{"id":"alj-H501837-2026-02-03","awcc_number":"H501837","decision_date":"2026-02-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Thealin Stiles","employer_name":"Hiram Shaddox Health And Rehab","title":"STILES VS. HIRAM SHADDOX HEALTH AND REHAB AWCC# H501837 February 03, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","shoulder","knee","sprain","strain","neck","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STILES_THEALIN_H501837_20260203.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"STILES_THEALIN_H501837_20260203.pdf","text_length":54119,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H501837 \nTHEALIN STILES, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nHIRAM SHADDOX HEALTH AND  \nREHAB, EMPLOYER       RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SELF-INSURANCE TRUST/ \nCCMSI, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA      RESPONDENT  \n \n    OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 3, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  James  D.  Kennedy, on  the 16\nTH\n day  of \nDecember, 2025, in Mountain Home, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Mark Alan Peoples, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, Arkansas. \nRespondents are represented  by Jarrod  Parrish,  Attorney  at  Law, of Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 16\nth\n day of December, 2025, to determine the \nissue of compensability of an alleged injury that the Claimant contends was sustained as \na work-related injury to her back as a result of a specific incident while employed by the \nRespondent employer on or about March 23, 2025, plus temporary total disability, medical \ntreatment, and attorney fees. The Respondents contend that the Claimant did not sustain \na compensable work-related injury on or about March 23, 2025, or at any other time while \nworking for the Respondent. A copy of the Pre-hearing order was marked “Commission \nExhibit 1” and made part of the record without  objection.  The  Order  provided  that  the \nparties stipulated that the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nof the within claim and that an employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed on or \nabout March 23, 2025, the date when Claimant contends she sustained an injury to her \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n2 \n \nback arising out of and in the course of her employment. The Claimant earned an average \nweekly wage of $691.70 which would entitle her to TTD/PPD benefits in the respective \namounts of $461.00 and $346.00, if the claim is found be compensable. The Respondents \ncontroverted the claim in its entirety.       \n The Claimant’s and the Respondent’s contentions are all set out in their respective \nresponses  to  the  Pre-hearing Questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. More  specifically,  the  Claimant  contends  she  injured  her  back  on  or  about \nMarch 23, 2025, and that she is entitled to medical treatment and TTD from the date of \nthe  injury  until  a  date  to  be determined,  plus  attorney  fees.  The  Respondents  contend \nthat the Claimant did not suffer a compensable injury on or about March 23, 2025, or at \nany  other  time  while  working  for  the  Respondents.  If compensability  is  established, \nClaimant has not established entitlement to additional medical or temporary total disability \nbenefits  and Respondents assert the Shipper’s defense, based upon the Claimant’s \nfailure  to  disclose  her  pre-injury  problems  and  limitations. The  witnesses consisted of \nThealin Stiles, the claimant, Emily Sueann Dailing, Assistant Director of Nursing for the \nRespondent, Shawania Michelle Young, Personnel Director for the Respondent, and Kari \nLynn Novak, the Director of Nursing for the Respondent. From a review of the record as \na  whole, to  include medical  reports  and other  matters  properly  before  the Commission \nand having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, \nthe  following findings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law are made  in accordance  with  Ark. \nCode Ann. 11-9-704. \n \n \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n3 \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n2. That an employer/employee relationship existed on March 23, 2025, the date \nof the claimed injury.   \n3. That the Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible \nevidence that she sustained a compensable work-related injury to her back \non March 23, 2025. \n4. That all remaining issues are moot. \n5. 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  admitted  into  the  record  without  objection. The Claimant  submitted an exhibit of \nmedical  records admitted  without  objection. The Respondents submitted two exhibits \nwithout objection, with exhibit one of medical records, and the second exhibit consisting \nof non-medical evidence.  \n The Claimant was the first witness to testify. She testified she was injured back in \nMarch  of  2025,  while  working  for  the  Respondent  in  Mountain  Home  as  a  Certified \nNursing Assistant. Her job consisted of taking daily care of the residents of the nursing \nhome,  changing  them,  feeding  them,  clothing  them,  and  transferring  them  to  the \nbathroom.  If  the  lights  go  on,  we respond to whatever  they  need. She  had  about  30 \nresidents that she was responsible for when she hurt her back on March 23, 2025. She \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n4 \n \nanswered a call light and went to the room and the resident was covered with feces. He \n“was a two-assist, two to three-assist.” She explained that in other words, he required two \nor three people to help him because he was a very big guy. She went on to testify that \nshe went to a nurses station and asked for help, was told that they would be down  to \nassist, and that she then went to another nurses station and was also told that they would \nbe down, but that the resident “kept on blowing on his light so I went in there and I \nproceeded to take care of him myself.” In regard to obtaining help, the Claimant testified \n“they just failed to help me” stating they were busy. She went on to testify that she then \npulled the draw sheet to turn him and as she pulled, he went to the right side, and she felt \nsome pain in her middle to lower back at about T-12. “I proceeded to change him myself \neven after that because I just am that type of person.”  I got him cleaned up and rolled \nhim back on his back. She continued that her back was not feeling well, and she went \nstraight to the nurses’ station where she told the charge nurse. She was then given a drug \nscreen. (Tr. 6 – 9) \n She went on to state that they did a report and sent her to the emergency room at \nBaxter Regional, where she received X-rays and CAT scans. It was her understanding \nthat she was to have a follow up at Access Medical. She then went to Access Medical the \nnext  day  and  was  taken  off  work,  given  muscle  relaxers, and  told  to  see  a  specialist.  \nArrangements were made for the specialist, but she was told that the Respondents had \nrefused to pay for it. It was her understanding that any treatment that she received beyond \nthat point was going to be outside of workers’ compensation. She was eventually seen \nby Dr. Spurgeon in Springfield, where she continued treatment until the 5\nth\n of December. \nPrior to March 23, 2025, she was only experiencing regular arthritis with her back. She \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n5 \n \nadmitted having preexisting lumbar issues with her back. (Tr. 10 – 12) When she injured \nher back on March 23, 2025, she hurt her back above the middle, above the lumbar. She \nadmitted having a fusion in the lumbar region back in 2017 or 2018, due to a car accident. \nShe also admitted doing pain management for lumbar pain every two months prior to the \nMarch 23 date. (Tr. 13, 14) \n Under cross examination, the Claimant was questioned about not mentioning the \npatient or the resident being covered in feces during her deposition. She responded that \nshe had to reposition him and that “I changed him.” (Tr. 14) She was also questioned \nabout  the  charge  nurse  not  documenting  something  happening  at  work  and she \nresponded that she did tell the charge nurse. She was also questioned about previously \nproviding that there was a scheduled repositioning of the resident every two hours but not \nmentioning that she had to clean and wipe the patient. She responded that she told the \ncharge  nurse.  (Tr.15)  When  questioned  about  earlier  not  bringing  up  the  extra  step \ninvolving the cleaning of the patient, she responded “I – I don’t have an answer for that.”  \nShe was then questioned about the folks at the Respondents attempting to prevent her \nworkers’ compensation claim and responded, “They have cliques there.” When asked \nabout stating that everyone in her deposition treated her nice, she responded “No.” She \nthen admitted under further questioning that she did not have any conflicts or arguments \nwith any of individuals who worked at the Respondent. (Tr. 16) She agreed that none of \nthe people she named in her deposition had any problem with her and that she had no \nproblem with them. When questioned about the people for the Respondent attempting to \ncontact her in March or April of 2025, in an attempt to see what she was going to do in \nregard  to  off  work  slips  or  FMLA,  she  responded  that  she  had  run  out  of  cell  phone \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n6 \n \nminutes. Then  when  questioned  about  how  the  Respondent  received  text  messages \nduring that time-period, she responded that she did have some cell phone time available \nduring the same time-period. She also admitted to having two back surgeries before the \nalleged work accident and admitted that she continued to have back issues and frequent \nproblems  with  her  sciatic  nerve. She  also  admitted  that  at  one  point,  she  had  been \napproved for social security disability based upon her back issues and that her doctors \nhad instructed her to not lift over 50 pounds. She claimed that she had discussed that fact \nwith the Respondent when she was hired to go to work for them. (Tr. 17, 18) She also \nadmitted that she was told that if lifting more than 50 pounds were required, she was to \nget help, and she had agreed to the plan. She admitted to being approved on her social \nsecurity application for disability, for about a year due to her back and her “mental.” She \nagreed that she was completely incapable of working and earning a regular wage. She \nalso admitted that at some point she decided the SSDI benefits were too low, and she \nreturned to work without any medical assessment or change in her restrictions.   \nThe following questioning then occurred: \nQ:  So  how  does  that  work  if  you’re  completely  incapable,  under  restrictions, \ndrawing a benefit, and you decide that’s not enough money, you go to work without \nanything changing as far as your medical condition? Can you explain that for me? \nA: Because I have to make money to survive like everybody else. \nQ: Well, if you could go to work in the same condition, you had been in when you \nwere drawing social security disability, do you agree that you weren’t actually \ndisabled while you were drawing social security disability? \nA: I don’t agree to that. \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n7 \n \nQ:  Okay.  Then  how  were  you  able  to  go  to  work  the  moment  you  decided  you \nwanted to go to work? \nA: Because I had to survive.     \nThe  claimant  agreed that  she  denied  having  any previous injuries,  symptoms, \nproblems, or conditions involving her mid-back when her deposition was taken. (Tr. 19, \n20) \n When the Claimant was questioned about the mention of mid back issues in her \nmedical records, she agreed that there was not going to be any mention of mid-back pain \nin her medical records until after the accident. The Claimant was then specifically asked \nabout page 62 of Respondent’s medical packet and the visit to the doctor where the report \nprovided for mid-back pain averaging seven (7) and spiking up to a ten (10) on November \n12, 2024, just a few months before the alleged injury date. When asked if she was aware \nof it, Claimant responded, “Apparently I was there.” She was then questioned about page \n70 of the Respondent’s medical packet where on December 10, mid-back pain was again \nmentioned in the medical. She was also questioned about mid-back pain being referred \nto on page 75 of Respondent’s medical packet on the date of January 7, 2025, and again \nabout mid-back  pain  being  referred  to  on  page  83  and  pages 84  through  86  of \nRespondent’s medical packet on January 29, 2025, where the reports mentioned trigger \npoints, trigger point spasms, and knots in her back. (Tr. 21) \n The following questions were then asked and responded to by the Claimant:   \nQ:  Assuming  these  medical  records  are  correct - - which I’m not hearing  you \ndispute that they - - they are - - you will agree with me a statement to me in your \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n8 \n \ndeposition under oath that you did not ever have any prior symptoms, problems, \ninjuries, or conditions in your mid-back was not a true statement, was it?  \nA:  I’ve always had problems with my lower back, but not the mid-back. (Tr. 21) \nQ:  So, you dispute what’s documented in your doctor of your choosing’s records \nright there two, three, four, months before your accident date? \nA:  Well, if it’s there, it’s there. \nQ:  Okay. So, if it’s there and you’re telling the doctor you have mid-back pain and \nhe’s documenting that back pain, when you told me in your deposition you did not \never have any mid-back pain, that was not true, was it? \nA:  I guess not. No, I guess, because I don’t remember going to the doctor and \nhaving mid-back pain. \nQ:  You’re at the - - \nA:  But if it’s there, it’s - - \nQ: You’re at the doctor within 60 days of the alleged injury date, and your testimony \nunder oath is you don’t remember having any pain in your mid-pack, is that - - is \nthat your testimony? \nA:  I’m saying that’s my testimony. \nQ:  Okay. Well, is it true? \nA:  I don’t remember having the pain in my back. \nQ:  You suffered a fall within a month prior to March 23, 2025, didn’t you? \nA:  Yes, I did. \nQ:  The doctor noted on Page 91 of my medical packet, March 3, says you fell two \nor three weeks prior, and you felt a pop when you fell. \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n9 \n \nA:  In my lower back, yes. \nQ:  Is that true? \nA:  In my lower back. \nQ:  You’ve discerned where the pop came from? \nA:  You could feel it. \nQ:  Okay, you don’t dispute that, that you fell and you felt a pop, though? \nA:  Oh, I knew when I fell, yeah. \nQ:  That was, I guess, the latter part of February of 2025? \nA:  Yeah. \nQ:  Okay. \nA: It had to do with my heart. (Tr. 22, 23) \nThe  Claimant  was  then  questioned  about  taking  Tizanidine,  Percocet,  and \nMeloxicam prior to her work-related accident and the Claimant admitted that she was in \nfact  taking  them.  (Tr.  24)  She  was  also  questioned  about  the  time  of  the  work-related \naccident and responded that it had occurred at approximately 1:00 o’clock on the 23\nrd\n.  \nShe was then asked about retaining counsel, and filing a Form C, by 12:40 the next day, \nless than 24 hours later. The Claimant responded “Yeah, because the doctor told me that \nthey would not cover my bills - -”. She went on to say that she was told they were not \ngoing to cover her bills. (Tr. 23) \nThe  Claimant  admitted  that  she  initially  presented  her  employer  with  some \ndocumentation  saying that  she  should be  off work a  week and  then  another  week, but \nthen didn’t bring Kari or anyone else any off-work slips. She also admitted the Respondent \nemployer was trying to find her and determine why she wasn’t working and not showing \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n10 \n \nup for shifts she was already on. She also admitted that she never returned to work for \nrespondents. (Tr. 26) She also agreed that her employment was terminated after several \nweeks or maybe a month. (Tr. 27) \nOn  redirect,  the  Claimant  testified  that  she  had  not  returned  to  work  anywhere \nbecause she was unable to stand, sit, or lift, for a long period of time. At this point, the \nClaimant rested. (Tr. 28) \nThe  Respondents  called  Kimberly  Simino, as  their  first  witness, a  nurse  for \nRespondents, back  in  March  of  2025, and who had an opportunity  to  know  and  work \naround  the  Claimant.  Ms.  Simino  testified  that  she  participated  in  an  investigation \ninvolving the Claimant’s alleged injury. She agreed that the Claimant had told her that she \nwas hurting from a previous car accident and needed to go home. When asked if there \nwas any doubt in her mind the Claimant told her that the car accident was the source of \nher back pain, Ms. Simino replied “No, no doubt.” She agreed that she had no reason to \nmake up her response and would not receive a bonus for it. She also agreed that she had \nfielded reports before and turned them over to HR or the administration. She turned the \nreport over to her RN Supervisor and “I told her she said that she had hurt her back, and \nit was a chronic injury from a car wreck, and she needed to go to the hospital to get it \nchecked out.” (Tr. 30, 31)  \nThe Respondents then called Emily Sueann Dailing. She testified that she was a \nRegistered Nurse working for the Respondents as the Assistant Director of Nursing and \nwas specifically employed in that position on March 23, 2025. She was on call and fielded \nthe initial call from the Claimant while attending church. She agreed that Claimant had \nstated that her back was acting up. The following questioning then occurred: \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n11 \n \nQ. And did you ask her if this was something that happened at work or whether it \nwas not work-related? \nA: Yes. \nQ: And did she represent to you that it was a non-work-related problem? \nYes. The exact word she used was “chronic.” \nQ: Chronic, okay. And was she asking to go to Access, the company doctor, or to \nthe ER. \nA: She asked to go to the ER. \nQ: Okay. And is it a practice of Hiram Shaddox (Respondents) to send people to \nthe ER for back strains, back pulls, shoulder, knee, if it’s not an emergent situation? \nA: No. If you are a workman - - If it’s a workman’s comp-related injury and it’s not \nemergent, we do not go to the ER. (Tr. P. 33 – 35) \nMs. Dailing went on to testify that being on-call really is for staffing emergencies \nwhen someone doesn’t come in or someone has to call out because she is sick and so \nwhen the Claimant was calling to notify her, so that if she did need to go, then I could find \ncoverage or then I could just go in. In regard to the conversation with the Claimant, Ms. \nDailing testified “I can remember the conversation vividly, everything about it.” She denied \nreceiving any bonus for preventing workers’ compensation claims and further stated, “In \nmy opinion, if you get hurt at work and we can - - and you need that workman’s comp, \nthat’s what it is there for, and we’re going to try our best to retain you because we are all \nabout retention.” (Tr. P. 36, 37) \nThe Respondents then called Shawnia Young, who testified that she works as the \npersonnel  director  for  the  Respondents. She  denied  that  anyone  in  administration  or \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n12 \n \nmanagement was made aware of the Claimant’s preexisting back problems, when she \nwas  hired.  She  was  not  aware that the  Claimant  had  in  fact  had  two  back  surgeries \nincluding a fusion and she wasn’t aware of the contention that the Claimant made about \na permanent 50-pound lifting restriction. She also agreed that if she had been aware of \nthe significant back problems, the Claimant would not have been placed in a CNA position \nin the facility. She stated, “Our job description states that you have to be able to lift 35 to \n50 pounds and be able to push, pull, and move a distance.”  She also agreed that each \npatient has an individual care plan, and in regard to this particular patient, the plan called \nfor a “multi-person assist” to turn him. (Tr. P. 39 - 41)  \nThe  Respondents  then  called  Kari  Novak as  their  fourth  and final  witness.    