{"id":"alj-H501091-2025-11-12","awcc_number":"H501091","decision_date":"2025-11-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Kristi Hill","employer_name":"Incite Rehab, LLC","title":"HILL VS. INCITE REHAB, LLC AWCC# H501091 November 12, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","sprain","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HILL_KRISTI_H501091_20251112.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HILL_KRISTI_H501091_20251112.pdf","text_length":16197,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H501091 \n \nKRISTI HILL, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nINCITE REHAB, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nCCMSI, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 12, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE GREGORY  K.  STEWART in  Fort \nSmith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by JARROD  S.  PARRISH,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On October  20, 2025,  the  above  captioned claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Fort \nSmith, Arkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on August 20, 2025, and a \npre-hearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has \nbeen  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 \nFebruary 7, 2025. \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-2- \nAt the time of the hearing, the parties agreed to stipulate that claimant earned an \naverage weekly wage of $940.96, which would entitle her to compensation at the rates \nof  $627.00  for  total  disability  benefits  and  $470.00  for  permanent  partial  disability \nbenefits. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Compensability of injury to right shoulder on February 7, 2025. \n2. Related medical. \n3. Temporary total disability benefits from date last paid through a date yet to be \ndetermined. \n4. Respondent’s entitlement to a credit for benefits paid prior to denial of claim \nand for short-term disability benefits paid. \n5. Attorney’s fee. \nThe  claimant  contends  “that  she  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  right \nshoulder on February 7, 2025 and was provided authorized medical treatment from that \ndate  until  on  or  about  May  29,  2025.  The  Claimant  contends  that  she  is  entitled  to \ntemporary  total  disability  benefits  from  when  they  stopped  until  a  date  yet  to  be \ndetermined,  as  well  as  additional  medical  treatment.”  Claimant  contends  that  since \nRespondent is controverting this claim in its entirety, his attorney is entitled to a fee on \nall indemnity benefits. \nThe  respondents  contend  “that  while  this  claim  was  initially  accepted  as \ncompensable,   based   on   documentation   received,   the   claimant   did   not   suffer   a \ncompensable injury under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. In light of this, it is \nRespondents’ position that Claimant is not entitled to benefits associated with this claim. \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-3- \nAlternatively,  in  the  event  compensability  is  found,  benefits  were  paid  to  the  claimant \nthrough 9/21/25, and they should be entitled to a credit for benefits paid prior to denial \nof  the  claim.  Additionally,  the  claimant  received  short-term  disability  benefits  and \nRespondent  may  have  a  credit  for  those  benefits  paid  in  the  event  compensability  is \nfound in this matter.” \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 August  20,  2025,  and  contained  in  a pre-hearing  order  filed  that  same \ndate are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence  that  she  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  right  shoulder  on  February  7, \n2025. \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant  has  been  employed  as  a  physical  therapist  assistant  for  respondent \nand  its  predecessors  for  more  than  30  years.  Her  job  duties  required  her  to  transfer \npatients;  standing  balance  activities;  gait  training;  and  therapeutic  exercise.  Claimant \nconsidered  her  job  to  be  physically  demanding  because  many  of  the  patients  were \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-4- \npartially  paralyzed  and  non-weight-bearing  with  their  lower  extremities  which  required \nhelping them stand, walk and transfer to devices. \n Claimant  testified  that  on  February  7,  2025,  she  was  assisting  a  patient  by \nmoving the footplate on his chair. As she took a step to the right, she hit the patient’s \nfoot, causing her to lose her balance and start falling to the right. She testified that she \nfell towards a window frame with her right arm. \nQ So  you  tried  to  grab  the  wall  with  your  left  hand \nbecause you were falling to the right? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And then you hit something with your right shoulder? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And what was it that you hit? \n \nA The outside of my right shoulder. \n \nQ What part of the building did you hit? \n \nA The sheetrock, the frame of the windowsill. \n \n The  beginning  of  this  fall  can  be  seen  on  the  video  submitted  into  evidence  by \nthe  respondent.  