{"id":"full_commission-G506453-2023-10-12","awcc_number":"G506453","decision_date":"2023-10-12","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kenneth Johnson","employer_name":"Land O’frost, Inc","title":"JOHNSON VS. LAND O’FROST, INC. AWCC# G506453 OCTOBER 12, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["hip","neck","back","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Johnson_Kenneth_G506453_20231012.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Johnson_Kenneth_G506453_20231012.pdf","text_length":11401,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.  G506453\n \n \nKENNETH A. JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nLAND O’FROST, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nPMA MANAGEMENT, CORP.,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 12, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE GUY A. WADE, Attorney at \nLaw, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed June 20, 2023.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has \njurisdiction over this claim.  \n \n2.  That  an  employer/employee  relationship  existed  on  August  21, \n2015,  the  date  of  the  claimed  injuries.    At  the  time,  the  claimant \nearned an average weekly wage sufficient for TTD / PPD rates of \n$629.00 / $427.00, respectively, per week. \n \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  2\n  \n \n \n3.  That  the  claimant  sustained  a  compensable  right  hip  and  neck \ninjury   on   August   21,   2015,   which   was   accepted   by   the \nrespondents.  \n \n4.  The claimant received an eleven percent (11%) disability rating to \nthe body as a whole in regard to his neck injury, which has been \npaid in full. \n \n5.  That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof \nto show that he sustained a compensable work-related injury to his \nback and head on August 21, 2015, and consequently the claims \nfor medical, as well as PPD in regard to the back injury, are moot.  \n \n6.  The claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof that \nhe  is  entitled  to  permanent  and  total  disability  and,  in  the \nalternative, has also failed to satisfy the required burden of proof \nfor wage-loss.  \n \n7.  The issue of attorney fees is moot.  \n \n8.  That all other issues are reserved.  \n \n9.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay for the cost \nof the transcript forthwith.  \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's June 20, \n2023 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings of fact made by the \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  3\n  \n \n \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n Therefore we affirm and adopt the decision of the Administrative Law \nJudge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as the decision of the \nFull Commission on appeal.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n     \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs and dissents. \nDISSENTING OPINION \nThe Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”) \nfound that an employer/employee relationship existed at the time on August \n21, 2015, the date of the claimed injuries, that the Claimant sustained \ncompensable right hip and neck injuries on August 21, 2015, which were \naccepted by the Respondents, and that the Claimant received an eleven \npercent (11%) disability rating to the body as a whole in regard to his neck \ninjury, which has been paid in full.       \n  The ALJ then found that Claimant has failed to prove by a \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  4\n  \n \n \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable work-\nrelated injury to his back and head on August 21, 2015, and consequently \nthe claims for medical as well as permanent partial disability were denied. \nLastly, the ALJ held that the Claimant has failed to satisfy the required \nburden of proof that he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits \nand, in the alternative, has also failed to satisfy the required burden of proof \nfor wage-loss.  I concur in part and dissent in part.  I would rule in favor of \nthe Claimant for his compensable lower back injury and additional medical \ntreatment of such injury and defer the issue of wage-loss until the Claimant \nhas reached the end of the healing period for his compensable lower back \ninjury.           \n 1. Claimant has suffered a compensable work-related injury to his \nlower back and his claims for medical treatment should be awarded. \n To establish a compensable injury by a preponderance of the \nevidence the Claimant must prove: (1) an injury arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16), establishing the injury; and (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific and identifiable time and place of occurrence.  A \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  5\n  \n \n \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability must be \nstated within a degree of medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 \nArk. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002).         \n The employer takes the employee as he finds him.  Conway \nConvalescent Center v. Murphree, 266 Ark. 985, 585 S.W.2d 462 (Ark. \nApp. 1979).  A pre-existing disease or infirmity does not disqualify a claim if \nthe employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or \ninfirmity to produce the disability for which compensation is sought. See, \nNashville Livestock Commission v. Cox, 302 Ark. 69, 787 S.W.2d 664 \n(1990); Conway Convalescent Center v. Murphree, 266 Ark. 985, 585 \nS.W.2d 462 (Ark. App. 1979); St. Vincent Medical Center v. Brown, 53 Ark. \nApp. 30, 917 S.W.2d 550 (1996).  An increase in symptoms of a pre-\nexisting degenerative condition is sufficient to establish a compensable \ninjury.  