She \ntestified that she is a Registered Nurse working in the Director of Nursing position for the \nRespondent. She knew and had worked with the Claimant and had interviewed her when \nshe was hired and that she had previously worked for the Respondents. The Claimant \nwas familiar with the type of work she would be doing. In the interview process, Ms. Stiles \nwould have provided a description of the job and the physical requirements. Ms. Novak \nwent  on  to  agree  that  the  Claimant  had  never  informed  them  of  a  50-pound  lifting \nrestriction and of hardware in her back. She stated, “If I had known that she had a lifting \nrestriction of 50 pounds, I would not have hired her for the position.” She also agreed that \neven if she did not have a lifting restriction, it would not have been appropriate for her to \nbe doing a transfer or repositioning of a very large patient. She also agreed that a bariatric \npatient was someone between 250 and 350 pounds and due to their size, they may be \nplaced in larger equipment and that they required two people to deal with their mobility. \nThis would have been documented in their care plan. “So, the expectation and the training \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n13 \n \nis that nurses and CNA’s work together, so if the CNA cannot find another CNA to assist \nthem, then the nurse is the next appropriate person to ask.” She went on to testify that \nshe participated in trying to reach out to the Claimant multiple times to see if the Claimant \nneeded  to  be  on  the  work  schedule  and  that  the  Claimant  was  unresponsive  to  the \ninquiries. (Tr. 42 – 47)   \nThe Claimant’s medical Exhibit consisted of 27 pages. Claimant presented to \nAccess Medical Clinic on March 23, 2025, where she was seen by S. Leigh, APRN. The \nreport provided for an onset of symptoms on that day when the Claimant reached over a \nbed to pull a patient and felt a sharp pain in her right lower back that radiated down her \nleft leg. The Claimant reported a past history of back surgery. A CT of the lower spine \nwas  ordered  and  there  were  no  acute  findings.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P,  1,2)  The  discharge \ninstructions  did  not  give  a  date  for  restrictions  to  apply  through and  provided  that the \nClaimant should be able to participate in all duties and activities due to the lack of a date. \n(Cl. Ex. 1, P. 3,4) \nThe Claimant returned to Access Medical on March 28, 2025, where she was seen \nby  J.  Steves,  APRN, with  the  report  stating it was a follow up Workers’ Compensation \nvisit. The report provided that the Claimant was suffering from chronic back pain that was \nbeing treated with prednisone, and that Claimant was complaining of low back pain, which \nwas  increasing,  swelling  across  the  back  and  numbness  to  the  lateral  right  thigh.  The \nreport  provided  for  a  lumbar  sprain  with  tenderness  to  palpitation  of  the  lumbar  region \nmusculature  and  spine,  and  listed  a  low  back  strain,  a  lumbar  sprain,  and  right  sided \nsciatica. The report provided that the claimant did not work for 14 days. (Cl. Ex. 1. P. 5 – \n9) The Claimant then again returned to Access Medical on April 2, 2025, where she was \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n14 \n \nagain seen by J. Steves, APRN. The report provided that it was a follow up for a Workers’ \nCompensation Claim. The report provided that the Claimant had not obtained X-rays yet \nand was assessed with low back pain, lumbar sprain, and right sided sciatica with lumbar \nradiculopathy. The Claimant was instructed to stay as active as possible but to stop or \nreduce any activity that caused pain. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 10 – 14)   \nAn MRI of the spine both with and without contrast was taken on April 23, 2025. \nThis was compared to an MRI of October 29, 2022. Under impression, the report provided \nthat  there  was a postop  surgical  change  at  the  L4-5  level  without  spinal  or  foraminal \nstenosis with no abnormal enhancement. A right paracentral disc herniation was noted at \nT12 – L1 causing mild to moderate lateral recess narrowing. No cord compression was \nseen and no foraminal stenosis was identified and no other lumbar abnormalities were \nnoted. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 15, 16) \nOn December  5,  2025,  the  Claimant  was  admitted  to  Cox  Health  in  Harrison, \ndischarged the next day, and seen by Dr. Angela N. Spurgeon. The report provided that \nthe Claimant presented to discuss imaging and was last seen in October for mid and low \nback pain with radicular pain in both legs. There was a history of a lumbar fusion with only \na  short  relief  of  pain  after  surgery  in  2023.  The pain was constant, and  the  Claimant \nreported balance problems. Under assessment and plan, the report provided for lumbar \nradiculopathy,  lumbar  spondylosis,  and  a  S/P  lumbar  spinal  fusion  at  L4-5.    Various \nprevious imaging modalities were reviewed. The Claimant’s primary complaint was for \nlow  back pain and  right  greater  than  left  leg  pain.  Findings  were  suggestive of  chronic \nright  radiculopathy.  The  report  provided  it  was  felt  that  the  Claimant  would  not  benefit \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n15 \n \nfrom a lumbar fusion, but a spinal cord stimulator was discussed and agreed to.  (Cl. Ex. \n1, P. 17 – 21) \nThe Claimant had previously been admitted to Cox Health on October 3, 2025, for \none day. The report on the above date provided the Claimant presented to discuss mid \nand low back pain with radicular pain in both legs. The report provided that the Claimants \nhistory provided for a previous neck surgery and a back surgery in 2023.  The report again \nprovided that Claimant’s primary complaint was low back pain and right-greater-than-left \nleg pain. The Claimant was seen by Dr. Angela N. Surgeon. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 22 – 26)   \n The Respondents also  submitted  a medical  exhibit  that  was  admitted  into  the \nrecord  without  objection. An  MRI  of  the  lumbar  spine  from  Baxter  Regional  dated \nSeptember  29,  2021,  provided  there  was  a  mild  degenerative  concentric  disc  bulge  at \nT12-L1. Additionally moderate bilateral facet degeneration hypertrophy at L4-5 as well as \na  synovial  cyst  coming  from the  facet  on  the  left was  observed.  This  caused severe \nsynovial foraminal stenosis on the left at L4-5 and also displaced the right L5 nerve root \nwithin the lateral recess. Additionally, there was a mild stenosis on the left at L4-5. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 1,2) A CT of the Lumbar spine dated May 15, 2022, again from Baxter Regional, \nprovided postoperative findings at the level of L4-5, and within the posterior soft tissues. \nIf the symptoms persist, the report provided that an MRI of the Lumbar spine might be \nbeneficial. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 3)   \n On June 15, 2022, the Claimant presented to Baxter Regional for an MRI of the \nLumbar  Spine  and  a  comparison  with  the  CT  from  May  15,  2022,  and  the  MRI  from \nSeptember 29, 2021. The report provided under impression that a previous laminectomy \nat  L5  showed  no  apparent  complication.  Some  edema  in  the  pars  intra- articularis \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n16 \n \nbilaterally at L5 might indicate developing spondylolysis. There was no apparent fracture \nor bony  defects.  