The  video  shows  claimant  falling  to  her  right  but  does  not  show  her \nstriking a windowsill with her right shoulder. \n Claimant  testified  that  after  this  incident  she  had  a  burning  pain  in  her  right \nshoulder and reported it to her supervisor. After she attempted to work for a few minutes \nshe informed her supervisor that she believed she had really injured herself and needed \nmedical  attention.  Claimant  talked  to  someone  in  human  resources  and  was  sent  for \nmedical treatment with Dr. Terry Clark at Mercy Clinic on February 7. \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-5- \n Dr.  Clark  ordered  an  x-ray of claimant’s right shoulder which showed no  acute \nfindings. Although his report states that bruising was not present during his examination, \nhe diagnosed claimant’s condition as a contusion and sprain of the right shoulder. He \nprescribed  the  use  of  a  sling;  ice;  and  over-the-counter  medication.  He  also  indicated \nthat  claimant  had  work  restrictions  of  no  lifting/pulling/pushing  over  10  lbs.  and  no \noverhead work. \n Claimant returned to Dr. Clark on February 17, 2025, and indicated that her pain \nwas  variable  depending  on  the  activity.  Dr.  Clark  prescribed  physical  therapy  three \ntimes  a  week  for  two  weeks.  In  his  report  of  March  3,  2025,  Dr.  Clark  noted  that \nclaimant had not yet started physical therapy and again indicated that physical therapy \nwas appropriate.  \n On March 18, 2025, claimant returned to see Dr. Clark who noted that claimant \ndid not feel that her pain was improving, and he ordered an MR arthrogram of her right \nshoulder.  According  to  Dr.  Clark’s  report  of  April  7,  2025,  the  MRI  revealed  a  full-\nthickness  tear  of  the  supraspinatus  tendon, and  he  referred  claimant  for an  orthopedic \nevaluation.  \n Claimant  was  seen by  Dr.  Jonathan  Tobey, an orthopedic  surgeon,  on  April  30, \n2025.  He  reviewed  the  MRI  scan  and  interpreted  it  as  showing  a  SLAP  tear  with  no \nobvious  rotator  cuff  tear.  He  further  noted  that  although  the  radiologist  interpreted  the \nMRI  as  showing  a  full-thickness  tear  of  the  supraspinatus,  he  disagreed  with  that \nassessment. Dr. Tobey ordered physical therapy; the use of medications; and restricted \nclaimant’s use of her right shoulder for six weeks. \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-6- \n When claimant’s condition did not improve, Dr. Tobey recommended surgery. \nThis surgery was performed on September 4, 2025. Dr. Tobey’s operative report of that \ndate indicates that his post-operative diagnosis included: right shoulder SLAP tear; AC \narthrosis;  subacromial  impingement;  incomplete  supraspinatus  tear;  and  glenohumeral \nsynovitis.  \n Respondent   initially   accepted   this   claim   as   compensable   but   after   further \ninvestigation,  denied  the  claim  by  letter  dated  May  29,  2025.  Claimant  has  filed  this \nclaim  contending  that  she  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  right  shoulder  on \nFebruary  7,  2025.  She  seeks  payment  of  medical  treatment,  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits, and a controverted attorney fee. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant  contends  that  she  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  right  shoulder \non February 7, 2025. Claimant’s claim is for a specific injury, identifiable by time and \nplace of occurrence. \n In 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\nHill – H501091 \n \n-7- \n An aggravation is a new injury resulting from an independent incident, and being \na  new  injury  with  an  independent  cause,  it  must  meet  the  definition  of  a  compensable \ninjury  in  order  to  establish  compensability  of  the  aggravation. Hickman  v.  Kellogg, \nBrown and Root,  372  Ark.  501,  27  S.W.  3d  591  (2008),  citing Jim  Walter  Homes  v. \nBeard, 82 Ark. App. 607, 120 S.W. 3d 160 (2007).  \n Establishing  a  compensable  injury  in  the  form  of  an  aggravation  would  require \nmedical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury.  A.C.A.  §11-9-\n102(4)(D). After  reviewing  the  evidence  in  this  case  impartially,  without  giving  the \nbenefit of the doubt to either party, I find that claimant has failed to meet her burden of \nproof.  \n The  evidence  in  this  case  indicates  that  claimant  has a  history  of right  shoulder \nproblems  dating  back  to  2023.  In  2023  the  claimant  was  attempting  to  jump  across  a \nsmall creek when she slipped. In order to keep herself from hitting the ground, she had \nboth arms extended and struck the ground with her arms. Subsequent to this incident, \nclaimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  Dr.  Steve  Belinga,  a  neurologist.  Dr.  Belinga \ninitially believed that claimant’s complaints were related to her hands and ordered an \nEMG/NCV study. Those tests were read as being within normal limits. Nevertheless, Dr. \nBelinga  still  indicated  that  it  was  most  likely  that  claimant  suffered  from  carpal  tunnel \nsyndrome  and  cubital  tunnel  syndrome.  Dr.  Belinga  eventually  recommended  that \nclaimant see an orthopedist for injections and she apparently underwent injections from \nDr. Smithson at BH Orthopedic Clinic. Claimant returned to Dr. Smithson on November \n28,  2023,  and  reported  complete  relief  of  numbness  and  tingling.  