{"id":"full_commission-G901705-2023-05-31","awcc_number":"G901705","decision_date":"2023-05-31","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Steven Carrick","employer_name":"Baptist Health","title":"CARRICK VS. BAPTIST HEALTH AWCC# G901705 MAY 31, 2023","outcome":"affirmed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","strain","neck","rotator cuff","cervical","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carrick_Steven_G901705_20230531.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Carrick_Steven_G901705_20230531.pdf","text_length":27157,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  G901705  \n \nSTEVEN C. CARRICK, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nBAPTIST HEALTH,  EMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nCLAIMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL \nDISABILITY TRUST FUND \nRESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \n \nRESPONDENT NO. 2 \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED MAY 31, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant appeared pro se. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE JARROD S. \nPARRISH, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE DAVID L. PAKE, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nDecember 21, 2022.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove he was entitled to additional medical treatment.  After \nreviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the \nadditional medical treatment sought by the claimant is unauthorized in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-514(Repl. 2012).         \nI.  HISTORY \n\nCARRICK - G901705  2\n  \n \n \n The record indicates that Steven Carrick, now age 34, became \nemployed as a Food Service worker for the respondents, Baptist Health, on \nSeptember 17, 2018.  The parties stipulated that the employee-employer \nrelationship existed on November 21, 2018, “the date of the claimed injury.”  \nThe pro se claimant testified: \nMR. CARRICK:  Well, November 21, 2018 at approximately \n6:56 p.m. I was performing my closing duties, which consists \nof cleaning up the area.  And we have four-wheeler coolers \nthat are plugged into the ceiling panel that we have... \nSo I attended to my closing duties and we moved that four-\nwheeler cooler and we closed those joints so that the product \ncan remain cold for the next shift.  And as I was moving that \ncooler the ceiling fell, along with a metal shard fell, and struck \nmy right upper arm, along with the shoulder region.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “sustained a compensable \nwork-related right shoulder contusion when an acoustical panel fell on him” \non November 21, 2018. \n The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on November 26, 2018.  The Accident Information section of the \nForm AR-N indicated that the Date of Accident was November 21, 2018 \nand that the claimant injured his “Right upper arm.”  The claimant appeared \nto write, “roof fell on top of me” on November 21, 2018, and that the \naccident occurred while he was performing employment services.   \n According to the record, the claimant treated at CHI St. Vincent on \nNovember 26, 2018.  Dr. Chen Wang noted “1.  SORE RIGHT UPPER \n\nCARRICK - G901705  3\n  \n \n \nARM – ceiling tile fell and hit him on right shoulder and upper arm on Wed \nNov 21....Pt. presents with c/o a contusion to his right upper arm from a \nfalling ceiling tile 4 days ago.  Report the arm is still tender but denies any \nswelling, weakness/numbness or ROM limitations....right upper arm with a \nsmall area of ecchymosis at the lateral portion of biceps with local ttp, no \nedema or other palpable abnormalities, shoulder/elbow rom is full.”   \n Dr. Wang assessed “1.  Right arm pain....Looks like a minor \ncontusion.  F/u if any persistent issues.\"  Dr. Wang prescribed medication, \nand he released the claimant to return to regular work effective November \n28, 2018.  The parties stipulated that the claimant “returned to work” on \nNovember 28, 2018. \nChristopher Vinson, APRN saw the claimant at CHI St. Vincent on \nJanuary 28, 2019:  “Pt is a 30 yr old male who reports that a piece of ceiling \ntile fell on his right upper arm at work at Baptist Hosp. in the cafeteria back \nin November and his arm hurts intermittently when bumped since that time.”  \nMr. Vinson assessed “1.  Right upper limb pain.”   \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “resigned from work” on \nFebruary 18, 2019. \n The claimant signed a Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION, \non March 7, 2019.  