{"id":"alj-H406771-2025-08-29","awcc_number":"H406771","decision_date":"2025-08-29","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Calvin Walton","employer_name":"City Of Stuttgart","title":"WALTON VS. CITY OF STUTTGART AWCC# H406771 & H500714 August 29, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:4","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck","back","rotator cuff","cervical","repetitive","lumbar","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WALTON_CALVIN_H406771_H500714_20250829.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WALTON_CALVIN_H406771_H500714_20250829.pdf","text_length":56708,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM Nos H406771 & H500714 \n \nCALVIN WALTON, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF STUTTGART, SELF- INSURED EMPLOYER        RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, TPA                     RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION & ORDER FILED 29 AUGUST 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge \nJayO. Howe on 5 June 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by Mr. Steven R. McNeely. \n \nThe respondents were represented by Ms. Mary K. Edwards. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A Prehearing Order was filed on 31 March 2025 and admitted to the hearing record \nwithout objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1. Consistent with that Order, the parties \nagreed to the following: \nSTIPULATIONS \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The self-insured employer/employee/TPA relationship existed at all relevant \ntimes relevant to both claims. \n \n3. On 26 January 2024, the claimant fell and claimed injuries to his right \nshoulder and neck. The right shoulder injury was accepted as compensable. \nThe neck injury was denied. (Claim No H406771) \n \n4. On 12 December 2024, the claimant injured his lower back. Some benefits \nhave been provided on that claim. (H500714) \n \nISSUES \n \n1. Whether the claimant suffered a compensable neck injury on 26 January \n2024. (Claim No H406771) \n \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n2 \n \n2. The correct average weekly wage that applies to benefits associated with the \ncompensable injury (or alleged compensable injuries) on Claim No H406771. \n \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional temporary total disability \n(TTD) benefits from 13 January 2025 to 9 May 2025 on Claim No H406771.\n1\n \n \n4. Whether the claimant was underpaid on past TTD benefits on Claim No \nH406771. \n \n5.  Whether the claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment on Claim No \nH500714. \n \n6.   Whether the claimant is entitled to an independent medical evaluation (IME) \nrelated to his accepted compensable right shoulder injury on Claim No \nH406771.\n2\n \n \n7.   Whether the claimant is entitled to attorney’s fees associated with the \nindemnity benefits sought. \n \nAll other issues have been reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nThe Prehearing Order incorporated the following contentions from the parties’ \nrespective prehearing questionnaire responses: \nThe claimant contends:  \n(H406771) The claimant contends that he suffered compensable injuries on \n[26 January 2024] to both his right shoulder and neck. Respondents have \naccepted the shoulder but are denying the neck. Claimant contends that he \nmade $18.25 an hour and worked 40 to 50 hours a week, at 50 hours his gross \nwages $ 1,003.75 with TTD rates $670/$502 TTD/PPD. Claimant contends he \nis entitled to the referral for his neck from Dr. Hussey. Claimant contends he \nis entitled to TTD from January 13, 2025, to a date to be determined when he \ntook off because of a flare up of his work related injuries and was terminated. \nClaimant contends the above benefits have been denied and Claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to a fee under Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-715. Claimant \nreserves all issues not raised herein including and any permanent \nimpairment rating and vocation rehab. \n \n1\n The Prehearing Order indicated that benefits were being sought to a date yet to be \ndetermined. The claimant was released from care without restrictions on 9 May 2025, and \nthe parties agreed at the beginning of the hearing that the release would end any potential \nentitlement to TTD benefits after that date. \n2\n This issue was not indicated in the Prehearing Order. It was included in this litigation by \nagreement of the parties at the beginning of the hearing. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n3 \n \n  \n(H500714) The claimant contends that he suffered a compensable injury on \n12/12/24 to his lower back, when the truck he was operating experienced a \nbrake malfunction, causing it to roll back and strike him. He is entitled to a \nreturn visit to Dr. Seth Kleinbeck. \n \n The respondents contend\n3\n: \n \n(H406771) The respondents contend that claimant cannot prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable neck injury. \nClaimant cannot prove he has objective findings of a neck injury. On or about \nJanuary 26, 2024, claimant injured his right shoulder while working for the \nCity of Stuttgart. Respondents have paid and are continuing to pay for all \nrelated medical treatment to claimant’s right shoulder. Respondents contend \nthat claimant cannot prove he is entitled to additional TTD for his right \nshoulder injury.  \n \n(H500714) The respondents contend that the claimant cannot prove he is \nentitled to additional medical treatment for his lower back injury dated \nDecember 12, 2024. The respondents sent him to see Dr. Seth Kleinbeck for \nhis lower back complaints. Dr. Kleinbeck referred the claimant for an MRI. \nThe MRI showed degenerative changes that were preexisting. Respondents \nare denying further medical treatment of the claimant’s lower back. \n \nRespondents reserve the right to file an Amended Response to the Prehearing \nQuestionnaire or other appropriate pleading and to allege any further \naffirmative defense that might be available upon further discovery.  \n \nFINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n Having reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized \nbelow, and having heard testimony from the witnesses, observing their demeanor, I make \nthe following findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over these claims. \n \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsuffered a compensable neck injury on 26 January 2024 (Claim No H406771). \n \n4. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the claimant earned an \naverage weekly wage of $806.12 at the time of his accepted right shoulder \n \n3\n As indicated in their prehearing responses and the Prehearing Order. An amended \nprehearing response was admitted to the record without objection as Resp. Ex. No 3. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n4 \n \ninjury on Claim No H406771, which entitled him to a weekly TTD benefit of \n$538. \n \n5. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was \nentitled to additional TTD benefits from 13 January 2025 to 9 May 2025, or \nany period therein, on Claim No H406771. \n \n6. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the respondents \nunderpaid the claimant on TTD benefits on Claim No H406771. \n \n7. