{"id":"alj-H406682-2026-04-08","awcc_number":"H406682","decision_date":"2026-04-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Larry Lazrine","employer_name":"Sewell Drilling, LLC","title":"LAZRINE VS. SEWELL DRILLING, LLC. AWCC# H406682 April 08, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LAZRINE_LARRY_H406682_20260408.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"LAZRINE_LARRY_H406682_20260408.pdf","text_length":17718,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                        CLAIM NO.: H406682 \n \n \nLARRY LAZRINE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSEWELL DRILLING, LLC.,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT  \n                                        \nBITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                                RESPONDENT  \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 8, 2026 \n             \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, Union County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented  by the  Honorable  F.  Mattison  Thomas  III, Attorney  at  Law, El  Dorado, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable  Micheal E.  Ryburn, Attorney at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n          Statement of the Case \nOn February  4,  2026, the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for a hearing in El  Dorado, \nArkansas.   A Prehearing Telephone Conference  was  conducted with  the  parties on January  21, \n2026, from  which  a Prehearing Order was  filed on that  same  day.  Said  order and  the parties’ \nresponsive filings have been marked as Commission’s Exhibit No. 1. \nStipulations \nDuring the Prehearing Telephone Conference, and/or the hearing, the parties agreed to the \nfollowing stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within  \nclaim. \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n2 \n \n 2.      The  employee-employer  insurance  carrier  relationship  existed  among  the  parties  on \nSeptember 28, 2024, at which time the Claimant allegedly sustained a compensable injury to his \nright shoulder. \n 3.      The Claimant earned wages  at  the  time  of  the  alleged September  2024 incident \nsufficient to entitle him to the maximum compensation rates for a 2024 injury. \n 4.    The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  \n 5.    All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct (referred to herein as the “Act”).         \nIssues \nThe parties agreed to litigate the following issue:  \nWhether  the  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  for  his alleged right \nshoulder injury. \nContentions \n The Claimant’s and the Respondents’ respective contentions are as follows: \n Claimant   \nThe Claimant contends  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  on  September  28,  2024, \nwhile  working  for  the  Respondents  in  a  drilling  rig  capacity,  injuring  his  right  shoulder  while \nperforming the necessary duties of his employment.        \n  Respondents  \nThe Respondents contend  that  the  Claimant  did not  injure  his  right  shoulder  at  work  on \nSeptember 28, 2024.  He has no objective findings. \n    Based on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n3 \n \nhear the testimony of the Claimant and observe his demeanor, I hereby make the following findings \nof fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann.  §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.      I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n          3.         The Claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there are any \nobjective medical findings to show that he sustained an accidental injury to his right shoulder while \nworking  for  the  respondent-employer  on  September  28,  2024.   Under  these  circumstances, I  am \ncompelled to find the Claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to any reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment for his alleged right shoulder injury.  As a result, the employer is not liable for \nany medical treatment relating to this claim. \n          4.        All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct.  \nSummary of Evidence \nThe Claimant, Mr. Larry Lazrine, was the sole witness to testify during the hearing.  \n            The  record also consists  of  the  hearing  transcript  of February  4, 2026, and  the  exhibits \ncontained therein. Specifically, in addition Commission’s Exhibit 1, the following exhibits have \nalso  been  made  a  part  of  the  record: the Claimant’s  and  the  Respondents’ response  to  the \nPrehearing Questionnaire; Claimant’s Exhibit 1 consisting of two pages of a Photocopy of a Check \nfrom  Sewell  Drilling,  LLC  to  the  Claimant; Claimant’s Exhibit 2 entailing five  pages  of  text \nmessages; Claimant’s Exhibit 3 consisting of two pages of Photographs; Claimant’s Exhibit  4 \nconsisting  of two pages; Claimant’s Exhibit 5  encompasses a one  page Photocopy  of a Text \nMessage/Statement  from  Austin  Duck  to  the  Claimant; a Photocopy  of a Text  Message  from \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n4 \n \nDaniel Crotty to the Claimant entailing only one was marked Claimant’s Exhibit 6; and Claimant’s  \nExhibit  7 comprising of a two-page  Letter from the Claimant’s attorney to  my  office dated \nFebruary 3, 2026.  \n                                              Background \n \n The Claimant, now age 62, confirmed that in September 2024, he was working for Sewell \nDrilling,  LLC.    He  testified  that  he  performed  employment  duties  of  what  they  classified  as  a \nmotorman mechanic. According to the Claimant, he took care of the engines and helped maintain \npipes  and  other  equipment.    At  that  time  of  his  alleged  incident,  the  Claimant  had  worked  for \nSewell Drilling a couple of days shy of one year.  He confirmed that he is a resident of Texas, but \npreviously he temporarily lived in Arkansas.  Per the Claimant, while in Arkansas, he and his wife \nlived in a camper with his daughter and granddaughter. \n In  September  2024,  the  Claimant  testified  that  they  were  drilling  a  new  well  in  Union \nCounty out on Highway  335 in El Dorado.  