{"id":"alj-H406268-2025-11-21","awcc_number":"H406268","decision_date":"2025-11-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Demekia Mosley","employer_name":"North Little Rock School District","title":"MOSLEY VS. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H406268 November 21, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","hip","neck","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MOSLEY_DEMEKIA_H406268_20251121.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MOSLEY_DEMEKIA_H406268_20251121.pdf","text_length":31218,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H406268 \nDEMEKIA MOSLEY, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \n \nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, \nEMPLOYER         RESPONDENT  \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA       RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2025 \n \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  James  D.  Kennedy, on  the 23\nrd\n day  of \nSeptember, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Gregory R. Giles, Attorney at Law, of Texarkana, Arkansas. \nRespondent is represented by Guy Wade, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was conducted on the 23\nrd\n day of September, 2025, to determine the \nissue  of compensability of  an  alleged right  knee injury  that Claimant  contends  is  work \nrelated, reasonable  and  necessary medical  treatment and  specifically  surgery  by  Dr. \nReynolds, attorney fees, with all other issues reserved. The respondents contend that the \nclaimant did not sustain a compensable right knee injury in the course and scope of her \njob or in relation to the injury. A copy of the Pre-hearing order was marked “Commission \nExhibit 1” and made part of the record without  objection. The  Order  provided  that  the \nparties stipulated that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nof  the  within  claim  and  that  an  employer/employee  relationship  existed  on August  23, \n2024, and at all relevant times. The parties stipulated at the time of the hearing that the \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n2 \n \nClaimant was earning an average weekly wage of $616.64, sufficient for a TTD rate of \n$411.00 and a PPD rate of $308.00.       \n The Claimant’s and  the  Respondent’s  contentions were all set  out  in  their \nrespective  responses  to  the  Pre-hearing Questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record \nwithout objection. The Claimant contended that she sustained a compensable injury on \nAugust  23,  2024,  that  the  medical  treatment  she  has  received  to  date  has  been \nreasonable, necessary, and related, such that Respondents should be ordered to pay for \nsame, and   contends   that   she   is   entitled   to   the   additional   medical   treatment \nrecommended,  specifically  the  surgery  proposed  by  Dr.  Reynolds,  and  any  additional \nbenefits  that  follow  from  that  procedure,  which  include  temporary  total  and  permanent \npartial disability payments.   \n The  Respondents  contend  that  the  Claimant  did  not  sustain  a  compensable  left \nleg  or  right  knee  injury  in  the  course  and  scope  of  her  job  or  in  relation  to  the  injury.  \nClaimant  was treated  and  released  in  relation  to  the  August  23,  2024,  event, and  no \nadditional treatment is reasonable, necessary, or related, and the Claimant’s claim should \nbe denied and dismissed. \nThe sole witness was the Claimant, Demekia Mosley. From a review of the record \nas a whole, to include medical reports and other matters properly before the Commission \nand having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witness, \nthe  following findings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law are made  in accordance  with  Ark. \nCode Ann. 11-9-704. \n \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n3 \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n2. That an employer/employee relationship existed on August 23, 2024, and at all \nrelevant times. \n3. That the Claimant earned an average weekly wage of $616.64, sufficient for a \nTTD/PPD rate of $411.00/$308.00 respectively.    \n4. That the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that \nshe sustained a compensable work-related injury to her right knee on August \n23, 2024. \n5. That the claimant is found to be entitled to reasonable and necessary medical \nfor  the  treatment  of  the work-related  right  knee  injury and  specifically the \ntreatment  at  Urgent  Care  and the treatment  by  and recommended  by Dr. \nReynolds. \n6. That the Claimant is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to A.C.A. 11-9-715.   \n7. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents are ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \n8. All other issues are reserved. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The Pre-hearing Order along with the Pre-hearing questionnaires of both parties \nwere  admitted  into  the  record  without  objection. The Claimant  submitted an exhibit of \nrecords consisting of 20 pages, which was admitted without objection. The Respondents \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n4 \n \nsubmitted an exhibit  of records  consisting of 13  pages, that  was  admitted  without \nobjection.  \n The Claimant was the only witness to testify. She was 48 years old at the time of \nthe hearing, graduated from North Little Rock schools in 1995, and attended Philander \nSmith  for  a  year  and  a  half. She  later  took  the  paraprofessional  test, passed  it  in \nDecember of 2018, and became a substitute teacher. She is currently employed with the \nNorth Little Rock School District at the North Little Rock Academy Virtual Program where \nshe  works  as  a  Virtual  Paraprofessional,  starting in  2019. She  testified that she  works \nfrom her office in the North Little Rock Academy building, and the child that she is involved \nwith is at home, working virtually. She had worked in this position for two years prior to \nbeing injured while working for the school district. She admitted she had been previously \ninjured  while  working  for  the  school  district  back  in  2019,  while working  at  Crestwood \nElementary, where she tripped over a student playing volleyball. At that time, she injured \nher  left  knee  and  ended  up receiving a  meniscus  repair, which  did  not resolve the \nmeniscus issue. She then received a second surgery in the spring of 2021, which resulted \nin a “high tibial osteotomy and another meniscus repair,” under the care of Dr. Kirk \nReynolds. Dr. Reynolds ultimately released her with a 25-percent impairment rating for \nthe injury. In regard to her right knee, she only had some aches and pains prior to the \nincident which  she  associated  with  overuse, due  to overcompensating, and she never \nreceived any treatment, even though she complained to Dr. Reynolds. She attempted to \nobtain  treatment for  her  right  knee but stated that Workers’ Compensation denied the \ntreatment recommended. (Tr. 6 – 9)    \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n5 \n \n The  Claimant  was  asked about her  use  of a cane and responded that  she  had \nused it since her release by Dr. Reynolds, after the left-knee injury. She used the cane to \ngive her some stability in her walk and to take pressure off her left knee. After she was \nreleased  in  23,  there  was  no  continuous  treatment. She  admitted  to  some  pain  and \ndiscomfort with the left knee and that she takes Tylenol and Advil to help with the pain.  \nShe also admitted to a certification for medical marijuana, and sought it to help with the \npain, because she needed more than Tylenol and Advil, in regard to her left knee. She \nalso admitted to having fibromyalgia, which was diagnosed about 10 years ago. She has \nmultiple aches and pain which involves her full body, arms, legs, feet, and hands. She \nalso denied ever seeking treatment for her right knee back in 2023. (Tr. 10 - 12) \n In regard to her right knee, the Claimant stated she was not having any symptoms \nor  problems prior  to the  accident,  but  that  on August  23,  2024,  she  was  sitting  at  her \ncomputer  desk  in  her  office where her  chair  rolls  and  teeters. She  was  working  with  a \nstudent, writing on an easel to her left, and reached for an eraser out in front of her, when \nas  she  puts  it, “I feel the chair starts to - - it  tilts  me  kind of  forward  and,  as  it  tilts  me \nforward, the wheels roll and the chair goes back this way and it, like, dumps me out of the \nchair, and I pancake to the ground, the ground. My buttocks - - my buttocks hit the corner, \nthe metal part corner of the easel.” The chair came out from underneath her. (Tr. 13 – 15) \nShe testified that she “just pancaked to the ground, legs flat out in front of me onto my \nbottom.” “The immediate pain was in my buttocks. I could tell that I had maybe punctured \nsomething. I - - I went to the restroom, and I, you know, looked at it. I saw a - - deep gash \nand there was blood.”  