{"id":"alj-H407169-2025-11-20","awcc_number":"H407169","decision_date":"2025-11-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Michael Weaver","employer_name":"City Of Mountain Home","title":"WEAVER VS. CITY OF MOUNTAIN HOME AWCC# H407169 November 20, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","lumbar","knee","herniated","fracture","neck","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WEAVER_MICHAEL_H407169_20251120.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WEAVER_MICHAEL_H407169_20251120.pdf","text_length":41489,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H407169 \nMICHAEL B. WEAVER, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF MOUNTAIN HOME, \nEMPLOYER         RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE  \nWORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA      RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on September 17, 2025, \nin Mountain Home, Baxter County, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Rick Spencer, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas. \nRespondents are represented  by Mary  Edwards,  Attorney  at  Law, North Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 17\nth\n day of September, 2025. At the time of the \nhearing,  the  parties  stipulated  that  the Claimant’s average weekly wage was $792.72, \nwhich would result in a temporary total disability rate of $528.00 and a permanent partial \ndisability  rate  of  $396.00. The primary issue  before  the  Commission  at  the  time  of  the \nhearing was compensability, with the claimant contending he sustained a gradual-onset \ninjury to his lower back after performing his required work-related duties for over 29 years. \nIf the Claimant satisfies the issue of compensability, then the issues of reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment by Doctor Lance Lincoln and Pain Management by Doctor \nIra Chapman are before the Commission, plus the issue of attorney fees.  \nThe Respondents contended that the injury was denied in its entirety and that the \nClaimant  cannot satisfy the  elements of  proof for  a  compensable  gradual-onset  back \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n2 \n \ninjury. Further, if the injury is found to be compensable, that the Notice provision of A.C.A. \n11-9-701(a)(1) is  applicable. Respondents also raised  the  statute  of  limitations as  a \ndefense.  \nA Prehearing Order dated July 15\nth\n, 2025, provided that the parties stipulated that \nthe Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim and \nthat an employer/employee/carrier relationship existed on or about April 1\nst\n, 2023, and all \nrelevant times, when the Claimant alleges he sustained a gradual onset injury to his right \nhip, groin, and lower back.         \n The Prehearing  Order  and  the Claimant’s and Respondent’s contentions are all \nset out in their respective responses to the Pre-hearing Questionnaire and made a part \nof the record without objection. The witnesses for the Claimant were Melissa Weaver, the \nwife of the Claimant, and Michael Weaver the Claimant. The Respondents called Susan \nStrop,  Alma  Clark,  and  Kirsten  Skiver-Sanders.  From  a  review  of  the  record  which \nincluded medical reports and other matters properly before the Commission and having \nhad an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, the following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 11-\n9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n2. That an employer/employee/carrier relationship existed on April 1, 2023, and \nat all relevant times.  \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n3 \n \n3. That the Claimant earned an average weekly wage of $792.72, sufficient for a \nTTD rate of $528.00 and a PPD rate of $396.00.  \n4. That Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained   a   work-related   injury   on   the   specific   date   of   April   1,   2023. \nAdditionally, there is no alternative but to find that the Claimant has also failed \nto  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  credible  evidence that  he established a \nwork-related gradual onset injury to his lower back, his right hip, and groin, with \nmedical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings sufficient  to  satisfy  the \nrequirements of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.    \n5. That, consequently, all other issues are moot. \n6. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents are ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The  Pre-hearing  Order  along  with  the  Pre-hearing  questionnaires of the parties \nwere  made  part  of  the  record without  objection.  The Claimant’s  Exhibit  One, which \nconsisted of medical records, was admitted into the record without objection. In addition, \nthe  Claimant  also submitted Exhibit  Two  which  consisted  of  the  deposition  of  the \nClaimant, which was also admitted into the record without objection. The Respondent’s \nExhibit One, which also consisted of medical records, was also admitted into the record \nwithout objection. The Respondents Exhibit Two consisted of non-medical records, which \nwas admitted into the record without objection. Additionally, both parties submitted briefs \nat the request of the Respondents, and the briefs are “Blue Backed” and made part of this \nopinion. \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n4 \n \n Melissa  Weaver,  the  wife  of  the  Claimant,  testified  that  the  Claimant  received a \nradiation  treatment  the morning prior  to  the hearing. They  had been  married 31  years, \nand the Claimant had worked for the City of Mountain Home for over 20 years. He started \nout  as  a  meter-reader,  then  the Vactor truck,  and  then worked  at  the warehouse.  