The Accident Information Section of the Form AR-C \nindicated that the date of accident was November 21, 2018, “As I was \n\nCARRICK - G901705  4\n  \n \n \nmoving the cooler which is plugged into the outlet in the roof, the roof fell on \ntop of me, injurying (sic) my upper right arm, huge bruise lots of pain.”   \n The claimant signed another Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR \nCOMPENSATION, on March 22, 2019.  The Accident Information section of \nthe Form AR-C indicated, “Claimant was getting food for a patient from the \noverhead cooler when the overhead cooler fell on the Claimant.  He \nsustained injuries to his right shoulder and other whole body.”  The Claim \nInformation section of the Form AR-C indicated that the claim was for \n“initial” benefits to include Medical Expenses, and that the claim was for \n“additional” benefits to include Additional Medical Expenses. \n The respondents arranged for Dr. Victor Vargas to treat the claimant.  \nDr. Vargas first examined the claimant on April 2, 2019:  “In brief, the \npatient presents to my clinic for the first time to have evaluation of right \nshoulder pain....Ecchymosis:  negative....The x-rays of the right shoulder, \nAP, axial of the scapula, axillary view were done in the clinic today, \nreviewed, and interpreted that showed acceptable subacromial space, \nacromion type I, no significant osteoarthritis of the acromioclavicular joint.”   \n Dr. Vargas assessed “Right Shoulder pain” and “Right Subacromial \nimpingement with bursitis.”  Dr. Vargas planned physical therapy, and he \nreturned the claimant to full work duty with no restrictions.  The record \nindicates that the claimant was provided an extended series of physical \n\nCARRICK - G901705  5\n  \n \n \ntherapy visits beginning April 8, 2019.  The claimant followed up with Dr. \nVargas on April 29, 2019:  “Patient stated that he is doing physical therapy \nand he feels improved.  No pain, no swelling.  The patient stated that he is \nnot working currently because he has no job.”  Dr. Vargas assessed “Right \nShoulder pain improved....The patient has no restrictions and can work on \nfull duty.”  Dr. Vargas assigned the claimant a 0% permanent impairment.   \n The claimant returned to Dr. Vargas on July 12, 2019: \nThe patient presented again to my clinic for an evaluation and \na pain in the shoulder after being released at MMI.   \nThe patient improved with conservative treatment and \ntherapy, now he has a relapse of the pain and is not clear \nexactly if he has a pathology related to the accident that he \nsustained at work or he has some independent pathology in \nthe right shoulder that is causing his pain.   \nAt this point I am considering that the patient required MRI of \nthe right shoulder to have objective findings of injury that \neventually guide further treatment and recommendation.  We \nwill follow up after the MRI. \n \n Dr. Vargas assessed “Pain of right shoulder joint.”   \n The record contains a Change of Physician Order dated July 22, \n2019:  “A change of physician is hereby approved by the Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission for Steven Carrick to change from Dr. \nVictor Vargas to Dr. Shahryar Ahmadi[.]”  The claimant treated with Dr. \nAhmadi beginning August 21, 2019.  Dr. Ahmadi arranged for an MRI of the \nclaimant’s right shoulder, which was taken on August 21, 2019 with the \nfollowing impression:  “No intra-articular abnormality noted within the right \n\nCARRICK - G901705  6\n  \n \n \nshoulder articulation.  Focal subcutaneous fat contusion and mild focal \ndeltoid musculature strain in this patient with history of prior direct injury.”   \n Dr. Ahmadi reported on September 18, 2019:  “Patient is a 31-year-\nold man with right shoulder pain, normal MRI.  Ultrasound was reviewed \ntoday and discussed with the radiologist, no pathology was seen.  From an \northopedic standpoint, there is no pathology in the shoulder to warrant \nfurther treatment.  He can return to full activities as tolerated.  No need for \nfollow-up with us.” \n Dr. Ahmadi planned the following on October 22, 2019:  “In summary \nthis is a 31-year-old gentleman right shoulder pain without any finding on \nMRI or ultrasound.  At this point we do not have any reason to operate on \nthe patient so we are going to continue with conservative management.  We \ndid [a] new impairment rating for the patient based on passive range of \nmotion.  Patient has significant guarding and I do not know if this was due \nto pain or it was intentional.”     \n A pre-hearing order was filed on March 11, 2020.  According to the \ntext of the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “Claimant contends \nthat he is entitled to additional medical and payment of outstanding medical \nbills.  