{"id":"alj-H505556-2026-03-26","awcc_number":"H505556","decision_date":"2026-03-26","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Rodney Dehaven","employer_name":"Rodney Dehaven","title":"DEHAVEN VS. RODNEY DEHAVEN AWCC# H505556 March 26, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","hernia","back","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DEHAVEN_RODNEY_H505556_20260326.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"DEHAVEN_RODNEY_H505556_20260326.pdf","text_length":23955,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H505556 \n \nRODNEY R. DEHAVEN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nRODNEY DEHAVEN, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nMISSOURI EMPLOYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA\n RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED MARCH 26, 2026 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \n \nClaimant represented by JARID M. KINDER, Attorney,  Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by KAREN H. MCKINNEY, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On January 22, 2026, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, Arkansas. \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on November 21, 2025, and a pre-hearing order was filed \non that same date. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and \nmade a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2. The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on November 8, 2024. \n3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \nAt the conclusion of the hearing, the parties also stipulated that claimant’s average weekly \nwage was $701.13, which yields a temporary total disability rate of $468.00 and a permanent partial \ndisability rate of $351.00. \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n2 \n \n \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n             1.  Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury on November 8, 2024. \n             2.  Whether claimant is entitled to medical expenses. \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n The  claimant  contends  that  “He  sustained  a  compensable  bilateral  shoulder  injury  on \nNovember 8, 2024, while tiling a shower in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The claimant contends that he is \nowed  medical  benefits  as  a  result  of  his  bilateral  shoulder  injury. Due  to  controversion  of  entitled \nbenefits, the respondents are obligated to pay one half of the claimant’s attorney’s fees.” \nThe respondents contend that “The claimant did not sustain a compensable injury as defined \nunder the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act for which he is entitled to benefits.” \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the \nwitnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.      The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  a  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nNovember  21,  2025, and  contained  in  a  pre-hearing  order filed  on that  same  date,  as  well  as  the \nstipulation announced at the hearing, are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.    Claimant has met his burden of proving that he suffered a compensable injury to his right \nand left shoulder on November 8, 2024, and is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment \nfor those injuries as recommended by his treating physicians. \n \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n3 \n \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n This case is unusual in that claimant is also the respondent employer. Since the interest of the \nemployee  and  employer  are  not  adverse,  for  the  purposes  of  this  opinion,  any  reference  to \n“respondent” is to the insurance carrier Missouri Employers’ Mutual Insurance Company \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n  \nClaimant was the only witness to testify. He stated that he is 60 years old and the sole owner \nand employee of his tile installation business. He said that his job involved lifting from fifty to one \nhundred pounds every day, required him to be on his feet and knees frequently, and involved working \noverhead. Claimant said that he hurt his shoulders while he was working on a bathroom tub. Claimant \ndid not know the exact address of where he was working, but he knew it was in Fayetteville and located \nthe invoice for that job. According to claimant, the injury occurred when he was doing “a total gut of \nthe tub”, part of which involved hanging drywall. As he was placing the top piece of drywall, a five \nfoot by four foot section, he lost his balance stepping on the side of the tub. Claimant testified that \nhe did not completely fall because he regained his balance, but in doing so he felt “a jerk and a popping \nin both shoulders right and left.”  