{"id":"alj-H407145-2026-03-17","awcc_number":"H407145","decision_date":"2026-03-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Aneisha Porchia","employer_name":"Silver Oaks Health & Rehab","title":"PORCHIA VS. SILVER OAKS HEALTH & REHAB AWCC# H407145 March 17, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:2","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["neck","back","shoulder","hip","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PORCHIA_ANEISHA_H407145_20260317.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"PORCHIA_ANEISHA_H407145_20260317.pdf","text_length":18759,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H407145 \n \n \n \nANEISHA PORCHIA,  \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSILVER OAKS HEALTH & REHAB, \nEMPLOYER  RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS NURSING HOME SELF-INSURED TRUST/  \nASIT-CCMSI,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2026 \n \nHearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), \nAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens on December 19, 2025, in Camden, Ouachita \nCounty, Arkansas.  \n \nThe claimant, Ms. Aneisha Porchia, of Magnolia, Columbia County, Arkansas, appeared pro se.  \n \nThe respondents were represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Worley, Wood & Parrish, Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \nINTRODUCTION \n \nIn  the  prehearing  order filed  November  7,  2025, the  parties  agreed  to  the  following \nstipulations which they affirmed on the record at the hearing:   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \njurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  employer/employee/carrier-TPA  relationship  existed  at  all  relevant  times \nincluding September   26,   2024, when   the   claimant   sustained admittedly \ncompensable injuries to  her neck  and lower back for which the respondents paid \nboth medical and indemnity benefits.  \n \n 3.  The claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) is $396.06 which corresponds to  \n weekly  indemnity  rates  of  $264.00 for  temporary  total  disability  (TTD),  and \n$198.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.  \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n2 \n \n 4. The Commission granted the claimant her one (1)-time-only change of physician \n            (COP) by Order dated February 4, 2025.  \n \n 5. The respondents controvert this claim in its entirety. \n6. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation and/or \ndetermination. \n \n(Commission Exhibit 1 at 2; Reporter’s Transcript at 5-6). Pursuant to the parties’ mutual \nagreement the issues litigated at the hearing were: \n \n1. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of more \nphysical therapy (PT) and/or other unspecified treatment.  \n \n2. If  she  retains  an  attorney,  whether,  and  to  what  extent,  if  any, the claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to a controverted fee based on these facts. \n \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 5-6).  \n \nThe  claimant  contends she  failed  to  receive  the  proper  care  and  was  rushed  backed  into \nwork. She contends she still has trouble with pain, and that she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment in the form of PT and/or unspecified treatment. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 5-6). \nThe  respondents  contend the  claimant’s  physician released her as  having  reached \nmaximum  medical  improvement (MMI) as  of December  11,  2024,  and  opined  she  had  no/zero \npercent (0%) permanent anatomical impairment. The respondents further contend the Commission \ngranted her COP evaluation and that it was the COP physician who released her and opined she \nhad reached MMI and had 0% permanent anatomical impairment. The respondents contend that \nno physician has recommended any additional medical treatment for her compensable neck and \nlower back injuries. Therefore, the respondents contend that the claimant cannot meet her statutory \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n3 \nher burden of proof in demonstrating she is entitled to any additional medical treatment is related \nto or reasonably necessary for treatment of her compensable injuries. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 5-\n6).  \nThe record consists of the reporter’s transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein \nor attached thereto. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe  claimant,  Ms.  Aneisha  Porchia  (the  claimant),  was 30  years  old  at  the  time  of  the \nstipulated work-related incident and was 31 years old as of the subject hearing date. On September \n26, 2024, she was working at Silver Oaks Health & Rehab (Silver Oaks) in Camden, Arkansas. A \nmale resident/patient used the “call light” to let the claimant know he wanted some ice water. She \ntestified there already was some ice water by the patient’s bed, but apparently he did not realize it \nso she went out to get him some water and ice. As she was returning into the patient’s room she \nslipped by  his  wheelchair  and bed  and  fell  backwards, landing  on the “right whole side of my \nshoulder and neck and lower hip area.” (T. 10; 9-11). She testified her primary injuries were on \nthe right side of her body, specifically her right shoulder, neck and lower back. (T. 11-12).  \nThe claimant immediately reported the incident and Silver Oaks first sent her to Dr. Crump, \nwho she supposed was Silver Oaks’s company doctor, in Camden. Although the claimant did not \nintroduce any medical records into the hearing record and there are no records from Dr. Crump in \nthe record, she testified Dr. Crump had X-rays performed, gave her a shot and put her on some \nprescription  medications  for  pain  and  she  was  not  sure  what  the  other  medicines  were  for.  The \nmedical  records  indicate  she  was  prescribed Diclofenac (a  nonsteroidal  anti-inflammatory, \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n4 \nNSAID),  Prednisone,  and  Cyclobenzaprine  (generic  Flexiril).  She  later  underwent  an  MRI  at \nwhich  time  she  was  referred  to  Trent  Tappan,  a  certified  physician’s  assistant (PA) at \nOrthoArkansas in Little Rock. (T. 12-15; Respondents’ Medical Exhibit 1 at 1; 1-5) (Bracketed \nmaterial added).  \nThe claimant first saw PA Tappan on December 11, 2024. From the time of her September \n26,  2024,  slip-and-fall  at  work  until  she  saw  PA  Tappan  on  December  11,  2024,  the  claimant \ncontinued  to  treat  conservatively  with  Dr.  Crump,  who  she  said  allowed  her  to  work  light  duty \nuntil he “kinda sorta” took her off work from sometime near the end of October until December 3, \n2024.  She  then  apparently  resumed  light  duty  work  until  she  saw PA  Tappan on  December  11, \n2024. The claimant testified Dr. Crump also prescribed her some PT for about a month, three (3) \ndays per week. The claimant testified the prescription medications and PT Dr. Crump prescribed \nfor her did “not really” help her pain at all. She said the medication “mostly made me just sleepy”, \nand the PT “helped, like, for a moment...but then it didn’t.” (T. 18; 15-19). The claimant testified \nshe was unaware of her MRI results, and that after Dr. Crump received them his office called her \nand asked if she “wanted to do any type of pain management”, but it was her understanding “the \nWorkers’ Comp people” would not approve it. (T. 19-20).  \nWhen the claimant saw PA Tappan on December 11, 2024, he reviewed her cervical MRI \nresults and examined her. In his report of the same date Dr. Tappan stated the cervical MRI results \nrevealed only some mild degenerative disc disease and “no evidence of disc herniation, nerve root \nimpingement, or acute injury.” (RX1 at 4; 1-5). He stated he “was not entirely sure what is causing \nall of her pain” and that he thought “it is a bit more muscular in nature” and that he “reassured her \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n5 \nthat her images look stable of her spine.” (RX1 at 4). PA Tappan “did not recommend any surgery \nor aggressive treatment of her neck and back.” (RX1 at 4). In concluding his report, PA Tappan \nreleased the claimant at MMI and gave her a return to work slip that stated she could return to “full \nduty” work  with “no  restrictions”. (RX1  at  4;  5).  In  a  separate  report  dated  the  very  next  day, \nDecember  12,  2024,  PA  Tappan  opined  the  claimant  did  not  have  any – “0%” – permanent \nanatomical impairment “of the whole person” based on the applicable AMA Guides. (RX1 at 6).  \nAt  some  point  thereafter  the  claimant  obtained  legal  representation  from  Texarkana, \nArkansas workers’ compensation attorney Greg Giles and requested and the Commission granted \nher one (1)-time-only change of physician request to Dr. D’Orsay Bryant, an El Dorado, Arkansas \northopedic specialist who is well known to the Commission. Dr. Bryant examined the claimant on \nFebruary  11,  2025, and could  find  no  objective  evidence  of  any  injury  that  required  additional \nmedical  treatment. Dr.  Bryant  agreed  with  PA  Tappan  that  the  claimant  reached  MMI  as  of \n12/11/2024; had no permanent anatomical impairment; and was able to return to full duty work \nwithout restrictions. (Stipulation 4; RX1 at 10; 7-10; T. 20-37).  \nIn  response  to  a  letter  from Attorney  Giles (who  was  later  allowed  to  withdraw  as  the \nclaimant’s attorney) dated April 4, 2025, in his own letter dated April 11, 2025, Dr. Bryant noted \nthe claimant’s continued pain complaints were “subjective” in nature and he specifically stated: \n       Therefore, in my office note dictation of February 11, 2025, I do not believe \n       that any further treatment (by me) or physical therapy would be beneficial. \n       Certainly, the patient is not a candidate for any form of surgery.  \n \n(RX1 at 13; 12-13; T. 20-37) (Bracketed material added).   \n \n     \n \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n6 \n \n \n DISCUSSION \n \nThe Burden of Proof \n \n      When deciding any issue, the ALJ and the Commission shall determine, on the basis of the \nrecord as a whole, whether the party having the burden of proof on the issue has established it by \na  preponderance  of  the  evidence. Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-704(c)(2)  (2025 Lexis  Replacement). \nThere is no presumption that a claim is compensable, that an injury is job-related, or that a claimant \nis entitled to benefits. Crouch Funeral Home v. Crouch, 262, Ark. 417, 557 S.W.2d 392 (1977); \nOkay  Processing,  Inc.  v.  Servold,  265  Ark.  352,  578  S.W.2d  224  (1979). The  claimant  has  the \nburden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to benefits. Stone v. Patel, \n26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). In determining whether the claimant has met \nhis burden of proof, the Commission is required to weigh the evidence impartially, without giving \nthe  benefit  of  the  doubt  to  either  party. Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-704(c)(4); Gencorp  Polymer \nProducts v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, \n22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). The ALJ, the Commission, and the courts \nshall strictly construe the Act, which also requires them to read and construe the Act in its entirety, \nand  to  harmonize  its  provisions  when  necessary. Farmers’ Coop. v. Biles, 77  Ark.  App.  1,  69 \nS.W.2d 899 (Ark. App. 2002). \n     All claims for workers’ compensation benefits must be based on proof. Speculation and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Correc. v. Glover, 35 \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n7 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Dena Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, \n595 S.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility \nof the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardee’s, 51 Ark. App. 116, \n912 S.W.2d 14 (Ark. App. 1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s \nor any other witness’s testimony but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions \nof the testimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 \n(Ark. App. 1989); and Farmers’ Coop., supra. The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical \nevidence just as it does any other evidence, and  to resolve conflicting medical opinions; and its \nresolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Williams v. Pro Staff \nTemps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999); Hill v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 74 Ark. App. 250, 57 S.W.3d \n735 (Ark. App. 2001). Although it is within the Commission’s province  to  weigh  conflicting \nevidence,  it  may  not  arbitrarily  disregard  medical  evidence  or  the  testimony  of  any  witness. \nPatchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (Ark. App. 2004).  \n \nReasonably Necessary Medical Care and Treatment \n     Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-508(a)(1)  (2025  Lexis Replacement)  requires  an  employer  to \npromptly provide an injured worker with, among other modalities, such medical treatment “as may \nbe reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.” The burden of \nproof is on the claimant to prove the medical treatment he requests is reasonable and necessary for \ntreatment of her compensable injury. Lankford v. Crossland Constr. Co., 2011 Ark. App. 416, 384 \nS.W.3d  561  (Ark.  App.  2011).  What  constitutes  reasonably necessary  medical  treatment  is  a \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n8 \nquestion  of  fact  for  the  Commission  and  turns  on  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence. Wright \nContracting Co. v. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W.2d 750 (Ark. App. 1984); Gansky v. Hi-\nTech Eng’g, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). \n     While  injured  employees  must  prove  that  medical  services  are  reasonably  necessary  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence, Arkansas law is well-settled that such services may include those \nnecessary  to  accurately  diagnose  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  compensable  injury;  to  reduce  or \nalleviate  symptoms  resulting  from  the  compensable  injury;  to  maintain  the  level  of  healing \nachieved; or to prevent further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3); Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51  Ark.  App. 100, 911 S.W.2d \n593 (Ark. App. 1995).  \n     Our court of appeals has noted that even if the healing period has ended, a claimant may be \nentitled to ongoing medical treatment if the treatment is geared toward management of problems \nemanating from his compensable injury. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark App. 230; 184 \nS.W.  3d  31,  (Ark.  App.  2004).  The  Commission  has  found  that  treatment  intended  to  help  a \nclaimant cope with chronic pain attributable to a compensable injury may be reasonably necessary. \nMaynard v. Belden Wire & Cable Co., Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) \nClaim  No.  