{"id":"alj-H504229-2026-03-24","awcc_number":"H504229","decision_date":"2026-03-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Brenda Arnold","employer_name":"Osceola School Dist","title":"ARNOLD VS. OSCEOLA SCHOOL DIST. AWCC# H504229 March 24, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["neck","back","cervical","hip","thoracic","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Arnold_Brenda_H504229_20260324.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Arnold_Brenda_H504229_20260324.pdf","text_length":25781,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H504229 \n \n \nBRENDA ARNOLD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nOSCEOLA SCHOOL DIST., \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARK. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., \n THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 24, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on February  6,  2026, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Scott Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented   by   Ms. Melissa   Wood,   Attorney   at   Law,   Little   Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On February  6,  2026,  the  above-captioned  claim  was heard  in Jonesboro, \nArkansas.    A  pre-hearing  conference  took  place  on September  15,  2025.   The \nPrehearing Order entered on that date pursuant to the conference was admitted without \nobjection  as  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the \nstipulations, issues, and respective contentions, as amended, were properly set forth in \nthe order. \nStipulations \n The parties discussed the stipulations set forth in Commission Exhibit 1.  After an \namendment of the fourth, they are the following, which I accept: \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n2 \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The  employee/self-insured employer/third-party  administrator relationship \nexisted among the parties on October 15, 2024, the alleged date of injury. \n3. Respondents have controverted this case in its entirety. \n4. Claimant’s average weekly wage entitles him to compensation rates of \n$808.00/$606.00. \nIssues \n At  the  hearing,  the parties  discussed the  issues  set forth  in  Commission  Exhibit \n1.  The following were litigated: \n1. Whether  Claimant sustained  compensable  injuries  to  her  neck  and  lower \nback by specific incident. \n2. Whether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment of her alleged compensable injuries. \n3. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n4. Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties read as follows: \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant contends that on October 15, 2024, she was changing an autistic \nchild’s pull-up  when  he  put his  arms  around  her  neck  and hung  from  her \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n3 \nneck, causing immediate pain.  She saw Dr. James Adametz, who opined \nthat  she  required  a  cervical  fusion  at  C5-6  and  performed  this  surgery.  \nClaimant  has  continued  to  treat  with  Adametz,  who  has  tried  to  treat  her \nback conservatively.  Most recently, due to Dr. Adametz retiring, Claimant \nhas  seen  Dr.  Blake  Phillips.    He  has  scheduled  her  for  back  surgery  in \nSeptember. \nRespondents: \n1. Respondents contend that Claimant did not sustain a compensable injury \nto her neck or back on October 15, 2024.  Her current need for treatment \nis associated with pre-existing problems. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  including  medical  reports, non-medical \ndocuments,  and  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an \nopportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of Claimant  and  to  observe  her demeanor,  I  hereby \nmake the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant has not proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that she \nsustained a compensable injury to her neck by specific incident. \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n4 \n4. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that she \nsustained a compensable injury to her lower back by specific incident. \n5. Because of Findings/Conclusions Nos. 3-4 supra,  the remaining issues—\nwhether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment of her alleged injuries, and whether she is entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits and a controverted attorney’s fee—are  moot  and \nwill not be addressed. \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n Claimant was the sole witness. \n In  addition  to  the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  admitted  into  evidence  in \nthis case were the following:  Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of her medical records, \nconsisting of one index pages and 60 numbered pages thereafter; Claimant’s Exhibit 2, \nnon-medical records, consisting of one index page and five numbered pages thereafter; \nRespondents’ Exhibit  1, another compilation of Claimant’s medical  records,  consisting \nof two index  pages and 54 numbered  pages  thereafter; Respondents’ Exhibit 2, non-\nmedical  records,  consisting  of  one  index  page  and  seven  numbered  pages  thereafter; \nand Respondents’ Exhibit 3, a flash drive containing video surveillance footage. \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n5 \nAdjudication \nA. Compensability \n Introduction.   Claimant,  a special  education  teacher, has  argued  that she \nsuffered a compensable injury to her neck and lower back in an incident that happened \non October 15, 2024.  Respondents deny this. \n Standards.    In  order  to  prove  the  occurrence  of  an  injury  caused  by  a  specific \nincident identifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must show that:  (1) an \ninjury  occurred  that  arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  his  employment;  (2)  the  injury \ncaused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services or resulted \nin  disability  or  death;  (3)  the  injury  is  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective  findings,  which  are  those  findings  which  cannot  come  under  the  voluntary \ncontrol  of  the  patient;  and  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific  incident  and  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 \nArk.   App.  126,  938  S.W.2d   876   (1997).     If  a   claimant  fails  to   establish   by   a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the  above  elements,  compensation  must  be \ndenied.   Id.  This  standard  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or  convincing \nforce.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium \nCorp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879 S.W.2d  457 (1994).    The determination  of a  witness’ \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission.  White v. Gregg Agric. Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n6 \nCommission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In \nso doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any \nother  witness,  but may  accept  and  translate  into  findings  of  fact  only  those portions of \nthe testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n Testimony.   By  way  of  background, Claimant testified  that she began  work  for \nRespondent Osceola School District in July 2023.  On August 30 of that year, she was \ninvolved in the following incident\n1\n at work: \nOkay.    So  I  had  been  teaching  my  class.    I  needed  to  put  up  a  poster \nboard and a large piece of paper.  And I put it in this closet that I thought I \ncould get into with no problems.  I didn’t.  There was another teacher who \ndidn’t pick up her mess, and I fell.  Oh my gosh.  I fell.  I hurt my neck, my \nback, my hip.  I could not get up.  One of my female students rant and got \n \n \n1\nThe  claim  that  is  related  to  this  matter, styled Brenda  Arnold  v.  Osceola  Sch. \nDist., AWCC No. H305860, is not before me.  However, I can take judicial notice that I \nconducted a hearing in that case on June 21, 2024, and entered an opinion on July 19, \n2024, that contained the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: \n \n1.  The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (the \n“Commission”) has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The     employee/self-insured     employer/third-party     administrator \nrelationship  existed  among  the  parties  on  August  30,  2023,  when \nClaimant suffered a compensable injury to her cervical spine. \n \n3. A preponderance of the credible evidence establishes that Claimant \nshould submit to an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Wayne \nBruffett under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-511(a) (Repl. 2012) because \nsuch  is  reasonable  and  necessary.    