Moderate  bilateral  facet  degenerative  change  at  L4-5  and  mild \ndegenerative  disc  changes were  seen.  No  spinal  stenosis was  seen  but  moderate \nbilateral foraminal stenosis was observed at L4-5. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 4,5) \n Another CT scan was provided at Baxter Regional on September 2, 2022. Post-\nsurgical changes along  with spinal  spondylosis  was  again  noted.  There was  air  at  the \nlevel of the L4-5 region adjacent to the thecal sac, but it could have been arising from the \nfacet joint. There was more air in this region on the previous study of May 15, 2022, but \nthe patient was recently postoperative at that time I believe. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 6) \n The Claimant obtained another MRI of the lumbar spine from Baxter Regional on \nOctober  29,  2022.  The  report  provided under  impression  that  there  was  a  previous \ndecompression at L4-5 and there was bilateral facet joint effusions and bilateral synovial \ncysts, which were unchanged on the right and new on the left. The results in the narrowing \nof the left lateral recess might impinge upon the traversing left L5 and left S1 nerve roots. \nThere was also a mild narrowing of the central canal. The right sided synovial cyst was \nunchanged. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 7,8) \n Chart notes from the Washington Regional Family Clinic were also introduced for \nthe period of November 29, 2022, through January 10, 2023. The Claimant was taking \nSertraline,   Gabapentin,   Percocet,   Levothyroxine   Sodium,   Meloxicam,   Tizanidine, \nLamotrigine,  Abilify,  and  Trazodone. The  records  provided  the  Claimant  had  received \nneck  and  back  surgery  along  with  multiple  other  surgeries.  The  Claimant  presented  in \nNovember  of  2022  for  a  review  of  issues involving her  lumbar  spine.  She  had a  past \nhistory of ACDF (a type of surgery involving the neck) in 2018 and chronic low back pain \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n17 \n \nwith radiation of pain along the posterior lateral left leg to the foot. She reported balance \nissues.  A  neurosurgery  questionnaire  provided  that  her  worst  pain  was  with  her  back, \nneck, and leg, and that she had suffered this pain since 2018. The chart notes referred to \nX-rays and MRI’s involving Claimant’s spine. It was noted that Claimant began taking \nPercocet as one of her medications. During this time period, there was a discussion about \nconservative treatment versus surgical treatment for the Claimant’s lumbar  pathology. \nThere was a reference to chronic progressive back and bilateral pain. (Resp. Ex. 1. P. 9 \n– 31) \n On  January  6,  2023,  through  January 7,  2023, while  at  Washington  Regional \nMedical Center, Claimant received a L4-5 posterior instrumented fusion with an insertion \nof a biomechanical interbody device via transforaminal lumbar approach for disc space \narthrodesis at L4-5, plus a L4-5 posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis, with a decompression \nlumbar laminectomy at L4-5, bilateral L4-5 facetectomies with bilateral foraminotomies, \nand a harvesting of a local autograft and also the use of a cadaveric autograph. The report \nwent on to provide that there were no issues or complications noted during the procedure. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 32 -39) \n A second set of Chart Notes from the Washington Regional Family Clinic for the \nperiod between February 14, 2023, thru July 14, 2024, provided that the Claimant was \nstill receiving X-rays of her lumbosacral spine and still on multiple medications with many \nof the medications commonly used for pain, such as Oxycodone. X-rays taken in February \nof  2023, provided  that  the  various pieces  of hardware  placed  in  her  spine  were  in  the \nproper place with good alignment and there was no evidence of hardware failure.  The \nsurgical incision appeared well healed with no signs of infection. It also appeared that the \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n18 \n \nClaimant  continued  to suffer  issues  with her back and again  returned for X-rays  of the \nlumbar  region  of her  back  on  March  14,  2023,  and  the  findings  provided  the  fusion \nhardware was intact but that posterior decompressive laminectomy changes were noted. \nStable  multilevel  facet  degeneration  was  noted.  X-rays  of  the  lumbosacral  spine  were \nagain  taken  on  August  1,  2023, which showed  stable  alignment  with  no  evidence  of \nhardware failure. The report further provided that an MRI of the cervical spine was going \nto be repeated for Claimant’s known pseudoarthrosis and C6 radiculopathy. A gradual \nincrease in activity for the lumbar spine was discussed. The records seen to provide that \nnumerous clinic appointments were not documented from March 7, 2023, thru July 17, \n2024. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 40 – 60) \n Chart  notes  from  Michael  Mann,  APRN,  from  July  30,  2024,  thru November  12, \n2024, provided that the Claimant presented for pain in her neck, middle back, and lower \nback.  Claimant  stated the  pain  was  mainly  in  her  neck  and  back.  An  inspection  of  her \nlumbar spine revealed hyperextension of her lumbar spine and bilateral palpitation of her \nlumbar facets reproduced back pain. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 61- 65) \n Another set of chart notes from the Washington Regional Family Practice Clinic for \nthe period of November 18, 2024, thru November 25, 2024, provided that the Claimant \ncontinued to suffer lumbar back and neck pain with an increased frequency of headaches. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 66 – 69) \n The records provided that the Claimant again presented to Michael Mann, APRN, \non multiple occasions for the period between December 10, 2024, thru January 29, 2025, \nwith chronic pain complaints. The pain locations were her lower back, mid back, and neck, \nwith the Claimant reporting that the pain was as high as a 9 out of 10. The plan provided \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n19 \n \nfor  the  treatment  of  a  chronic  pain  syndrome.  The  Claimant  was  still  being  prescribed \nOxycodone for her pain. The Claimant returned on January 29, 2025, for an appointment \nfor her chronic pain, but there was a lengthy evaluation regarding the Claimant’s recent \ninjuries to her left knee and wrist. The report provided that the multisite pain was currently \nworse in her neck, mid back, and low back. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 70 – 87) \n The Claimant again returned to the Washington Regional Family Clinic on March \n3, 2025, for X-rays of her lumbosacral spine. The records provided that the Claimant had \napparently  fallen on the snow, and  she  had noticed  increased  low back  pain  with  pain \nextending into her lateral legs with numbness and tingling into the planter surface of her \nfeet. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 88 – 92) \n On March 21, 2025, the Claimant again presented to Michael Mann, APRN, and \nthe  chart  notes provided  for  a  refill  request  for  Hydrocodone.  (Resp.  Ex.  1,  P.  93)  The \nClaimant then presented to Baxter Regional Medical Center on March 23, 2025, for a CT \nwhich was compared to the CT from February 21, 2025.  Under impression, the report \nprovided for the finding of no acute process, but did mention the previous posterior fusion \nand  disc  fusion  at  L4-5  and  a  laminectomy  at  L4-5  through  L5.    Degenerative  lumbar \nspondylosis without stenosis was also noted with mild chronic foraminal stenosis on the \nleft at L2-3, mild bilaterally at L3-4, and mild on the right at L4-5. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 94-96)   \n The Respondents also submitted non-medical evidence that was admitted without \nobjection as Respondents Ex. 2. The first set of documents were unemployment records \nfrom  the  Arkansas  Department  of  Workforce  Services  for  the  period  dated  March  16, \n2022. These documents provided that the Claimant applied for unemployment benefits \non  March  8,  2022,  for  the  reason  of  a  personal  illness,  injury,  and  due  to  a  personal \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n20 \n \ndisabling  condition. The  documents  provided that  the  Claimant  was  employed  by  Twin \nLakes Therapy and Living, when she became unable to work. The employer responded \nthat the Claimant started work on July 21, 2021, with employment ending on February 25, \n2022. A BRMC Neurosurgery and Spine note provided that the Claimant could return to \nwork on March 7, 2022, with no more than two hours of continuance standing or walking \nand  that  she  required frequent  breaks.  The  records  provided  that  the  Claimant  was \ndischarged from work on March 8, 2022, due to the Claimant having violated company \npolicy and apparently failing to call in and failing to show. The records further provided \nthat due to a disabling injury, the Claimant was unable to perform suitable work and that \nconsequently,  she  was  ineligible  for unemployment  benefits.  The  records showed \nClaimant did not attempt to preserve her job prior to leaving. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 1 – 25) \n A second set of documents from the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services \ndated January 12, 2023, provided that the Claimant again filed for unemployment benefits \nwith her employer being the Springs of Creekside Health, with her first day of work there \nbeing July 21, 2022, and her last day of work being November 25, 2022. The response \nfrom  the  employer  provided  the  Claimant  took  a  voluntary  medical  leave  beginning \nNovember 25, 2022, and that the last time they touched base with her, the Claimant was \nwaiting for surgery. (Rest. Ex. 2, P. 26 -32) \n A third set of documents from the Arkansas Department of Workforces Services \ndated February 2, 2023, provided that the Claimant again filed for unemployment benefits \nwith her employer again being the Springs of Creekside Health. The Claimant contended \nshe was unable to perform her normal job duties due to a personal disabling condition \nand that her job made her back issue worse. The documents provided that the Claimant \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n21 \n \nasked for and was granted a leave of absence. The response from the employer provided \nthat the Employee took a voluntary medical leave of absence and had not returned and \nthat they had not heard anything about a return-to-work date. Her employment began on \nJuly 21, 2022, and ended on November 24, 2022. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 33-44) \n A fourth set of documents from the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services \ndated July 8, 2024, provided that the Claimant again filed for unemployment benefits on \nJanuary  8,  2024,  with  the  employer  being  Gassville  Nursing  Center.  The  Claimant \ncontended that the employer did not follow its policies and that the reason for her absence \nwas personal illness. The employer responded that the Claimant’s last day of work was \nDecember 29, 2023, and that she texted her supervisor stating that she quit. (Resp. Ex. \n2, P 45 – 50) \n The records also included documents from Respondent Hiram Shaddox Health & \nRehab dated March 12, 2025, which included the job description for a Certified Nursing \nAssistance. Among the multiple requirements spelled out, the employee must be able to \npush, pull, move, and/or lift a reasonable number of pounds (35/50) to a reasonable height \n(3-5 ft.) and be able to push, pull, move, and/or carry such weight a reasonably minimum \ndistance (5-10 ft.). (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 51 – 61) \n The Respondents also included text messages and the dates of phone calls from \nMarch  15,  2025, through  April  25,  2025,  between  the  Claimant  and  the  Respondent \nemployer.  The records  provided there  were  numerous  texts  and  calls  made  to  the \nClaimant by  the  Respondent. It  appeared that  the  Claimant  did  respond  on  Sunday, \nMarch 23 at 10:47, stating “Ok thanks for checking on me.”  A response to the Claimant \nprovided the Respondent had changed the Claimant’s schedule to “3p-7p until you can \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n22 \n \ndo an 8-hour shift and have your back issues under control.”  One text inquired about the \nClaimant’s restrictions and Claimant responded that she was having back issues.  She \nlater texted, “Call my lawyer, I’m not a load (sic) to talk about case in hand.” Another text \nfrom the Respondent provided that the Claimant was unexcused until they received the \npaperwork  requested.  The  Claimant  was  also  questioned  about  her  leave  of  absence \npaperwork.  The  Claimant  eventually  asked  about  workers’  compensation  and  was \ninformed that this matter was not a workers’ compensation claim. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 62 – \n80) \nA Form AR-N dated March 23, 2025, provided that the Claimant’s date of injury \nwas March 23, 2025. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 82) Claimant filed an AR – C form dated March 24, \n2025, stating she injured her back in a work-related injury. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 83) \nEmployee Memorandum Witness statements were also made part of the record. \nA facility employee signed a statement on March 23, 2025, that the employee was outside \non  break  with  another  employee  when  the  Claimant  came  out.  The  employee  was \napparently  also  having  back  issues  and  was  telling  another  employee  about  what  the \ndoctors plan was for her. The Claimant overheard the conversation and told the employee \nthat she “wouldn’t do what they all are telling me to do.”  The Claimant went on and stated \nthat  she  had  hurt  her  back  while  turning  a  patient.  