{"id":"alj-H504634-2026-02-27","awcc_number":"H504634","decision_date":"2026-02-27","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Elijah Washington","employer_name":"Home Depot USA, Inc","title":"WASHINGTON VS. HOME DEPOT USA, INC. AWCC# H504634 February 27, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","shoulder","cervical","thoracic","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Washington_Elijah_H504634_20260227.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Washington_Elijah_H504634_20260227.pdf","text_length":10347,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC NO. H504634 \n \n \nELIJAH WASHINGTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nHOME DEPOT USA, INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSAFETY NAT’L CASUALTY CORP., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 27, 2026 \n \nHearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on January 2, 2026, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant pro se. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  Mr. Michael  E.  Ryburn,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n On January  2,  2026,  the  above-captioned  claim  was  heard  in Jonesboro, \nArkansas.  A prehearing conference took place on November 3, 2025.  The Prehearing \nOrder entered that same day pursuant to the conference was admitted without objection \nas  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the  stipulations, \nissues, and respective contentions, as amended, were properly set forth in the order. \nStipulations \n The parties discussed the stipulations set forth in Commission Exhibit 1.  With an \namendment of the fourth reached at the hearing, they read: \n1. The  Arkansas Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (the  “Commission”) \nhas jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nWASHINGTON – H504634 \n2 \n \n2. The  employee/employer/carrier relationship existed  among  the  parties  on \nJuly 14, 2025, the alleged date of injury. \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n4. Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  was  $273.00,  entitling  him  to \ncompensation rates of $182.00/$137.00. \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  his  back  and  right \nshoulder by specific incident. \n2. Whether   Claimant   is   entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment of his alleged compensable injuries. \n3. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant contends that he sustained compensable injuries to his back and \nright shoulder when he was struck by falling items at work. \nRespondents: \n1. Respondents contend that Claimant does not have a compensable injury.  \nHe has no objective findings of such an injury. \n\nWASHINGTON – H504634 \n3 \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documents, and \nother  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear \nthe  testimony  of Claimant and  to  observe his demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704 \n(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  he \nsustained a compensable injury to his back by specific incident. \n4. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he \nsustained a compensable injury to his right shoulder by specific incident. \n5. Because  of  Findings/Conclusions  Nos.  3  and  4, supra, the  remaining \nissues—whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment  of  his alleged  compensable  injuries,  and  whether he  is  entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits—are moot and will not be addressed. \nCASE IN CHIEF \n Summary of Evidence \n Claimant was the sole witness. \n In  addition  to  the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  the  exhibit  admitted  into \nevidence  in  this  case was Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of his medical  records, \nconsisting of 14 numbered pages. \n\nWASHINGTON – H504634 \n4 \n \nADJUDICATION \nA. Compensability \n Introduction.  Claimant has alleged that as a result of an incident at work on July \n14,   2025, he sustained   compensable   injuries to   his back and   right   shoulder.  \nRespondents deny that he suffered a compensable injury. \n Standards.   Arkansas Code  Annotated  § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012),  which  I \nfind applies here, defines “compensable injury”: \n(i)  An  accidental  injury  causing  internal  or  external  physical  harm  to  the \nbody  .  .  .  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment  and  which \nrequires  medical  services  or  results  in  disability  or  death.    An  injury  is \n“accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by \ntime and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those \nfindings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16).  \nThe  element “arising  out  of  .  .  .  [the]  employment” relates  to  the  causal  connection \nbetween the claimant’s injury and his or her employment.  City  of El  Dorado  v.  Sartor, \n21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987). \n If  the  claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the \nrequirements  for  establishing  compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.   