The  parties  will  work  together \nto expedite this evaluation.  The evaluation shall be at the expense \nof    Respondents.        Claimant    will    be    entitled    to    mileage \nreimbursement  for  travel  to  and  from  Dr.  Bruffett’s  office  in \naccordance with AWCC Advisory 89-2. \n \nThat decision was not appealed. \n \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n7 \nthe principal.  And it didn’t take long, and an ambulance was there to pick \nme up.  They took me to Osceola Hospital. \n \nShe did not go back to work for the school district until September 2024. \n It was her testimony that that following took place on October 15, 2024: \nOkay.  At 2:30, it’s time to take two students to the restroom, and I cannot \nuse the restroom in their classroom.  There’s epoxy on the floor.  It’s very, \nvery  slick.    Do  not—cannot—want  to  fall—can’t fall.  So the classroom \nnext door, it’s not slick.  So I go in there to change them, you know, one at \na  time.    There  was  a  substitute  there  that  day,  a  substitute  for  special \neducation.    So  I  had  her  come  with  me  to see  what  goes  on  and  where \neverything is.  And so anyway, I’m sitting on my walker and I’m changing \nhis pull-up.  Well, he locks hands . . . locks hands on my neck, my already-\nhurt  neck—on  top  of  that,  my  already-hurt neck.  And I’m just yelling as \nloud as I can for the lady that’s in the classroom.  And she finally, finally \nheard me.  And she got him off my neck.  And, oh man, did it hurt.  And it’s \nhurting here, hurting all up in here.  He’s got, you know—those vertebrae\n2\n \nare  already  messed  up  .  .  .  [i]t  would,  yeah,  be  up  at  the  thoracic  spine \nto—C-spine,  thoracic  spine.    And  then  my  back—it  was  probably,  you \nknow,  the  position  I’m  in.    Because,  you  know,  I’m  bending  down  to \nchange him.  He’s an autistic student.  It’s not his fault . . . [p]oor baby.  \nBut . . . he hangs on with all his weight. \n \n Continuing,  Claimant  related  that  she  texted  the  school  principal  to  inform  her \nwhat had happened.  The next day, Claimant sought treatment at the emergency room.  \nThere,  she  was  given  medication.    Later,  she  went  to  Dr.  James  Adametz,  whom  she \ntermed “my neurosurgeon.”\n3\n  She stated that it was “perfect timing” that she was able to \nsee  him,  because  the  visit  was  a  follow-up  related  to  her  other  claim.\n4\n  Dr.  Adametz \n \n \n2\nWhile  making  this  statement,  as  reflected  in  the  transcript,  Claimant  was \npointing to the back of her neck. \n \n \n3\nThe opinion cited in supra Note 1 reflects that Claimant treated extensively with \nAdametz in connection with AWCC No. H305860. \n \n \n4\nSee supra Note 1. \n \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n8 \nadministered  her  an  injection  and  ordered  physical  therapy.    Claimant  stated  that \nneither was helpful.  In addition, an MRI was ordered. \n Eventually,  Dr.  Adametz  retired.    Thereafter,  Claimant  began  seeing  Dr.  Joel \nPhillips, another neurosurgeon.  The following exchange took place: \nQ. What kind of problems were you having with regard to your neck? \n \nA. Oh, with  the  neck,  the  motion,  the  tingling—you  got  tingling  going \nhere.  We’ve got numbness on our fingers.  We’ve got tingling.  I’m \nglad I can feel it.  I’m glad I can feel my hand.  It’s not going numb \nand it’s not tingling.  And the neck is not as tight.  Muscle spasms \nare not as tight. \n \nShe now has limited range of motion in her neck.  While she has no problems lowering \nher head, she is limited concerning how far she can raise it or turn it to the left and right. \n As  for  her  back,  Claimant  testified  that  Dr.  Phillips  performed  a  spinal  fusion in \nSeptember  2025.   As  to  her  present  back  condition,  she  related  that  “things  have \nimproved.”  However, she is still in physical therapy, and still has trouble raising her legs \nwhile walking. \n On cross-examination, Claimant agreed that she has pre-existing issues with her \nneck.  In 1991, she fractured C6 when she leapt from a moving automobile to escape a \ndomestic  assault.    In approximately  2014,  Claimant  sustained  whiplash  when  she  was \nstruck  from  the  rear  in  a  motor  vehicle  accident.   