He felt soreness but was able to finish the job that day and the next \nweek he went to see Dr. Youmans, who is his primary care physician. Claimant was referred to Dr. \nBenafield  at  Ozark  Orthopedics  where  he  was  treated  with  physical  therapy  and  injections. The \nphysical therapy did not help, but the injections did relieve some pain. As of the date of the hearing, \nclaimant had surgery  on  his  right  arm  and  intends  to  have  surgery  on  the  left  when  he  has  healed \nsufficiently from the first surgery. Claimant paid for the surgery through his wife’s health insurance. \nClaimant said that although the injury occurred on November 8, 2024, he did not pursue his \nclaim until August 2025, because he had other things to do and had worked through the pain. Claimant \ndid not realize how serious the injury was before he had an MRI. Claimant conceded that he had seen \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n4 \n \n \na doctor about some shoulder pain before November 2024. He received a steroid injection and did \nnot return to the doctor for any additional treatment for his shoulder. He said that in the previous \ninstance, he had tried to toss a bag full of tile into a trash can, which stressed his arm and shoulder. \nClaimant testified that pain in 2022 was quite different than what he described regarding falling while \nholding a sheet of drywall on November 8, 2024. \nOn  cross-examination,  claimant agreed that  he  was  working  alone  that  day  and  is  the  only \nperson  who  had  any  knowledge  of  what  happened  on  the job  site on  November  8,  2024. At  his \ndeposition, claimant had not seen the invoice for that job and was not sure of the size of the tile that \nhe was installing. At the deposition, claimant said “I think they were two and a half inches by twelve \ninches of subway tile,” while the floor was twelve by twenty-four. \nClaimant stated that he carried workers’ compensation insurance because he needed it for jobs \nthat he does. He agreed that the policy told him what he needed to do as the owner of the company \nif an employee was injured. He conceded that he did not report the injury until August 2025.  \nRespondent pointed  out  that  claimant specifically  remembered  how the injuries  to  his \nshoulders occurred, but when asked about a prior hernia surgery, stated that he did not know what \ncaused it. Respondents’ attorney noted that while claimant said that his injuries occurred on Friday, \nNovember  8,  2024,  he  did  not  see  the  doctor  on  Monday  as  he  testified,  but  rather  on  Tuesday, \nNovember 12.\n1\n. Claimant was shown the report from Dr. Youmans and agreed that the report said \nthat he complained of right shoulder pain that had been present for a couple of weeks. He did not \nknow if he had mentioned anything about the left shoulder; but he did not write the report that omitted \nthat he was injured while putting up drywall five days previously. Claimant was definite that he received \nan injection in both shoulders, but the doctor’s record does not state that it was a bilateral injection. \n \n1\n I announced without objection that I was taking judicial notice of the days of the week on which those dates fell.   \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n5 \n \n \nWhen claimant was asked about his previous shoulder injury which he was treated on October 5, 2022, \nclaimant stated that he did not remember going to the doctor when he was deposed. Claimant read \nfrom Dr. Caswell’s report that he had pain in his shoulder a year ago after lifting trash, but that had \nnot really bothered him until about two weeks ago. Dr. Caswell’s report said claimant “did something, \nunsure  what  made  the pain flare.”  He  agreed  that  he  had  been  having  pain  in  his  shoulders  for  a \ncouple of weeks before he saw Dr. Youmans. Claimant acknowledged Dr. Benafield’s records showed \nthat he had had significant pain for two months as of November 26, 2024.  \nOn redirect examination, claimant explained the first time he was asked about an invoice in \nthis matter was at his deposition, and reviewing the deposition helped him remember the size of the \ntiles he was using the day he maintained he was injured. When asked why he waited so long to make \na claim for workers’ compensation, he stated that he worked through the pain until it became \nunbearable. When he received the results of the MRI, he understood that his injuries were worse than \nhe thought.  \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n Claimant’s Exhibit #1 is one page of index and 39 pages of medical records; Respondent’s \nExhibit #1 is one page of index and nine pages of records; respondent’s Exhibit #2 is one page of \nindex and 13 pages of non-medical records; respondent’s Exhibit #3 is claimant’s deposition which \nwas taken on December 18, 2025. \n Claimant first saw Dr. Roger Youmans at Community Physicians Group on November 12, \n2024. The history of the present illness was right shoulder pain for a couple of weeks. The assessment \nwas  a  subacromial  bursitis  of  the  right  shoulder  joint, which was  injected  with  an  unspecified \nmedication. X-rays of claimant’s right and left shoulder were performed.  \n On  November  26,  2024,  claimant  saw  Dr.  Robert Benafield  regarding  a bilateral  shoulder \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n6 \n \n \nproblem. The history and physical states:  \n“He has had bilateral shoulder pain for the last two months pretty bad and on \nand off previously. It is worse on the right than the left. He went and saw his \nprimary care provider Dr. Youmans who told after x-rays that he had bone on \nbone  arthritis  and  was  referred  over.    He  has  had  pain  with abduction and \ninternal rotation and pain at night. He was given an injection by Dr. Youmans, \nbut it did not help at all.” \n \n After  examining  the  claimant, Dr.  Benafield  recorded  that  his  assessment/plan  that  his \nfindings were consistent with “impingement syndrome of the shoulders bilaterally.”  Claimant was \ngiven a corticosteroid in the subacromial space bilaterally and was given home exercises to do. Dr. \nBenafield released the claimant to return to his office as needed. \n Claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Benafield  on  February  11,  2025,  reporting  that  his  shoulder  pain \nwent away for about a month but then came back. Dr. Benafield believed that an MRI was necessary \nto assess the rotator cuff and AC joint. Claimant instead had a course of physical therapy and then \nreturned to Dr. Benafield on May 1, 2025. The physical therapy was done at the insurer’s request and \ndid not help claimant, so Dr. Benafield again requested an MRI. The MRI was not performed until \nJuly 31, 2025, and at that time showed as follows:   \nMRI of the Right Shoulder \n \nTechnique: Multiplanar, multisequence images of the right shoulder were obtained without the use of \nintravenous contrast. \n \nComparison Study: None. \n \nHistory: Right shoulder pain. \n \nFindings: \n• Rotator   Cuff: There   is   a   full-thickness   tear   involving   the   anterior   footplate   of   the \nsupraspinatus tendon at its attachment. The infraspinatus, subscapularis, and long head of the \nbiceps tendons are intact. No muscle belly atrophy or edema is noted. There is no fluid in the \nsubacromial-subdeltoid bursa. \n• Coracoacromial  Arch: The  acromion  is  Type  I.  There  are  acromioclavicular  (AC)  joint \ndegenerative  changes.  The  coracoacromial  and  coracoclavicular  ligaments  are  intact.  The \nrotator interval is unremarkable. \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n7 \n \n \n• Glenohumeral Joint: Normal glenohumeral joint articulation is observed. The glenohumeral \nligaments  are  unremarkable.  There  is  no  joint  effusion.  The  bicipital-labral  complex  is \nunremarkable. \nImpression: \n1. Full-thickness  tear  involving  the  anterior  footplate  of  the  supraspinatus  tendon  at  its \nattachment site. \n2. AC joint degenerative changes causing mass effect on the supraspinatus, which could result in \nimpingement. \n \nMRI of the Left Shoulder \n \nTechnique: Multiplanar, multisequence images of the left shoulder were obtained without the use of \nintravenous contrast. \n \nComparison Study: None. \n \nHistory: Left shoulder pain. \n \nFindings: \n• Rotator  Cuff: The  supraspinatus,  infraspinatus,  subscapularis,  and  long  head  of  the  biceps \ntendons  are  all  intact.  There  is  no  muscle  belly  atrophy  or  edema.  There  is  no  fluid  in the \nsubacromial-subdeltoid bursa. \n• Coracoacromial  Arch: There  is  a  Type  I  acromion.  There  are  acromioclavicular  (AC)  joint \ndegenerative  changes.  The  coracoacromial  and  coracoclavicular  ligaments  are  intact.  The \nrotator interval is unremarkable. \n• Glenohumeral  Joint: There  is  normal  glenohumeral  joint  articulation.  The  glenohumeral \nligaments are intact. There is no joint effusion. There is a multilobulated paralabral cyst along \nthe  anterior  inferior  margin  of  the  glenoid  measuring  up  to  1.5  cm.  An  associated  anterior \ninferior labral tear is not well seen but is suspected. \nImpression: \n1. There is a 1.5 cm multilobulated paralabral cyst adjacent to the anterior inferior margin of the \nglenoid, and an associated labral tear cannot be excluded. \n2. There are AC joint degenerative changes which could be a cause for impingement. \n \nDr. Benafield reviewed the MRI results with claimant on August 13, 2025, and surgery was  \ndiscussed, but claimant was too busy to take off work at that time, so his shoulders were injected again \nand surgery was delayed.\n2\n \nWhile  not  part  of  the  course  of  treatment  claimant  received  in  2024  and  2025,  respondent \n \n2\n There were no records submitted after that consultation; claimant testified that he had surgery on his right shoulder \non December 22, 2025, and will schedule the left shoulder surgery when his right shoulder is sufficiently healed. \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n8 \n \n \nsubmitted medical records from Dr. John Caswell at the Community Physicians Group from October \n5, 2022, in which claimant was seen for right shoulder pain. He related that about a year prior to this \nvisit, he had lifted a bag of trash with just his right arm and caused pain in his shoulder. Claimant said \nhe wasn’t too bothered by it until about 2 weeks earlier, but the pain had flared to the point that he \nsought medical treatment. He was given an injection of triamcinolone acetonide into his right deltoid.  \nThe tax records were submitted for the purpose of determining an average weekly wage, but \nas I have accepted the parties’ stipulation as to claimant’s earnings, I have made no calculations based \non those records.  \nADJUDICATION \n \nTo receive workers' compensation benefits, a claimant must establish (1) that the injury arose \nout of and in the course of the employment, (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm to the \nbody that required medical services, (3) that there is medical evidence supported by objective findings \nestablishing the injury, and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident and identifiable by the \ntime and place of the occurrence, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4). Claimant bears the burden of proving \na compensable injury by a preponderance of the credible evidence, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E). \nAs I said above, it is rare that the employee and employer are the same, but not unheard of, \nsee Gilbert v. Gilbert Timber Co., 292 Ark. 124, 728 S.W.2d 507 (1987);  Vite v. Vite, 2010 Ark. App. 565, \n377 S.W.3d 453; and Baxter v. Baxter, 2012 Ark. App. 251, 413 S.W.3d 561 for claims made by sole \nproprietors.  \nApproaching respondent’s questions regarding claimant’s credibility in the order raised at the \nhearing, he was first asked about the difference in his deposition testimony regarding the size of the \ntile he was working with on the day he maintains he was injured (T. 22). Claimant responded that he \nhad not seen the invoice at the time of his deposition, but after seeing it, he realized he was using 12 \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n9 \n \n \nX 12 mosaic tile for this job instead of the 2.5 X 12 subway tile. Since claimant testified he was injured \nwhile working with drywall instead of the tiles, I’m satisfied that he did not remember exactly what \nsize of tile he was working with because that had nothing to do with his injury claim.  \nRespondent next moved to the delay in reporting the injury (T.31), which is a proper line of \ninquiry even though it did not raise a lack of notice defense\n3\n, see Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Brown, 2000 Ark. \nApp. 723, Swink v. Rest. Mgmt., 2012 Ark. App. 490. Claimant agreed that he did not file any claim until \nafter the MRI showed the extent of the damage to his shoulders. I am satisfied that claimant did not \nunderstand the extent of the damage to his shoulders until that time, and as he continued to work, he \ncould not have made a claim for disability benefits because he did not miss the requisite amount of \ntime mandated by A.C.A. §11-9-501. His wife’s insurance paid his medical expenses, eliminating the \nneed to file a claim for medical benefits.  \nClaimant was shown Dr. Youmans’ note of November 12, 2024, which recorded that he had \nright shoulder pain for a couple of weeks and made no entry of a problem with his left shoulder (T. \n36). Claimant was definite that he received an injection in both shoulders, and said he did not prepare \nthe doctor’s note, so he could not explain what was and was not contained therein. I do not know if \nclaimant received bilateral injections on that first visit, but I am convinced that he believes he did. The \nX-rays taken of both shoulders supports his contention that he reported pain in both shoulders. I also \nput no weight in claimant believing he went to the doctor on a Monday when the records show it was \nactually on a Tuesday; he did not have an unreasonable delay in seeking treatment and may have been \nat the doctor’s office at the first available appointment.  \n \n3\n Such  a  defense  would  have  failed  had  it  been  raised,  see Baxter  v.  Baxter, supra. “The  present  case  involves  an \nunusual fact pattern in that Baxter is both the employer and the employee. It is true that Baxter did not report his injury \nto  Union  Standard  Insurance  Company  until  December  27,  2006;  however,  the  notice  statute  provides  that an \nemployee  must  report  the  injury  to  his  employer,  not  his  insurance  carrier.  