The \nVactor truck has a big hose which goes down into the sewer. Claimant then went to the \nwarehouse and had to lift like 100 pounds. He couldn’t stand very long and his lower back \nhurt. (Tr. 8 – 11) “He would have to miss some workdays because his back was bothering \nhim.”  He was no longer able to do yard work. She thought his employer fired him. She \nalso stated that his primary-care physician was Doctor Lance Lincoln for many-years and \nClaimant has been going to the Interventional Pain Clinic and Dr. Ira Chapman. (Tr. 12 – \n14) \n Under cross-examination, Ms. Weaver admitted she had not worked for the City of \nMt. Home and had not seen the Claimant perform his job. She also admitted that he had \nbeen diagnosed with cancer and that the cancer was not work related. (Tr. 14, 15) \nThe Claimant was then called as a witness. He testified he had a total retirement \nof 29 years. He noticed that his back was hurting while he was working on the Vactor \ntruck.  He was  required to  drag  about  600  feet  of one-inch  hose off  the  truck  to  reach \nmanholes. One day while dragging the hose up a hill, he “noticed my back pretty much \ngave out on me.” He testified he then went to his supervisor and stated he needed to \nleave  and  see  his  doctor  due  to  his  back  hurting.  (Tr.  16,  17)  He then went  to  see  a \ndoctor who made a referral to a doctor in Springfield, about fifteen plus years ago, while \nprobably in his late thirties. He was basically diagnosed with a bulging disc which took \nhim out  of  work for about  three  weeks.  He  then transferred to  the TV van, where  he \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n5 \n \nwould lower a camera which was on a tractor system that weighed about 45 pounds, and \nhe would lower it about 10 to 15 times a day, and this was when he noticed his back \nhurting again. At times he would just sit in the van. (Tr. 18)   \nHe also worked part time in the inventory cage, where he was kind of performing \ndouble duty and noticed his back was constantly in pain. That was when he went to see \nDr. Lincoln, who referred him to Dr. Chapman, probably within the last two years “before \nI retired.” He went on to state that he had been with Dr. Chapman ever since and had \nbeen  diagnosed  with  spinal  stenosis,  degenerative  disc  disease,  and  arthritis in his \nspine. In the inventory cage, he had to move thousands of different parts that weighed \nbetween less than one pound to over 500 pounds. (Tr. 19) He went on to state there was \na long period between the injury 15 years ago when he was in his late thirties when he \nwasn’t having any more difficulties with his back. It was just an off and on type of thing.  \nThe pain then became every day, an everyday ache, and then it got worse and became \nconstant. “Matter of fact, the day that they were coming to fire me, I took off that day \nbecause I was having back issues.” He said they came the next day, and he retired. He \nwas in constant pain by then and couldn’t do anything at home such as yard work, and \nit  took  a  while  to  even  wash  dishes.  He  was  asked  if  he  knew  that  his  condition  was \nrelated  to  his  employment  and  responded,  “I  was  assuming,  yes.”  (Tr.  20,  21)  He \nadmitted that he had conversations with the doctor as to what could possibly cause some \nof these issues. He was then specifically asked if he had anything to do in regard to the \n“To Whom it May Concern” letters and he responded, “Not really.”  He also admitted that \nhe was suffering with Stage 4 kidney cancer. (Tr. 22) \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n6 \n \nUnder  cross  examination,  the  Claimant  admitted  that  he  was  alleging  that  he \ninjured his back while working for the city. He agreed that he stated in his deposition that \nhe noticed his back hurting while he was dragging a hose in the Vactor truck, where he \nworked back in 2008 to 2010 more or less. He also admitted going to Baxter Regional \nMedical Center at the time and that he may possibly have received an MRI on February \n5,  2010,  but  did  not  remember  for  sure.  He  did  recall  receiving  a  steroid  injection  on \nFebruary 14, 2010. He also admitted presenting to Garrettson Chiropractic at the time, \nand seeing  Doctor  Lincoln,  his  PCP,  in  2010, who referred him to  a  specialist  in \nSpringfield who took him off work for three weeks. He admitted that he was aware he \nwas having back problems back in 2010, but that he did not file a workers’ compensation \nclaim at the time. He started having problems again while he was working on the ATV \nvan and agreed that he never requested to file a workers compensation complaint at that \ntime and that he never told anybody at work that his problems were work related while \nworking on the ATV van. (Tr. 23 -27)  \nIn regard to the Inventory Clerk position, he testified that he thought he started a \nlittle later than 2019.  