{"id":"full_commission-G808579-2024-04-04","awcc_number":"G808579","decision_date":"2024-04-04","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Jurmicka Puckett","employer_name":"Arkansas Dept. Of Corrections","title":"PUCKETT VS. ARKANSAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AWCC# G808579 APRIL 4, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","sprain","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Puckett_Jurmicka_G808579_20240404.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Puckett_Jurmicka_G808579_20240404.pdf","text_length":11319,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G808579 \nJURMICKA PUCKETT, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \nARKANSAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS.,  \nEMPLOYER                          RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS  \nDIVISION, TPA                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 4, 2024 \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas.  \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL, Attorney, \nLittle Rock, Arkansas.  \nRespondents represented by the CHARLES H. McLEMORE, Attorney, Little \nRock, Arkansas.  \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted.  \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n The Claimant appeals and the respondents cross-appeal an  \nAdministrative Law Judge’s opinion filed October 4, 2023.  In said order, the \nAdministrative Law Judge made the following findings of fact and \nconclusions of law:  \n1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation \nCommission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \n2. The Claimant is not entitled to additional \npermanent partial disability for RSD/CRPS.  \n \n3. The Claimant has not proven that she is \npermanently and totally disabled. \n \n4. The Claimant has not proven entitlement to \nadditional benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n505(a)(1).  \n \n5. The Claimant is entitled to additional treatment \nassociated with the referral to UAMS ordered by \nDr. Walker for consideration of a Spinal Cord \nStimulator.  The Respondents, however, are not \nliable for the Claimant’s past treatment from Dr. \nScott.  \n \n6. No attorney’s fee is associated with these \nfindings.  \nWe have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge’s October 4, \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 made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \nAll accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and \nwith interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the Administrative Law \nJudge’s decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809  (Repl. 2012).  \nFor prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, Claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \nAnn. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the Full \nCommission, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five \nhundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b) (Repl. \n2012). \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n      \n_______________________________ \n   SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman             \n \n_______________________________ \n   M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner    \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton concurs, in part, and dissents, in part. \n \nCONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION \n \nI respectfully concur, in part, and dissent, in part from the majority \nopinion.  Specifically, I concur that the claimant has not proven by a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that she is entitled to additional \npermanent partial disability for RSD/CRPS, that she has not met her burden \nof proving that she is permanently and totally disabled and that she has not \nproven entitlement to additional benefits under our Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n505(a)(1).  However, I dissent from the finding that the claimant is entitled to \nadditional treatment by UAMS for consideration for a spinal cord stimulator, \nas she has failed to establish that such treatment is reasonable and \nnecessary. \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \n The claimant suffered a compensable right-hand injury while working \nfor the respondent employer on December 26, 2018, when she fell, \ncatching herself with her right hand.  (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 20-21).  The claimant \nwas examined by a nurse practitioner who assessed a wrist sprain and \nmedian nerve injury at the wrist and hand level and entered a referral for \n\"Neurology*Any.”  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 4).  \nThe claimant ultimately began treating with Dr. Brian Norton at \nArkansas Specialty Orthopaedics on January 11, 2018.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 17). \nDr. Norton ordered an MRI that revealed a ganglion cyst, which he believed \nto be related to the claimant’s work injury.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 18).  Dr. Norton \nremoved the cyst on April 29, 2019.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 25).  \nAt a follow-up visit, the claimant complained of continued pain, and \nDr. Norton ordered another MRI, which revealed no new issues.  (Cl. Ex. 1, \nPp. 78-87).  Dr. Norton placed the claimant at MMI and released her to \nreturn to work at full duty on September 10, 2019.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 86). \n On September 1, 2020, the claimant returned to Dr. Norton, who \nordered another MRI.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 24).  After a failed attempt at steroid \ninjections due to blood sugar issues, the claimant elected to proceed with a \nright wrist arthroscopy and partial synovectomy which took place on \nJanuary 4, 2021.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 29-35).  Dr. Norton performed a surgical \nrevision on May 12, 2021, without complications.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 50-54). \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \n In August of 2021, the claimant began treating with Dr. Brent Walker, \na pain management specialist also with Arkansas Specialty Orthopaedics. \nDr. Walker assessed the claimant with complex regional pain syndrome \n(CRPS) and ordered a triple-phase bone scan.  (Cl. Ex. 1, Pp. 189-194). \nUpon reviewing the claimant’s August 2021 bone scan, the radiological \nimpression is listed as CRPS, and Dr. Walker began stellate ganglion \nblocks between August 24, 2021, and September 7, 2021.  (Resp. Ex. 1, \nPp. 59-75).  These were later paused due to blood sugar issues, although \nthe claimant did not report significant improvement after receiving these \ninjections.  Id. \n The claimant underwent a functional capacity examination in \nSeptember 2021 and was assigned a medium work restriction.  (Resp. Ex. \n1, Pp. 76-95).  She was ultimately assigned an eleven percent (11%) \nimpairment rating to her right wrist.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 101). \n After receiving her impairment rating, the claimant sought a second \nopinion from an additional orthopedic surgeon, Dr. D’Orsay Bryant, who in \nNovember of 2021 opined that “[t]he patient furnished me hundreds of \npages of her past medical record, which I have read over a dozen times. \nThe treatment rendered, by both Dr. Norton and Dr. Walker, is satisfactory \nand medically indicated.”  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 102-104).  Dr. Bryant agreed \nwith Dr. Walker’s assessment of CRPS but stated that “there are simply no \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \nfurther effective treatment recommendations that I can offer, for the \npatient’s right wrist complex regional pain syndrome.”  Id. \n The claimant underwent a nerve conduction study on June 21, 2022, \nand the findings were all within normal limits.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 117).  After \nreviewing these results, Dr. Norton ordered an additional triple-phase bone \nscan, which revealed negative results with “no scintigraphic evidence of \ncomplex regional pain syndrome.”  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 127-128).  \nThe claimant later visited Dr. Walker on July 27, 2022, who opined \nthat the claimant’s condition had reached its chronic phase and referred the \nclaimant to UAMS for consideration of a spinal cord stimulator.  (Cl. Ex. 1., \nP. 225). \n Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012) requires \nan employer to provide an employee with medical and surgical treatment \n\"as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by \nthe employee.\"  The claimant has the burden of proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that the additional treatment is reasonable \nand necessary.  Nichols v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 \nS.W.3d 148 (2010). \nWhat constitutes reasonably necessary treatment is a question of \nfact for the Commission.  Gant v. First Step, Inc., 2023 Ark. App. 393, 675 \nS.W.3d 445 (2023).  In assessing whether a given medical procedure is \nreasonably necessary for treatment of the compensable injury, the \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \nCommission analyzes both the proposed procedure and the condition it \nsought to remedy, and the respondent is only responsible for treatment \ncausally related to the compensable injury.  Walker v. United Cerebral \nPalsy of Ark., 2013 Ark. App. 153, 426 S.W.3d 539 (2013).  Treatments to \nreduce or alleviate symptoms resulting from a compensable injury, to \nmaintain the level of healing achieved, or to prevent further deterioration of \nthe damage produced by the compensable injury are considered \nreasonable medical services.  Foster v. Kann Enterprises, 2009 Ark. App. \n746, 350 S.W.2d 796 (2009). \nThe Commission has authority to accept or reject medical opinion \nand to determine its medical soundness and probative force.  Gant v. First \nStep, Inc., 2023 Ark. App. 393, 675 S.W.3d 445 (2023).  Furthermore, it is \nthe Commission's duty to use its experience and expertise in translating the \ntestimony of medical experts into findings of fact and to draw inferences \nwhen testimony is open to more than a single interpretation.  Id. \nThe ALJ’s determination that the claimant is entitled to an \nassessment for a spinal cord stimulator is based on a single opinion by Dr. \nBrent Walker, the claimant’s pain management specialist.  (See Resp. Ex. \n1, P. 140).  On July 27, 2022, Dr. Walker opined that the claimant’s \n“condition is existed for well over a year and a half.  I think she is most likely \nin the chronic phase of this condition.  I do not think any further stellate \nganglion blocks or medications will be of benefit.  I am going to refer her to \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \nUAMS for consideration of spinal cord stimulator.”  Id.  However, as of June \n21, 2022, “[a]ll nerve conductions studies . . . were within normal limits. All \nexamined muscles . . . showed no evidence of electrical instability.”  (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 117).  The claimant’s nerve conduction study was normal with no \nevidence of right median or ulnar mononeuropathy and no evidence of right \ncervical radiculopathy or electromyography.  Id.  \nA bone scan on June 27, 2022, reflected that “Previously identified \nincreased activity on all three phases with the right hand has resolved... \nNegative study.  There is no scintigraphic evidence of complex regional \npain syndrome.”  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 127). \nSimply put, at this point there is no basis for ordering an evaluation \nfor a spinal cord stimulator.  The objective evidence reflects that the \nclaimant’s condition has resolved, and there are no radiological reports that \nreflect otherwise.  It is not reasonable or necessary to require the \nrespondents to provide the claimant with treatment in contradiction to the \nfindings of two separate objective tests.  Dr. Walker provided no reasoning \nfor his referral to UAMS, and there is no evidence that this treatment would \nserve to address the claimant’s purported needs.  For these reasons, the \nclaimant has failed to establish her burden of proof.  \n \n \n\nPUCKETT – G808579 \n \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I concur, in part, and \ndissent, in part. \n      __________________________________                                     \nMICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G808579 JURMICKA PUCKETT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 4, 2024 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.697Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G808579-2024-04-04","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Puckett_Jurmicka_G808579_20240404.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}