{"id":"alj-H407461-2025-06-04","awcc_number":"H407461","decision_date":"2025-06-04","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Timoteo Valdovinos","employer_name":"Ark Opco Holdings, LLC","title":"VALDOVINOS VS. ARK OPCO HOLDINGS, LLC AWCC# H407461 June 04, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","back","neck","concussion"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/VALDOVINOS_TIMOTEO_H407461_20250604.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"VALDOVINOS_TIMOTEO_H407461_20250604.pdf","text_length":16574,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H407461 \n \nTIMOTEO VALDOVINOS, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nARK OPCO HOLDINGS, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nGREAT AMERICAN INS. CO., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 4, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE GREGORY   K.   STEWART in \nSpringdale, Washington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by JARID M. KINDER, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by JASON  M.  RYBURN,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On May 7, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on January 22, 2025, and a pre-\nhearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been \nmarked Commission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The  Arkansas  Workers'  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  this \nclaim. \n 2.  The  employee/employer/carrier  relationship  existed  among  the  parties  on \nFebruary 12, 2024. \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-2- \n At  the  time  of  the  hearing,  the  parties  agreed  to  stipulate  that  claimant  earned \nsufficient wages to be entitled to compensation at the rates of $534.00 for total disability \nbenefits and $401.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n 1. Compensability of injuries to claimant’s cervical spine, head and whole  body \non February 12, 2024. \n 2. Related medical. \n 3. Temporary total disability benefits from May 1, 2024, through a date yet to be \ndetermined. \n 4. Attorney’s fee. \n 5. Notice. \n At  the  time  of  the  hearing,  claimant  clarified  that  his  request  of  compensability \ninvolves  his  cervical  spine,  head, and  bilateral  ears.  He  is  requesting  temporary  total \ndisability benefits from May 26, 2024, through a date yet to be determined.  \n The  claimant  contends he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his cervical spine, \nhead, and bilateral ears on February 12, 2024, while working for Ark OpCo Holding LLC \nin  Rogers,  Arkansas,  when  he  was  attached  by  a  patient.  He  contends  he  is  owed \nmedical benefits in addition to temporary total disability benefits from May 1, 2024, to a \ndate  yet  to  be  determined.  Due  to  controversion  of  entitled  benefits,  respondents  are \nobligated to pay one-half of the claimant’s attorney’s fee. \n The respondents are not aware of any evidence of the alleged February 12, 2024 \nwork  injury.  No  notice  was  given  to  respondents  until  a  Form  AR-C  was  filed  on \n11/14/24  which  listed a  head  and  cervical  injury.  If the  claimant  has  been treated  by a \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-3- \nmedical  professional, he  has  withheld  those  medical  reports  from respondents  beyond \nthe allotted time for respondents to determine their position. No attorney’s fee is owed, \ntherefore,  and  none  should  be  awarded  because  this  claim  has  not  been  controverted \nper A.C.A. §11-9-715(2)(B)(iii). \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted  on January  22,  2025,  and  contained  in  a pre-hearing  order  filed  that  same \ndate are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. The parties’ stipulation  that  claimant  earned  sufficient  wages to  entitle him to \ncompensation  at  the  rates  of  $534.00  for  total  disability  benefits  and  $401.00  for \npermanent partial disability benefits is also hereby accepted as fact. \n 3.  Claimant has  failed  to meet his  burden of  proving by a preponderance  of  the \nevidence  that he  suffered  compensable  injuries  to  his  cervical  spine,  head,  or  bilateral \nears on February 12, 2024.  \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant  is  a  43-year-old  man  who  began  working  for  respondent  as  a CNA  in \nOctober 2023. His job duties included helping residents with activities of daily life such \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-4- \nas  bathing;  feeding;  changing  clothes;  changing  diapers;  and  any  other  assistance \nneeded. He testified that on average he worked 32 hours per week. \n Claimant  testified that on  February 12,  2024,  he  was  working  in the  Lock  Down \narea which was short-staffed. He testified that at some point he was only CNA present \nin  that  area  when  a  resident  he  believed  to  be  named  Jim  went  into  the  room  of  a \nbedridden patient. He informed Jim that he could not be in the room “And before I knew \nit, I was on the floor. He was on top of me and he kind of hit me twice while I was on the \nfloor. He was on top of me. *** I stood up and tried to get away from Jim. And Jim is a \nbig guy. He took off his shoe, put it on his fist like a boxing glove, and ran at me and hit \nme in the head. I literally felt my brain hit the back of the skull.” Claimant testified that \nhis back, head, and neck hit the floor during this altercation.  \n Claimant  stated  that  he  reported  this  incident  to  a  charge  nurse  and  wrote  a \nstatement but there was no follow-up from respondent. On February 13, 2024, claimant \nsought  medical  treatment  from  Mercy  Clinic  with  a  complaint  of  headache,  double \nvision,  and  dizziness.  Claimant  underwent  a  CT  of  the  head  which  revealed  no \nbleeding. He was diagnosed with a headache, dizziness, and a concussion. The report \nalso states that claimant has a traumatic tympanic membrane perforation of his right ear \nwhich was noted on October 3, 2022. Claimant was given an off work note for February \n13-14.  \n On February 20, 2024, claimant was seen by his PCP, Dr. Archer at Mercy Clinic \nfor a follow-up for headache complaints. Dr. Archer diagnosed claimant’s condition as a \nconcussion without loss of consciousness and a perforation of the tympanic membrane. \nHe referred claimant for an evaluation with an ENT. \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-5- \n On May 4, 2024, claimant was evaluated at the emergency department at Mercy \nfor complaints of headaches. CT scans of the cervical spine and of the head were read \nas showing no evidence of acute injury. Claimant was released to return to work on May \n6, 2024, and was instructed to see his PCP, Dr. Archer.  \n Claimant returned to Dr. Archer on May 20, 2024, and in addition to complaining \nof  headaches, he also  complained  of  bilateral tinnitus. Dr.  Archer  stated  that  claimant \nsuffered from perforation of both tympanic membranes and referred him to audiology.  \n Claimant eventually came under the care of Dr. Kevin Lollar, an ENT specialist. \nHis initial evaluation with Dr. Lollar occurred on September 16, 2024. Dr. Lollar had the \nfollowing impression and plan for treatment.  \n1. Central perforation of tympanic membrane, left ear. Observation.  \n2. Other otitis externs, left ear, medical management with medication. \n3. Tinnitus, bilateral. Observation of both ears and an audiogram ordered. \nClaimant’s next visit with Dr. Lollar occurred on October 3, 2024, at which time \nDr.  Lollar  stated  that  claimant’s  left  ear  drainage  had  resolved  with  the  use  of \nmedication.  He  also  noted  that  the  audiogram  revealed  hearing  loss  in  both  ears  and \nrecommended a hearing aid evaluation.  \nOn November 20, 2024, Dr. Lollar performed a right bioDesin tympanoplasty for \nthe  right  tympanic  membrane  perforation.  In  a  follow-up  report  dated  March  10,  2025, \nDr.  Lollar  indicated  that  the  procedure  had  not  been  effective  and  a  new  procedure \nwould   be   scheduled. According  to  claimant’s  testimony,  he  underwent  another \nprocedure by Dr. Vaughn in April 2025. That medical report was not submitted into the \nrecord.  \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-6- \nClaimant has filed this claim contending that he suffered compensable injuries to \nhis  neck,  head,  and  bilateral  ears  on  February  12,  2024.  He  requests  payment  of \nmedical treatment, temporary total disability benefits, and a controverted attorney fee. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant contends that he suffered compensable injuries to his neck, head, and \nbilateral ears on February 12, 2024, when he was knocked down and struck in the head \nby a resident. Claimant’s claim is for a specific incident, identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  \nIn order to prove a compensable injury as the result of a specific incident that is \nidentifiable   by   time   and   place   of   occurrence,   a   claimant   must   establish   by   a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of \nemployment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body which required \nmedical  services  or  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific \nincident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Odd Jobs and More v. Reid, 2011 \nArk. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \nAfter reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proving a \ncompensable injury. \nAs previously noted, claimant testified that on February 12, 2024, he informed a \nresident that he could not be in the room of another resident. At that point, the resident \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-7- \nknocked  him  to  the  ground  and  then proceeded  to  strike  claimant  in  the  head  with  his \nshoe that he had put on his fist.  \nClaimant testified that he reported this incident to a charge nurse as required by \nrespondent  and  was  instructed  to  write  a  statement  regarding  the  incident.  Claimant \ncontends that he wrote this statement on a blank sheet of paper. Significantly, claimant \ndoes  not  know  the  name  of  the  charge  nurse  to  whom  he  reported  and  no  written \nstatement was introduced into the record. \nThe  only  other  person  to  whom  claimant  allegedly  reported  the  incident  was  an \nindividual named “Ryan”. Claimant testified that sometime in March, which would have \nbeen at least two weeks after the incident, he had a discussion with Ryan and notified \nhim  of  his  medical  treatment.  Claimant  believes  that  Ryan  is  part  of  management. \nNotably, claimant was not even sure of Ryan’s first name. \nQ Earlier you said Ryan. Is it Ryan or Brian? \nA Brian. \nQ Okay. And this meeting you had with Brian occurred – \nA I take back what I said. It is Ryan. \nQ It is Ryan? \nA Yes, with an R. \n \n Claimant apparently did not discuss this incident with anyone else at respondent, \nother than an unnamed charge nurse and an individual apparently named Ryan at least \ntwo weeks after the incident occurred.  \n Claimant  initially  sought  medical  treatment  on  February  13  from  Dr.  Rupali \nParadkar, and he admittedly did attribute his complaints to an incident at work the day \nbefore. However, with respect to the traumatic tympanic membrane, the medical reports \nstates that it was first noted on October 3, 2022. In fact, claimant admitted that he had \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-8- \nthe right ear perforation since childhood. I also note that the report of that date does not \nmention any issues with tinnitus or loss of hearing. Nor are there any objective findings \nnoted at that time.  \n On February 20, 2024, claimant was seen by his PCP, Dr. Archer who noted that \nclaimant  had  a  large  hole  in  his  right  tympanic  membrane  since  childhood.  Dr.  Archer \ndid not indicate that this condition had been aggravated by a work-related incident. On \nMay  4,  2024,  claimant  was  seen  at  the  Mercy  emergency  room  by  Dr.  Hugh  Jackson. \nAgain, there is no mention of tinnitus or loss of hearing. At that visit, claimant underwent \nCT scans of the head and cervical spine. Both of these scans were read as showing no \nevidence of injury.  \n On May 24, 2024, claimant returned to Dr. Archer and for the first time mentioned \nbilateral tinnitus. This is confirmed in Dr. Archer’s office note of March 10, 2025, in \nwhich  he  states  that  tinnitus  was  first  brought  up  by  claimant  on  May  24,  2024.  Thus, \ncomplaints of tinnitus were not made by claimant until more than three months after this \nalleged injury. \n When claimant sought medical treatment from Dr. Lollar on September 16, 2024, \nhe  gave  a  history  of  an  injury  in  January  2024  which  caused  a  concussion  and  some \near trauma. Dr. Lollar noted that since that time claimant’s hearing had been decreased \nand  that  he  had  no  prior  history.  This  is  incorrect  since  claimant  has  had  a  perforated \ntympanic membrane in his right ear since childhood. In addition, at the time of the next \nvisit with Dr. Lollar on October 3, 2024, claimant indicated that he had an ear infection \nat age nine “after which time he has had some decrease in hearing on that side.” Thus, \nclaimant had had a prior history of hearing loss. \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-9- \n It  should  also  be  noted  that  claimant  had  continued  to  work  at  respondent \nperforming  his  regular  job  duties  since  February  12,  2024.  That  changed  on  May  26, \n2024, not because of claimant’s physical condition, but because of a tornado. On May \n26, 2024, a tornado struck Rogers and respondent’s facility. Respondent’s facility in \nRogers  was  damaged  and  uninhabitable,  resulting  in  the  residents  moving  to  other \nfacilities.  Employees  of  the  Rogers  facility  were  given  the  option  of  transferring  to \nrespondent’s facility in Eureka Springs. Claimant testified that he chose not to transfer \nto  Eureka  Springs  due  to  his  health  and  the  drive  over  to  Eureka.  Claimant  has  not \nworked for respondent or any other employer since May 26, 2024, even though he was \ncontinuing to perform his regular job duties with respondent until the tornado. Other than \ntime he missed work due to medical visits, there is no indication that claimant has been \ntaken off work by his physicians since May 26, 2024, or has been given any restrictions.  \nQ Have   your   doctors   given you   any   restrictions   or \nlimitations? \nA I don’t think so. \n \n In  summary,  I  note  that  claimant  contends  that  he  reported  the  incident  on  the \nday  in  question  to  an  unnamed  charge  nurse.  Claimant  did  not  have  any other \nconversations  with  a  representative  of  respondent  until  some  time  in  March  when  he \napparently discussed his medical treatment with someone name Ryan who he believes \nis in management. I also note that CT scans of the claimant’s head and neck have been \nread as showing no acute injury. With respect to the bilateral ears, I note that claimant \nhas suffered from a perforated tympanic membrane of his right ear since childhood and \naccording to the history contained in Dr. Lollar’s medical report of October 3, 2024, \nclaimant  had  a  decrease  in  hearing  since  an  ear  infection  at  age nine.  Furthermore, \n\nValdovinos – H407461 \n \n-10- \nthere  were  no  complaints  of  tinnitus  or  loss  of  hearing  until  May  24,  2024,  more  than \nthree months after the alleged injury. \n Based on the foregoing, I simply find that claimant has failed to meet his burden \nof proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to \nhis head, neck, or bilateral ears while working for respondent on February 12, 2024. \n \nORDER \n Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered \na compensable injury to his head, neck or bilateral ears while working for respondent on \nFebruary 12, 2024. Therefore, his claim for compensation benefits is hereby denied and \ndismissed.  \n Respondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $689.00. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H407461 TIMOTEO VALDOVINOS, Employee CLAIMANT ARK OPCO HOLDINGS, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT GREAT AMERICAN INS. CO., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 4, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County, Arkan...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:28.514Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H407461-2025-06-04","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/VALDOVINOS_TIMOTEO_H407461_20250604.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}