Mikel  v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 \nArk.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415; Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove  Barium  Corp.,  212  Ark.  491,  206 \nS.W.2d 442 (1947). \n\nWASHINGTON – H504634 \n5 \n \n Discussion.   Claimant,  who  is  30  years  old  and  has  a  high  school  diploma, \ntestified that  he  was employed  by  Respondent  Home  Depot  as a  freight  and  receiving \nassociate.    His  duties  in  this  position  included  unloading  trailers  of  newly-arrived \nmerchandise, and  then  stock  the  shelves  with  it.  The  items  were unloaded  by  placing \nthem on a conveyor belt.  He related that the following took place at approximately 8:00 \nto 8:30 p.m. on July 14, 2025: \nAs  far  as  I  know,  that  I  was  just  working  as  normal.  And  I  had  my  back \nturned.  And the items just kind of got pushed down off the conveyor.  The \nitems got pushed down off the conveyor when the employees was pushing \nthem down, and it just hit my back. \n \nHis testimony was that more than one item struck his back and shoulder.  While he did \nnot see any of them because his back was turned, he believed that one item was a box \nthat weighed approximately 50 pounds.  Another was a piece of plumbing.  At the time \nhis  happened,  he  was  kneeling  on  the  floor.    The  conveyor  belt  off  of  which  the items \npurportedly fell  was  approximately  table height.    Claimant described feeling pain  in  his \nback and right shoulder after being struck. \n Right  after  this occurrence,  according  to  Claimant, he  related the  incident  to his \nmanager  and  was instructed  to  write  out  a  statement  of  what  had  happened.  After \ncompleting the statement, at around 8:40 to 9:00 p.m., he went home.  He testified that \nin the one-week period following the alleged accident, he sought treatment three to four \ntimes.  These included visits to the emergency room of St. Bernard Medical Center and \nto ARCare, a drop-in clinic. \n Claimant’s  Exhibit  1  consists  predominantly  of  medical  bills—not   medical \nrecords.  For instance, while the bills in evidence document that he underwent CT scans \nof his chest plus his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine on July 15, 2025, as well as his \n\nWASHINGTON – H504634 \n6 \n \nabdomen  and  pelvis  on  July  20,  2025,  the  results  of  those  tests  are  not  in  evidence.  \nClaimant underwent MRIs of his right upper extremity and his thoracic spine on October \n28, 2025; but those results were likewise not offered into evidence.  In fact, the records \nin evidence are devoid of objective findings of either a back or a right shoulder injury. \n In making the above statement, I am aware that page 10 of Claimant’s Exhibit 1 \ncontains a prescription for Zanaflex “as needed (muscle spasm).”  The prescription was \nissued  by  Michael  Brandon  Belt,  M.D., of NEA Baptist Hospital in  Jonesboro on \nSeptember 24,  2025.  I  am also aware  that in Estridge  v.  Waste Mgmt.,  343  Ark.  276, \n33  S.W.3d  167 (2000)  the prescription  of  Flexeril “as  needed  for  muscle  spasm” was \nheld  to  be tantamount  to  objective  finding  of  muscle  spasm.   See  also Nucor  Yamato \nSteel  Co.  v.  Shelton,  2025  Ark.  App.  249,  713  S.W.3d  494; Melius v.  Chapel Ridge \nNursing Ctr., 2021 Ark. App. 61, 618 S.W.3d 410.  But here, nothing in the prescription \nindicates where this muscle spasm was purportedly indicated.  Furthermore, the report \nfrom the September 24, 2025, doctor visit—if such exists—is not in evidence.  Estridge \nand its progeny are thus distinguishable.  Only through speculation or conjecture could I \nuse the above prescription to find that objective findings of Claimant’s alleged back \nand/or right shoulder injury have been established.  But I am not permitted to engage in \nspeculation and conjecture.  See Dena Construction Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 796, \n575 S.W.2d 155 (1979). \n I light of the foregoing, I find that Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he sustained either a compensable back injury or a compensable right \nshoulder injury.  His claim must fail at the outset. \n\nWASHINGTON – H504634 \n7 \n \nB. Remaining Issues \n Because Claimant  has  not  proven  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  injury, the \nremaining   issues—whether he is   entitled   to reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment  of his  alleged  compensable  injuries,  and  whether he  is entitled  to temporary \ntotal disability benefits—are moot and will not 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 AWCC NO. H504634 ELIJAH WASHINGTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SAFETY NAT’L CASUALTY CORP., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 27, 2026 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on January 2, 2026, in Jone...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:23.896Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H504634-2026-02-27","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Washington_Elijah_H504634_20260227.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}