintenance and replacement of residential heating and air units.  \nHis  prior classification  of work falls  under  the functional  guidelines for  heavy classification  of \nwork  as  defined  by  the U.S.  Department  of  Labor. The  Claimant suffered  an  admittedly \ncompensable injury to his neck on July 29, 2024, when he  fell from  a ladder and landed on his \nright shoulder.  The Claimant reported his injury to his supervisor.  The Respondents provided the \nClaimant  with  extensive  conservative  medical  treatment  which  included  a  medication  regimen, \nphysical therapy, and epidural steroid injections in his cervical spine.   \nDr.  Seale  opined  that  medical  documentation showed that  the  Claimant  suffered muscle \nspasms  in his neck because  of his  work-related  fall.   The  Respondents  have  accepted  this  as  a \ncompensable  claim for the Claimant’s neck injury in the form of muscle spasms. I  find  this \nassertion to be correct and supported by the imaging performed on the Claimant’s cervical spine \nfollowing his work-related fall.   \nAn MRI  of the Claimant’s  cervical  spine  revealed  extensive  significant  pre-existing \ndegenerative disc disease in his cervical spine area.  These pre-existing degenerative abnormalities \nwere also revealed on a CT scan, which was performed of the Claimant’s his neck following his \nwork-related injury of July 2024.  Despite conservative treatment in the form of physical therapy, \ninjections and medication, the Claimant has maintained that he has had no significant relief from \nany of these modalities.  The Claimant treated under the care of Dr. Seale, who opined that he was \nat maximum medical improvement in February of 2025.  Dr. Seale assessed the Claimant with a \n0% permanent  impairment  rating  for  his  compensable  neck  injury.   However,  the Claimant \ncontinued to complain of ongoing severe pain.  As a result, the Claimant underwent a functional \ncapacity evaluation which was performed on February 28, 2025.  The Claimant completed the FCE \nwith 50 out of 50 consistency measures.  Per this evaluation, the Claimant showed the ability to \n\nBaker – H406236 \n17 \n \nreturn  to  gainful  employment  in  the  medium classification  of  work.  Dr.  Seale  agreed  with  the \nvalid results of this FCE and has released the Claimant to the medium category of work.  Although \nthe FCE proves the Claimant is unable to return to heavy duty work, this evidence clearly proves \nthat he has the physical capacity to perform medium work duties.  Hence, I am not persuaded that \nthe Claimant cannot return to any meaningful employment due to his alleged ongoing significant \nand severe pain resulting from his work injury.    \nAccordingly,  after  having  listened  to  the Claimant testimony and  been given  the \nopportunity to see his demeanor, I found that the Claimant’s testimony to be incredulous in this \nregard based on all the credible evidence to the contrary.  The Claimant tried to return to work on \nmultiple occasions.  However, on each occasion, the Claimant maintained he had to stop working \ndue to severe pain.  I do not find the Claimant’s testimony to be convincing.  \nIn  that  regard,  during  cross-examination, the Claimant, by  his  own  admission eagerly \ntestified that he could work given the proper circumstances.  There is no medical documentation \nsupporting the  finding that  the  Claimant  is  unable  to  return  to  other  gainful  employment.  Most \nnotably,  no  physician  has  opined  that  the  Claimant  has  been  rendered permanently  and  totally \ndisabled  because  of  his  compensable  neck  injury  of  July  2024.  As a  result, I  have  attached \nsignificant weight to the Claimant’s valid FCE results, and Dr. Seale’s expert opinion wherein he \nopined that the FCE results are correct in establishing that the Claimant is physically capable of \nperforming medium classification of work.  There is no credible evidence proving otherwise.  In \nfact,  the Claimant’s own testimony establishes that  he  has  been consistently working odd  jobs \nsince July 2025, for which he was paid for his services.  I am convinced that the evidence clearly \nindicates that the Claimant is primarily motivated to work only odd jobs.   \n\nBaker – H406236 \n18 \n \n Hence, the Claimant has rendered himself unable to perform gainful employment with his \nown self-imposed physical limitations.  Accordingly, the preponderance of the credible evidence \nbefore me clearly proves that the Claimant has the physical capacity to earn meaningful wages in \nthe medium classification of work.   \n Therefore, I am compelled to find that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he has been rendered totally and permanently disabled by his compensable neck \ninjury of July 29, 2024.   \n                                                      ORDER \n Based  on  the  foregoing  findings  of  facts,  this  claim  for  permanent  and  total  disability \nbenefits is hereby respectfully denied and dismissed 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 WCC NO.: H406236 ROY BAKER, JR., EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT R & R SHEET METAL HEATING & AIR, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT UNION STANDARD INSURANCE PROVIDENCE, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 5, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:24.464Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406236-2025-12-05","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BAKER_ROY_H406236_20251205.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}