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to additional medical treatment for his lower back injury on Claim No \nH500714. \n \n8. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to an IME related to his stipulated compensable right shoulder \ninjury on Claim No H406771. \n \n9. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nis entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). A \nclaimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \n \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n5 \n \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \nThe claimant testified on his own behalf. The respondents called Mr. Roger Robinson \n(the claimant’s supervisor) and Ms. Carol Ables (the respondent-employer’s personnel \ndirector). The record consists of the hearing transcript and the following exhibits: \nCommission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 31 March 2025 Prehearing Order); Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 \n(three index pages and 89 pages of medical records related to Claim No H406771); \nClaimant’s Exhibit No 2 (one index page and eight pages of non-medical records related to \nClaim No H406771); Claimant’s Exhibit No 3 (one index page and nine pages of medical \nrecords related to Claim No H500714); Claimant’s Exhibit No 4 (one index page and 32 \npages of non-medical records related to Claim No 406771); Respondents’ Exhibit No 1 (one \nindex page and 19 pages of medical records); Respondents’ Exhibit No 2 (two index pages \nand 58 pages of non-medical records); and Respondents' Exhibit No 3 (their amended \nprehearing questionnaire responses, dated 21 May 2025). \nAdditionally, the parties filed post-hearing briefs. In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson \nFoods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 549, those filings have been blue-\nbacked to the record and are being served on the parties in conjunction with this Opinion. \nHearing Testimony \n The claimant recently turned 60 years old. He has a high school diploma and a \ncommercial driver’s license. He has driven a truck for a living since he was 23 years old. \nThe claimant began working for the Respondent-employer City of Stuttgart (“the City”) in \nSeptember of 2023. He worked for the Sanitation Department and primarily drove “roll-\nback” trucks that carried large garbage containers that could be left at a site and then \npulled up onto the truck’s trailer for hauling away. He would pick up the garbage \ncontainers and drive them to the City’s landfill. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n6 \n \n On 26 January 2024 the claimant was at the landfill and climbing down from a \ntruck cab when a step broke, causing him to fall against the truck’s floorboards. He \nreported the injury to his supervisor Mr. Roger Robinson (whom he referred to as “RD”) and \ncompleted some paperwork that day that indicated a right shoulder injury.\n4\n The claimant \ndenied any prior injuries or problems with his right shoulder or neck.  \n The claimant testified that he received some treatment with Dr. Seth Kleinbeck. The \nclaimant was terminated in May of 2024 for missing work. He described some confusion \nabout his off-work status at that time: \nAnd so they called me when Roger got me to come back to work and I—what \nyou call them—I came back and they, Ms. Carol [Abels], asked me for a \nrehire. And I told her, “Why would you want to rehire me when I been out on \ninjury?” I mean—I mean, I been, you know—but I love my job. I mean, it \nwasn’t that I was, you know, pulling a prank or anything. I got—like I said, I \ngot a lot of responsibility to be pulling child games so. But anyway, she insist \nthat—I said, “Well, you know I still was off on workers’ comp.” I said, “You \nknow, I mean, I’m still, you know going for an MRI right now.” And she was \nlike, “Well, still we want to—you stayed gone too long. Stayed off too long.” \nBut I got injured on this job. \n \n[TR at 29-30.] \n He was rehired and continued seeking treatment. On 17 October 2024, Dr. Michael \nHussey operated on the claimant’s right shoulder. The claimant testified that he had earlier \nreported pain in his neck and left arm. \nQ:  Now, comparatively, between your right shoulder injury, and we’re still in \nthe January-to-the-surgery time frame. \nA:  Yes. \nQ:  From the right shoulder and the neck, tell the Judge which one of them \nwas the most severe, the neck or the right shoulder? \nA:  Well, I would get each of them, I would get a 10 out 10. ... \n \n[TR at 32.] \n \n4\n One form indicates a right shoulder injury. Another form incorrectly indicates a left \nshoulder injury. The parties agree that the claim relates to an accepted right shoulder \ninjury. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n7 \n \n The claimant stated that he was off work for a short time following shoulder \nsurgery: \nQ:  Okay. So, you were off work for a little period of time after the surgery? \nA:  Yes, sir. \nQ:  And you were work comp? They paid you that? \nA:  Yeah, I got one check off of them. I told them I didn’t want to—I didn’t \nwant—I didn't want to fool with no workers’ comp. \nQ:  Okay. Then, after that, you had a second injury, correct? \nA:  Yes, sir. \nQ:  And does December the 12\nth\n of 2024 sound about right? \nA:  I think. Yes, sir. \n \n[TR at 34.] \n The claimant testified that on 12 December 2024, a leaking air brake system caused \na truck to roll while he was outside of it. He stated that the truck’s door hit his left side and \nback. He reported to the respondents that the incident caused an injury to his low back. Dr. \nKleinbeck saw him and ordered an MRI scan. According to the claimant, he underwent an \ninjection for his back (that was covered by private health insurance) a few days before the \nhearing. The claimant testified that twenty or twenty-five years ago, he sustained an injury \nto his low back while working for the Highway Department.  \n The claimant recalled a significant snowstorm in Central Arkansas around 9 \nJanuary 2025 and testified about his absence from work in the weeks that followed. That \nabsence resulted in his second and final termination. \nClaimant:  Well, January the 9\nth\n, I worked it, and it started snowing. Before \nwe get off work, it started snowing. It was a real bad day January the 9\nth\n. \nAnd January the 10\nth\n [I] called in, and RD said we ain’t got to come in, ‘cause \nit’s too bad for us to come; so—and I told them on the 10\nth\n, I said, “Hey, Doc,” \nI said, “I can’t—I can’t come in.” I said, “My shoulder is—is—is—I mean, it’s \nwearing me out, neck and all.” And he was like, “Okay.” So, I was off all—I \ncalled in every day and clean up ‘til the 20\nth\n—he told me on the 22\nnd\n, and I \nknow it was the 22\nnd \n[...] He told me that—that “Hold up, Calvin.” He told—\nnow this is during where he told me, he said, “Hold up. Let me get back with \nyou, because they saying that you have abandoned your job.” I said, “Why \nwould I be—abandoned my job when I’m on the restriction and it’s brutally \ncold.” We had temperatures below zero. And I—you know, and I mean, I was \nin chronic pain. You know, I mean, I hadn’t even healed up good. I just had \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n8 \n \nhad surgery the end of October, and—but all the same time, you know, I—I \njust couldn’t believe it, but just still they discharged me. Hey. \n \nJudge:  And was that pain from the shoulder? \n \nClaimant:  Shoulder, yes, sir. And back. \n \n[TR at 38-39.] \n The claimant went on to say again that he called into work every day until 22 \nJanuary 2025, when he claimed that he was notified of his termination for not coming into \nwork the day before. Around that time the claimant stated that his right shoulder was in \n“some real pain.” [TR at 43.] He was treating with topical pain relievers and ibuprofen. He \nstated that he also experienced back and neck pain and numbness from his lower back \ndown his left leg. \n The claimant denied working between his termination and his 9 May 2025 release \nfrom care for his right shoulder by Dr. Hussey. He believed that he was unable to find work \nbecause of the restrictions relating to his shoulder during that time. At the time of his \nrelease, Dr. Hussey returned him to work without restrictions and with a zero percent (0%) \nimpairment rating. The claimant testified that he still has trouble performing his truck \ndriving work because of his right shoulder and that he compensates by relying on his left \narm. “[B]ut I thank God that I’m sitting here able to tell it and not, you know, and you \nknow, having that numbness running down my leg, pain in my neck.” [TR at 52.] \n On cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged receipt of the City’s employee \nhandbook when he was hired in September of 2023. He also acknowledged that the \nrespondents had paid for all of the treatment he received related to his accepted right \nshoulder injury. He acknowledged, too, that Dr. Kleinbeck’s records do not reflect reports of \na neck injury associated with his 26 January 2024 incident. Reviewing his workplace \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n9 \n \naccident report and the Form AR-N that he signed, he confirmed that neither indicated a \nneck injury. \n The claimant affirmed that he returned to regular duty after the accident and that \nafter his termination and rehire, he went back to working his regular job duties. After his \neventual right shoulder surgery and return to work with light-duty restrictions, the \nrespondents provided him with a ride-along employee to perform any labor that was beyond \nhis restrictions.  \n Regarding the 12 December 2024 incident, the claimant acknowledged that he was \nseen by a physician and returned to work without any restrictions the following day.  \n Turning to his termination, the claimant agreed that he did not provide any note for \nhis absence between 9 January 2025 and his termination; but he said again that he called \nhis supervisor Mr. Robinson every day during that time.  \n On redirect examination, the claimant stated that Mr. Robinson explained that he \n“begged them not to let you go, Calvin, but it’s nothing—it’s out of my hands.” [TR at 72.] \nThe claimant also denied that Mr. Robinson ever asked him for a doctor’s note related to his \nabsenteeism. \nMr. Roger Robinson \n Mr. Robinson testified that he had worked with the City for 48 years and that he \nhad served as the Sanitation Department’s supervisor for 14 years. He recalled the \nclaimant returning to work without restrictions after the 26 January 2024 and then \nreturning to work with restrictions after right shoulder surgery in October of 2024. Mr. \nRobinson denied that the claimant made any reports of a neck injury. He stated that the \nclaimant was not taken off work for a back injury or given any work restrictions for a back \ninjury after the 12 December 2024 incident. He further stated that the claimant was alone \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n10 \n \non that day because he denied needing any more help about a month or so after his post-\nsurgery return. “And I left it like that,” Mr. Robinson said. [TR at 78-79.] \n Discussing the claimant’s termination on 22 January 2025, Mr. Robinson testified \nthat he made the decision to terminate the claimant’s employment “[f]or not calling in, no \ndoctor excuse.” [TR at 80.] He denied that the claimant called in between 9 January 2025 \nand his termination. But Mr. Robinson did call the claimant during that time. \nWell, I called him January the 9\nth\n, because the workman comp lady had \ncalled me. Well, she texted me and told me that he had missed a doctor’s \nappointment and they was trying to get ahold of him, and then, I tried to call \nhim and I didn’t get no answer. Then, I heard from him, I called him again \non—I think, it was around the 11\nth\n of January and I talked with him. He say \nhe would be in that—I think, that was a Wednesday, that Thursday he said \nhe would be in. I said, “Okay,” but he never showed up and I didn’t—I didn’t \ncall him back no more. And then, later on, I called him during the—I think \naround the 21\nst\n [...] ‘cause I hadn’t heard from him no more and I gonna let \nhim know that the was no more—employee here no more. I had his \npaperwork that I had to terminate him, you know. \n \n[TR at 81.] He went on to confirm again that the claimant did not call him during the time \nhe was not reporting for work. Mr. Robinson testified that had the claimant not been \nterminated for unexcused absenteeism, his employment with the City would have \ncontinued. \n Mr. Robinson also testified about the claimant’s first termination from City \nemployment. He recalled making that decision to terminate for the claimant’s failure to \nreport to work or call in. He described the decision to rehire the claimant as a “second \nchance.” [TR at 84.] \n On cross-examination, Mr. Robinson stated that the City’s policy provided for an \nemployee’s termination after three days of not calling or not showing. He described his \ndecision to terminate the claimant’s employment for the second and final time as going “by \nthe book.” [TR at 92.] He also stated again that by 12 December 2024, the claimant had \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n11 \n \ndeclined the ride-along help that had been assigned to him. “Larry was only with him on \nthe—after surgery with his shoulder,” he said. Id. \nMs. Carol Ables \n Ms. Ables testified that she had worked for the City for about 47 years, and she had \nserved as the City’s personnel director since 2003. She explained that she processed the \npaperwork associated with the claimant’s termination but that the decision to terminate \nwas Mr. Robinson’s to make. She verified that the claimant had not provided a doctor’s note \nfor any absence on or after 9 January 2025. She also confirmed that the claimant’s first \ntermination in the summer of 2024 was for unexcused absenteeism. \n Ms. Ables also stated that she completed the wage forms associated with the \nclaimant’s TTD benefit calculations. She testified that he started with the City in \nSeptember of 2023 at $16 per hour. In January of 2024, he received a raise that brought his \npay rate to $17.50 per hour. Then, in January of 2025, his rate increased to $18.25 per \nhour.  \n She verified that the claimant immediately returned to full-duty work after \nreporting his accident in January of 2024; and she denied any awareness of a report of a \nneck injury associated with that accident. Ms. Ables confirmed that the claimant had light-\nduty restrictions after his shoulder surgery and that light-duty accommodations would have \ncontinued to be available until those restrictions were released by a physician, but not for \nhis termination. \nMedical Evidence \n The respondents accepted the claimant’s right shoulder injury as compensable and \nbegan providing for treatment accordingly. Dr. Kleinbeck’s first visit record notes a \ncomplaint of right shoulder pain and an assessment of the same. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 1.] A \nfollow-up visit on 6 March 2024 indicated the same complaint and assessment. [Id. at 6.] \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n12 \n \nOn 19 March 2024, the claimant completed a hand-written patient history form for a \nphysical therapy program. He indicated “Right Shoulder” as the present problem. [Id. at \n11.] \n On 8 May 2024, the claimant saw Dr. Kleinbeck again for ongoing right shoulder \npain. No improvement with physical therapy was noted, and an MRI was ordered. [Id. at \n13.] An MRI report from 19 August 2024 revealed a rotator cuff tear. [Id. at 19] \n The claimant was referred to Dr. Hussey on 4 September 2024, and they discussed \nthe treatment options for his right shoulder. Surgery was recommended, and the claimant \nchose to proceed with that recommendation. The notes from that visit include: \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \n. . .  \n3.  We discussed he also appears to have some cervical issues going on which \ncould be contributing to his right upper extremity pain and he states this did \nnot occur until after his work injury. I have recommended he discuss this \nwith his work comp case manager to see about a possible spine referral for \nthis. \n \n[Id. at 23.] This is the first reference to complaints of a neck injury in the medical records. \n The rotator cuff repair was performed without issue on 17 October 2024, and the \nclaimant was to follow up in clinic on 28 October 2024. The claimant was returned to work \nwith restrictions after that follow-up visit. “No pushing, pulling, lifting right upper \nextremity. Must wear brace at all times.” [Id. at 32.] \n The claimant was seen for another follow-up visit on 25 November 2024. The notes \nfrom that visit include: \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \n59-year-old male with occupation related injury, 6 weeks post right shoulder \narthroscopic rotator cuff repair, decompression, and debridement. DOS \n10/17/2024. \nAlso with cervical and upper extremity pain and dysfunction possibly \nsecondary to cervical spine derangement/radiculopathy. \n \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n13 \n \nHe was referred to physical therapy for his right shoulder, and work restrictions were \ncontinued as “no lifting, pushing, pulling greater than 3lbs with the right upper extremity. \nNo overhead motion.” [Id. at 35-36.] \n A physical therapy note from 2 January 2025 states, “Patient feeling good with pain \nonly 3/10.” [Id. at 41.] Another physical therapy note from 8 January 2025 states, “pain is \naround 3-4/10, not as severe, more like an ache.” [Id. at 47.] \n The claimant saw Dr. Hussey again on 31 January 2025. The visit notes include: \nPHYSICAL EXAM \nExam right shoulder demonstrates improved active motion all planes without \ncrepitation. \nPositive Spurling maneuver. \n2 view x-ray cervical spine demonstrates relatively normal joint alignment. \nArthritic changes present from the C5-7 levels. \n \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \nBegin phase 3 rotator cuff protocol with therapy. He still complains of \nsignificant cervical and trapezial upper shoulder pain that I believe is \nseparate from his shoulder. He could have cervical derangement, he has some \nearly arthritic changes on x-ray today. I would recommend that he be \nevaluated by cervical spine specialist to see if possibly his cervical complaint \nis related to his occupation related injury. I cannot comment on spine injury \nrelatedness, since I am not a spine specialist. Restrictions are no pushing \npulling lifting greater than 5 pounds no repetitive overhead shoulder motion. \nFollow-up 2 months at which time he may be at MMI for the shoulder. \n \n[Id. at 53.] His restrictions were changed to, “No pushing, pulling, lifting greater than 5 \npounds with right upper extremity. No repetitive overhead motions.” [Id. at 54.] \n At a follow-up appointment on 28 March 2025, Dr. Hussey noted improvement with \nmotion and strength in the claimant’s right shoulder. An additional month of physical \ntherapy was ordered, and the claimant was scheduled to return in six weeks for a final visit \nwith Dr. Hussey’s APRN Kala Hart. A release at MMI was anticipated at that time. [Id. at \n82.]  \n The last physical therapy note provided by the claimant is for an appointment on 1 \nApril 2025. That note indicates that, “Strength and ROM of his right shoulder are \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n14 \n \nimproving steadily, and pain is reduce[d] overall.” The assessment concluded with, \n“Therapy will now transition to more strength related activities within Mr. Calvin’s \ntolerance.” [Id. at 79.] \nThe claimant returned to Dr. Hussey’s clinic as scheduled on 9 May 2025 and was \nseen by Ms. Hart. He stated that he was doing “much better from last visit.” [Id. at 86.] The \nnotes from that visit also provide: \nPHYSICAL EXAM \nExam right shoulder demonstrates full range of motion in all planes without \ncrepitation. 5/5 rotator cuff strength testing. \n \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \n... \n1. I am pleased with his improvement since last visit and outcome from the \nsurgery. I am going to release him back to work full duty without restrictions \nto the right upper extremity and he is now at MMI. No further follow-up. \n \nDiscussion Notes: \nDr. Hussey was present in clinic and consulted if need in regard to the \npatient’s assessment and appropriate course of medical treatment. \n \n[Id. at 87.] Dr. Hussey then authored a letter on 12 May 2025 that stated: \n1.  Patient may return back to work without restrictions to the right upper \nextremity. \n2.  Patient is now at MMI as of date 5/9/2025 with a 0% impairment rating to \nthe right upper extremity, which corresponds to a 0% whole person \nimpairment rating according to the 4\nth\n Edition AMA Guides to the Evaluation \nof Permanent Impairment. \n3.  No further follow-up necessary. \nAll statements given above are within a reasonable degree of medical \ncertainty. \n \n[Id. at 89.] \n With regard to his alleged back injury (Claim No H500714), the claimant was seen \nby Dr. Kleinbeck on 13 December 2024. The notes from that visit include: \nREASON FOR VISIT \nBack Pain (Left Side) \nPatient is here today for lower back pain on the left side. Patient was picking \nsomething up out of his truck when the truck started rolling away. \n \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n15 \n \nBack Pain \nThis is a new problem. The current episode started yesterday. The problem \noccurs constantly. The problem has been gradually worsening since onset. \nThe pain is present in the lumbar spine. The quality of the pain is described \nas aching. The pain is at severity 4/10. The pain is moderate. The pain is the \nsame all the time. The symptoms are aggravated by bending and position. \nStiffness is present all day. Pertinent negatives include no abdominal pain, \nchest pain, fever or headaches. He has tried nothing for the symptoms. \n. . .  \n \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \nCalvin was seen today for back pain. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 3 at 1-3.] \n The claimant was diagnosed with a lumbar strain and received injections of Toradol \nand Depo-Medrol. Ibuprofen and methocarbamol were prescribed for his complaints of pain. \nHe was to return in three months. According to the visit notes, no other orders were placed \nthat day. Id. A return-to-work note is dated 12 December 2024. The claimant was returned \nto work that day without restrictions. [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 1.] \n The claimant returned to the clinic on 24 February 2025. The notes from that visit \ninclude: \nASSESSMENT/PLAN \nCalvin was seen today for back pain. \nDiagnosis and all other orders for this visit: \nLumbar radiculopathy \n \n Comments: left leg, now with weakness, MRI L spine \n. . .  \nleft sided arm pain \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 7.]  \n Lumbar X-rays were also conducted that day. That study included the following: \nFINDINGS: There is mild degenerative narrowing of the L2-3 disc space. \nThere is minimal degenerative narrowing of the L4-5 disc space. There is \nmild chronic facet joint arthropathy at L4-5 and L5-S1 with grade 1 \nanterolisthesis of L4 on L5. No compression deformity is evident. No lytic or \nblastic defect is seen. The pedicles are normal in appearance and normally \nspaced. \n \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n16 \n \n IMPRESSION: \n 1.  There is chronic degenerative narrowing of the L2-3 and L4-5 disc spaces. \n2.  There is a grade 1 anterolisthesis of L4 on L5 with associated disc space \nnarrowing and facet joint arthropathy. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 5-6.] \n The lumbar MRI scan ordered by Dr. Kleinbeck was performed on 6 March 2025. \nThe report from that scan included: \nIMPRESSION: \n1.  Multilevel degenerative disc disease and facet arthrosis with canal and \nforaminal compromise as detailed above at each level. \n2.  Canal narrowing is most significant across the L4-5 level with moderate to \nsevere canal and recess narrowing from listhesia/moderate to severe facet \narthrosis. \n3.  There is moderate to severe left canal and recess narrowing at the L5-S1 \nlevel from bulging and extrusion as above. There is also associated foraminal \nnarrowing as above. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 3 at 8.] \nDocumentary Evidence \n Both parties submitted a number of wage-related records. The respondents provided \nseveral records related to the claimant’s employment and claims, including the claimant’s \nsigned receipt of the City’s employee handbook. [Resp. Ex. No 2 at 1.] \n A Report of Accident form completed by the claimant indicates a right shoulder \ninjury occurring when a “step on truck gave away and I lost my step. I was getting out of \nmy truck.” [Id. at 20.] That form does not indicate a neck injury. A Form AR-N associated \nwith that incident reflects only a shoulder injury; it does not indicate a neck injury. [Id. at \n21.]  \n An Employment Termination Notice form is dated 3 June 2024 and signed by Roger \nRobinson. It states: \nMr. Walton called in sick on Tuesday, May 28, the day after the Memorial \nDay holiday. Mr. Robinson, SWMS Supervisor, told him that he would have \nto bring a doctor’s excuse to be paid for the holiday. He has not called in or \nreported to work since 5/28/24 so he has apparently quit. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n17 \n \n \n[Id. at 33.] \n Another Report of Accident form is dated 13 December 2024 (after the claimant’s re-\nhiring and return to work). It indicates an injury to the claimant’s “lower left side of back \ninto butt” when “ready to unload truck when parking brake release[d].” [Id. at 38.] A Form \nAR-N completed on the same day indicated the same incident and alleged the same injury. \n The claimant’s attendance records show that he was absent from work leading up to \nhis second and final termination. “Reason for Absence Explained: 01/13/25 & 01/14/25, no \npay for 16 hrs. off, failed to call in or report to work!!!” [Cl. Ex. No 4 at 30.] “Reason for \nabsence explained: 01/15/25-01/21/25, no pay for 40 hrs. off (waiting to see if he brings in a \ndoctor’s excuse)!!!” [Id. at 31.] \n On 21 January 2025, a claims examiner for the respondents wrote a letter to the \nclaimant about several recently missed treatment appointments: \nAs you are aware, I am the adjuster assigned to your above claim for your \nshoulder. I have been made aware that you have not attended several of your \nscheduled physical therapy appointments and did not keep your follow-up \nappointment with Dr. Hussey. Your doctor prescribed therapy to aid in the \nhealing of the above work injury therefore you must attend. Failure to attend \nyour recommended appointments, physical therapy and doctor, places you in \nnon-compliant status and subject to discontinuation of your workers’ \ncompensation benefits. \n \nI urge you to keep your therapy appointment scheduled for 1/22/2025 and \nyour doctor’s appointment that has been rescheduled for 1/31/2025. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 2 at 54.] \nAnother Employment Termination Notice is dated 22 January 2025. It is also signed \nby Roger Robinson and states, “Mr. Walton is being terminated due to failing to report to \nwork since 01/09/25 and failing to provide a doctor’s excuse for the days he has been off \nwork. [Cl. Ex. No 4 32; Resp. Ex. No 2 at 35.] \n \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n18 \n \nDISCUSSION \nI. THE CLAIMANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF \n THE EVIDENCE THAT HE SUFFERED A COMPENSABLE NECK \n INJURY ON CLAIM No H406771. \n \n The respondents accepted this claim for initial benefits associated with a right \nshoulder injury. They began paying for reasonable and necessary medical benefits and, \nafter a covered surgical procedure, provided indemnity benefits. They have denied liability \nfor an alleged neck injury on this claim. \n Under Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation laws, a worker has the burden of proving \nby a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury as the result of \na workplace incident. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i). A compensable injury must be \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(D). Objective medical findings are those findings that cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  \n The claimant alleges that his injury occurred by specific incident.\n5\n The claimant \nmust establish four (4) factors by a preponderance of the evidence to prove a specific \nincident injury: (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course of his employment; \n(2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services or \nresulted in disability or death; (3) the injury is established by medical evidence supported \nby objective findings, which are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary \ncontrol of the patient; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and is identifiable \nby time and place of occurrence. