{"id":"full_commission-H005060-2024-02-22","awcc_number":"H005060","decision_date":"2024-02-22","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Stanley Cheathem","employer_name":"Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc","title":"CHEATHEM VS. HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. AWCC# H005060 FEBRUARY 22, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","repetitive","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cheathem_Stanley_H005060_20240222.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Cheathem_Stanley_H005060_20240222.pdf","text_length":35744,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H005060  \n \nSTANLEY R. CHEATHEM, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nHUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP./ \nCORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP., INC., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE MALCOLM A. SIMMONS, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE EDWARD W. McCORKLE, \nAttorney at Law, Arkadelphia, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJuly 12, 2023.  The administrative law judge found, among other things, that \nthe claimant proved he sustained a compensable right wrist injury.  After \nreviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant proved he sustained a compensable injury.     \nI.  HISTORY \n The record indicates that Stanley Cheathem, now age 53, became \nemployed with the respondents, Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc, in \nOctober 2016.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      2\n  \n \n \n  Q.  How long did you work for Husqvarna? \nA.  I started my work with them October 17, 2016.  I came in \nand I was assigned to Line 5 under supervisor Parnell Pope \non the carousel in the assembly department.... \nQ.  Tell the Court about your injury. \nA.  Well, eventually – like I said, I started on Line 5.  We \neventually moved to another line, Line 3, and when I got to \nthat line – I believe it was at the end of 2017, around the \nbeginning of 2018.  On that line some of the jobs that I was \ndoing was a lot more strenuous than what I was used to, and \na description of them would be – the first job would have been \nsecond torque, fishing module cables around the side of a \nunit.  My second job was torquing flywheels and placing \nmodules on the unit.  Third job was torquing two screws in a \nmodule and routing a sparkplug wire around the unit and \nputting it on the sparkplug.   \nQ.  What was your daily schedule? \nA.  I came in on that line, on Line 3 specifically is where the \ninjury started, from – we started I believe at 5:30 a.m. and first \nbreak would have been at 9 o’clock.... \nQ.  What were you doing say from 5:30 a.m. until 9:00 a.m.?  \nCan you explain that to the Court what you were doing at that \ntime and your best guess or estimate for the time it took you \nto perform your job and how long you were doing that during \nthat period? \nA.  Yes.  Most of the time we ran units 12 to 15 seconds, you \nknow, per unit and taking the high end, just saying maybe 15 \nseconds, there was going to be about 200 units an hour or \n240 units an hour maybe, and that’s about 2,000 I think a day.  \nIt’s a lot of screwing, using air guns to torque down screws.  \nYou are pulling wires around, twisting – it’s a lot of twisting, a \nlot of rotating, a lot of pushing, fast paced, flipping units, and \nthat particular job was one that had caused a previous injury \nwith the constant torquing, flipping and fishing them wires \naround, trying to push them through a hole and then pulling it \nout.  It’s a lot of wear and tear on you and it’s very fast paced.  \nI’m saying the high end is 15 seconds that you got to do all of \nthis and then the next unit, and this is repetitive, over and over \nand over and over.   \n \n Dr. Brian Norton provided an Initial Evaluation on July 20, 2018: \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      3\n  \n \n \nThis is a 47 year old right hand dominant male that comes in \ncomplaining of left thumb locking and pain.  He has had the \npain and locking since March 2018.  The patient relates the \nsymptoms to repetitive gripping and pinching activities while at \nwork.  He has received one steroid injection which actually \nmade his symptoms worse.  He describes the pain as a \nthrobbing type pain....Heat and rest improves his symptoms.  \nSymptoms are worse with pinching and gripping type \nactivities.... \nThe patient’s clinical history and physical examination are \nconsistent with stenosing tenosynovitis of the left thumb....I \nrecommend he proceed with a left thumb A1 pulley release.... \n \n The claimant testified that he underwent the left thumb A1 pulley \nrelease recommended by Dr. Norton.   \nThe parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed at all \npertinent times, including December 19, 2019.  The claimant testified with \nregard to his right wrist: \nA.  It was tolerable until December of 2019.  Our line didn’t \nwork – wasn’t scheduled to work so I needed my hours so I \nvolunteered to come in and work wherever.  I was put on lines \n7 and 8, and that particular job that I was doing really had me \n– I’m using my left hand but it was my right, had me bending \nthe wrist a lot and using a stapler and it started hurting worse \nthat it had ever hurt, to the point that it was unbearable.  So I \nasked the supervisor, Yvonne Moreland, if she would take me \nto the nurse’s station to get some rub on it and get it wrapped \nbecause I had never had it hurt quite that bad before.  She \ntook me and I came back to the line and I just noticed that it \nwas just progressively getting more and more intense and I \nwas like what’s going on here....So after that we went on \nabout a three week break for the holidays and we didn’t come \nback.... \nQ.  When did you return to work? \nA.  January – I want to say I actually returned and worked \nJanuary 8\nth\n, came back maybe a few days before then.  Line \n3, which was my line, wasn’t working or didn’t have parts so \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      4\n  \n \n \nwe went home and when we eventually came back to work \nthey shut that line down and reassigned us and I went to line \n4....Once I started on line 4 is when I really noticed it.  I was \nlike, wow, you know, the way my wrist was hurting before I \nleft, within an hour’s time it was inflamed again and I didn’t \nquite understand why the pain was so intense and why even \nafter being off three weeks, why is my wrist still hurting me like \nthis you know.  And so I think I had went and had it wrapped \nbefore I started work because I was still bothered by it, just \nover the break, but from that point on just throughout the day \nit was just getting bad and I was having to go back to the \nnurse and try to get some wrap on it, some rub on it and have \nit wrapped, and just from that point on it just progressively got \nto the point that any rotating, pinching, pushing and pulling, \nthe pain was far more intense that it had been previously.  So \nwhatever had happened 12/12 really set it off, and from that \npoint on it just progressively got worse to the point where \ngripping became a serious problem.... \n \n A FIRST AID VISIT REPORT dated January 8, 2020 indicated, “Pain \nin right hand and wrist.  Started working on line 4 carousel today.  Waited \nuntil after clocking out to come to first aid.”  The BREIF (sic) DESCRIPTION \nOF EVENT was “lifting.”   \nA FIRST AID VISIT REPORT dated January 23, 2020 indicated, \n“Stated pain started on line 3 when he was using a gun on every job.  Then \nhe was moved to Yinas line doing boxes and this is when it flared up.  On \n1/8/2020.”   \nAccording to the record, a Nurse Note was entered on January 23, \n2020: \nStanley Cheathem presented to first aid with request to wrap \nhis right wrist.  There is no swelling redness lumps bumps or \nbruises.  Stanley [stated] that he has come in first aid a few \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      5\n  \n \n \ntimes with this pain and he was given a wrap and he returned \nto work.  I saw him on 1/8/2020 as he was going home and \ntreated him he was to return to first aid and placed on the first \naid list and did not return to first aid for at least three days.  \nROM wnl there is no grinding locking or clicking.  He holds his \nwrist tight making movement hard and states that he is having \npain when I did the ROM with his right wrist.  Stanley freely \nmoves the right wrist himself.  Incident form and form N \ncompleted.  Copy form N given to employee.  Hot wax \ntreatment done to right wrist and hand.  Otc menthol pain \npatch applied to the outer right wrist.  He shows me his pain is \nabove the second third and fourth digits of the right wrist.  \n[Restrictions] no use of the right hand or wrist.  May use the \nfinger tips but no weight over one pound with the right hand.  \nRecheck 0530 in AM and as needed today.  