Claimant also contends that he is entitled to TTD and a permanent \npartial impairment rating or a wage loss.  Claimant contends that he \nresigned from work due to unsafe conditions.”  The respondents contended, \n\nCARRICK - G901705  7\n  \n \n \n“Respondents contend that all appropriate benefits have been paid and that \nadditional medical associated with claimant’s right shoulder injury is not \nreasonable and necessary.  Respondents also contend that indemnity \nbenefits are not due and owing with regard to the claim and that there are \nno objective findings to support any permanent impairment.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues:   \n1.  Additional Medical and payment of outstanding medical \nbills. \n2.  TTD. \n3.  Permanent partial disability rating or a wage loss.   \n \nThe claimant treated with Dr. William F. Hefley on April 29, 2020, \nand Dr. Hefley noted on May 20, 2020, “I spoke with Steven via phone call \ntoday as he had concerns regarding his medical records after his visit with \nus on 4/29/2020.  Patient reports he was not working on the ceiling when \nthe ceiling tile fell on him, but was moving a large cooler when the ceiling \ntile fell and hit his right shoulder.  He also informs me that the numbness \nand tingling in his hand has only happened 2-3 times, the last time was \nFebruary.  Steven does not want his neck evaluated, states all of the pain is \nin his shoulder.  He is wanting a repeat MRI (this time MR arthrogram).  Will \nobtain this imaging and have him return to discuss results.  He has tried \nmultiple rounds of PT and steroid injections, was released from UAMS ortho \nat MMI.” \n\nCARRICK - G901705  8\n  \n \n \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nSeptember 15, 2020.  The administrative law judge found, among other \nthings, that the claimant did not prove additional medical treatment was \nreasonably necessary.  The administrative law judge found that the \nclaimant did not prove he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits, \nan anatomical impairment rating, or wage-loss disability.   \n The Full Commission affirmed and adopted the administrative law \njudge’s September 15, 2020 opinion in a decision filed January 5, 2021.  \nThe Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Full Commission in an opinion \ndelivered March 16, 2022.  Carrick v. Baptist Health, 2022 Ark. App. 134, \n643 S.W.2d 466.  The Court of Appeals issued an order on April 20, 2022:  \n“APPELLANT’S PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED.”  \n The Arkansas Supreme Court issued an order on May 26, 2022:  \n“APPELLANT’S PRO SE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED.”   \n The claimant returned to CHI St. Vincent on June 30, 2022.  Dr. \nWilliam Joseph reported at that time: \nStephen is a 33-year-old male who relates a 4-year history of \nright shoulder pain.  He says he was struck on the shoulder by \nsome ceiling tiles and other materials.  He has increased pain \nwith abduction and rotation of the shoulder.  Pain with \nextension of the affected shoulder.... \nEXTREMITIES:  Tenderness of the upper deltoid region of the \nright shoulder.  Pain with abduction and rotation.  Positive \nscratch test.  Difficulty resisting adduction.   \n \n\nCARRICK - G901705  9\n  \n \n \n Dr. Joseph assessed “1.  Tendinitis of right shoulder.”  Dr. Joseph \nappeared to recommend an x-ray of the claimant’s right shoulder and a \nreferral to Dr. Ethan Schock.   \n Dr. Schock saw the claimant on or about August 11, 2022: \nSteven Carrick is a 33 year old male who presents to discuss \nconcerns about their Shoulder, that began on 11/21/2018.... \nInjury occurred:  Ceiling tile along with metal shard fell and \nstruck my right shoulder and upper arm.... \nMr. Karrick (sic) is here today in consideration of the right \nshoulder.  He is a pleasant 33-year-old male who is here \ntoday on referral from his primary care physician’s office in \nconsideration of the right shoulder.  He initially sustained an \nacute injury in 2019 while working.  He was treated with \nphysical therapy and anti-inflammatory medications.  \nUnfortunately, he sustained another injury a few weeks ago \nwhen he was carrying his groceries.  He has had \nprogressively worsening right shoulder pain and dysfunction.  \nHe is here today for initial orthopedic evaluation.   \nPain is localized primarily to the anterior aspect of the \nshoulder.  This is worse with abduction.   \nHe has undergone MRI evaluation back in 2019.  He was \nnoted to have partial-thickness rotator cuff tear at that time.  \nThis was treated with conservative management.  He also \nunderwent corticosteroid injection at that time and received \nsome significant relief.   \nSince his most recent injury he has had progressively \nworsening shoulder pain and dysfunction and “weakness.”   \nHe denies any neurologic symptoms.  He denies any cervical \nspine source of symptoms or pain.... \nEXAM:    \nExamination today shows no evidence of atrophy about the \nRIGHT shoulder and neck.  RIGHT upper extremity is \nneurologically intact and shows normal pulses.  \nCompartments are soft.  ROM is limited secondary to patient \ndiscomfort, but there does not appear to be a capsulitis or \nmechanical block to motion.   \n\nCARRICK - G901705  10\n  \n \n \nAC joint shows normal stability with no pain on cross body \nadduction or provocative maneuvers.  AC joint is mildly tender \nwith direct palpation.... \nRADIOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION: \nXrays of right shoulder taken today show no obvious sign of \nfracture or gross malalignment.  The glenohumeral and \nacromioclavicular joints are well aligned.  Minimal \ndegenerative changes are noted about the before meals (sic) \nand glenohumeral joints.  Type 1 acromion is appreciated.   \n \n Dr. Schock assessed “Right rotator cuff tendinopathy with \nsubacromial impingement.”  Dr. Schock planned, “I have recommended an \nMRI of the shoulder to further evaluate the status of the rotator cuff.  We will \nsee them back to review these results.  Failed conservative management to \ndate has included anti-inflammatory medications, home strengthening \nprogram, and activity modification.  Follow-Up:  We will see the patient back \nin the clinic after the MRI to review these results.”    \n A pre-hearing order was filed on September 13, 2022.  According to \nthe text of the pre-hearing order, the parties contended the following:  “1.  \nClaimant contends the work-related injury has caused his condition to \nworsen through aggravation, affecting his body.  2.  Claimant contends that \nhe is entitled to additional medical treatment.”  The respondents contended, \n“3.  Respondents contend that all appropriate benefits have been paid with \nregard to this claim.  Claimant’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res \njudicata, and the applicable statute of limitations.  Claimant listed his \nrequest for ‘additional medical treatment and payment of outstanding \n\nCARRICK - G901705  11\n  \n \n \nmedical bills’ at the pre-hearing conference on March 11, 2020.  Claimant \nlitigated the matter at the hearing on August 5, 2020, and he lost on the \nsubject before the ALJ, the full commission and the court of appeals (the \nArkansas Supreme Court declined claimant’s petition for review.  Claimants \nmost recent request comes more than two years after the injury date and \nmore than one year after the past payment of compensation.  Therefore, \nclaimant’s claim is barred by section 11-9-702(b) of the Arkansas Code \nAnnotated.  To the extent, Claimant’s claim is not barred by either res \njudicata or the statute of limitations, the respondents contend that the \nmedical treatment is not reasonable and necessary in regard to the right \nshoulder contusion.”   \n The pre-hearing order indicated that the parties agreed to litigate the \nfollowing issue:  “1.  According to the Form AR-C filed and claimant’s \nresponse to prehearing questionnaire he is seeking additional medical \ntreatment.”   \n After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nDecember 21, 2022.  The administrative law judge found, in pertinent part, \n“4.  That the claimant’s second claim for additional medical in regard to his \nright shoulder which occurred on November 21, 2018, is barred by the \ndoctrine of res judicata and the applicable statute of limitations, and \n\nCARRICK - G901705  12\n  \n \n \nconsequently the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of \nproof.”  The claimant appeals to the Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \nThe 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)(Repl. 2012).  \nThe employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary.  Stone v. Dollar \nGeneral Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005).  Preponderance \nof the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).  What constitutes reasonably necessary medical \ntreatment is a question of fact for the Commission.  Wright Contracting Co. \nv. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W.2d 750 (1984).   \nThe employer has the right to select the initial treating physician.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-514(a)(3)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  However, an employee \nmay request a one-time change of physician.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n514(a)(2)(A), (a)(3)(A)(ii), (iii)(Repl. 2012).  