He had worked for the city for 23 years, and that while working as \nan inventory clerk, he admitted that he never told anyone that his back pain was related \nto his job duties. He also admitted that in the Inventory Clerk position, he had tools to \nhelp him lift heavier objects, which included a forklift and a dolly. He also admitted that \nhe also had the option of asking for someone to assist him, but went on to state there \nusually wasn’t anyone around to assist. (Tr. 27, 28) \nHe also admitted seeing Doctor Chapman starting in approximately 2022 or 2023, \nin regard to his back issues and that the notes in regard to the first visit with Dr. Chapman \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n7 \n \nwere probable correct where it stated that the onset of the complaint was in August of \n2022.  He then added that the pain got worse.  In regard to the February 28, 2023, report \nwhich provided for the “same symptoms and findings when (you) saw the neuro in \nSpringfield back in 2010” and he responded that this had never been discussed with him.  \nHe also admitted he never filed a workers’ compensation claim at the time. (Tr. 29) He \ntestified he told his supervisor that he was seeing a doctor and doing physical therapy \ndue  to  his  hurting back, but  never  stated  it  was  related  to  work  in  any  way.    He  also \nadmitted he voluntarily retired from work on April 25\nth\n, 2023, due to some social media \nusage and that his retirement had nothing to do with any sort of back complaints. (Tr. 29, \n30) \nThe  Claimant  continued  seeing Doctor  Chapman  after retirement, and was \nprescribed Tizanidine and Tramadol, and also received two lumbar medial range blocks.  \nThe Claimant admitted he was not aware that with the exception of the causation report, \nDoctor Chapman’s records made no mention regarding the Claimant’s back injury being \nrelated to working for the Respondent. (Tr. 31)   \nOn  redirect,  the  claimant  testified  that  Doctor  Lincoln  was  his  primary  care \nphysician for over 20 years, and they talked on a regular basis during the last years of \nhis work, while his condition worsened.  When asked if Doctor Lincoln was aware of all \nhis lifting issues at work, he responded yes. “We had a lot of discussion, yes.”  He also \ntestified he  told  Doctor  Chapman  about  his  work  issues  that were getting  worse  over \ntime.  He denied having any thing to do with the “To Whom It May Concern” letters. (Tr. \n32, 33)  He also testified that he had told his supervisor Kirsten Skiver and later Lonnie \nWilliams about his back hurting when he was working for the Respondent. (Tr. 34) \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n8 \n \nAgain, on recross examination, the Claimant was questioned about the “To Whom \nIt May Concern” letters and he admitted he did not work for the Water Department as an \nInventory  Clerk  for  29  years.  He  agreed  he  had  only  worked  for  the  Respondent  for \ntwenty-three (23) years. (Tr. 35) \nAt  this  point,  Claimant rested, and  the  Respondents  called  Sue  Edwards  Strop.  \nShe testified she was the HR Coordinator for the Respondent and had been with the city \nsince April of 2021, and was the HR Coordinator in April of 2023. She went on to testify \nthat she first met with the Mayor and Lonnie Williams in regard to productivity concerns \nregarding the Claimant and his use of computers on April 24, 2023, and then on April 25, \n2023, they were scheduled to again meet with him, and he came in that morning and \nsubmitted  his  retirement.  He  formally  retired  on  April  25,  and  to  her  knowledge,  his \nretirement had nothing to do with back issues. She stated that she was not aware of any \ninability  of  the  Claimant  that  would  prevent  him  from  performing  his  job  and  no \naccommodations  were  requested. She testified  that  she first  became  aware  of  the \nClaimant’s claimed back injury when she was on vacation and received a phone call from \nthe Respondent’s Chief  Deputy  Treasurer,  Astina  Hicks, on  November  4,  2024,  who \nsubmitted  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  to  the  Municipal  League  Workers’ \nCompensation. She went on to testify that they did not receive an N Form, an accident \nreport,  or  a  witness  statement  from  the  Claimant and never received a supervisor’s \nreport. (Tr. 39-41) \nUnder cross examination, Ms. Strop stated that in her duties in charge of HR for \nthe Respondent, no one had previously come to her about his injury. (Tr. 42) \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n9 \n \nThe Respondent then called Alma Lee Clark, who testified she had worked for the \ncity for 34 years as of September 25, 2025, and that she currently worked as the Director \nof  Finance  and  Treasury,  a  position  she  has  held  since  April  26,  2022.  She  had \npreviously worked as the Water Director for the Respondent for sixteen (16) years, and \nprior to that worked as the Manager of the Wastewater Plant for nine and a half years \nand knew  pretty  well  about  the  job  duties  of  each  position.  She  testified  that  Meter \nReaders used hand-helds and performed manual readings at that time, plus doing meter \nchange  outs  and  getting  down  inside  the  meter  box  to  do  a  reading. In  regard  to  the \nVector truck, the employee would drive or ride in the truck and clean out sewer lines.  \nThe  Vector  truck was hydraulic  with  controls  out  front  with  a hose reel  that you  could \ndrop down and turn the water on and then flip a switch that pulled the line back in. You \nremoved the manhole cover which exposed everything. To replace the manhole cover, \nyou could pull the lid with a manhole hook to where it’s over the hole or give it a push \nwith your foot. In regard to the CCTV (ATV) van, there was a working winch which was \nmostly electronically controlled, and a camera that was maybe about five or six inches, \nand you would place the camera on a braided wire and place it down in the manhole.  \nFirst you had to remove the manhole lid and set it down where it was facing the tool line \nso  you  could camera  the  line. You had electronic  remote controls, or  you could run  it \nfrom the truck and which pulls the line. You could also bring it back with the same controls \nand it was mostly automatic and would take pictures. “The only - - the only manual part \nwould be to get the camera down into the manhole and starting it up in a line” and of \ncourse pulling the manhole lid and placing it back. (Tr. 43 – 46) She was not aware of \nthe claimant having any back problems as a Meter Reader, while working in the Vactor \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n10 \n \ntruck,  and  on  the  CCTV (ATV) van.  She  testified  he had never  asked  about  filing  a \nworkers’ compensation claim with the Respondent. She also testified she was not aware \nof the Claimant going to the doctor or taking time off in regard to back issues during his \nentire time while working for the Respondent. The first notice from the Claimant claiming \na back injury was in the last part of 2024, November 4, she thought. (Tr. 47, 48) \nThe Respondents then called Kirsten Skiver, who testified that she was the Billing \nManager for the Water Department where she had worked, for just shy of 20 years. At \none time, she worked as the supervisor for the Inventory Clerk position and supervised \nthe Claimant. The Claimant probably started working as a fill-in for the Inventory Clerk \nand started in that position around April of 2019. She stated the Claimant was very good \nwith computers, so they initially did some house cleaning. “In inventory, you order, you \nreceive, and then you disburse, but we also did some process streamlining, we did some \n- - a lot of work in the computer maintain the parts and the descriptions and, you know, \nkind of making them where they were all the – same, like specific parts.  And then we \nset up bin locations, and so probably 75 percent of the work that Brent (Claimant) and I \ndid was computer.”  \n She went on to testify about the remaining five to 10 percent would be leg work, \nsetting up bin locations and then going out into the warehouse and placing stock numbers \nand the bin locations on the card and setting that up for the product outside as well as for \nthe  product  inside.  The  Claimant  would  place  a  large  order  once  a  week  and  it  would \narrive  the  latter  part  of  the  week.  During  the  week,  he  would  disburse  the  parts  to  the \nvarious  crews.  If  someone  needed  a  part,  sometimes  they  would  go  back  with  the \nClaimant and get the part and sometimes he would just bring them the part. Sometimes \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n11 \n \nthe  part  would  be  returned.  If  it  was  a  larger  part,  it  usually  came  in  on  a  pallet  and a \nforklift,  a  telehandler,  or  a  skid  steer  was  used  to  move  it.  The  larger  parts  were  kept \noutside and whoever needed it “could back their utility vehicle around to the back and \neither they could help load it, or they have a winch on their truck that they could load it \nwith, or they could use the forklift and - - you know, whatever they were taking to the job.” \n(Tr. 49 – 52) \n A photo of a movable ladder with high shelves (Respondents Exhibit Two, Page \n19)  was  shown  Ms.  Skiver  and  she stated that  product  could  be  placed  on  the  high \nshelves and the claimant had access to the ladder.  She was then shown a picture of a \nforklift with a dolly in front and Ms. Skiver testified the Claimant had access to those items.  \nShe was also shown pictures of pallets and testified they were removed from the vendor, \nusually  via  forklifts.  She  was  also  shown  pictures  of  a  pallet  jack,  a  manual  lifter, and \nsome “light little trucks” and Ms. Skiver stated that the claimant had access to these items.  \nPrior to the Claimant working as the Inventory Clerk, a woman, Lisa Knight, worked in the \nposition and Ms. Skiver thought that she may have worked in that position for 17 years. \nShe went on to testify that the Claimant never told her of any issues with his back and \nthat she was not aware of the Claimant having difficulty in physically performing the work \nof the Inventory Clerk position nor of going to the doctor or taking time off from work for \nany back-related issues. She was not aware of any accommodations for the Claimant in \nregard to his position. Her first notice of the Claimant contending he had sustained a back \ninjury at work was this year. (Tr. 53 – 58)      \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n12 \n \n Under cross examination, Ms. Skiver testified that although she could not reach \nthe top shelf, the Claimant could. When placing something on the top shelf, it was easier \nto use the shelf thing. (Tr. 59) \n The Claimant was then