Dr.  Smithson  also \nnoted that claimant was still having aching pain in her shoulder area. Notably, just a few \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-8- \ndays  after  her  visit  with  Dr.  Smithson  and  what  she  reported  complete  relief  of \nnumbness and tingling, she was again seen by Dr. Belinga who noted that claimant had \nbeen placed on steroids recently and that was the only relief she was receiving. There is \nno  indication  that  Dr.  Belinga  was  aware  that  claimant  had  seen  Dr.  Smithson  a  few \ndays earlier and her report of complete relief of numbness and tingling.  \n At  this  point,  there  is  a  gap  between  the  last  medical  visit  with  Dr.  Belinga  on \nDecember 4, 2023, and an MRI scan of claimant’s bilateral shoulders on December 10, \n2024, some two months prior to February 7, 2025. Claimant testified that the MRI scan \nof her bilateral shoulders was recommended by her primary treating physician.  \n A  follow-up  visit  after  the  MRI  scan  in  December  2024  was  scheduled  with \nSamantha  Chandler-Herbert,  a  nurse  practitioner  at  the  Choctaw  Nation  Medical \nCenter, for March 31, 2025. Prior to that follow-up evaluation, the incident on February \n7,  2025,  occurred  and  claimant  was  evaluated  by  Dr.  Clark  on  at  least  four  occasions \nprior to the visit with Chandler-Herbert. \n As  previously  noted,  claimant  eventually  underwent  a  second  MRI  scan  on  her \nright  shoulder as  ordered  by  Dr.  Clark.  Thereafter,  she  was  referred  to  Dr.  Tobey  for \northopedic evaluation and he performed surgery on the claimant’s right shoulder. Dr. \nTobey’s primary diagnosis from the surgery involved a right shoulder SLAP tear. \n Following claimant’s second MRI scan, respondent had various medical records, \nincluding both MRI scans, reviewed by Dr. Shane McAlister, a radiologist. Dr. McAlister \nopined that after reviewing both the December 2024 MRI scan and the MRI scan taken \nafter  February  7  that  the  findings  were  the  same  with  no  evidence  of  any  acute \ntraumatic injury. Specifically, Dr. McAlister stated: \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-9- \nAfter  reviewing  these  records  and  the  submitted  diagnostic \nimaging,  I  do  not  see  any  evidence  of  any  acute  traumatic \ninjury  of  the  right  shoulder  from  the  fall  of  2-7-2025,  but \nrather  evidence  of  old  pathology  that  was  well  seen  on  the \nDecember  2024  right  shoulder  MRI  scan.  The  findings  do \ncorrelate with the physical examination findings of Dr. Tobey \non his office visit of 4-30-2025. \n \n Notably, Dr. McAlister is the only treating physician who has reviewed both MRI \nscans.  In  fact,  there  is  insufficient  evidence  that  claimant’s  treating  physicians  after \nFebruary 7, 2025, were even aware of claimant’s prior right shoulder complaints and the \nDecember  2024  right shoulder  MRI  scan.  Although  claimant testified  that  she  reported \nto  both  Dr.  Clark  and  Dr.  Tobey  that  she  had  prior  right  shoulder  complaints  and  had \nundergone  an  MRI  scan,  none  of  the  medical  records  from  either  Dr.  Clark  nor Dr. \nTobey mention these prior complaints or the prior MRI scan. In short, I find no evidence \nthat  either  of  these  physicians  was  aware  of  those  prior  complaints  and  as  a  result, \nneither of those physicians reviewed both MRI scans.  \n As previously noted, in order to establish a compensable injury, claimant has the \nburden  of  meeting  all  definitions  of  a  compensable  injury.  This  includes  medical \nevidence  supported  by  objective  findings.  Here,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Dr. \nMcAlister,  the  objective  findings  on  the  April  3,  2025,  MRI  scan  are  the  same  findings \nthat were present on the December 10, 2024, MRI scan. Given that Dr. McAlister is the \nonly physician who has evaluated both pre and post February 7, 2025, MRI scans, I find \nthat his opinion is credible and entitled to great weight. Accordingly, I find that claimant \nhas  failed  to  offer  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  injury \nto her right shoulder on February 7, 2025. \n \n\nHill – H501091 \n \n-10- \nORDER \n Claimant  has  failed  to  meet her  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence  that  she  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  her  right  shoulder  on  February  7, \n2025. Therefore, her claim for compensation benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n Respondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $607.50. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H501091 KRISTI HILL, Employee CLAIMANT INCITE REHAB, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT CCMSI, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 12, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. Claimant represented ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:25.012Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501091-2025-11-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HILL_KRISTI_H501091_20251112.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}