While  employed  by  the  Arkansas \nDepartment of Correction, her neck was injured during a training exercise.  Finally, Dr. \nAdametz had recommended surgery in connection with the neck injury she suffered as \npart  of AWCC  No.  H305860, which  led  to  the  hearing concerning  whether  she  should \nsubmit to an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Wayne Bruffett. \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n9 \n Claimant  agreed  that  when  she  went  to  Dr.  Adametz  following  the  pull-up \nchanging incident, per his note, there was no change in her symptoms.  For that reason, \nhe  wanted  her  to  undergo  a  repeat  MRI.   She  agreed  that  her  medical  records  in \nevidence reflect that she had previously complained of neck and back pain, along with \nan  intermittent  electric  shock-type  sensation  in  her  lower  extremities.   Claimant  had \nbeen treated with a lumbar steroid injection on January 30, 2024. \n While  Claimant  testified  initially  that  she  had  not  discussed  undergoing  neck \nsurgery  with  Adametz,  she  later  acknowledged  that  this  very  thing  was  the  subject  of \nthe earlier  hearing on AWCC  No.  H305860.  However,  she  stated that the  repeat  MRI \nrevealed a cervical herniation at one level and a protrusion at another. \n Pre-incident records.  The medical records in evidence reflect that on September \n11, 2023, Claimant underwent a lumbar MRI that showed grade 1 anterolisthesis of L4-\n5 with degenerative change and degenerative changes to her lower lumbar facet joints.  \nShe reported to Dr. Adametz on October 17, 2023, that she fell at work on August 30, \n2023.    Claimant  presented  with  back  pain  and  neck  pain/numbness.   Adametz  wrote \nthat she also underwent a cervical MRI that showed “a significant abnormality at C5-6 is \n[sic] probably combination of osteophyte disc as well as a degenerative disc . . . [along \nwith] a small right C4-5 disc herniation and a [possible] slight sublux[ation] at that level.” \n A CT scan that was performed on September 20, 2023, was read by Dr. Barbara \nRodrigues  to  show  only  degenerative  changes.    In  addition  to  straightening  of  the \nnormal lordotic curvature, the MRI showed “bilateral facet hypertrophy, worse on the \nleft, with minimal central disc protrusion, without spinal stenosis,” at C4-5; and “posterior \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n10 \nlateral osteophyte  with facet hypertrophy, causing narrowing of bilateral neuroforamen, \nwith AP diameter spinal canal 8.7 mm, with spinal stenosis, and limited evaluation due \nto streaking artifact,” at C5-6.  The  CT  scan  of  the  lumbar  spine,  performed  the  same \nday, yielded only degenerative findings. \n On  October  26,  2023,  the  doctor  wrote  that  her  x-rays showed a “degenerative \ndisc at C5-6 and a minimal angulation at C4-5 but not truly a subluxation in the cervical \nspine.”    He  added  that  her  lumbar  x-rays  revealed  that  “she  does  have  a  mild \nspondylolisthesis  at  L4-5,” and specified that this lumbar condition was degenerative.  \nOn November 14, 2023, Dr. Adametz wrote: \nI  reviewed  her  MRI  of  the  cervical  spine  again[.]    [S]he  has  a  severe \nspondylosis  at  C5-6  with  degenerative  disc  and  osteophyte  but  she  also \nprobably has a small disc protrusion at C4-5 eccentric to the right side and \non  x-ray  there  is  certainly  some  angulation  there  at  C4-5 .  .  .  [h]er  low \nback is also bothering her a lot and on x-ray continues she has at least a \nlittle bit of a spondylolisthesis at L4-5 so I think we should get an MRI scan \nof the lumbar spine. \n \nClaimant  underwent  a  lumbar  MRI.    In  addressing  its  findings  on  December  19,  2023, \nAdametz stated: \nWe  did  an  MRI  of  the  lumbar  spine  and  she  does  have  probably  some \nstenosis  at  L3-4  and  L4-5.    It  looks  like she  may  be  even  getting  a \nspondylolisthesis at L4-5 so we will get some standing flexion-extension x-\nrays.  There are disc protrusions at both L3-4 and L4-5. \n \nWhen the doctor saw Claimant on January 30, 2024, he wrote: \nI  reviewed  her  [November  2023  cervical]  MRI  scan  again  and  at  C4-5[.]  \n[S]he  does  have  a  right  paracentral  disc  herniation  is  gone  [sic]  a  little \nsuperior to the disc space and is behind the body of [C]4.  