Moreover,  section  11-9-701(b)(1)(A) \nprovides that failure to give the notice shall not bar any claim if the employer had knowledge of the injury. Clearly, \nBaxter knew of his own injury.” \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n10 \n \n \n Somewhat problematic is claimant’s testimony  that  he  had  not  had  any  shoulder  problems \nbefore November 2024 (T. 40). The records from the same clinic where he saw Dr. Youmans show \nhe had been in to see Dr. John Caswell on October 5, 2022, for pain in his right shoulder. The records \nshow claimant went to his physician for several issues including right shoulder pain, and he received \nan injection into that shoulder. While such treatment is the kind of event many people might recall, \nthe record as a whole reflects that claimant is not a precise historian regarding dates and prior medical \nevents. There is no medical evidence that he had a pre-existing full- thickness rotator cuff tear or labral \ntear before November 8, 2024. I do not attribute his failure to recall the 2022 visit to deception, but \nrather  to  poor  memory,  and  do  not  find  that  it sufficiently undermines  his  credibility  as  to  the \noccurrence of the drywall incident and his subsequent bilateral shoulder symptoms. \n In closing argument, respondent asserted that the failure of claimant as employer to make a \ntimely report denied it the opportunity to investigate this claim.   This argument would have some \nappeal to me if respondents had identified how it was prejudiced in defending this claim by claimant \nfailing to report the day it happened. There were no witnesses to interview, no equipment to inspect \nand nothing to photograph that would have been of any value to support or refute how claimant said \nthe injury happened.  \n Working in claimant’s favor is the fact that what he described is a plausible explanation as to \nhow he was injured while working with a sheet of drywall. He reported an injury to his doctor a few \ndays after it happened and continued to receive conservative treatment thereafter. When that course \nof  treatment failed,  an  MRI  showed  the injuries to  his  shoulders required  surgery  to  correct. Both \nMRIs  documented  AC  joint  degenerative  changes.  These  degenerative  changes  are  consistent  with \nclaimant's age and his fifteen years working as a tile installer performing overhead work. However, \nAC  joint  degeneration would not  cause  a  full-thickness  supraspinatus  tear  or  a  labral  tear  with \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n11 \n \n \nparalabral cyst. These are acute traumatic injuries superimposed on underlying degenerative changes \nthat would be expected in a sixty-year-old worker in a physically demanding occupation. \n Looking at his tax records, I understand why claimant felt the need to continue working until \nhe just couldn’t; he had a net income from his business of under $36,000.00 in both 2023 and 2024. \nAs a  sole  proprietor,  he had no sick leave or other income if he wasn’t working.  In  his  role as  the \ninsured employer, claimant  should have reported  the  claim  as  soon  as  he  first  sought  medical \ntreatment. However, he is a self-employed tile installer, not a human resources officer, and I accept \nthat he only brought the claim when he understood how serious his injury was. The financial records \nsupport his  explanation  that  he  continued  working  out  of  financial  necessity  and  did  not  initially \npursue a claim because he believed he could work through the pain.  \n Weighing all the evidence before me, I find claimant met his burden of proving a compensable \ninjury on November 8, 2024. The preponderance of the evidence shows the injury arose out of and \nin the course of his employment, caused internal harm requiring medical services, was established by \nobjective MRI findings, and was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place.   \nORDER \n \nClaimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered \na compensable injury to his right and left shoulder on November 8, 2024. Respondent is liable for \npayment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  services  provided  in  connection  with  claimant's \ncompensable injury.  \nPursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-715(a)(1)(B)(ii), attorney fees are awarded \"only on the amount of \ncompensation  for  indemnity  benefits  controverted  and  awarded.\" The  issue  regarding indemnity \nbenefits was reserved; therefore, no attorney fee has been awarded. Instead, claimant's attorney is free \nto voluntarily contract with the medical providers pursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-715(a)(4). \n\nDehaven-H505556 \n12 \n \n \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \nhearing transcript in the amount of $654.00. \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H505556 RODNEY R. DEHAVEN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT RODNEY DEHAVEN, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT MISSOURI EMPLOYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 26, 2026 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washingto...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:16.454Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H505556-2026-03-26","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DEHAVEN_RODNEY_H505556_20260326.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}