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, \n \n5\n The compensability issue as framed by the parties in the Prehearing Order was not \nlimited to a specific-incident theory. But the claimant made clear in his testimony that his \nalleged neck injury arose out of the same specific incident that the parties have stipulated \nresulted in his sustaining his compensable right shoulder injury. Moreover, nothing in his \ntestimony alluded to his alleged neck injury being gradual-onset in origin. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n19 \n \n938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). If a claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence \nany of the above elements, compensation must be denied. Id. \n The claimant cannot support his claim for a compensable neck injury because the \nevidentiary record is devoid of objective findings of such an injury.  \nAlso, the accident report form nor the Form AR-N signed by the claimant indicate \nthat he sustained a neck injury that day. The medical records from the claimant’s after-\naccident visits do not indicate any complaints of a neck injury. And the physical therapy \nintake forms completed by the claimant similarly do not make any mention of a neck injury. \nThe first reference to a complaint about the claimant’s neck does not appear until the \nclaimant’s 4 September 2024 surgical consult with Dr. Hussey. That complaint is later \nnoted as “possibly secondary to cervical spine derangement/radiculopathy.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 at \n35.] A 31 January 2025 X-ray of the claimant’s cervical spine revealed “relatively normal \njoint alignment” and “[a]rthritic changes present from the C5-7 levels.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 53.] \nDr. Hussey noted that he recommended the claimant see a spine specialist “to see if \npossibly his cervical complaint is related to his occupation related injury.” He then clearly \nrejects offering an opinion on causality, stating, “I cannot comment on spine injury \nrelatedness, since I am not a spine specialist.” [Id.] A causal relationship may be \nestablished between an employment-related incident and a subsequent physical injury \nbased on the evidence that the injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of time \nfollowing the incident, so that the injury is logically attributable to the incident, where \nthere is no other reasonable explanation for the injury. Hall v. Pittman Construction Co., \n234 Ark. 104, 357 S.W.2d 263 (1962). This, though, did not occur here. \n The claimant has failed to meet his burden on objective findings supporting a claim \nfor a compensable neck injury, and he has failed to meet his burden on proving that any \neventual complaints of a possible neck injury arose out of and in the course of his \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n20 \n \nemployment with the City. His claim for compensability on an alleged neck injury under \nClaim No H406771 must, therefore, fail. \nII. THE AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE ON CLAIM No H406771. \nArkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-705(a)(3) provides that “[c]ompensation shall be \ncomputed on the average weekly wage earned by the employee under the contract of hire in \nforce at the time of the accident and in no case shall be computed on less than a full-time \nworkweek in the employment.” The wage records evidence that the claimant was paid \nweekly between his 5 September 2023 date of hire and his 26 January 2024 injury.\n6\n [Cl. Ex. \nNo 2; Resp. Ex. No 2.] His first full-time check was paid on 15 September 2023. The \nclaimant’s full-time work continued until the date of his injury, excepting the week \npreceding his 5 January 2024 check, when he worked only 18 hours and the following week, \nwhen he only worked 38 hours.  \nThe wage records reflect 20 pay periods and 18 full-time weeks of pay between the \nclaimant’s date of hire and his accepted right shoulder injury. He earned a total of \n$12,184.50 in regular wages during those 18 weeks.\n7\n The average weekly wage calculation \nfor his regular pay is $676.92.  \nUnder Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-518(b): \nOvertime earnings are to be added to the regular weekly wages and shall be \ncomputed by dividing the overtime earning by the number of weeks worked \nby the employee in the same employment under the contract of hire in force \nat the time of the accident, not to exceed a period of fifty-two (52) weeks \npreceding the accident. \n \n \n6\n The respondents provided a Form W for the claimant, but that form shows weeks of \npayment exceeding the period of time between the claimant’s date of hire and date of injury \non Claim No H406771. For calculating the claimant’s average weekly wage, I have relied \ninstead on the weekly wage records provided by both parties. \n7\n The wage records include an unexplained bonus of $83.36 paid for the week of 15 \nDecember 2023. I have not included this amount in the claimant’s regular weekly wage \ncalculation. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n21 \n \nThe wage records also reflect the claimant’s overtime pay earned during those 20 \npay periods. That amount totals $2,584.06. The overtime earned over those 20 weeks \naverages to a weekly sum of $129.20. Combining the regular and overtime wage amounts \nresults in an average weekly wage of $806.12. This corresponds to a temporary total \ndisability rate of $538. When this rate is compared against the indemnity payout history in \nthe record, the evidence does not preponderate in favor of finding that the respondents \nunderpaid the claimant for his TTD benefits provided after his right shoulder surgery. \nIII. THE CLAIMANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO \n ADDITIONAL TTD BENEFITS. \n \n The respondents provided TTD benefits to the claimant in connection with Claim No \nH406771 for a period of time following his right shoulder surgery in early October of 2024. \nThose benefits ended around his release to return to work with restrictions on 28 October \n2024. He now seeks an award of additional TTD benefits for the period between 13 January \n2025 and 9 May 2025. The beginning of this period relates to the time that the claimant \nwas still employed by the City but had stopped showing up for work. He could not provide a \ndoctor’s note to authorize his absenteeism; and his continued unauthorized nonattendance \nwas the basis for his termination on 22 January 2025.  \n The compensable injury to the claimant's right shoulder is unscheduled. See Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-521. An employee who suffers a compensable unscheduled injury is \nentitled to temporary total disability compensation for that period that is within the \nhealing period and in which he has suffered a total incapacity to earn wages. Ark. State \nHwy. & Transp. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981). The healing \nperiod ends when the underlying condition causing the disability has become stable and \nnothing further in the way of treatment will improve that condition. Mad Butcher, Inc. v. \nParker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 (1982). A claimant must demonstrate that the \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n22 \n \ndisability lasted more than seven days. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-501(a)(1). He must prove his \nentitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3). \nThe records here show that the claimant remained in a healing period until his release at \nMMI without restrictions on 9 May 2025. The dispute is to whether the claimant was \ntotally incapacitated from earning wages during the period of time that he seeks these \nadditional benefits. \n As an initial matter, I do not find the claimant to be entitled to additional TTD \nbenefits for any period between 15 January 2025 and his termination on 22 January 2025. \nHe was employed during that time with job duties that were within his restrictions. The \nrecord reflects that despite his choosing not to show up for work during this time, he \nremained employed with job duties within his restrictions. He was plainly not suffering a \ntotal incapacity to earn wages during this time. And there was no evidence that the \nclaimant would not have continued his employment (and associated capacity to earn wages) \nwith the City but for his termination for violating the attendance policy. \n The next question is whether the respondent’s obligations for providing TTD \nbenefits carried beyond the end of his employment with the City because he was totally \nincapacitated to earn any wages during the time between his termination and the 9 May \n2025 end of his healing period. In his post-hearing brief, the claimant argues that the facts \nin this case align with those in Tyson Poultry v. Narvaiz, 2012 Ark. 118, 388 S.W.3d 16. He \nstates that his light-duty restrictions “rendered him completely incapacitated” after his \ntermination. The facts here, however, are distinct from those in Narvaiz. In that case, an \nemployee was in a healing period and suspended for misconduct. After returning to work \nfrom his suspension, he was terminated. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the \nCommission’s finding that under those circumstances the claimant’s “termination for \nmisconduct was not a sufficient basis for finding that he refused suitable employment” \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n23 \n \nunder Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-526. Id. In analyzing Narvaiz, the Court declined to apply its \nholding in Roark v. Pocahontas Nursing & Rehabilitation, 95 Ark. App. 176, 235 S.W.3d \n527 (2006). In so doing, it stated that Roark, unlike Narvaiz, “involved a claimant whose \nemployment was terminated for violation of her employer’s attendance policy rather than a \nviolation of a conduct policy.” (Emphasis in original.) The claimant here, notably, was \nterminated for violating an attendance policy. \nThe respondents point to Rogers v. Aramark, 2022 Ark. App. 507, 657 S.W.3d 196, \nfor guidance instead. In that case, the claimant was fired from his “sales-route \nrepresentative” position (a pick-up and delivery driver) while he was still in a healing \nperiod for a low-back injury. He had been working light-duty at the time of his termination.  \nRogers also argues that he was totally incapacitated from earning wages. He \ncontends that, while Aramark accommodated his restrictions, he clearly had \nno options for work once Aramark fired him. He asserts that the type of light-\nduty job that he was performing at Aramark would be “rare to find” and that \nhis restrictions prevent him from being able to work within his field or in any  \ncompetitive work environment. \n \nThere is no indication in the record that Rogers was fired by Aramark \nbecause he could not perform the light-duty job that had been created for \nhim. In fact, Rogers testified that he would still be working at Aramark if he \nhad not been terminated.  \n \nId. The Court noted that there was no medical evidence suggesting that the claimant could \nnot work within his restrictions. See also, Turcios v. Tyson Foods, Inc. 2016 Ark. App. 471, \n504 S.W.3d 622 (citing Tyson Chicken, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 2012 Ark. App. 99; and Watts v. \nSears Roebuck & Co., 2011 Ark. App. 529, 386 S.W.3d 19). \n The facts here are more akin to those in Rogers and Roark. While the claimant \nargues that his restrictions rendered him incapable of earning any wages, he had been \nperforming his assigned work apparently without issue since his return to work in October \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n24 \n \nof 2024. Shortly after his termination, his restrictions were eased, with no indication that \nthat he had been experiencing any work-related difficulties performing any assigned duties.  \n Also, the claimant was not credible with regard to his testimony around the time of \nhis termination. He stated that he stopped showing up for work because he needed to see a \ndoctor. Yet he presented no evidence of any unplanned or as-needed doctor’s visits around \nthat time. To the contrary, Mr. Robinson credibly testified that he contacted the claimant at \nthe beginning of his absenteeism after being prompted by a claims manager who reported \nthat the claimant had missed a doctor’s appointment. A case manager’s letter dated just \nbefore the claimant’s termination corroborated that the respondents were attempting to \ncontact the claimant about recently missed treatment appointments. Mr. Robinson also \ntestified that the claimant was to return to work and provide any doctor’s notes for his \nunscheduled absences, as indicated on his attendance records; but the claimant never \nreturned to work. Nor did he present any medical evidence at the hearing authorizing his \nabsences or relating his absences to his compensable injury. \n The claimant was also not credible in his testimony that he called into work every \nday that he was absent or that Mr. Robinson supposedly reported begging the City to let \nthe claimant stay on despite his unexcused absences. Mr. Robinson credibly testified that \nthe decision to terminate for violation of the attendance policy was his. And he credibly \ntestified that the claimant was not making daily calls to report his intended absences. The \ncontemporaneous attendance records corroborate Mr. Robinson’s testimony. \n Similarly, the claimant was not credible with his recollection of the removal of his \nlight-duty restrictions and his release to full duty. He testified that he was unable to find \nwork after his termination because of his restrictions and that he told APRN Hart he \nneeded his restrictions lifted. She responded, he testified, “Well, Mr. Walton, I’m going to \ntake you off your restrictions.” [TR at 44.] The claimant said that he then returned to the \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n25 \n \ncompany that couldn’t hire him with restrictions and secured a job. The medical evidence, \nhowever, clearly shows that the claimant’s release was not the result of a plea to Hart at \nhis appointment on 9 May 2025. His full-duty release had been anticipated by Dr. Hussey \nback on 28 March 2025 when he scheduled the claimant for that final (9 May 2025) visit \nwith Hart. \n In short, I do not find the claimant to be credible in any of his testimony around the \ntime of his unexcused absences, his termination, his release from care, or his efforts to find \nwork after his termination. His sudden period of unexcused absences in January of 2025 \nnot inconsistent with the same behavior that resulted in his termination for unexcused \nabsences in June of 2024. Both terminations were for violations of the respondent-\nemployer’s attendance policy; and neither was related to his compensable right shoulder \ninjury. The evidence preponderates against finding that the claimant’s restrictions \nrendered him totally incapable of earning wages. His claim for additional TTD benefits \nmust, therefore, fail.  \nIV. THE CLAIMANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF \n THE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ENTITELD TO ADDITIONAL MEDICAL \n TREATMENT ON CLAIM No H500714.  \n \n The claimant also seeks additional treatment for his accepted back injury in \nconnection with Claim No H500714. Employers must promptly provide medical services \nwhich are reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injuries, Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-508(a). However, injured employees have the burden of proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Patchell v. \nWal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004). What constitutes reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment is a fact question for the Commission, and the resolution \nof this issue depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, \n325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n26 \n \n  Dr. Kleinbeck diagnosed the claimant with a lumbar strain on 13 December \n2024 and returned him to work without restrictions. Some medications were \nprescribed; but no other studies, interventions, or time-sensitive follow-ups were \nordered. The claimant presented to clinic again with the same complaints of back \npain on 24 February 2025. X-rays conducted that day showed chronic degenerative \nchanges. A subsequent MRI study revealed “multilevel degenerative disc disease.” \nUpon reviewing that study, Dr. Kleinbeck noted, “He does have a few areas where it \nlooks like he may have some nerve compression: would refer him over to Ortho \nArkansas spine clinic, since he is already seeing Dr. Hussey at Ortho Arkansas.” [Cl. \nEx. No 3 at 9.] Afterwards, the respondents denied further treatment. \n The imaging studies of the claimant’s back that are in evidence only reveal \ndegenerative changes. While the claimant testified that he recently underwent an \ninjection for back pain, he did not provide any records that purport to relate that or \nany other treatment to his workplace injury. The claimant must prove that any \ntreatment he is seeking is causally related to this compensable injury. See Pulaski \nCty. Spec. Sch. Dist. v. Tenner, 2013 Ark. App. 569, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 601. The \nclaimant has therefore failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to any additional reasonable or necessary medical treatment for his back.   \nV. THE CLAIMANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF \n THE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO AN INDEPENDENT \n MEDICAL EXAMINATION FOR HIS RIGHT SHOULDER. \n \n At the beginning of the hearing, the claimant sought to add as an issue whether the \nhe was entitled to an independent medical examination (IME) for his right shoulder. “We \nbelieve that Dr. [Hussey] didn’t pay attention when he did that zero rating following \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n27 \n \nsurgery.”\n8\n [TR at 11.] The respondents did not object to the addition of the issue, so it is \nbeing addressed here. As for their objection as to his entitlement to the same, they noted (1) \nthat the claimant had not sought a second opinion on his shoulder and any potential \npermanent impairment via a Change of Physician and (2) that the claimant “incorrectly \npresumes that because a surgery was performed, he is automatically entitled to a rating.” \n[TR at 18.] \n In their post-hearing briefing, the parties essentially assert the same arguments. \nBoth cite Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-511, which provides: \n(a) An injured employee claiming to be entitled to compensation shall submit \nto such physical examination and treatment by another qualified physician, \ndesignated or approved by the Workers' Compensation Commission, as the \ncommission may require from time to time if reasonable and necessary. \n \n See generally Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d \n472 (1997) (Arey, J. Concurring). \n I agree with the respondents that the claimant has not provided a preponderance of \nevidence to support a finding that such an examination is reasonable or necessary. The \nclaimant testified that he still has some pain in his right shoulder and that his strength is \nnot the same. Yet he presented no credible evidence to contradict Dr. Hussey’s assignment \nof a zero percent (0%) impairment rating without restrictions. Dr. Hussey maintained a \nphysician-patient relationship with the claimant that began with his initial surgical consult \non 4 September 2024 and continued through the claimant’s release on 9 May 2025. Dr. \nHussey referred the claimant to a physical therapy program and was able to review those \nexam and progress notes throughout the claimant’s recovery. The records from the \nclaimant’s last clinic visit state, “Exam right shoulder demonstrates full range of motion in \n \n8\n The claimant did not ask that the Commission assign him a permanent impairment rating \nin this litigation. In his prehearing filing, he specifically reserved the same. \n\nC. WALTON- H406771 & H500714 \n28 \n \nall planes without crepitation. 5/5 rotator cuff strength.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 87.] The \nCommission is authorized to accept or reject a medical opinion and is authorized to \ndetermine its medical soundness and probative value. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 \nArk. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002). I find Dr. Hussey’s assessment to be sound based on \nthe record evidence; and in the absence of persuasive proof as to any error in that \nassessment, I find that the evidence preponderates against finding an independent medical \nexamination to be reasonable or necessary. \nVI. ATTORNEY’S FEE \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee. \nCONCLUSION AND AWARD \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to any of the benefits sought in this litigation. His claims are hereby DENIED and \nDISMISSED, accordingly. \n SO ORDERED. \n       ______________________________________ \n       JayO. Howe \n       Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM Nos H406771 & H500714 CALVIN WALTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF STUTTGART, SELF- INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION & ORDER FILED 29 AUGUST 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:10.737Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406771-2025-08-29","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WALTON_CALVIN_H406771_H500714_20250829.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}