E502002  (Full  Commission  Opinion  filed  April  28,  1998);  and Billy  Chronister  v. \nLavaca  Vault,  AWCC  Claim  No.  704562  (Full  Commission  Opinion  filed  June  20,  1991).  A \nclaimant is not required to support the alleged need for continued medical treatment with objective \nfindings. Chamber  Door  Industries,  Inc.  v.  Graham,  59  Ark.  App.  224,  956  S.W.2d  196  (Ark. \nApp. 1997). \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n9 \n     Reasonably  necessary  medical  services  include  those  necessary  to  reduce  or  alleviate \nsymptoms resulting from the compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3); and Jordan, \nsupra. Also, reasonably necessary medical services include those necessary to reduce or alleviate \nsymptoms resulting from the compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3); and Jordan, \nsupra. \n     Based on the applicable law as applied to the facts of this case and as explained in more detail \nbelow, I find the claimant has failed to meet burden of proof in demonstrating she is entitled to \nadditional  medical  treatment  in  the  form  of  additional  PT  and/or any other  unspecified  medical \ntreatment. See, Goyne v. Crabtree Contr. Co., Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 200, 301 S.W.3d 16 (Ark. App. \n2009), rehearing denied, _ Ark. App. _, _ S.W.3d _, 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 874 (April 22, 2009). \n     The overwhelming preponderance of the medical evidence reveals the claimant’s slip-and-\nfall at work on September 26, 2024, did not – thankfully and fortunately – result in any serious, \npermanent  injury. In  fact,  in  the  case  at  bar  there  exists  no  medical  evidence  supporting  the \nclaimant’s contention she is entitled to additional PT or any other medical treatment. Indeed, all \nof  the  medical  evidence  is  to  the  contrary – as  are  the  medical  opinions  of  PA  Tappan  and  Dr. \nBryant.  \n    The claimant’s MRI revealed only mild degenerative changes, no evidence of disc herniation, \nnerve  root impingement,  or  acute  injury. Indeed,  PA  Tappan  stated  he  believed  her  subjective \ncomplaints  of  pain  were  muscular  in  nature  and  required  no  additional  medical  treatment. \nConsequently, he  released  her  at  MMI  to  return  to  full  duty  work  with  no  restrictions,  and  he \nfurther opined she had sustained no/0% permanent anatomical impairment. ((RX1 at 4, 4-5; 1-6). \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n10 \n   Thereafter, Dr. Bryant made it abundantly clear in both of his reports he did not believe the \nclaimant required any additional medical treatment or physical therapy. (RX1 at 7-10; 11-13). In \nhis April 11, 2025, report, Dr. Bryant states rather bluntly and strongly that he does not believe the \nclaimant  would  benefit  from  any  additional  medical  treatment  whatsoever,  physical  therapy \notherwise.  Having  seen  many  medical  reports  from  Dr.  Bryant,  this  ALJ  has  not  to  date  seen  a \nmedical report wherein Dr. Bryant states his opinion with more conviction.  \n     Finally, it is significant to note the claimant herself admitted in her hearing testimony that \nneither the prescription pain and anti-inflammatory medication she took nor one (1) month of PT \nthere (3) times per week improved her subjective complaints of pain. Again, the claimant’s \ntestimony in this regard is consistent with both Dr. Bryant’s and PA Tappan’s opinions,  and \nspecifically  with  her  own  COP’s,  Dr.  Bryant’s,  opinion  she  requires  no  additional  medical \ntreatment – including the specific treatment the claimant is requesting herein – physical therapy.     \n      Consequently, for all the aforementioned reasons I hereby make the following: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n \n2. The stipulations contained in the prehearing order filed November 7, \n2025, hereby are accepted as facts.  \n \n3. The claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating she \nis entitled to additional medical treatment – either physical therapy or \nany other treatment – on these facts.  \n \n    Therefore, this claim is respectfully denied and dismissed with prejudice subject only to the \nparties’ statutory appeal rights. \n\nAneisha Portia, AWCC No. H407145 \n \n \n \n11 \n     IT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n \n \nMike Pickens \nAdministrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H407145 ANEISHA PORCHIA, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SILVER OAKS HEALTH & REHAB, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS NURSING HOME SELF-INSURED TRUST/ ASIT-CCMSI, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2026 Hearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Com...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:55.574Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407145-2026-03-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PORCHIA_ANEISHA_H407145_20260317.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}