She also had a long spot on her left leg, right below her knee. She \nalso stated she was five feet tall and weighed 240 pounds, about the same as at the time \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n6 \n \nof the accident. (Tr. 16) There were no witnesses, since she was in her office. However, \nCoach Bernard heard her fall and came to see what happened. He physically dragged \nher from under the desk, and after going to the bathroom, she then went to the office to \nreport what had happened and completed a Form N at that time, which she personally \nfilled out. It appeared it was reported about 12:30, about 45 minutes after the accident. \n(Tr.  17 – 19) She didn’t mention her left leg scrape in the  report because  she  had  not \nseen it yet, due to it being under her clothing. She also did not mention her right knee \nbecause it was not the acute problem, which was her buttock. She did not go to the doctor \nthat day, but finished her workday, and admitted to not going to the doctor that week. (Tr. \n20) \n “After a few days, about a week - - about  a week,  you  know, the - - the  normal \naches and pains started to subside, you know, pains that you might get from an injury.  \nMy hip and my left buttocks, you know, the pain started easing and going away, and my \n- - cause I had general body aches because I fell, but, you know, once all that started \ngoing away, the knee never stopped. It got worse.” She went on to testify that in regard \nto her knee, there was some clicking and catches when she walked, and it would buckle, \nand  she  would almost  fall. The  pain  was  constant. She then called  Melody  Tipton,  the \nclaims  adjuster  who dealt  with  her  2019  claim.  (Tr.  21) Up  until  that  time,  she had not \ncontacted her in regard to the right knee. The Claimant wanted to make sure she was \nfollowing the protocol, and she was having issues with her knee. They fussed at her for \nnot following the protocol back in 2019. She went on to testify that she told Ms. Tipton \nthat she was having issues with her right knee and that something was going on with it.  \n“It - - it feels a lot like what was going with this left knee, and I need - - I need - - I need \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n7 \n \nsomeone to look at it. (Tr. 22) She was having the “same issues, the same problems, that \nconstant pain, that clicking, the instability where the knee would buckle...” “Ms. Tipton \ntold me that she - - they did not believe that this injury was caused by - - and that they \nwould not cover it.” The Claimant told her she was going to Urgent Care and Ms. Tipton \nsaid that “You probably should go” but that she was not authorizing it. The Claimant felt \nlike she had injured her knee on August 23\nrd\n of 2024, because there had not been any \nother  incidents. She  went  to  Springhill  Urgent  Care  on  September 26\nth\n of 2024, a  little \nmore than a month after the incident. The progress note provided the date of the injury \nwas August 30\nth\n, 2024, and the claimant testified she got her days mixed up. (Tr. 23, 24) \n The  doctor  at  Urgent  Care  examined  her  right  knee,  took  some  X-rays,  and \nreferred her to Dr. Reynolds, an orthopod, because he had taken care of her left knee.  \nShe then saw Dr. Reynolds on October 23\nrd\n of 2024. He examined her knee and reviewed \nthe x-rays. The Claimant insisted on an MRI due to the fact she had learned that x-rays \nwould not show tears and Dr. Reynolds then ordered one. The Claimant testified that she \nhad  not  had  any  treatment  since  the  MRI  findings  with  Dr.  Reynolds, but  that  he  had \nrecommended surgery. (Tr. 25 – 26) She was concerned about being off work due to the \nfact she had been off work for a year with her left knee. She has continued to work for the \nRespondent. In regard to her knee at the time of the hearing, she stated that she had a \nlot of instability, and it buckles at times. It clicks and pops and she is in constant pain.  \nShe positions it a certain way at night, due to the pain being so bad. She asked to have \nthe surgery with Dr. Reynolds. (Tr. 27, 28) \n Under cross examination, the Claimant testified her current method of work started \nshortly after Covid, and that was when she started working from a particular room and \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n8 \n \naddressing  one  student  online, over  the  computer, who  was  at  home. In  2019,  the \nClaimant  admitted  she  was  actually  playing  volleyball  with  some  of  the students when \nshe tore her meniscus. She also admitted she was still having trouble with her left knee, \nthat  the  bones  around  her  kneecap  had  not  healed  correctly,  and  that  she  had  been \ndiagnosed  with  post-traumatic  osteoarthritis. The  Claimant  also  admitted  being  in  an \nautomobile  accident  in  2020, where  she  injured  her  low  back  and that she had  been \ntreating  with  Pain  Treatment  Centers  of  America,  where  she  had  received  steroid \ninjections,  a  nerve  ablation,  and  pain  killers. She  also  admitted  being  diagnosed  with \nfibromyalgia in 2015, a degenerative disc disorder in her neck, and suffering pain daily.  \nShe admitted that she used medical marijuana four or five days out of the week and was \ndealing with all of these issues prior to the incident in 2024.  \nThe Claimant also admitted having some right knee issues prior to the incident in \nAugust of 2024. She admitted talking to Dr. Reynolds about it while he was treating her \nfor her left knee issues and the pain was described as overuse or compensating on her \nright leg because of the issues she was having with her left leg. (Tr. 29 - 35) She admitted \nto using the cane for her left knee issues and that she leaned more to the right than the \nleft, after the first surgery. (Tr. 35) She also admitted filling out the Form N and signing it \non August 23, 2024, shortly after the incident, and that the Form N only mentioned her \nbuttocks but not the scrape on her left knee or her right knee. She also agreed that the \nfirst place she visited for health care following the August 23\nrd\n incident of 2024, was her \nvisit to Urgent Care, a little over a month after the incident. She did not report any pain or \nsoreness associated with her right knee. She went on to testify that “My whole body was \nin pain after the fall up until that time” which was two or three weeks later. (Tr. 36, 37) The \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n9 \n \nother pains “started wearing away” but the knee “was the one pain that did not stop.”  She \nnoticed the knee pain two weeks later and that was when she called Melody Tipton.  (Tr. \n38) \nIn regard to her fall, the claimant admitted the chair went out and she went straight \ndown on the ground. Her legs were out in front of her and she had immediate pain in her \nleft buttocks. She was able to complete her regular hours, however. She also admitted \nproviding the information to Dr. Reynolds and to Urgent Care. She also admitted her first \nvisit  to  Dr.  Reynolds  involving the  right  knee, was  on  October  23\nrd\n,  2024,  almost  two \nmonths after the event. He had last seen her on September 20\nth\n, 2023, for a follow up, \nand she  had some right-knee  pain at  that  time that  was likely  associated  with  her \novercompensation of her right-lower extremity, due to multiple surgeries on the left. She \nalso admitted obtaining her medical marijuana certification around 2022 and using it pretty \nconsistently since that time. (Tr. 39 - 41) She admitted it helped her left knee, back, and \nneck. She called Ms. Tipton because her right knee pain was not going away, and the \nother soreness of her body was wearing off. She was then asked the following question: \nQ:  Well, if you landed on your buttocks with your legs straight out, how did you \ntwist your right knee or your left knee? \n \nA:  I don’t know if I - - When I fell out of the chair, I pancaked straight onto that \nconcrete ground. \n \nThe claimant admitted that her knee was not underneath her, after her fall. (Tr. 42) \nShe also admitted that at the time of the fall, at 11:45 a.m., August 23, 2024, she did not \nnotice a tear, a rip issue, or immediate pain, with her right knee. She did however add \nthat she had soreness. (Tr. 42, 43) \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n10 \n \nOn redirect, the Claimant testified that prior to the August 23, 2024, incident, she \nwas just experiencing a general ache in her right knee, like arthritis. After the fall, the pain \ndid not stop. (Tr. 44) \n The Claimant’s medical exhibit consisted of 21  pages. The initial medical  report \nprovided that the Claimant presented to Springhill Urgent Care on September 26, 2024.  \nThe  report  provided  that  in  regard  to  her  right  knee,  the  positive  abduction  test  was \nabnormal. The Claimant had fallen at work a couple of weeks ago. The x-rays showed \nmild to moderate degenerative changes of the knee. The diagnosis simply provided for \npain in the right knee. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 2 – 7) \n A  letter dated September  26,  2024, from  Melody  Tipton  of  the Arkansas  School \nBoards Association, provided that the claim for additional medical treatment for the right \nknee was denied, and it was their opinion that her injuries did not arise out of or within \nthe course of her employment which would make it not compensable. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 8) The \nClaimant then presented to OrthoArkansas on October 23, 2024. The report provided that \nthe Claimant presented with gradually worsening right knee pain, with swelling, instability, \ncatching and clicking since the incident. The report also provided for internal derangement \nof  the  right  knee,  with a differential  diagnosis  providing  for  acute  or  chronic  pain \nassociated with osteoarthritis versus an acute medial meniscus injury. The report went \non to provide that the treating doctor wondered how much of her current pain was coming \nfrom arthritic changes. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 9 – 12)  \n Later, an MRI of the right knee on November 5, 2024, provided for a horizontal flap \ntear of the right medial meniscus posterior horn with a displaced meniscal flap posteriorly \nand  superiorly.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  13) On  November  6,  2024,  a  progress  note  from  Dr. \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n11 \n \nReynolds provided for a complex medial meniscus tear of the right knee. (Cl. Ex. 1, P.14 \n– 16) \n The  Respondents  submitted  14  pages  of  records  that  were  admitted  without \nobjection.  The First Report of Injury dated September 26, 2019, involved the previous \nleft knee injury and provided for a sprain of the knee. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1) An AR-N Form \ndated August 23, 2024, provided the Claimant was reaching for something on her desk, \nwhich caused the chair to roll out underneath her, and she then fell to the floor. Coach \nBarnard came into her office and helped her off the floor. The report additionally provided \nshe injured her buttocks. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 3) The Respondents also submitted the same \ntwo medical reports discussed above. Additionally, the Respondents introduced the AR - \nC  Form  dated  November  21,  2024, which provided the Claimant’s injury occurred on \nAugust 30, 2024, and which involved her right knee, when her chair came out from under \nher, and she fell to the floor. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 13) \n \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \n \nIn regard to the primary issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of \nproving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor  the  injury  to her right  knee. In  determining  whether  the  claimant has  sustained her \nburden of proof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the \nbenefit of the doubt to either party. Ark. Code Ann 11-9-704. Wade v. Mr. Cavanaugh’s, \n298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 (1989). Further, the Commission has the duty to translate \nevidence  on  all  issues  before  it  into  findings  of  fact. Weldon  v.  Pierce  Brothers \nConstruction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n12 \n \nHere, the facts  are basically undisputed. The  Claimant  is  a  48-year-old  Virtual \nParaprofessional who works in a private office at the North Little Rock Academy Building \nfor the North Little Rock School District (Respondents). She works with a student at home, \nworking online, and this method of teaching has been going on since the start of Covid.  \nWhile working online with a student on a lesson on August 23, 2024, the Claimant reached \nfor an item and the chair where she was seated scooted or tilted and she fell out of the \nchair onto the floor on her bottom, with the fall making enough noise that the coach in the \noffice next door came in and checked on her and assisted her in getting up. She admitted \nthat her legs were straight out when seated on the floor. Her pain at the time was mainly \nin her buttocks and she immediately went into the restroom to review the damage. She \nthen went and reported the fall to her supervisor and worked the remainder of the day.  \nOver the next few weeks, the pain in her body and primarily her buttocks subsided, but \naccording  to  the testimony  of  the claimant, the  pain  in  her  right  knee  increased. She \ncontacted the women who took care of her previous left knee injury, which was covered \nby  workers’  compensation, and  was  told  that her current injury was  not  a  workers’ \ncompensation claim. She later went to Springhill Urgent Care on September 26, 2024, \nand the x-rays of her right knee showed mild to moderate changes. She was then referred \nto  Dr.  Reynolds  at  OrthoArkansas  on  October  23,  2024. Dr.  