Supervisor \ninstructed that safety investigation is required.   \n \n The claimant followed up with the Nurse on January 27, 2020, \nFebruary 3, 2020, and February 6, 2020.  FIRST AID NOTES FOR \nSUPERVISOR on February 6, 2020 indicated, “Return to work with out \nrestriction.”   \n A FIRST AID VISIT REPORT was prepared on July 1, 2020:  “Pain \nin right wrist, increases with certain movement.  He stated repetative (sic) \nmotion....C/O pain in right wrist stated it is the same pain he had in \nDecember and January and he has been hurting ever since.  No swelling or \nredness.  OTC menthol patch applied to the thumb side of the right wrist \nand light wrap of coflex to keep it in place.  Did not return to first aid during \nthe rest of his shift as instructed.” \n The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on July 3, 2020.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of the \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      6\n  \n \n \nForm AR-N indicated that the Date of Accident was December 12, 2019, \nand that the employer was notified of same on December 12, 2019.  The \nclaimant appeared to write that the cause of injury was “Repetative (sic) use \nof my right wrist.  Same combinations of twisting & pinching or pushing \ncauses more immediate and severe pain.  It hurts pretty much all of the \ntime and can’t be [unintelligible].”   \n FIRST AID NOTES on July 14, 2020 indicated, “Due to safety \ninvestigation ruling of NWR issue and this being the first time Sandra \nMcWha, from safety department could talk with Stanley, he has missed \nseveral days recently.  Stanley was sent out for a full release from his PCP \nfor his right wrist today.  Stanley did not come to first aid on 7/7/20, 7/8/20, \n7/9/20, 7/10/20 called in 7/11/20 and 7/13/20.  Must bring MD release to \nreturn to work.” \n The claimant testified that he did not work for the respondents after \nJuly 14, 2020.     \n A Human Resources Representative for Husqvarna Group wrote the \nfollowing on July 15, 2020: \n  Dear Medical Provider: \nHusqvarna Group is concerned for the safety and health of all \nemployees.  As such, please note that Stanley Cheathem has \nmade us aware of a personal medical condition that may \ncompromise his safety while performing duties at work.  \nStanley stated that he has been having pain in his right hand \nand forearm since December 2019.  Husqvarna is requesting \nthat you review her ability to safely perform the essential \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      7\n  \n \n \nfunctions noted in the attached job description and provide \nmedical advice regarding any restrictions prior to their return \nto work.   \nIn addition to the attached job description, the job has general \nrequirements as follows: \n •  Hand eye coordination \n •  Fast paced work environment \n •  Use of hand held power tools \n •  Standing for periods of time up to 10 hours \n •  Lifting up to 40 pounds \n \nHusqvarna is requesting that you document any restrictions or \nlimitations as well.... \n \n On October 9, 2020, the claimant signed an APPLICATION FOR \nUNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.  The claimant reported on the \nAPPLICATION that he began working for the respondents, Husqvarna \nOutdoor Products, on October 17, 2016 and that the DATE LAST WORK \nENDED was July 14, 2020.   \n Melanie Hearnsberger McGuire, APRN examined the claimant at \nHope Family Practice Center on October 14, 2020: \nHe presented with wrist pain.  At night wrist locks up and has \nto use other hand to get it unstuck, when he squeezes \nsomething and tries to turn pain radiates up arm.  It is located \non the right.  The symptoms started 1 years ago.  Pt is a 49 \ny/o BM who is new to our clinic.  He complains of chronic wrist \npain.  Reports most of his pain is at night and in the morning.  \nAt times he has to use his opposite hand to manually \n[maneuver] his right wrist because it feels like it locks up.  \nPain is located in the wrist but radiates up his forearm.  States \npain improves after he has moved wrist for a little while.  \nReports after he has been using his wrist a lot, he develops a \nsoft knot on the lateral side of the wrist.  Reports he has had \nthis kind of problem previously prior to his trigger finger \ndevelopment in 2018. \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      8\n  \n \n \n \n Melanie McGuire noted “ROM – wrist:  crepitus.”  