At that time, the Claimant’s supervisor was Daniel \nCrotty.  He explained that if his supervisor were unavailable when something happened, he would \nnotify the tool pusher or a driller or even go to someone else about it.   \n He essentially confirmed that he  was involved in  an on-the-job injury on  September 28, \n2024, around 12:45 p.m.  According to the Claimant, Daniel Crotty had directed him to start getting \neverything rigged down because they had finished up and completed all the work on the well.   \n The Claimant provided the following explanation of what happened on September 28: \n  A. We finished making a connection on – on the floor, and it’s – it’s me, the  \n  chain hand and the – the worm – what we call a worm, which is the one that works \n  on the - - on the other side of the chain hand.  And we finished making the  \n  connection and, as we kind of broke up and got ready to go do our thing, I was  \n  fixing to go check motors and check the oil and stuff in the motors, make sure  \n  they’re running right, and Daniel said, “Okay, we are going to start rigging down \n  and stuff.  I want y’all to get to - - and make sure you get those tongs, those spare \n  tongs, and put them in the parts house.” And so he said, “Grab one of them, grab  \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n5 \n \n  either Austin or Todd.” \n   So I told Todd.  Austin was busy, so I asked Todd to come help me, and  \n  when me and Todd went down there to move them, and we come off of a mat and \n  there was some ruts, and Todd was walking backwards and he actually stumbled  \n   and we almost dropped them, and it jerked me forward and then to the side.  But  \n  the arm up here, I was holding onto that, and that’s what caught my arm and – and  \n  kind of just bent it between my – my leg.  My elbow was right here stuck and it just \n                        bent it backwards. \n \n  Q. All right.  Did you feel any sensation when that occurred?  \n \n  A. Yes, sir.  A great pain. \n   \n According to the Claimant, they were able to get the tongs back up and carry them over to \nthe parts house, which was about six feet away from them.  The Claimant testified that the tongs \nweigh  approximately  275  to  325  pounds.    He  confirmed  that  the  two  of  them  were  able  to \nphysically carry them from one location to another.  The Claimant testified that once they were at \nthe parts house, he told Todd he pulled something in his back.  He further testified that after this \noccurred he felt pain in his lower back and shoulder. \n The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  is  claiming  injuries  to  his  back  and right shoulder,  for \nwhich he seeks medical treatment.  However, he agreed that the primary injury is to his shoulder.  \nHe  testified  that  he  reported  his  injury  to  Daniel.    According  to  the  Claimant,  Daniel  made  a \nstatement about how heavy those things are and adjusted his hat and sat back in the driller chair \nand  went  back  to  sleep.   The  Claimant  testified  that  Daniel  blew  him  off.  According  to  the \nClaimant,  he  took  the  photograph to  show  to  Terry,  who  runs  the  company for the  owner/Gary \nSewell.  Per the Claimant, there were other employees present to witness him advising of his injury. \nThe Claimant testified that Austin Duck was one of the employees present.      \n He admitted that he went to work the next day.  However, the Claimant testified that he did \nnot get anything done because he had shoulder pain.  According to the Claimant, he complained \nabout  something  seriously  being  wrong  with  his  shoulder while  at  work  that  day.   When  the \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n6 \n \nClaimant got back home, he went to Urgent Care.  The Claimant confirmed that he sent the above \nbills to Sewell and they reimbursed him by way of a check.  Said check has been made a part of \nthe record.  He confirmed that he got some prescription medications pursuant to his clinic visit.  \nThe Claimant testified that he was on a regimen of medications for a period of ten days.  He verified \nthat the company reimbursed him for the cost of his medications.  The Claimant testified that his \nwife contacted Sewell’s secretary about his injury, and she was informed that Sewell does not use \nworkers’ compensation insurance.  Instead, his wife was told that employees send their medical \nbills directly to them and they pay the medical bills and the employee. \n At that time, the Claimant was on a five-day regimen of pain medicines, muscle relaxers, \nand  steroids.    He  confirmed  that  the  doctor prescribed muscle  relaxers for  him.    The  Claimant \nadmitted that he had muscle spasms at that time.  Per the Claimant, they gave him two injections \nat the Urgent Care Clinic.  He denied having received any other medical treatment for his shoulder.  \nThe Claimant denied that he was paid for his lost time while off work.  Since this time, the Claimant \ndenied that he has ever gone back to work. The Claimant denied that he has been able to afford to \ngo to the doctor to find out exactly what is going on with him.           \n   On October 4, Daniel Crotty notified the Claimant not to return to work because the rig \nwas back at the yard, and he told him he would let him know when to return to work.  In other \nwords,  the  Claimant  explained  that  he  was discharged,  because  this  is  how  employees  are \nterminated.  He denied that he has received any calls from Sewell Oil checking on his condition \nor  telling  him to  return  to  work.   The  Claimant  denied  ever  having  any  prior  back  or  shoulder \nproblems or injuries.  According to the Claimant, he has not had any kind of prior medical issues.  \nIn fact, the Claimant testified that he has not had any type of health issues.  He stated that he has \nnot seen a doctor since 1987.   \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n7 \n \n About his current physical condition, the Claimant testified that he has difficulties walking \nto his mailbox, which is about the distance of a half-a-city block from his residence.  According to \nthe Claimant, by the time he turns around from the mailbox and starts walking back, his hips and \nlower back start burning so bad that he has to stop for a minute and then start walking again.   \n On cross-examination, the Claimant explained that he is unable to work because he cannot \nstand for lengthy periods of time or walk too far because his back goes to hurting.  However, he \ntestified that the main issue is with his right shoulder.  According to the Claimant, he cannot pick \nup or move anything with his shoulder without it feeling “like it is going to pop out of socket.”  \n The following exchange took place with the Claimant and Respondents’ attorney: \n  Q. You understand that the issue for today in the Judge’s Prehearing Order is  \n  your left shoulder? \n \n  A. Yes, sir. \n \n  Q. There is no back? \n \n  A. No, it’s  -- it’s actually my right shoulder. \n \n       *** \n  Q. There’s no back claim being litigated today.  But the reason you can’t work \n  is not your – your right shoulder, it's your back. \n \n  A. No. It’s my shoulder.  My shoulder  -- \n \n He insisted that  his  shoulder  hangs  down  an  inch  and  a  half  lower  than  the  other  one.  \nAccording  to  the  Claimant,  he cannot do  anything  with  it  physically,  and  all  night  and  day  his \nshoulder aches and burns.  He confirmed that he is asking his employer to pay for him to go to the \ndoctor.    \n Under further questioning, the Claimant admitted that he was told by Sewell’s management \nto  fill  out  an  injury  report  and take  a  drug,  but  he  failed  to  do  so.    The  Claimant denied  using \nmarijuana.   \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n8 \n \nNo medical documentation or report to establish a compensable injury by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings has been presented in this matter.  In fact, no medical evidence \nwhatsoever has been made a part of the record in this claim. \n                     Adjudication         \n The Claimant has alleged that he sustained injuries to his back and shoulder as a result of \na specific incident while working for the respondent-employer on September 28, 2024.  However, \nthe only issue to be litigated related to the Claimant’s right shoulder. \n In that regard, for the Claimant to establish a compensable injury as a result of a specific \nincident, the following requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), must be \nestablished:  (1)  proof  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  of  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the \ncourse of employment; (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury caused internal \nor external physical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102 (4)(D), establishing the injury; and (4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time  and place of occurrence.   Mikel v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).   \n A  compensable  injury  must  be  proven  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings \nthat  cannot  come  under  the  voluntary  control  of  the  patient.   Id.  §  11-9-102(16).  The  element \n“arising out of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the Claimant’s \ninjury  and  their  employment.   City  of  El  Dorado  v.  Sartor,  21  Ark.  App.  143,  729  S.W.2d  430 \n(1987).    An  injury  arises  out  of  a Claimant’s employment “when a causal connection between \nwork conditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.” Id. \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n9 \n \n If the Claimant fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any of the requirements \nfor proving compensability, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, \n56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard means evidence that has greater weight \nor more convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet \nCove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \nAfter reviewing the evidence as a whole, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either \nparty,  I  find  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  prove that he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  while \nworking for the respondent-employer on September 28, 2024.   Specifically, the Claimant did not \noffer any documentary medical evidence whatsoever in support of objective medical findings to \nauthenticate  a  finding  of  compensability for  his  alleged  right  shoulder  injury.   Therefore,  I  am \ncompelled to find that the Claimant did not prove he sustained a compensable right shoulder injury \non  September  28,  2024.  As  a  result, the respondent-employer has no  liability to  provide  the \nClaimant  with any  reasonably necessary  medical treatment  in connection  with  his  alleged  right \nshoulder injury. \n                                                                  ORDER \n The Claimant did not furnish objective medical evidence so as to prove all the necessary \nelements  for proving a compensable right  shoulder injury, for  which  he  would  be  entitled \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment.     \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n            ______________________________ \n            CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                   Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n\nLazrine – H406682 \n10","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H406682 LARRY LAZRINE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SEWELL DRILLING, LLC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 8, 2026 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorad...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:57.188Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406682-2026-04-08","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/LAZRINE_LARRY_H406682_20260408.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}