{"id":"alj-H408000-2025-10-15","awcc_number":"H408000","decision_date":"2025-10-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Carlos Gomes","employer_name":"C M Construction, LLC","title":"GOMEZ VS. C M CONSTRUCTION, LLC AWCC# H408000 October 15, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","ankle","cervical","thoracic","lumbar","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GOMES_CARLOS_H408000_20251015.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GOMES_CARLOS_H408000_20251015.pdf","text_length":18105,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H408000 \n \nCARLOS REINA GOMEZ, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nC M CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nWELLFLEET NEW YORK INS. CO., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED OCTOBER 15, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE GREGORY   K.   STEWART in \nSpringdale, Washington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by AARON L. MARTIN, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On September  17,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at \nSpringdale,  Arkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on August  6,  2025, \nand  a pre-hearing order  was  filed on that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order \nhas  been  marked  Commission's  Exhibit  No.  1  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1.    The  Arkansas  Workers'  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  the \nwithin claim. \n2.  The  employee/employer/carrier  relationship  existed  among  the  parties  on \nDecember 5, 2024. \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-2- \n4.  The  claimant  was  earning  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $788.87  which  would \nentitle  him  to  compensation  at  the  weekly  rates  of  $519.00  for  total  disability  benefits \nand $384.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \nThe issues to be litigated at the forthcoming hearing are as follows: \n1.  Compensability of injury to claimant’s low back and right hip on December 5, \n2024. \n2. Related medical. \n3. Claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability benefits from December 6, \n2024, through a date yet to be determined.  \n4. Attorney’s fee. \nThe claimant contends  that he sustained a compensable injury to lower back on \n12/5/24 when he fell from a roof. In addition, the claimant contends that he is entitled to \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment in connection with his compensable injury. \nThe  claimant  further  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits \nfrom the date of accident through a date to be determined by the Commission. Finally, \nthe  claimant  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  controverted  attorney  fees  for  indemnity \nbenefits awarded and any and all future indemnity benefits approved or awarded. \nThe respondents contend that claimant did not suffer a compensable injury to his \nlow back on December 5, 2024. \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\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-3- \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted on August 6, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date \nare hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. Claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nthat  he  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  low  back  and  right  hip  on  December  5, \n2024. \n 3.  Respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment provided to claimant for his compensable injuries. \n 4.  Claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nthat he is entitled to payment of one day of temporary total disability benefits. \n 5.  Claimant’s  attorney  is  entitled  to  an  attorney  fee  on  all  unpaid  indemnity \nbenefits. \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant  is  a 46-year-old  man  who performed  construction  work  for  respondent \nbeginning  in  May  2024.  On  December  5,  2024,  claimant  was  using  a  jackhammer  to \ndemolish   some   concrete   at   the   Springdale   library   when   he   tripped   and   fell \napproximately  12  feet  onto  the  ground.  After  this  accident,  claimant  was  taken  to  the \nemergency room at Northwest Medical Center in Springdale where he was hospitalized \nfrom December 5, 2024, through December 13, 2024.  \n Claimant’s  primary  complaints  immediately  after  the  accident  included  severe \nback  pain  and  right  ankle  pain.  While  in  the  hospital,  claimant  underwent  a  number  of \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-4- \ntests;  including  CT  scans  of  the  brain,  cervical  spine,  chest,  abdomen,  and  pelvis.  He \nalso  underwent  MRI  scans  of  the  pelvis,  cervical  spine,  thoracic  spine,  and  lumbar \nspine. These tests were interpreted as negative.  \n While  in  the  hospital,  claimant  underwent  a  telephonic  consultation  with  a \nneurologist  who  opined  that  claimant  might  be  suffering  from  neurapraxia  of  the  right \nlumbosacral  plexus.  The  neurologist  stated  that  neurapraxia  is  the  mildest  form  of \nperipheral  nerve  injury  and  that  it  is  generally  caused  by  localized  compression, \nstretching   or   ischemia   without   disruption   of   the   nerve   structure. He   stated   that \nneurapraxia  usually  resolves  in  days  to  weeks  with  treatment  including  rest;  physical \ntherapy; and the use of NSAIDS for pain and inflammation. \n Claimant’s discharge summary dated December 13, 2024, indicates that based \non the neurologist’s suspicion of neurapraxia, outpatient physical therapy and follow-up \ncare  at  Community  Clinic  would  be  recommended.  Subsequent  medical  records \nindicate  that  claimant did  receive  care and  physical  therapy  from  Community  Clinic  for \nneurapraxia.  