When a claimant seeks a \nchange of physician, he must petition the Commission for approval.  \nStephenson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 70 Ark. App. 265, 279, 19 S.W.3d 36, 39 \n(2000).  Treatment or services furnished or prescribed by any physician \n\nCARRICK - G901705  13\n  \n \n \nother than the ones selected according to the change-of-physician rules, \nexcept emergency treatment, shall be at the claimant’s expense.  Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-514(b)(Repl. 2012). \nIn the present matter, the parties stipulated that the claimant \n“sustained a compensable work-related right shoulder contusion when an \nacoustical panel fell on him” on November 21, 2018.  The claimant testified \nthat part of a ceiling fell and struck him on the right upper arm.  Dr. Wang’s \nassessment on November 26, 2018 was “1.  Right arm pain....Looks like a \nminor contusion.”  The parties stipulated that the claimant returned to work \non November 28, 2018, but that the claimant “resigned from work” on \nFebruary 18, 2019.  The record does not show that the claimant’s \nresignation from employment was causally related to the November 21, \n2018 compensable injury.   \nDr. Vargas’ assessment on April 2, 2019 was “Right Shoulder pain” \nand “Right subacromial impingement with bursitis.”  Dr. Vargas \nrecommended conservative treatment.  Dr. Vargas subsequently opined \nthat the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement, with zero \npermanent anatomical impairment, no later than April 29, 2019.  On July 22, \n2019, the Commission granted the claimant a Change of Physician from Dr. \nVargas to Dr. Ahmadi.  Dr. Ahmadi arranged for an MRI of the claimant’s \nright shoulder, which was taken on August 21, 2019 with the impression, \n\nCARRICK - G901705  14\n  \n \n \n“No intra-articular abnormality noted within the right shoulder articulation.”  \nDr. Ahmadi reported on September 18, 2019 that the MRI was “normal.”  \nDr. Ahmadi recommended conservative management.  According to a pre-\nhearing order filed March 11, 2020, the claimant contended that he was \nentitled to additional medical treatment.     \nAn administrative law judge filed an opinion on September 15, 2020.  \nThe administrative law judge found, among other things, that the claimant \ndid not prove additional medical treatment was reasonably necessary.  The \nFull Commission affirmed and adopted the administrative law judge’s \nopinion.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Full Commission in \nan opinion delivered March 16, 2022.  The Court of Appeals and Arkansas \nSupreme Court thereafter denied petitions for review filed by the claimant.   \nThe claimant now contends that he is entitled to the medical \ntreatment provided by Dr. Joseph on June 30, 2022 and by Dr. Schock on \nAugust 11, 2022.  The Full Commission finds that said medical treatment \nwas unauthorized and therefore not the responsibility of the respondents.  \nThe claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF INJURY, on \nNovember 26, 2018 following the November 21, 2018 compensable injury.  \nUnauthorized medical expenses incurred after the employee received his \nForm AR-N are not the employer’s responsibility.  See Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n\nCARRICK - G901705  15\n  \n \n \n9-514(c)(3); Tempworks Management Services, Inc. v. Jaynes, 2023 Ark. \nApp. 147.   \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the medical treatment sought by the claimant is unauthorized in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-514(Repl. 2012), said treatment \nshall be at the claimant’s expense.  Because the requested medical \ntreatment was unauthorized, the Full Commission need not adjudicate the \nissue of res judicata or the applicable statute of limitations.  The claim for \nadditional medical treatment is respectfully denied and dismissed.   \nIT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton concurs. \nCONCURRING OPINION \n I concur with the Majority’s finding that the claimant failed to prove \nhe is entitled to additional medical treatment. \n While the Majority relies upon the language of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-\n9-514 in its findings, we would be remiss in not simultaneously addressing \nthe ALJ’s findings in his December 21, 2022 Opinion and Order.  The ALJ \n\nCARRICK - G901705  16\n  \n \n \nwas correct in his findings that the claimant’s petition for additional medical \ntreatment was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of res \njudicata. \n Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-702(b)(1) provides that “[i]n cases \nin which any compensation, including disability or medical, has been paid \non account of injury, a claim for additional compensation shall be barred \nunless filed with the commission within one (1) year from the date of the last \npayment of compensation or two (2) years from the date of the injury, \nwhichever is greater.”  