{"id":"full_commission-G905176-2025-04-09","awcc_number":"G905176","decision_date":"2025-04-09","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Twanna Carter","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Community Corrections","title":"CARTER VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS AWCC# G905176 April 09, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","modified:1","dismissed:1","granted:4","denied:5"],"injury_keywords":["back","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carter_Twanna_G905176_20250409.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Carter_Twanna_G905176_20250409.pdf","text_length":14348,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  G905176 \n \nTWANNA CARTER, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY \nCORRECTIONS, EMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE ROBERT H. \nMONTGOMERY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant, pro se, appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion \nfiled January 14, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the \nclaimant failed to prove she was entitled to additional benefits.  After \nreviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant did not prove she was entitled to additional medical treatment or \nadditional temporary total disability benefits.     \nI.  HISTORY \n Twanna Carter, now age 43, agreed that she became employed with \nthe respondents, Arkansas Division of Community Corrections, in \n\nCARTER - G905176  2\n  \n \n \napproximately 2008.  The parties stipulated that the employment \nrelationship existed at all pertinent times, including August 1, 2019.  An \nadministrative law judge examined the pro se claimant: \n  Q.  What happened that day? \nA.  That day we was told that we was gonna have to do \nactivity on one of our instructors, which was taking down the \ninstructor.  And we all – it was, probably, approximately, about \nsix – six of us, I think, probably more.  And we had to go into a \nroom, where he was in there acting out or whatever and we \nhad to break him down.  And each of us had a position on \nwhat we supposed to do....And it just went wrong....and when \nwe fell, my leg went one way and my body went another and \nwe just tumbled and they fell on my leg and it just went from \nthere.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “suffered an accepted \ncompensable injury to her right lower extremity” on August 1, 2019.  The \nclaimant testified, “I tore my ACL and I fractured my MCL and I mean, I \nnever did return back to work.”  The parties stipulated that the respondents \n“provided some benefits associated with the claimant’s accepted injury.”   \n Dr. Carlos Roman noted on March 8, 2021: \nThe patient is a 39-year-old female.  She worked for the \nArkansas Department of Corrections and suffered injury to her \nright knee during a take-down exercise.  She ultimately \nunderwent anterior cruciate ligament repair by Dr. Handloser \nin February of 2020.   \nShe continues to complain of pain in the right knee.  She \nunderwent post-surgical MRI in October that showed good \nrepair of the ligament and an intact graft.  Dr. Azar, orthopedic \nsurgeon in Memphis, could find no rationale for further knee \npain.  A Functional Capacity Exam was done and \ndemonstrated an unreliable effort.  She was placed at \n\nCARTER - G905176  3\n  \n \n \nsedentary duty.  She was ultimately let go from that job.  She \nsays she couldn’t even do that.   \nShe comes in today for follow-up.  We have tried her on \nVoltaren gel.  We performed a right knee injection.  These \nhave not resolved the issue.  She still complains of pain in the \nknee.... \nAt this point in time, I would put her at maximal medical \nimprovement as it pertains to her knee injury.  There are no \nfurther injections, procedures, or medications required.  She is \none year out from the injury.  Physical Therapy has been \nexhausted and has been done appropriately.  I would be \nhappy to see her back under regular insurance if needed.   \nAs it pertains to the right knee injury, no further treatment is \nnecessary.  We will provide one last prescription.  No follow \nup is needed.  As far as her work capacity, given the \nunreliable effort, obviously she could work at a higher level \nthan sedentary given the results of the FCE.  \n \n The record indicates that the claimant participated in a Functional \nCapacity Evaluation on March 23, 2021:  “Ms. Carter completed functional \ntesting on this date with unreliable results.  Overall, Ms. Carter \ndemonstrated the ability to perform work in at least the SEDENTARY \nclassification of work[.]”    \n Dr. Frederick M. Azar reported on May 5, 2021: \nPatient is now 15 months out from allograft ACL \nreconstruction on the right with partial lateral meniscectomy \nand chondral debridement.... \nPLAN:  She is at MMI.  At this point she wants to talk about \nsome permanent restrictions.  She states she has difficulty \nwith prolonged walking, prolonged sitting, and prolonged \nstanding and also kneeling.  This is mainly a pain issue for \nher.  I am going to release her from my care at this time.  She \nwants to have these restrictions going forward.  I am going to \nrelease her from my care at this time and render an \nimpairment based on the AMA guides. \n \n\nCARTER - G905176  4\n  \n \n \n On May 18, 2021, Dr. Azar assigned the claimant “a 4% Whole \nPerson, 9% Lower Extremity impairment as a result of this work related \ninjury.”  The claimant’s testimony indicated that the respondents paid the \npermanent anatomical impairment rating assessed by Dr. Azar.     \nA pre-hearing order was filed on July 17, 2024.  The pro se claimant \ncontended, “I got declared being permanent disable (sic) from my injury on \njob.  I never got compensated for my future medical & disability benefits.”  \nThe respondents contended, “The claimant has requested a hearing \nseeking additional benefits.  The respondents contend that appropriate \nbenefits have been paid to the claimant.  The Respondents contend that all \nappropriate benefits owed to claimant as a result of her compensable injury \nhave been paid to date.  The last payment of compensation for this claim \nappears to have been May 5, 2021 when the claimant was treated at \nCampbell Clinic, PC.  The bill for this medical treatment was paid by \nrespondents on March 29, 2022.  There have been no other claim related \nexpenses or treatment rendered for this claim since that time.  The \nrespondents closed this file on July 12, 2022 and a Form 4 was filed with \nthe AWCC on March 22, 2023.  The respondents contend that this claim for \nadditional benefits was not timely filed as required by Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-702(b)(1) and is therefore barred by operation of the statute.  The \n\nCARTER - G905176  5\n  \n \n \nRespondents reserve the right to raise additional contentions, or to modify \nthose stated herein, pending completion of discovery.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional benefits, \nincluding coverage of future medical treatment, \nreimbursement for past medical treatment, and indemnity \nbenefits.   \n2. Whether any claims for additional benefits are barred by \nthe statute of limitations.  All other issues are reserved.   \n \n   After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nJanuary 14, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she was entitled to additional benefits.  The administrative \nlaw judge therefore denied and dismissed the claim.  The claimant appeals \nto the Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \nA.  Medical Treatment \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 \n\nCARTER - G905176  6\n  \n \n \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 70 (1984).   \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  The \nclaimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to any additional benefits.”  The Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant did not prove additional medical treatment was reasonably \nnecessary.  As we have discussed, the parties stipulated that the claimant \nsustained a compensable injury on August 1, 2019.  The claimant’s \ntestimony indicated that she injured her right knee while participating in a \nwork-related training exercise.  The respondents provided benefits, and the \nrecord indicates that the claimant underwent surgery performed by Dr. \nAzar. \nDr. Roman examined the claimant on March 8, 2021.  Dr. Roman \ndescribed the reasonably necessary medical treatment the claimant had \nundergone, and he opined, “As it pertains to the knee injury, no further \ntreatment is necessary....No follow up is needed.\"  Dr. Azar reported on \nMay 5, 2021, \"I am going to release her from my care at this time.\"  It is \nwithin the Commission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence and \nto determine what is most credible.  Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 \nArk. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  In the present matter, there is no medical \n\nCARTER - G905176  7\n  \n \n \nevidence of record contradicting the expert opinions of Dr. Roman and Dr. \nAzar that additional medical treatment is not reasonably necessary in \nconnection with the compensable injury sustained by the claimant on \nAugust 1, 2019.  There is no evidence demonstrating that the respondents \nfailed to provide past medical reasonably necessary medical treatment \nrendered to the claimant.  The Full Commission therefore finds that the \nclaimant did not prove additional medical treatment was reasonably \nnecessary.       \nB.  Temporary Disability \nThe standard for determining entitlement to temporary total disability \nbenefits differs depending upon whether the injury is a scheduled injury or \nan unscheduled injury.  Lawless v. AT&T Tech. Servs. Co., 2025 Ark. App. \n67, CV-24-289 (Ark. App. Feb. 05, 2025), citing City of Fort Smith v. Kaylor, \n2019 Ark. App. 517, 588 S.W.3d 803.  For scheduled injuries the injured \nemployee is to receive compensation for temporary total disability during \nthe healing period or until she returns to work, whichever occurs first.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-521(a)(Repl. 2012); Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 \nArk. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  An incapacity to earn wages is \npresumed when a claimant has sustained a compensable scheduled injury.  \nMinnesota Min. & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  The \nhealing period is that period for healing of the injury which continues until \n\nCARTER - G905176  8\n  \n \n \nthe employee is as far restored as the permanent character of the injury will \npermit.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 \n(1994).  Whether an employee’s healing period has ended is a question of \nfact for the Commission.  Ketcher Roofing Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark. App. 63, \n901 S.W.2d 25 (1995). \nIn the present matter, the administrative law judge adjudicated \ntemporary total disability in accordance with the well-settled legal standard \nfor unscheduled injuries as held in Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 \nArk. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  Because the claimant plainly sustained a \ncompensable scheduled injury, the administrative law erred as a matter of \nlaw.  Lawless, supra.  Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Full Commission to \nenter findings in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence and \nnot on whether there is substantial evidence to support an administrative \nlaw judge’s findings.  Roberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184, 649 \nS.W.2d 402 (1983). \nThe Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant did \nnot prove she was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits.  \nThe claimant sustained a compensable scheduled injury on August 1, 2019.  \nThe claimant testified that she did not return to work following the \ncompensable injury, and it was stipulated that the respondents provided \nbenefits.  Dr. Roman opined on March 8, 2021, “I would put her at \n\nCARTER - G905176  9\n  \n \n \nmaximum medical improvement as it pertains to the knee injury.”  There \nwere no opinions of record contradicting Dr. Roman’s opinion, and the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant reached the end of the healing period \nno later than March 8, 2021.  See Nix, supra.  Dr. Azar assigned a \npermanent anatomical impairment rating on May 18, 2021, and the claimant \ntestified that the respondents paid permanent benefits in accordance with \nthe rating.  Permanent impairment is any functional or anatomical loss \nremaining after the healing period has ended [emphasis supplied].  See \nJohnson v. General Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  \nThe evidence in the present matter does not demonstrate that the claimant \nremained within a healing period or re-entered a healing period at any time \nafter March 8, 2021.  The claimant therefore did not prove that she was \nentitled to additional temporary total disability benefits. \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not prove additional medical treatment was reasonably \nnecessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  \nThe claimant did not prove that she was entitled to additional temporary \ntotal disability benefits at any time following Dr. Roman’s assessment of \nmaximum medical improvement on March 8, 2021.  The Full Commission \ntherefore affirms as modified the opinion of the administrative law judge, \nand the present claim is respectfully denied and dismissed.  Because the \n\nCARTER - G905176  10\n  \n \n \nclaimant did not prove she was entitled to additional medical treatment or \ntemporary total disability benefits, we need not adjudicate whether the \napplicable statute of limitations bars the claim.     \nIT IS SO ORDERED.          \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G905176 TWANNA CARTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.374Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G905176-2025-04-09","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carter_Twanna_G905176_20250409.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}