Ms. McGuire \ndiagnosed “Chronic pain of right wrist,” “Osteoarthritis of right wrist, \nunspecified osteoarthritis type,” “Tendonitis of wrist, right,” and “Body mass \nindex (BMI) 25.0-25.9, adult.”     \nMelanie McGuire reported on October 14, 2020: \nStanley Cheatham (sic), DOB 11/11/1970, came to our office \ntoday due to right wrist pain.  He may return to work on \n10/15/2020 with the following restrictions:  no use of hand \nheld power tools with his right hand, no lifting of 5 pounds or \nmore with the right hand, and must wear wrist brace/splint \nwith any activity.  This is the first visit with this gentleman, so \nthe work excuse is for today only.  Thank you.  \n \n Dr. G. Thomas Frazier examined the claimant on November 9, 2020: \nStanley Ray Cheatham (sic) is a 49 y.o. male patient Who \npresents today for evaluation of a 9-10 month history of right \nwrist pain.  His symptoms began in December of  2019.  He \nhe (sic) works at Husqvarna making small engines and \nanother (sic) equipment.  The pain and weakness in his right \nwrist is fairly constant and worse with even light grasping or \nlifting activities.  He denies any history of a remote injury.  He \nhas been wearing a wrist splint and taking ibuprofen 600 mg.  \nHe has also applied some topical ointments without significant \nimprovement.... \nRight hand and wrist \nThere is Mild diffuse swelling over the dorsal aspect of the \nwrist, with tenderness to palpation over the radiocarpal joint, \nmore towards the radial styloid.... \nRadiographic interpretation: \nPA, lateral, and scaphoid views of the right wrist show a \nscapholunate diastasis with dorsal intercalated segment \ninstability.  There are arthritic changes at the radial styloid \nconsistent with a scapholunate advanced collapse deformity, \nstage 1-2.   \n \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      9\n  \n \n \n Dr. Frazier assessed “Scapholunate advanced collapse deformity the \nright wrist.”  Dr. Frazier treated the claimant conservatively.   \n Dr. Frazier noted on December 7, 2020, “The patient returns for \nfollow-up of his right wrist pain secondary to a scapholunate advanced \ncollapse deformity, stage II.  He reports improvement in his wrist pain \nfollowing intra-articular corticosteroid and local anesthetic injection.  He \ncontinues to wear a carpal strap or soft wrist support....The patient will \ncontinue to wear a carpal strap for support of his wrist when engaging in \nstrenuous activity.  He may increase activities as tolerated....He will return if \nhe has further problems or concerns regarding his right wrist, and otherwise \non a p.r.n. basis.”   \n The claimant returned to Melanie McGuire on December 30, 2020: \n  He presented with wrist pain.   \nF/U right wrist pain.  Stated now having numbness from \nfingers to elbow.  Was seeing Dr. Frazier in Little Rock.... \nPt is a 50 y/o BM who presents for follow up on right wrist \npain.  Pt was seen by Dr. Frazier on 11/9 and diagnosed with \nscapholunate advanced collapse of right wrist.  Pt received \nintra-articular injection of betamethasone and lidocaine.  Was \ninstructed to wear a thumb spica splint x4 weeks.  Pt was \nreleased to prn based visits at f/u visit on 12/7.  On 12/7, pt \nreported improvement in symptoms after injection and \nsplinting.  Pt was advised to wear carpal strap with strenuous \nactivity, increase activity as tolerated, continue OTC pain \nmeds, and to return if problems continued.  Pt requests \nsecond opinion because the injection did not fix the problem \nand he does not want surgery.  States he feels like his \nsymptoms are the direct result of an acute injury at work \ninstead of an injury sustained in his 20’s that has progressed \nto the point where he is now.  Patient denies ever having \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      10\n  \n \n \nacute injury to wrist.  Patient works at Husqvarna where he \nuses hand tools to build small engines.  Previously had the \nsame symptoms in his left wrist.  Reports he had surgery in \n2018 which fixed the symptoms in his left wrist.... \n \n Ms. McGuire physically examined the claimant’s right wrist and \nreported “swelling mild.”  It was noted that the claimant requested a second \nopinion with Dr. Brian Norton.   \n Dr. Norton examined the claimant at OrthoArkansas on or about \nJanuary 16, 2021: \nStanley Cheathem is a 50 year old Male who presents to \ndiscuss concerns about their Wrist, that began on \n12/19/2019.... \nInjury occurred:  Repetitive gripping, pinching & twisting at a \nfast pace for extended periods of time.  