Parker v. Atlantic Research Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W.3d \n449 (2004).           \n An employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such \nmedical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the \ninjury received by the employee.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). \nReasonable and necessary medical services may include those necessary \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  6\n  \n \n \nto accurately diagnose the nature and extent of the compensable injury; to \nreduce or alleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; or to \nmaintain the level of healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of \nthe damage produced by the compensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, \nInc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995).     \n On August 21, 2015, Claimant fell from the top of his semi-truck \ninjuring his head, neck, back and hip.  The parties stipulated that the \nClaimant suffered compensable neck and hip injuries.  The Claimant \ncontended that he also sustained additional injuries, including his lower \nback, but the ALJ found that the Claimant’s back injury was not \ncompensable primarily due to the perception that the treating physicians, \nDr. Wornock and Dr. Seale, failed to provide sufficient testimony regarding \ncausal connection to the work accident.  However, I find that this conclusion \nfails to fully consider the medical evidence.      \n  Claimant began complaining of lower back pain to Dr. Wornock two-\nmonths after the date of the work accident.  (CL Ex. 4, p. 11).  Dr. Wornock \nprescribed Claimant medication for pain management and referred \nClaimant to physical therapy for Claimant’s lower back and neck pain.  (CL \nEx. 4, p. 12).  Claimant continued to complain to Dr. Wornock of lower back \npain on several visits.               \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  7\n  \n \n \n A doctor is not required to be absolute in an opinion nor are the \nmagic words “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty” even \nrequired to be used by the doctor for an injury to be related to the work \naccident.  Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296 (2001). \nRather, the medical opinion must simply be more than speculation. Id.  If a \ndoctor renders an opinion about causation of a workers’ compensation \ninjury with language that goes beyond possibilities and establishes that \nwork was the reasonable cause of the injury, this should pass muster. Id. \nHere, the Claimant underwent physical therapy at the referral of Dr. \nWornock for treatment of his neck and back and further states that Claimant \nneeds to be evaluated for chronic pain of the neck and back after the work-\nrelated accident.              \n  Dr. Wornock referred Claimant to Dr. Seale where Claimant \nunderwent an x-ray which showed “C5-6 degenerative disc disease with \nleft-sided neck pain to the shoulder” and “L5-S1 severe degenerative disc \ndisease back pain and bilateral leg pain.”  (CL. Ex., p. 26).      \n Although Claimant clearly had degenerative issues in his lower back \nprior to the work accident, there is no evidence that he suffered from any \nsymptoms of such condition until after the accident.  The Courts have held \nin several cases that an increase in symptoms following a work-related \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  8\n  \n \n \naccident is sufficient proof to establish compensability.  Parker v. Atlantic \nResearch Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W.3d 449 (2004).  In the present \nclaim, the Claimant sustained a specific-incident injury which only requires \nhim to establish a causal connection between the injury and his symptoms. \nThere was change in the condition of Claimant’s lower back after the \nAugust 15, 2015 work accident as Dr. Seale provided the following opinion \nregarding Claimant’s neck and back condition following his evaluation on \nOctober 18, 2017:           \n The patient’s symptoms began on and after the work injury.  The \npatient has no history of pain in the low back or down the leg prior to the \nwork injury.  Therefore, it is within a certain degree of medical certainty that \nat least 51% of the patient’s current symptoms and need for surgery are \ndirectly related to their work injury.  [emphasis added].    \n  After giving due consideration to the Claimant’s lack of lower back \nsymptoms prior to the work accident, consistent complaints of pain following \nthe accident, and the statements relating to causal connections of his \ntreating physicians, the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the \nClaimant sustained a compensable injury to his lower back as the result of \nthe work accident on August 21, 2015.       \n Therefore, I would rule that the Claimant has proved by a \n\n \nJOHNSON - G506453  9\n  \n \n \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury of \nhis low back.  Further, Claimant continues to actively seek medical \ntreatment for his low back and is entitled to such medical treatment as may \nbe reasonably necessary for this compensable injury.  Additionally, I would \ndefer the issue of wage-loss until the Claimant has reached the end of the \nhealing period for his compensable lower back injury.     \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G506453 KENNETH A. JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LAND O’FROST, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PMA MANAGEMENT, CORP., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 12, 2023 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.112Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G506453-2023-10-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Johnson_Kenneth_G506453_20231012.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}