A  second  Employee  Memorandum \ndated March 25, 2025, provided that the CNA (referring to the Claimant) stated that her \nback hurt from a previous car wreck and asked to go home. The memorandum from a \nLPN  further  stated  that  the  Claimant  had  not  asked  for  assistance  from her to  turn  or \ntransfer a resident. The third Memorandum which was dated March 26, 2025, and made \nby Emily Dailing, who also testified, provided that she was on call when she received a \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n23 \n \nphone call from the Claimant, who stated that her back was hurting and that she needed \nto go to the ER. The memorandum provided that the back issue was a chronic problem \nand that she had back pain for a while. The Claimant was questioned about this being a \nworkers’ compensation claim, and the Claimant responded no, that it had been going on \nfor a while. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 84 – 86)       \n A First Report of Injury Form was prepared on April 2, 2025, which provided that \nthe  Claimant  suffered  a  sprain/strain  of  the  lumbar  back.  (Resp.  Ex.  2,  P.  87)  A \nTermination of Employment document dated April 25, 2025, provided that the Claimant’s \nemployment was terminated and that her last day of work was March 23, 2025. (Resp. \nEx. 2, P. 88) \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 she is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor the claimed injury to her back. In determining whether the claimant has sustained her \nburden of proof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the \nbenefit of the doubt to either party. Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, \n298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 (1989). Further, the Commission has the duty to translate \nevidence  on  all  issues  before  it  into  findings  of  fact. Weldon  v.  Pierce  Brothers \nConstruction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nIn regard to the current claim before the Commission, Claimant contends that she \ninjured her back on March 23, 2025, while attempting to move or turn a large resident of \nthe facility who was covered with feces and flashing his call light. She testified that she \nattempted to obtain help, and when help failed to arrive, she pulled the draw sheet to turn \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n24 \n \nthe patient by herself and as she pulled, he went to the right side of the draw sheet, and \nshe felt some pain in her lower back. After this occurred and once finished with her task, \nshe  went  to  the  nurses’ station, told  the  charge  nurse about  what  happened, and  was \nthen sent to the emergency room. She testified that the injury to her back was above the \nlumbar  region  and  in  the  middle of  her  back.  She stated  that  she was  sent  to  the \nemergency room at Baxter Regional where she received X-rays and CAT scans. \nUnder  cross  examination,  the  Claimant  was questioned  about failing  to mention \nthat the resident was covered with feces during her deposition. She responded that “I – \ndon’t have an answer for that.” When the Claimant was questioned about the Respondent \nattempting to contact her in regard to off work slips and FMLA, she responded that she \nhad run out of cell phone minutes. Then when questioned about the Respondent receiving \ntext messages from her, she then responded that she had some cell phone time available \nduring that period. She  admitted having two  previous  back  surgeries  and that  she had \nbeen  instructed  by  her  doctors  to  not  lift  over  50  pounds.  She  claimed  that  she  had \ndiscussed that fact with the Respondent when she was hired. She also admitted that she \nhad been approved for Social Security Disability but could not survive on the payments \nand  then  returned  to  work. She agreed  that  she  was  completely  unable  to  work and \nreturned to work without a new medical assessment. \nThe Claimant was also questioned about her mention of mid back pain, and she \nstated that she continued to hold the position that there was not any mention of mid back \npain in her medical records. When she was specifically questioned about the appearance \nof mid-back pain appearing in her medical records with the pain measuring a seven (7) \nand  spiking  to a ten  (10) on  November  24, 2024,  a  date prior  to the claimed Workers’ \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n25 \n \nCompensation Injury, and when asked if she was aware of it, she responded “Apparently \nI  was  there.”  Under  additional  cross  examination,  she  stated  she  had  always  had \nproblems with her lower back but not her mid-pack. When specifically questioned about \nmedical records providing for mid-back pain, she responded that she did not remember \ntelling  a  doctor  that,  even  though  that  particular-doctor  visit  was  within  60  days  of  the \nalleged injury date. When asked if no mid-back pain was her testimony, she responded \n“I’m saying that is my testimony.” \nThe  Respondents  called  nurse  Kimberly  Simino  who testified  that  she  knew  the \nClaimant and had participated in an investigation of the Claimant’s alleged injuries. She \ntestified that the Claimant had told her that she was hurting from a previous car wreck \ninjury and needed to go home. Emily Sueann Dailing, a Registered Nurse who worked \nfor  the  Respondents  as  the  Assistant  Director  of  Nursing, and  who  was on  call  and  at \nchurch when she received a call from the Claimant, testified that the claimant stated on \nthe phone that she was suffering from a chronic problem and asked to go to the ER. The \nRespondents  also  called  Shawnia Young,  the  personnel  director  for  the  Respondents. \nShe testified that no one in administration or management was aware of the Claimant’s \nback  problems  when  she  was hired, and they  were not  aware  of  the  50-pound  lifting \nrestriction  and  the  Claimant’s  preexisting  back  problems.  The  final  witness  for  the \nRespondents was Kari Novak, a Registered Nurse, and the Director of Nursing for the \nRespondents.  She testified that she would not have hired the Claimant if she was aware \nof  her  lifting  restriction  and  even  without  the  restriction,  the  Claimant  should  have  not \nbeen moving bariatric patients by herself. She also testified that she had reached out to \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n26 \n \nthe  Claimant  multiple  times after  the  alleged  work  incident and  the  Claimant  was \nunresponsive.    \nIn regard to the claimant’s medical that was entered into the record, the initial visit \nto Access Medical Clinic on March 23, 2025, and S. Leigh, APRN, included a CT of the \nlower spine that provided for no acute findings. The Claimant returned to Access Medical \non  March  28,  2025,  and  the  report  provided that it  was  a  follow  up  for  a  workers’ \ncompensation claim and that the Claimant was suffering from chronic back pain that was \nbeing treated by Prednisone. The Claimant’s medical provided for a history of lower and \nmid back pain, with a lumbar fusion in 2023. The records also provided for a neck surgery \nin 2023. \nThe   Respondents   medical   exhibit   provided Claimant   received an   MRI   on \nSeptember 29, 2021, which provided for a mild degenerative concentric disc bulge at T12-\nL1, along with moderate bilateral facet degeneration hypertrophy at L4-5.  