Our Supreme Court has determined that the statute \nof limitations commences upon the date of the last payment of benefits, \nwhether medical or indemnity.  Wynne v. Liberty Trailer & Death & \nPermanent Total Disability Tr. Fund, 2022 Ark. 65, 641 S.W.3d 621 (2022).  \nHere, there is no evidence of any benefits paid to or on behalf of the \nclaimant after May 22, 2020, for services rendered prior to that date.  \n(Respondent’s. Exhibit 2, page 8).  The claimant did not file a Form AR-C \nrequesting additional benefits until June 6, 2022, well over two years from \nthe date of the last payment of benefits.  The administrative law judge was \ncorrect in his ruling that the statute of limitations has expired and the claim \nis barred.   \n Additionally, the claimant’s request for additional medical treatment \nis barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  Res judicata applies where there \n\nCARRICK - G901705  17\n  \n \n \nhas been a final adjudication on the merits of the issue by a court of \ncompetent jurisdiction on all matters litigated and those matters necessarily \nwithin the issue which might have been litigated. Beliew v. Stuttgart Rice \nMill, 64 Ark. App. 334, 987 S.W.2d 281 (1998).  The key question regarding \nthe application of res judicata is whether the party against whom the earlier \ndecision is being asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue \nin question.  Cater v. Cater, 311 Ark. 627, 846 S.W.2d 173 (1993).  Res \njudicata does not apply if a claimant has sustained a change in condition or \nseeks benefits for a subsequent period of complications.  Rothrock v. \nAdvanced Envtl. Recycling, 2018 Ark. App. 88, 544 S.W.3d 61 \n(2018).  Before analyzing the claim under the doctrine of res judicata, the \nburden of proof rests with claimant to establish whether there had been \na change in his physical condition. Id.  The issue-preclusion provision of res \njudicata is also referred to as collateral estoppel and will bar relitigation of \nissues if the following requirements are met: “(1) the issue sought to be \nprecluded must be the same as that involved in the prior litigation; (2) the \nissue must have been actually litigated; (3) the issue must have been \ndetermined by a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination must \nhave been essential to the judgment.”  Rothrock v. Advanced Envtl. \nRecycling, 2018 Ark. App. 88, 544 S.W.3d 61 (2018).  It is well settled that \n\nCARRICK - G901705  18\n  \n \n \nres judicata applies to decisions of the Commission.  Craven v. Fulton \nSanitation Serv., 361 Ark. 390, 206 S.W.3d 842 (2005). \n The issues presented by the claimant in this case were fully litigated \nat a hearing before the Commission on August 5, 2020.  The administrative \nlaw judge ruled against the claimant and the claimant appealed and was \nunsuccessful at the Full Commission and Court of Appeals levels.  In \naddition, the Supreme Court of Arkansas declined the request of the \nclaimant to review the findings of the Court of Appeals.  The claimant’s \nrequest for additional medical treatment has been fully litigated and is \nbarred by res judicata.  The claimant is obviously unhappy with the results \nof the 2020 hearing and his lack of success on appeal and seeks to \nrelitigate the same issues in this case and apparently intends to keep \nrelitigating the same issues.  His request for additional medical treatment \nhas been repeatedly denied by bodies of competent jurisdiction, and there \nis no basis for the continued review of these findings as the contentions of \nthe claimant for additional medical treatment are clearly barred by not only \nres judicata, but also the statute of limitations.  \n Based on the above findings, I would affirm the Opinion filed by the \nadministrative law judge that the claim of the claimant is barred by the \nstatute of limitations and the doctrine of res judicata.  \n \n\nCARRICK - G901705  19\n  \n \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G901705 STEVEN C. CARRICK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BAPTIST HEALTH, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO. 1","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.459Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G901705-2023-05-31","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carrick_Steven_G901705_20230531.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}