recalled. He admitted that the witnesses were not aware \nof issues with his back at the time of the hearing but stated that his Director gave him a \ncushion to sit in his office and that she knew he was having back issues. He denied that \nhe was ever asked about his back when he was having issues walking. He thought he \nwas given the cushion back in 2020 or 2021. No one ever suggested that he had to file a \nworkers’ compensation case. (Tr. 60, 61) \n Under  cross  examination,  the  Claimant  admitted  that  he  had  never  requested a \nworkers’ compensation claim in his 23 years while working for the city and that he had \nnever told anybody employed by the Respondent that his problems were work related. \n(Tr. 62) \n On  redirect,  the  Claimant testified that  the  Respondent  was  aware  of  his  back \ncondition. (Tr. 62) \n The Claimant submitted medical records that consisted of twenty-one pages plus \nand  index which were  admitted  into  the  record  without  objection.  A  report  from \nInterventional Pain Management Associates dated February 13, 2023, provided that the \nClaimant was referred by Doctor Lance Lincoln with complaints of pain in his lower back, \nmid back, hips, and thighs and stated that the Claimant had been experiencing this pain \nfor eight months with the onset of the pain being gradual over time. The assessment was \nchronic pain syndrome. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 1 – 3) The Claimant returned to Pain Management \nAssociates on February 28, 2023, with a complaint of mid and lower back pain radiating \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n13 \n \nto  both hips and  occasionally  into  both  lower  extremities  distal to the  knee. The  report \nfurther  provided the  Claimant  noted the  pain  had progressed  to  the  point  that  he was \nhaving significant difficulty performing even rudimentary activities of daily life without the \nuse of a mobility cart. The report also provided that the Claimant could be considered for \nopioid  management  in  order  to  improve  his  overall  quality  of  life  and  functional  status, \nand that physical therapy was recommended. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 4 – 13) The Claimant returned \nto Interventional Pain Management Associates on October 24, 2023, for follow up status \npost first and second diagnostic lumbar medial branch block. The Claimant provided that \nboth the first and second diagnostic medial branch block helped lower back pain more \nthan 80% for the first few days but that the pain gradually returned, and he continued to \nnote   significant   neuraxial   low   back   pain.   The   most   recent   lumbar   MRI   showed \ndegenerative lumbar spondylosis without spinal stenosis but with foraminal stenosis with \nfacet degenerative hypertrophy evident. (Cl. Ex. 1, P 14 – 18) \n The exhibit also contained a “To Whom It May Concern” letter signed by Doctor \nLance Lincoln dated October 27, 2024, that provided the Claimant worked for the Water \nDepartment for approximately 29 years as an inventory clerk and his job required him to \nreceive  and  put  up  products  lifting  over  100  pounds  per  day.  As  a  result  of  the  above \nlisted  job  duties  on  a  daily  basis,  the  Claimant  sustained  a  gradual  onset  injury  to  his \nlower back due to the heavy lifting on a continual basis. The report went on to provide \nthat “It is my belief within a reasonable degree of medical certainty (51% or greater) that \nthe major cause of his need for medical treatment to his back is a result of his employment \nwith the Water Department. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 19)  A second “To Whom it May Concern “ letter \ndated  October  29,  2024,  and  signed  by  Dr.  Ira  Chatman, provided  that  the  Claimant \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n14 \n \nworked for the Water Department for 29 years as an Inventory Clerk and again as the \nresult of his job duties, the Claimant sustained a gradual onset injury to his lower back \ndue to the heavy lifting he had to perform on a continual basis and it was Dr. Chatman’s \nopinion and belief within a reasonable degree of medical certainty (51% or greater) that \nthe major cause of for the Claimant’s need for medical treatment to his back was a result \nof his employment with the Water Department. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 20)   \n The Claimant also introduced his deposition into the record which was admitted \nwithout objection and consisted of 46 pages. The testimony of the deposition was very \nsimilar  to  the  testimony at the  hearing.  A  summary  of  various  points  of  the  deposition \nprovided that the Claimant denied any lifting when he worked as a meter reader but stated \nthat he did a lot of bending. (Cl. Ex. 2, P.11) While working as a meter reader, he denied \nany issues with his back. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 12) The claimant next worked on the Vactor truck \nwhere  they  clean  sewer  lines  using  a  vacuum  system.  He  lifted  manhole  lids  which \nprobably weighed 40 to 50 pounds. They at times used a manhole hook. To clean the \nsewer lines, they  took six  to  eight  feet  long  tubes that  weighed five  or  six  pounds and \nattached them together and to the vacuum system. He also testified they dragged a one-\ninch hose that was about 600 feet long and that was attached to a spinning drum on the \ntruck. This  was  when  his  back  problems  started  back  in  2008  to  2010.  