{"id":"alj-H503667-2026-03-03","awcc_number":"H503667","decision_date":"2026-03-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Rodney Carver","employer_name":"Kohler Company","title":"CARVER VS. KOHLER COMPANY AWCC# H503667 March 03, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CARVER_RODNEY_H503667_20260303.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CARVER_RODNEY_H503667_20260303.pdf","text_length":14072,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H503667 \n \nRODNEY CARVER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nvs \n \nKOHLER COMPANY, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCORVEL ENTERPRISE CLAIMS, INC., TPA RESPONDENT \n  \n \nAMENDED OPINION FILED 3 MARCH 2026 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge \nJayO. Howe on 4 December 2025 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant appeared pro se. \n \nMr. Jarrod Parrish, Worley, Wood & Parrish, PA, appeared on behalf of the respondents. \n \nI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A Prehearing Order was filed on 18 September 2025 and admitted to the record as \nCommission’s Exhibit No 1. The parties agreed to the following Stipulations at the hearing: \nSTIPULATIONS \n \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \n  jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n 2. Employee/self-insured employer/TPA relationship existed at all relevant  \n  times, including on or about 15 July 2024. \n \n 3. At the relevant time, the claimant was earning an average weekly wage of  \n  $939.12, which would entitle him to weekly benefits\n1\n of $626    \n  for temporary total disability (TTD) and $470 for permanent partial disability \n  (PPD). \n \n 4. The respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n \n \n \n1\n The Opinion originally filed on 27 February 2026 included a scrivener’s error relating to the listed \nbenefit amounts. There are no substantive changes in this Amended Order. \n\nR. CARVER- H503667 \n2 \n \nISSUES TO BE LITIGATED \n \n 1. Whether the claimant sustained a compensable back injury by specific  \n  incident on or about 15 July 2024.  \n \n 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to TTD benefits from 14 February 2025 to a  \n  date yet to be determined. \n \n All other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \n The parties’ Contentions are set out in their respective Prehearing Questionnaire \nresponses: \nClaimant \n \nMy lead supervisor moved me to a different department where I was \ngiven a task of pulling a pallet around the warehouse. The pallet jack \nneeds to be pulled and different parts need to be uploaded by hand. \nWhile doing this I hurt my back. \n \nRespondent \n \nRespondents maintain that claimant did not suffer a compensable \ninjury on or about July 15, 2024, or at any other time while working for \nRespondents. In the event compensability is established, Claimant has \nnot established entitlement to additional medical or temporary total \ndisability benefits. Respondents assert a lack of notice until April 3, \n2025. Therefore, in the event compensability can be established, \nRespondents’ liability for benefits cannot start before that date. To the \nextent Claimant has drawn short term or long-term disability benefits, \nand to the extent Respondents have paid all or some of the premium for \nthat coverage, Respondents assert a credit. \n \nThe Respondents reserve the right to raise additional contentions, or to \nmodify those stated herein, pending the completion of discovery.  \n \nII. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized below, \nand having heard testimony from the witnesses, observing their demeanor, I make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n\nR. CARVER- H503667 \n3 \n \n2. The Stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he  \n  suffered a compensable injury to his back by specific incident. \n \n4. Because the claimant has failed to prove a compensable injury, the remaining \n  issues are moot and will not be addressed in this Opinion. \n \nIII. ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts as outlined above are reasonable and accepted. It is settled that \nthe Commission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). A \nclaimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \n The claimant testified on his own behalf at the hearing. The respondents called Mr. \nPhillip Cantrell, Mr. Al “Dino” Morris, and Ms. Lekeisha Adams as witnesses. The record \nconsists of the hearing transcript and the following exhibits: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the \n18 September 2025 Prehearing Order); Respondents’ Exhibit No 1 (one index page and 72 \npages of medical records); and Respondents’ Exhibit No 2 (one index page and 16 pages of \nnon-medical records). \n \n\nR. CARVER- H503667 \n4 \n \n Claimant’s Testimony \n The claimant is a 44-year-old man who began working for the respondent-employer \nKohler on 31 October 2023. He worked primarily in the assembly plant putting together \nfaucet components. He testified that he was working as extra help for overtime on 15 July \n2024 when he hurt his back while moving product with a pallet jack. He made no attempt \nto report any injury. Unaware of any alleged workplace injury, his supervisor sent him \nhome without incident once the extra work was completed.  \n According to his testimony, the claimant continued going to work per usual until \ngoing to see his primary care physician (PCP) Dr. Kimberly Golden at the end of August \n2024 for his “unbearable” back pain. [TR at 19.] Dr. Golden prescribed some medication and \ncompleted some paperwork for a light-duty accommodation at work. He then continued \nworking until Dr. Golden took him off work in February of 2025. He has not since returned \nto work and eventually received notice of his termination on 19 July 2025. \n At his deposition before the hearing, the claimant testified that he had no history of \nback problems before his alleged workplace injury. On cross-examination, however, he \nacknowledged that his medical records showed him seeking treatment for back pain as \nrecently as April, May, and December of 2023. He also acknowledged other inconsistencies \nregarding his supposed date of injury and cause(s) of injury in his disability application \npaperwork. \n Respondents’ Witness Mr. Phillip Cantrell \n Mr. Cantrell testified that he was a supervisor at Kohler around the time that the \nclaimant alleges that he was injured on the job. He denied any specific recollection of 15 \nJuly 2024 but stated that the claimant never reported a workplace injury to him. \n \n \n\nR. CARVER- H503667 \n5 \n \n Respondents’ Witness Mr. Al “Dino” Morris \n Mr. Morris testified that he, too, was a supervisor at Kohler around the time that \nthe claimant alleges that he was injured on the job. He, too, denied any specific recollection \nof 15 July 2024 but stated that the claimant never reported a workplace injury to him. \n Respondents’ Witness Ms. Lekeisha Adams \n Ms. Adams testified that she is the Environmental Health and Safety Program \nManager at Kohler. She stated that new employee orientation, which the claimant \nparticipated in, includes information about the process for reporting workplace injuries. \nAccording to her testimony, she became aware of the claimant’s alleged workplace injury in \nMarch of 2025 after he applied for short-term disability indicating the same. She began an \ninvestigation of his claim. When she first asked the claimant about his alleged incident \nand/or injury, he was unable to recall when he might have hurt himself. He later offered an \nexplanation for injuring himself in another location outside of the building where he was \nworking on the day of his alleged injury. She also testified that the claimant was not \nactually at work on the day he alleges his injury to have occurred. \n Medical Records \n The claimant did not offer any medical evidence into the record to support his claim.  \nDISCUSSION \nThe respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. The initial matter in \nthis claim is whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury by specific on 15 July \n2024. To prove a compensable injury by specific incident, he must establish four (4) factors \nby a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the injuries arose out of and in the course of his \nemployment; (2) the injuries caused internal or external harm to the body that required \nmedical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) the injuries are established by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings, which are those findings which cannot \n\nR. CARVER- H503667 \n6 \n \ncome under the voluntary control of the patient; and (4) the injuries were caused by a \nspecific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty \nPlastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). \"Objective findings\" are those findings \nwhich cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(16)(A)(i). The requirement that a compensable injury must be established by medical \nevidence supported by objective findings applies only to the existence and extent of the \ninjury. Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997). \nThe employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i). Preponderance of the \nevidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat'l \nBank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). If a claimant fails to \nestablish by a preponderance of the evidence any of the requirements for establishing a \ncompensable injury, compensation must be denied. Mikel, supra. \nThe claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury by specific incident on 15 July 2024. First, he was not a \ncredible witness. When confronted with records that contradicted prior sworn testimony, \nthe claimant was forced to acknowledge that he was previously untruthful about not having \na history of complaints of back pain. Similarly, he offered little to account for his supposed \ndate of injury being inconsistent across different forms. Lastly, he impliedly conceded to the \nflimsiness of his version of events when he made no attempt to question Ms. Adams around \nher testimony that he was not even working on the day of his alleged injury.\n2\n Having \n \n2\n I am mindful that an employee’s possible confusion around the specific moment an injury \noccurs is not necessarily fatal to his claim, so long as the time and place of injury are \nidentifiable. In Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. v. Laster, 2015 Ark. App. 206; 465 S.W.3d \n421; 2015 Ark. App. LEXIS 262, our Court of Appeals explained:  \n \n\nR. CARVER- H503667 \n7 \n \nobserved his testimony and reviewed the record evidence, I do not find the claimant to be \ncredible. See Van Wagner, supra. \nThe claimant’s credibility troubles aside, he also failed to offer any medical evidence \ninto the record to support his claim. And he admittedly made no effort to make a report of \nan injury around the time he claims to have hurt himself. The respondents, conversely, \noffered medical records to show that the claimant had an established history of seeking \nevaluation and treatment for back pain. On 24 April 2024, for example, his PCP ordered an \nMRI because the claimant reportedly presented to an emergency department after his back \n“went out” while he was folding clothes. [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 10.] He eventually sought his \nPCP’s assistance in making a claim for disability, and she indicated that he injured himself \non 9 February 2025 (versus 15 July 2024, as he claims here) while “reaching and turning, \nstanding long periods, pulling” while “at work.” [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 71.]  \nThe record simply lacks credible testimony and is devoid of objective medical \nfindings in support of this claim. The claimant has, therefore, failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury by specific incident. \n Because the claimant has failed to prove a compensable injury, the other issues in \nthis claim are moot and will not be addressed in this Opinion. \n \n\"An injury is 'accidental' only if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable \nby time and place of occurrence[.]\" Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). In Edens v. \nSuperior Marble & Glass, our Supreme Court held that \"identifiable by time and \nplace\" meant subject to identification and did not require the claimant to specify \nthe exact time of the occurrence. 346 Ark. 487, 492, 58 S.W.3d 369, 373 (2001). A \nclaimant's inability to specify the exact date and the precise time of the accidental \ninjury is a credibility issue that the Commission may weigh. Pafford Med. Billing \nServs., Inc. v. Smith, 2011 Ark. App. 180, 381 S.W.3d 921. Still, [Claimant] must \nshow a causal relationship between his employment and the injury. Wal-Mart \nStores, Inc. v. Westbrook, 77 Ark. App. 167, 72 S.W.3d 889 (2002).  \n \nBut here, after Ms. Adams testified that the claimant was not even working on the day of \nhis alleged injury, he made no effort to explain in the alternative how and when he may \nhave injured himself while at work. \n\nR. CARVER- H503667 \n8 \n \nIV.  CONCLUSION  \n Consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this claim for initial \nbenefits is DENIED and DISMISSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H503667 RODNEY CARVER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT vs KOHLER COMPANY, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CORVEL ENTERPRISE CLAIMS, INC., TPA RESPONDENT AMENDED OPINION FILED 3 MARCH 2026 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge Ja...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:30:26.396Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H503667-2026-03-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CARVER_RODNEY_H503667_20260303.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}