Reynolds  had  previously \ntreated Claimant’s left  knee  injury  and  performed  two  surgeries on  her  left  knee, as  a \nresult of a work-related meniscal tear. In regard to the right knee, Dr. Reynolds initially \nopined  that  the  Claimant  was  suffering  from an internal  derangement of the  right  knee \nwith a differential diagnosis of acute or chronic pain, associated with osteoarthritis. The \nClaimant  requested  an  MRI due  to her  personal  knowledge that  certain  tears  did  not \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n13 \n \nappear  on  x-rays, based  upon  her  left  knee  experience. Consequently, Dr. Reynolds \nordered an MRI. The MRI of November 5, 2024, provided for a horizontal tear of the right \nmedical  meniscus,  and  Dr.  Reynold’s  report  of  November  6,  2024,  provided  for  a \nmeniscus tear of the right knee. \nThe Claimant admitted that she was still suffering from left knee pain and that she \nwas  suffering  from  some  right  knee  pain  prior  to  the  fall  from  the  chair  on  August  23, \n2024. However, the Claimant testified that the pain worsened over time after the fall from \nthe chair. She also admitted to taking Tylenol, Advil, and that she possessed a medical \nmarijuana certificate, which she used regularly. She also admitted to lower back pain, and \nFibromylagia.         \nUnder workers’ compensation law in Arkansas, a compensable  injury  must  be \nestablished  by medical  evidence  supported by  objective  findings  and  medical opinions \naddressing  compensability and must  be  stated  within  a  degree  of  medical  certainty. \nSmith-Blair,  Inc.  v.  Jones,  77  Ark.  App.  273,  72  S.W.3d  560  (2002).    Speculation  and \nconjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence.  Liaromatis v. Baxter County Regional \nHospital,  95  Ark.  App.  296,  236  S.W.3d  524  (2006).    More  specifically,  to  prove  a \ncompensable injury, the claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) \nan injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal \nor external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in A.C.A. 11-9-\n102 (16) establishing the injury and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident \nand identifiable by time and place of occurrence. If the claimant fails to establish any of \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n14 \n \nthe requirements for establishing the compensability of the claim, compensation must be \ndenied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 s.W.2d 876 (1997). \nAn  injury for  which  the  claimant  seeks  benefits must  be  established  by  medical \nevidence supported by objective findings which are those findings that cannot come under \nthe voluntary control of the patient. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16). It is also important to note that \nthe claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Lambert v. Gerber Products \nCo. 14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985). Under Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nlaw,  it  is also clear  that an employer takes  the employee as it finds  him or  her and \nemployment  circumstances  that  aggravate  preexisting  conditions  are  compensable. \nHeritage Baptist Temple v. Robinson, 82 Ark. App. 460, 120 S.W.3d 150 (2003).   \nHere, the medical records provide that the Claimant was suffering from a number \nof  maladies prior  to  the  August  23\nrd\n,  2024, incident,  which  included  a  left  knee  work-\nrelated meniscus  tear from  an  earlier  injury. The  Claimant  was  suffering  from  various \npains and complaints, with many based upon osteoarthritis. However, she testified that \nher right knee pain increased as the remainder of the pain she attributed to the fall from \nthe chair subsided. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with a meniscus tear after receiving \nthe requested MRI. Small meniscus tears may have little to no pain. A Claimant is not \nrequired in every case to establish the casual connection between a work-related incident \nand an injury with an expert medical opinion. See Walmart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, \n337  Ark.  443,  990  S.W.2d  522  (1999). Arkansas  courts  have  long  recognized  that  a \ncasual relationship may be established between an employment-related incident and a \nsubsequent physical injury, based on evidence that the injury manifested itself within a \nreasonable period of time following the incident so that the injury is logically attributable \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n15 \n \nto  the  incident,  where  there  is  no  other  reasonable  explanation  for  the  injury. Hail  v. \nPitman Construction Co. 235 Ark. 104, 357 S.W.2d 263 (1962). A workers’ compensation \nclaimant bears the burden of proving the compensable injury by a preponderance of the \nevidence. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (4) (E) (i). A compensable injury is one that was the result of \nan accident that arose in the course of his employment and that it grew out of or resulted \nfrom the employment. See Moore v. Darling Store Fixtures, 22 Ar. App 21, 732 S.W.2d \n496  (1987) Cases such  as  the  present  one  presents  problems  that  gradually  and \nimperceptibly progress from issues of law to issues of fact. Here, it is clear that Claimant \nfell from her chair in a work-related incident. The fall made enough noise that the Coach \nnext  door  came  to  check  on  the  Claimant  and then assisted her  in  getting  up. Over  a \nrelatively short period of time, the Claimant’s right knee pain increased per the testimony \nof  the  Claimant. Although  the  Claimant’s  testimony regarding  her knee  pain  is  not \ncontrolling, her testimony appeared believable and she later requested an MRI be ordered \nby Dr. Reynolds, who obliged her. The Claimant had previously developed some personal \nknowledge about a meniscus tear, based upon her compensable left knee meniscus tear.  \nThere is no evidence of any additional intervening accidents. The right meniscus tear that \nwas diagnosed is found to have been diagnosed by an MRI within a reasonable period of \ntime. Based  upon  the  available  evidence  in  the  case  at  bar, the Claimant’s historic \nknowledge of that type of injury, and the finding of the MRI of the left knee, there is no \nalternative but to find that the claimant has satisfied the burden of proof to show that the \ninjury on August 23, 2024, resulted in a right knee meniscus tear and is in fact work related \nand compensable under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n16 \n \nIn  regard  to  the  medical,  the  Arkansas  Compensation  Act  provides  that  an \nemployer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may \nbe reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.  A.C.A. \n11-9-508(a). The  employee  has  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Stone v. Dollar General Stores, \n91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W. 3d 445 (2005). Preponderance of the evidence means the \nevidence having greater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher \nOil Co., 81 Ark App. 263, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). What constitutes reasonably necessary \nmedical  treatment  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission. Wright  Contracting  Co.  v. \nRandall,  12  Ark.  App.  358,  676  S.W.2d  750  (1984). Here  the  treatment  by  Springhill \nUrgent Care and the treatment by and recommended by Dr. Reynolds is determined to \nreasonably necessary medical treatment. \nHere we have a Claimant who has worked through a previous left knee injury and \ntestified that she was concerned with being off work in regard to the right knee injury. Her \ntestimony is found to be convincing and believable, and she has satisfied the burden of \nproof that she suffered a compensable work-related injury to her right knee on August 23, \n2024, and is entitled to future reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the right \nknee as determined by her treating physician and also the treatment already provided by \nSpringhill Urgent Care and Dr. Reynolds. \nThe claimant and her attorney are entitled to the appropriate legal fees as spelled \nout in A.C.A. 11-9-715.  \n \n\nDEMEKIA MOSLEY – H406268 \n17 \n \nAfter weighing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to \neither  party,  it  is  found  that  the  claimant  has  satisfied  her  burden  of  proof  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  credible  evidence  that  her  claim  for  her right knee  injury  is \ncompensable and the treatment by Springhill Urgent Care and also the treatment by and \nrecommended by Dr. Renolds is both reasonable and necessary. Additionally, she is also \nentitled to attorney fees as spelled by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. This \naward shall bear interest at the legal rate pursuant to A.C.A. 11-9-809. If not already paid, \nthe respondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n       ___________________________ \n       JAMES D. KENNEDY \n       Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H406268 DEMEKIA MOSLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:50.251Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406268-2025-11-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MOSLEY_DEMEKIA_H406268_20251121.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}