After  that,  he \nworked for the sewer pipe inspection van and there was lifting, bending, and stooping.  \nThere was a camera on a tractor weighing 45 to 50 pounds which they would manually \nlower into a manhole, and this action required bending. We would do this multiple times \na day, anywhere between 14 to 16 times a day. He worked at this job for five or six years. \n(Cl. Ex. 2, P. 13 – 16) \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n15 \n \n He then started working as an Inventory Clerk, starting in 2018 or 2019, where he \nworked  until  he  retired and where  he  lifted items  that  weighed  up  to  500  pounds  and \nwhere he used a forklift. He stated he had retired because Sue in HR had paperwork for \nhim to sign and he had been written up a couple of times for being on Facebook and they \nwere  going  to  terminate  him, and he retired. (Cl.  Ex.  2,  P.  17 – 21)  The  Claimant  also \nadmitted that at times he mowed and ran a weed-eater. He used a zero-turn mower or a \nsmaller riding mower and did this every two to three weeks. He was asked about lifting \nover 100 pounds daily and responded that they were the parts he lifted as an inventory \nclerk. He was also lifting over 100 pounds cumulative on the sewer inspection van. (Cl. \nEx. 2, P. 22, 23) \n The first time he noticed he was having problems with his back was when he was \nworking on the Vactor truck and was dragging the hose. He did not recall having an MRI \nin February of 2010. He remembered first going to Garretson Chiropractic after he noticed \nback issues. He was also seeing Doctor Lincoln who referred him to a doctor in Springfield \nand who he saw one time. The Springfield doctor instructed him to do stretching exercises \nbut  ordered  no  physical  therapy.  Gradually  over  time,  his  back  got  worse. He  took  off \nabout three weeks and then returned to work. When he returned to work, his back was \nokay. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 24 – 27)  \n He would often cinch up where he “couldn’t move” while at work and he did this \nquite a few times. He testified he told his supervisor, Kevin Tupperville, who retired and \nis no longer with the city, about his back. He also told his partner on the Vactor truck who \nis now deceased. He admitted he never asked to file a workers compensation claim. His \nback was hurting about the same while working on the TV van and as an inventory clerk. \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n16 \n \n(Tr.  28,  29) He  testified  in  his  deposition  that  he  told  Alma  Clark,  Kirsten  Skiver, and \nLonnie Williams about his back. He also admitted he never requested to report his back \nas a workers’ compensation claim. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 30, 31) \n The  Claimant  testified  in  his  deposition  that  he  had seen  his  family  physician, \nDoctor Lance Lincoln, through the years for his back issues. Doctor Lincoln had referred \nhim to Doctor Ira Chapman, when he was asked what Doctor Lincoln had done for him in \nregard  to  his  back.  He  also  testified  that  Doctor  Lincoln  had  not  prescribed  any \nmedications for his back. Doctor Chapman prescribed the Tizanidine and Tramadol.  The \nclaimant  was  specifically  asked  if  Doctor  Lincoln  had  done  anything  else  for  the \nClaimant’s back other than refer him to Doctor Chapman.  This  could  include  physical \ntherapy or an MRI or anything like that, and the Claimant replied that Doctor Lincoln did \nnot.  Doctor  Chapman  scheduled him  for  an  MRI and had  him  do  physical therapy  but \nnever mentioned surgery. The Claimant denied seeing anyone else in regard to his back. \n(Cl. Ex. 2, P. 32 – 35) \n Respondents  Exhibit One  consisted  of  twelve  pages of medical  records plus  an \nindex and was admitted into the record without objection. An ED Physician Note dated \nJanuary 25, 2010, provided that the Claimant presented with back pain, with the onset \nbeing three days ago. The type of injury was stated as “none.” The note provided that two \nviews  of  the  lumbosacral  spine  were  submitted.  Under  impression,  the  report  provided \nthat there were unremarkable views of the lumbosacral spine. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1, 2) A \nCertificate to return to work was provided on January 29, 2010, with no restrictions. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 3) Later, an MRI Report for the Lumbosacral Spine, dated February 5, 2010, \nand  ordered  by  Doctor  Lance  Lincoln, provided  under  impression  that  there  was  a  left \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n17 \n \nparacentral disc protrusion at L4-L5 which caused moderate left neuroforaminal stenosis \nand contacted and displaced the exiting L4 nerve root and went ahead and stated that a \nneurosurgical consultation should be considered. The report also provided for multilevel \ndegenerative facet hypertrophy and ligamentum flavum thickening, and that there was a \nminimal concentric disc bulge at L5 – S1. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 4)   \nA Procedure Note dated February 15, 2010, and electronically signed by Doctor \nJames  Newton, provided  that  the  Claimant  was  referred by Dr.  