She received \na second MRI at Baxter Regional on May 15, 2022, of her lumbar spine and the report \nmentioned  a previous  CT  on  May  15,  2022,  and  the  two  imaging  modalities  were \ncompared.  \nThe multiple medical records entered into the record by the Respondents provided \nthat the Claimant had received multiple MRI’s and X-rays  regarding  her  back,  was  on \nvarious pain killers, and had been seen by Michaeal Mann, APRN, for chronic back pain \nfor the period before the alleged work related incident as recently as December 10, 2024, \nthrough  January  29, 2025, and  was  seen for  pain  in  her neck, middle  back, and  lower \nback. The Claimant’s last visit to Michael Mann, APRN, prior to the alleged workers’ \ncompensation claim was on March 21, 2025, for a refill of Hydrocodone. It is also noted \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n27 \n \nthat when the Claimant presented to Baxter Regional Medical Center on March 23, 2025, \nfor a CT, which was compared to a previous CT on February 21, 2025, the report provided \nfor no acute process.    \nUnder workers’ compensation law in Arkansas, a compensable  injury  must  be \nestablished  by medical  evidence  supported by  objective  findings  and  medical opinions \naddressing  compensability and must  be  stated  within  a  degree  of  medical  certainty. \nSmith-Blair,  Inc.  v.  Jones,  77  Ark.  App.  273,  72  S.W.3d  560  (2002).  Speculation  and \nconjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence. Liaromatis v. Baxter County Regional \nHospital,  95  Ark.  App.  296,  236  S.W.3d  524  (2006).  More  specifically,  to  prove  a \ncompensable injury, the claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) \nan injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal \nor external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in A.C.A. 11-9-\n102 (16) establishing the injury and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident \nand identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  If the claimant fails to establish any of \nthe requirements for establishing the compensability of the claim, compensation must be \ndenied. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 s.W.2d 876 (1997). \nAn  injury for  which  the  claimant  seeks  benefits must  be  established  by  medical \nevidence supported by objective findings which are those findings that cannot come under \nthe voluntary control of the patient. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16). It is also important to note that \nthe claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Lambert v. Gerber Products \nCo. 14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985).  \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n28 \n \nHere the medical records clearly provide that the claimant suffered from lower and \nmiddle back issues and even neck problems for a number of years prior to the alleged \nworkers’ compensation injury. Under Arkansas Workers’ Compensation law, it is also \nclear  that an employer takes  the employee as it finds  him or  her and  employment \ncircumstances that aggravate preexisting conditions are compensable. Heritage Baptist \nTemple v. Robinson, 82 Ark. App. 460, 120 S.W.3d 150 (2003). \nFurther, a claimant is not required in every case to establish the casual connection \nbetween a work-related incident and an injury with an expert medical opinion.  See Wal-\nmart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999).  Arkansas courts \nhave  long  recognized  that  a  causal  relationship  may  be  established  between  an \nemployment-related  incident  and  a  subsequent  physical  injury  based  on  evidence  that \nthe injury manifested itself within a reasonable period of time following the incident so that \nthe  injury  is  logically  attributable  to  the  incident,  where  there  is  no  other  reasonable \nexplanation for the injury. Hail v. Pitman Construction Co. 235 Ark. 104, 357 A.W.2d 263 \n(1962).  \nHere, the  claimant suffered  with lumbar spine,  mid-spine,  and  neck  injuries, for \nyears prior to the claimed work-related injury. It is clear that the job of a CRNA is difficult \nbut  important  in  the  care  of  patients  and  residents.  With  that  said,  it  is  also  found  and \ndetermined that the Claimant’s testimony was at times an improvement on the facts. The \ntestimony in regard to the comments and actions by the Claimant that was provided by \nthe  four  witnesses who  worked  with  the  Claimant  is  clearly  entitled  to  more  weight. \nAdditionally,  no  medical  reports  of  record make  objective  findings  that connect  the \nclaimed injury on March 23, 2025, to the chronic back problems of the Claimant.  \n\nThealin Stiles – H501837 \n29 \n \nAs stated above, the workers’ compensation claimant bears the burden of proving \nthe compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (4) (E) (i).  \nA compensable injury is one that was the result of an accident that arose in the course of \nhis or employment and that it grew out of or resulted from the employment.  See Moore \nv. Darling Store Fixtures, 22 Ar. App 21, 732 S.W.2d 496 (1987) Preponderance of the \nevidence  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or  convincing  force. Metropolitan \nNat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark App. 263, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). Based upon the \navailable evidence in the case at bar, there is no alternative but to find that the Claimant \nhas failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that the claimed injury to her \nback on March 23, 2025, is  in  fact  work  related and compensable under  the Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Act. \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 prove by a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that her claim for an injury to her back, whether \nmiddle or lower, on March 23, 2025, is a compensable claim under the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation  Act. Consequently,  all  other  issues  are  moot. If  not  already  paid,  the \nrespondents are ordered 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. H501837 THEALIN STILES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HIRAM SHADDOX HEALTH AND REHAB, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SELF-INSURANCE TRUST/ CCMSI, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 3, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:41.579Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501837-2026-02-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STILES_THEALIN_H501837_20260203.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}