The  medical  records  also  indicate  that  claimant  made  complaints  of  right \ngroin pain. Due to claimant’s continued complaints, Kathy Mayhew, D.O. at Community \nClinic recommended that claimant undergo an evaluation by an orthopedic specialist.  \n On  March  5,  2025,  claimant  was  evaluated  by  Dr.  Marcus  Heim,  D.O.  at  the \nOrthopedic Center of Northwest Arkansas. Dr. Heim noted claimant’s complaints of pain \ninvolving  his  right  hip  and  was  concerned  that  claimant  may  suffer  from  avascular \nnecrosis of the femoral head. He ordered an MRI scan of the right hip and an EMG/NCV \nof the right lower extremity. Dr. Heim assessed claimant’s condition at that time as right \nhip pain and right lumbar radiculopathy.  \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-5- \n Claimant  underwent  the  right  hip  MRI  scan  on  March  26,  2025,  and  it  was \ninterpreted  as  showing  degenerative  changes  as  well  as  mild  fraying  of  the  anterior \nsuperior right labrum. The EMG/NCV of the right lower extremity was performed by Dr. \nMiles Johnson on March 31, 2025, with the following assessment: \nEssentially  normal  electrodiagnostic  study  of  the  right  lower \nextremity  except  for  the  diffusely  decreased  interference \npattern and no active function noted in the right EHL. These \ntypes of findings could be seen secondary to pain or lack of \neffort.  There  are  no  findings  to  suggest  a  radiculopathy, \nplexopathy,  generalized  peripheral  neuropathy  or  peripheral \nnerve entrapment syndrome or injury. \n \n Following  these  tests,  claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Heim.  In  his  report  of  May  14, \n2025, Dr. Heim stated that the MRI scan of the hip showed early degenerative changes \nbut no evidence of acute osseous pathology or avascular necrosis. He also noted that \nthe EMG/NCV was essentially normal with the exception of the “lack of recruitment of \nfibers to the EHL.” Dr. Heim also stated that claimant continued to see improvement in \nhis neurologic recovery of his right lower extremity. Finally, Dr. Heim recommended that \nwith  respect  to  the  hip,  claimant  undergo  an  articular  injection  to  see  if  his  symptoms \nimproved. He noted that if claimant’s symptoms did not improve, claimant might need to \nbe screened for a possible right hip labral tear. \n Respondent has denied compensability of the claim and as a result, claimant has \nfiled  this  claim  contending  that  he  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  low  back  and \nright  hip on  December  5,  2024.  He  requests  payment  of medical  treatment,  temporary \ntotal disability benefits, and a controverted attorney fee. \n \n \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-6- \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant  contends  that  he  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  low  back  and \nright hip as a result of a fall on December 5, 2024. Claimant’s claim is for a specific \ninjury, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  \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. \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe  doubt  to  either  party,  I  find  that  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  low  back \nand right hip. \n First,  I  find  that  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of \nthe evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and that \nthe  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific  incident, identifiable  by  time  and  place  of \noccurrence. Here,  claimant  testified  that  on  December  5,  2024,  he  was  using  a \njackhammer to break up concrete when he tripped and fell some 12 feet to the ground. \nClaimant  was  taken  to  the  emergency  room  after  that accident, and  I  note  that  the \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-7- \nhistory  contained  in  the  emergency  room  medical  records  is  consistent  with  the \nclaimant’s testimony.  \n Accordingly, I find that claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat  his  injury  arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment  and  that  the  injury  was \ncaused by a specific incident, identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  \n I  also  find  that  claimant  has  proven  that  his  injury  caused  internal  or  external \nharm to his body that required medical services or resulted in disability and that he has \noffered medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an injury. \n As  previously  noted,  claimant  underwent  multiple  tests  at  the  emergency  room \nand during his hospitalization that were interpreted as negative. However, those medical \nrecords  also  contain  numerous  notations  of  claimant  being  given  Flexeril  for  muscle \nspasms.  For  example,  the  medical  records  indicate  the  claimant  was  given  some  pain \nmedication by IV and “in addition to Flexeril for muscle spasms...”. \n Recently,  in Nucor  Yamato  Steel  Co  v  Shelton,  2025 Ark.  App.  249,  _____ SW \n3d _____, the Arkansas Court of Appeals declined to overrule its prior opinion in Melius \nv  Chapel  Ridge  Nursing  Center,  LLC,  2021  Ark.  App.  61, 618  SW.  3d  410, that  a \ndiagnosis of lumbar sprain along with prescribed treatment of medication for “muscle \nspasms” is sufficient to establish objective findings of a compensable injury. In Shelton, \nas  in  the  present  case,  medical  testing  did  not  reveal  an  acute  injury.  However,  in \nShelton, the claimant was prescribed the muscle relaxer Flexeril for muscle spasms. In \nreaching  its  decision,  the  Court  noted  that  there  was  no  requirement  that  a  doctor  or \nmedical  provider  observe  muscle  spasms  before  the  injury  can  be  compensable.  The \nCourt further noted that a doctor would not prescribe medications for muscle spasms if \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-8- \nthe  doctor  did  not  believe  muscle  spasms  were  present.  