Lance  Lincoln, for a \ntherapeutic trial of a lumbar epidural steroid injection for his discogenic low back pain and \nleft hip radiculopathic pain secondary to an L4-5 herniated disc pulposus. The Claimant \nstated that approximately seven weeks ago, he was lifting something and had an acute \nonset of left thigh radiculopathy and that he describes as pain burning in nature. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 5, 6) \n An ED Physician Note dated April 5, 2021, provided among other matters that the \nclaimant suffered from acute back pain with sciatica. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 7-10) A later medical \nreport provided that the Claimant returned to Baxter Regional Medical Center on January \n12,  2023,  for  an  exam  in  regard  to  lumbar  stenosis  with  neurogenic  claudication.  The \nadmitting doctor was Doctor Lincoln, and the report provided under impression, for diffuse \ndegenerative changes including spurring and disc narrowing which had progressed from \n13 years ago. A CT or an MRI would better evaluate disc herniation. An MRI of the lumbar \nspine dated July 18, 2023, provided there were mild posterior disc bulges at L1-2, L3-4, \nL4-5  and  L5 – S1.  There was  no  fracture,  subluxation,  lytic, or  bistatic bony  lesion.  A \nvertebral hemangioma was noted in the L4 vertebral body. No disc herniation was seen.  \nFacet  degenerative  hypertrophy  was  seen  bilaterally  at  L3-4,  L4-5,  and  L5-S1,  but  no \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n18 \n \nspinal stenosis was seen. There was mild foraminal stenosis on the left at L4-5 and L5-\nS1 and on the right at L5-S1. Under impression, the report provided Claimant suffered \nfrom  degenerative  lumbar  spondylosis  without  spinal  stenosis,  with  mild  foraminal \nstenosis on the left at L4-5 and mild bilaterally at L5-S1. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 11, 12) \n The  Respondents  also  submitted  33  pages  of  non-medical  records  that  were \nadmitted without objection. Claimant submitted a letter of resignation on April 25, 2023.  \n(Resp. Ex. 2, P. 15) The AR-C Form received on November 4, 2024, provided that the \nClaimant sustained  a gradual  onset  injury  to  his  lower  back  due to  the  required heavy \nlifting up to 100 pounds daily over his 29-year employment at the water department. The \nAR-C Form provided  that it was  signed  on  October  30,  2024, and  that  the  date  of  the \nonset of the gradual onset injury was April 1, 2023.  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 16) The First Report \nof Injury provided that the date of the notification of the Administrator was November 6, \n2024. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 17) The exhibit also contained various photographs that showed \nfork-lifts, a platform ladder somewhat similar to one seen in large retail box stores, desks, \nmanhole covers, water boxes, bins, boxes, lift jacks, and other items. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 18 \n– 33)  \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn regard to the primary issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of \nproving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor his injuries under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law. In determining whether \nthe claimant has sustained his burden of proof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence \nimpartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party.  Ark. Code Ann 11-9-\n704.   Wade  v.  Mr. Cavanaugh’s, 298  Ark.  364,  768  S.W.  2d  521  (1989).  Further,  the \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n19 \n \nCommission has the duty to translate evidence on all issues before it into findings of fact. \nWeldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nA compensable injury is an accidental injury causing internal or external physical \nharm to the body arising out of and in the course of employment which requires medical \nservices  or  results  in  disability  or  death.  An  injury  is normally “accidental” only if it is \ncaused  by  a  specific  incident  and  is  identifiable  by  time  and  place  of  occurrence. See \nA.C.A. 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). However, a spinal injury (neck or back) which is not caused by \na specific incident, or which is not identifiable by time and place of occurrence, does not \nhave  to  meet  the  specific  incident  requirement under  A.C.A.  11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(b). It  is \nalso noted that a spinal injury that is claimed to be a gradual onset injury does not have \nto satisfy the requirement for rapid and repetitive motion. However, a back or neck injury \nmust still be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings. See A.C.A. \n11-9-102(4)  (D). Objective  findings  are  those  findings  which  cannot  come  under  the \nvoluntary control of the patient. See A.C.A. 11-9-102(16)(A)(i).   \nHere, the  Claimant primarily contends  that  he  is  suffering  from  a  gradual  onset \ninjury to his lower back that occurred while working for the Respondent. He agreed that \nhe testified in his deposition that his back was hurting while dragging a hose when working \nwith  the  Vactor  truck back  in  2008 to  2010, more  or  less.  