At C5-6 she has \na  degenerative  disc  and  spondylosis  with  osteophytes  on  both  sides  but \nalso  a  large  bulge  of  the  disc  on  top  of  it  and  that  may  have  been  what \nmade this become symptomatic.  She says she cannot live with [t]his neck \npain and  so  I  recommend doing  a discectomy  at  C4-5 and  C5-6.    To  get \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n11 \nout the osteophyte in the disc herniation especially is gone [sic] behind C4 \nI did not have the do [sic] partial corpectomies of C4, C5 and C6 and then \nfuse it with allograft and a plate. \n \nHe gave her a lumbar epidural steroid injection. \n During  Claimant’s  return  visit  to  Dr.  Adametz  on  March  28,  2024,  it  was \ndiscussed  that  her  cervical  surgery  had  not  taken  place  because  the  workers’ \ncompensation  insurance  carrier  had  not  yet  approved  it.   The  doctor  wrote  that  he \nreevaluated her lumbar MRI and noted that “she does have slight bulging disc at both \nL3-4 and L4-5 with some canal stenosis.”  He went on to describe her lumbar findings \nas “fairly mild.” \n During her July 23, 2024, appointment with Adametz, he wrote that he “reviewed \nher  [December  2023]  MRI  of  her  lumbar  spine  she  [sic]  has  a  small  disc  protrusion  is \n[sic] mild spondylolisthesis at L4-5 that does cause some canal stenosis.  There is even \nslight abnormality at L3-4.” \n Post-incident records.  The record of Claimant’s return visit to Dr. Adametz after \nthe alleged incident reads in pertinent part: \nShe came back [to] the office on October 22, 2024.  Since I last saw her \nthey had her see another doctor who thought she should be able to return \nto  work  so  she  did.    She  actually  was  put  in  with  kindergarten  students \nthough and then one of them grabbed her by the neck and she states that \nflared up her neck  and made  [it]  even  worse.   She  hurts  in  her  neck  and \nand  [sic]  both  shoulders.    She  [has]  decided  to  give  up  on  this  being  a \nWorkmen’s [sic] Comp. case and settle that [sic] wants to go ahead with \njust  treatment .  .  .  [s]he  has  not  had  a  change  in  her  symptoms  and  her \nMRI scan [is] a year old so I feel like we really need to get a new MRI scan \nbefore making a final decision. \n \nClaimant underwent another cervical MRI on November 12, 2024.  Adametz wrote: \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n12 \nWe did a new MRI scan and it shows multiple abnormalities.  The worst 1 \nis at C5-6 which she has a combination of spondylosis and disc herniation \nthat does narrow the canal and causes severe bilateral foraminal stenosis.  \nAt  C4-5  she  has  a  broad-based  right-sided  disc  protrusion  that  does \nindent  the  thecal  sac  and  is  close  to  the  spinal  cord.    She  has  minor \nbulging  disc  at  both  C3-4  and  C6-7.    I  talked  [to]  her  about  options  and \nshe  is  ready  to  go  ahead  with  surgery[.]    I  would  end  up  performing  an \nanterior cervical discectomy at C4-5 and C5-6.  I would have to do partial \ncorpectomies because the C5-6 disc space is so narrowed and she has a \nlarge osteophytes [sic].  I would then fuse it with a[n] allograft and a plate. \n \nThe cervical fusion surgery took place on November 20, 2024.\n5\n  When Claimant saw Dr. \nAdametz again on December 17, 2024, she reported that while she has experienced “a \nlittle neck spasm,” the numbness in her hands and arms has been alleviated. \n The report of her visit to Adametz on May 6, 2025, reads in pertinent part: \nThis lady had a Workmen’s Comp. injury and [I] operated  on  her  neck.  \nShe [has] actually  done  pretty  good  with  that  but  she  still  has  low  back \nproblems.  She had an MRI scan back in 2023 when this first happened[.]  \n[S]he  had  a  bulging  disc  at  L4-5  with  some  facet  arthritis  and  mild  canal \nstenosis.  At the moment she hurts mostly off to the right side and some of \nthis does seem to localize to the sacroiliac joint.  She has had some kind \nof injection by her pain management doctor but has not been very happy \nwith him and so wonder[s] if I can do anything.  It is unclear to me whether \nthis can be Workmen’s Comp. or her ambulator [sic] now  but  ambulator \nalways  require[s]  some  physical  therapy  for  their  pretty  much  so  we  will \nstart by putting her in some PT for a little bit and see how that does.  If she \nstill ha[s] a lot of pain or around her SI joint I may try an injection of that or \nshe  starts getting  more  pain  down  her  leg and I  will  repeat  an  MRI  scan.  \nAs far as her neck goes as you feel like she has reached maximal medical \nimprovement  she  also  asked  about  an  impairment  rating  and  she  has  2 \nruptured disc[s] in her neck and so that qualifies her for an 8% permanent \npartial impairment to the body as a whole. \n \n On September 17, 2025, Claimant again underwent surgery, this time in the form \nof a fusion at L4-5. \n \n \n5\nThe surgical report is not in evidence. \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n13 \n Discussion.  What must be determined initially is whether Claimant has objective \nfindings  of her alleged  neck  and  lower  back  injuries.    Unquestionably, she  has  had \nproblems  with  both  of these  regions  of  her  spine;  she  has undergone  fusions  of  C4-5, \nC5-6, and L4-5.  But does she possess findings of injuries to these body parts that were \nnot present until after the October 15, 2024, pull-up changing incident at the school? \n With respect to her lumbar spine, I note that there are no new findings of injury, \npost-October 15, 2024.  Her May 6, 2025, report by Dr. Adametz is the only one in that \nperiod that  even addresses  her  lower back.    But  all  he does  in  this  report  is  reference \nher  2023  MRI,  which  showed  her  to  have  “a  bulging  disc  at  L4-5  with  some  facet \narthritis and mild canal stenosis.”  She has not proven that she has objective findings of \na  lower  back  injury  that can  be  tied  to  the  alleged  changing  incident.   For  that  reason, \nthis portion of her claim must fail at the outset. \n As  for  her  alleged  neck  injury,  her  November  12,  2024,  cervical  MRI—taken  28 \ndays  after  the  incident  at  issue—showed  that  Claimant  had  degenerative  findings \n(“minor bulging”) at C3-4 and C6-7.  Her more serious findings were at C4-5 and C5-6.  \nAccording to the above MRI, her condition at C4-5 as of November 2024 consisted of “a \nbroad-based  right-sided  disc protrusion  that does  indent the  thecal  sac and  is  close  to \nthe  spinal  cord.”   But when  Claimant  went to  Dr.  Adametz  on  October  17,  2023—\napproximately  one  year  before  the  incident  at  issue—he wrote  that her cervical  MRI \nrevealed “a small right C4-5  disc  herniation and  a [possible]  slight  sublux[ation] at  that \nlevel.”  Thus, her C4-5 findings are not new ones. \n\nARNOLD – H504229 \n \n14 \n The same is also true of her C5-6 condition.  Dr. Adametz wrote that Claimant’s \nNovember  12,  2024,  MRI  showed her to have “a combination of spondylosis and disc \nherniation that does narrow the canal and causes severe bilateral foraminal stenosis” at \nthat level.  However, Claimant’s medical records show that is condition is likewise pre-\nexisting.    On  January  30,  2024,  Adametz  wrote:    “I  reviewed  her  [November  2023 \ncervical] MRI scan again and . . . [a]t C5-6 she has a degenerative disc and spondylosis \nwith  osteophytes  on  both  sides  but  also  a  large  bulge  of  the  disc  on  top  of  it  and  that \nmay have been what made this become symptomatic.”  There is no material difference \nbetween her radiological findings at this level, pre and post-incident.  Consequently, she \ncannot, and has not, established that she suffered a compensable neck injury. \nB. Remaining Issues \n Because  Claimant  has  not  proven  that  she  sustained  a  compensable  neck  or \nlower  back  injury  herein,  the  remaining  issues—whether  she  is  entitled  to  reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment of her alleged injuries, and whether she is entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits and a controverted attorney’s fee—are  moot  and  will \nnot be addressed. \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim for initial benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H504229 BRENDA ARNOLD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT OSCEOLA SCHOOL DIST., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARK. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 24, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on February 6, 2026, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:10.105Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H504229-2026-03-24","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Arnold_Brenda_H504229_20260324.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}