Accordingly,  the  Court  found \nthat  in Shelton the claimant’s diagnosis of a lumbar sprain along with the prescribed \ncourse of medication for muscle spasms, physical therapy, and pain management was \nsufficient to establish objective findings. \n Likewise in this case, while claimant’s testing was negative, he was prescribed \nFlexeril   for   muscle   spasms.   He   was   also   prescribed   physical   therapy   and   was \ndiagnosed  by  Dr.  Heim  as  suffering  from  lumbar  radiculopathy.  Thus,  these  findings \nconstitute objective findings.  \n I also note that the MRI scan of claimant’s right hip dated March 26, 2025, was \ninterpreted as showing mild fraying of the anterior superior right labrum. This would also \nqualify as an objective finding.  \n Accordingly, based upon the foregoing evidence, I find that claimant has offered \nmedical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings establishing  a  compensable  injury  to \nhis right hip and his low back as a result of the fall on December 5, 2024. Therefore, I \nfind  that  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nthat  he  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  right  hip  and  low  back  on  December  5, \n2024. \n Having  found  that  claimant  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  right  hip  and \nlumbar  spine,  I  find  that  respondent  is  liable  for  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment  provided  to  claimant  for  those  compensable  injuries.  This  includes  the \nemergency  room  treatment  and  subsequent  hospitalization  after  the  accident.  It  also \nincludes treatment from Community Clinic and treatment from Dr. Heim.  \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-9- \n The final issue for consideration involves claimant’s request for temporary total \ndisability benefits.  \n Claimant testified that he did not return to work for the respondent subsequent to \nDecember 5, 2024. In order to be entitled to temporary total disability benefits, claimant \nhas the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he remained in his \nhealing  period  and  that  he  suffered  a  total  incapacity  to  earn  wages. Arkansas  State \nHighway & Transportation Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W. 2d 392 (1981).  \n While I find that claimant has remained within his healing period, I do not find that \nclaimant  has  proven  that  he  continued  to  suffer  a  total  incapacity  to  earn  wages. \nObviously,   the   claimant   was   totally   incapacitated   to   earn   wages during   his \nhospitalization.  However,  claimant’s  hospitalization  lasted  eight  days.  Pursuant  to \nA.C.A. §11-9-501(a)(1),  compensation  is  not  allowed  for  the  first  seven  days  of \ndisability.  Only  if  the  disability  extends  for  a  period  of  two  weeks  is  compensation \nallowed  from  the  first  day  of  disability.  A.C.A. §11-9-501(a)(3).  When  claimant  was \ndischarged  on  December  13,  2024,  no  treating  physician  opined  that  claimant  was \nincapable of returning to work or that claimant had any physical restrictions on his ability \nto  return  to  work.  Even  when  claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  the  Community \nClinic and from Dr. Heim, neither of those medical providers indicated that claimant was \nincapable  of  working  or  placed  restrictions  on  his  ability  to  return  to  work.  In  fact, \nclaimant  admitted  on  direct  examination  that  at  one  point  in  time  he performed some \nsporadic work after his injury. \n Based upon the foregoing evidence, I find that claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  totally  incapacitated  from  earning  wages \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-10- \nsubsequent to his discharge from the hospital on December 13, 2024. Based upon the \nprovisions  of  A.C.A. §11-9-501,  claimant  is  not  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits for the first seven days of disability because according to the evidence he was \nonly  disabled  for  eight  days.  Therefore,  pursuant  to  A.C.A. §11-9-501,  claimant  is \nentitled to temporary total disability benefits for one day.  \n \nORDER \n Claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  right  hip  and  low  back  on  December  5,  2024. \nRespondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment \nprovided  in  connection  with  claimant’s  compensable  injury.  Claimant  is  entitled  to \ntemporary  total  disability  benefits  for  one  day  as  a  result  of  his  compensable  injury. \nRespondent has controverted claimant’s entitlement to all unpaid indemnity benefits. \nPursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(1)(B), claimant’s attorney is entitled to an \nattorney fee in the amount of 25% of the compensation for indemnity benefits payable to \nthe claimant.   Thus, claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney fee based upon \nthe indemnity benefits awarded.   This fee is to be paid one-half by the carrier and one-\nhalf by the claimant.   Also pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(1)(B), an attorney fee is not \nawarded on medical benefits. \nAll sums herein accrued are payable in a lump sum and without discount.  This \naward shall bear interest at the maximum legal rate until paid. \n Respondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $358.00. \n\nGomez – H408000 \n \n-11- \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H408000 CARLOS REINA GOMEZ, Employee CLAIMANT C M CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT WELLFLEET NEW YORK INS. CO., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 15, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:34.246Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H408000-2025-10-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GOMES_CARLOS_H408000_20251015.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}