He  also  admitted  seeing  his \nPCP  in  2010, who  referred  him  to  a  specialist  in  Springfield  for his back  issues. The \nClaimant was off work for three weeks and he admitted not filing a workers' compensation \nclaim at that time. He also testified that he started developing back problems again when \nworking with the CCTV (ATV) van, but again never filed a claim for workers' compensation \nbenefits.  He later went to work as the Inventory Clerk and admitted he never told anyone \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n20 \n \nthat his back pain was related to work, but did tell people that he had lower back issues.  \nHe also admitted that he started seeing Doctor Chapman in approximately 2022 or 2023.  \nIn regard to the two “To Whom It May Concern” letters, he admitted he had not worked \nfor the Water Department for twenty-nine (29) years as stated in both letters and had only \nworked for the Respondent for twenty-three (23) years, total, in different job descriptions.  \nIt also must be noted that when the Claimant was asked if he knew that his condition was \nrelated to his employment, he responded, “I was assuming, yes.” \nThe Respondent’s witnesses testified that they were not aware of the Claimant’s \nback issues until he filed his Form AR- C on November 4, 2024, which was over a year \nafter  he  submitted  his  letter  of  resignation  on  April  25,  2023.    In  regard  to  medical \nevidence,  an  ED  physician  note, dated  January  25,  2010,  provided  that  the  Claimant \npresented with back pain and the injury was “none” and returned the Claimant to work \nwith no restrictions on January 29, 2010.  The report in regard to an MRI that was ordered \nby Doctor Lincoln and dated February 5, 2010, provided there was a left paracentral disc \nprotrusion at L4-5 which caused moderate left neuroforaminal stenosis which contacted \nand displaced the exiting L4 nerve root and additionally provided that the Claimant should \nconsider  a neurosurgical  consultation.    Additionally,  there  was  multilevel  degenerative \nfacet hypertrophy and ligamentum flavum thickening with a minimal concentric bulge at \nL5 – S1.   The  claimant  received epidural  steroid  injections for his discogenic  low  back \npain and left hip pain secondary to an L4-5 herniated disc pulposus on February 15, 2010.  \nNearly thirteen years later, on January 12, 2023, the Claimant returned to Baxter Regional \nMedical Center for a finding of lumbar stenosis with neurogenic claudication.  The medical \nreport provided for diffuse degenerative changes including spurring and disc narrowing \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n21 \n \nwhich had progressed from thirteen (13) years earlier. Later, an MRI of the lumbar spine \ndated July 18, 2023, provided there was mild posterior disc bulges at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-\nS1. Facet degenerative hypertrophy was seen bilaterally at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1, with \nmild foraminal stenosis on the left at L4-5 and L5-S1. There were no objective findings in \nthe actual medical reports to connect any of the findings to a work related back injury, \nonly degenerative changes. The only items that provided any opinion as to the cause of \nthe injuries were the two “To Whom it May Concern” letters from two treating physicians \nwith the letters dated two days apart, and which were identical. Both “To Whom it May \nConcern” letters stated  that  it  was  their opinion  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  medical \ncertainty (51% or greater) that the Claimant had sustained a gradual onset injury and the \nmajor cause for the Claimant’s need for medical treatment was a result of his employment \nwith the Water Department for approximately 29 years. No medical records nor objective \nfindings  from either  physician supported these  findings. Speculation  and  conjecture \ncannot substitute for credible evidence. Liaromatis v. Baxter County Regional Hospital, \n95 Ark. App. 296, 236 S.W.3d 524 (2006). It is also important to note that the claimant’s \ntestimony is never considered uncontroverted. Lambert v. Gerber Products Co., 14 Ark. \nApp. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985) \nAfter weighing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to \neither party, there is no alternative but to find that the Claimant has failed to establish a \nspecific  incident  that  is  identifiable  by  time  and  place of occurrence in  regard  to \nsustaining a work-related  injury  on  the  date  of  April  1,  2023.  Additionally, there  is  no \nalternative but to find that the Claimant has also failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe credible evidence that the Claimant established a work-related gradual onset injury \n\nMichael B. Weaver – H407169 \n \n22 \n \nto his lower  back,  right  hip,  and  groin,  with  medical evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct.  Consequently, all other issues are moot. If not already paid, the respondents are \nordered to pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n      ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H407169 MICHAEL B. WEAVER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF MOUNTAIN HOME, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:44.030Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407169-2025-11-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WEAVER_MICHAEL_H407169_20251120.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}