On my job.... \nWork status:  Not working.... \nThis is a 50-year-old male that presents with complaints of \nright wrist pain and swelling.  He looks the pain to the radial \nside of his wrist.  He states that the pain for the past several \nmonths.  He describes the pain as a dull and shooting type \npain.  He cannot recall a specific injury or event that initiated \nsymptoms.  He states pain is worse with use of the wrist as \nwell as wrist extension or flexion.  Pain is improved with \nrest.... \n \n Dr. Norton reported “Mild swelling” in the claimant’s right wrist and \nhand.  X-ray showed “Scapholunate diastases with evidence of advanced \ncollapse.”  Dr. Norton assessed “1.  Right SLAC wrist with chronic pain” and \nplanned, “1.  I discussed with the patient today both surgical and \nnonsurgical treatment options....2.  The patient would like to think about his \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      11\n  \n \n \ntreatment options and then let me know.  He is recent (sic) received a \nsteroid injection that only provided temporary relief.”   \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Norton on March 10, 2021:  “At this \npoint the patient does continue to have radial sided wrist pain.  I discussed \nwith him once again treatment options.  He still is reluctant about having a \npartial wrist fusion.  He is going to think about this and let me know.  In the \nmeantime I will place him in a removable cast to further immobilize the \nwrist.  He will let me know when he wants to proceed with surgery.”   \nA pre-hearing order was filed on March 1, 2023.  According to the \ntext of the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The claimant \ncontends that on or about December 19, 2019, he was relocated to a new \nposition, line and job that he wasn’t used to performing.  His right wrist had \nbeen irritated for a few weeks before he was moved to the new job, but \nnothing unusual for the type of work he performed.  The claimant contends \nthe newly assigned position caused him to use his right wrist in a more \ndemanding way that really ignited the pain, causing him to request and \nseek medical treatment.  The plant nurse, Yvonne Moorland, wrapped and \nrubbed the claimant’s right wrist.” \n The parties stipulated that the respondents controverted the claim.  \n The respondents contended, “The respondents contend the claimant \ncannot meet his burden of proof pursuant to the Act in demonstrating he \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      12\n  \n \n \nsustained a gradual onset injury that culminated in disability as of \nDecember 19, 2019.  The respondents contend the claimant did not injure \nhis right wrist within the course and scope of his employment and, \ntherefore, he did not sustain a compensable gradual onset injury to his right \nwrist.  The respondents contend the relevant medical reports indicate the \nclaimant already had a scapholunate advanced collapse of his right wrist as \nwell as osteoarthritis of his right wrist which are non-compensable \nconditions/injuries.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether the claimant sustained a gradual onset \ncompensable injury within the meaning of the Arkansas’ \nWorkers’ compensation Act (the Act) to his right wrist on \nDecember 19, 2019. \n2.  If the claimant’s alleged injury is deemed compensable, the \nextent to which he is entitled to medical and indemnity \nbenefits. \n3.  Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted fee on these facts. \n4.  The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for \nfuture litigation and/or determination.   \n \n After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on July \n12, 2023.  The administrative law judge found, among other things, that the \nclaimant was entitled to medical treatment “related to his compensable right \nwrist injury.”  The respondents appeal to the Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      13\n  \n \n \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. \n2012), provides, in pertinent part: \n  (A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(ii)  An injury causing internal or external physical harm to the \nbody and arising out of and in the course of employment if it is \nnot caused by a specific incident or is not identifiable by time \nand place of occurrence, in the injury is: \n(a)  Caused by rapid repetitive motion.... \n \n In analyzing whether an injury is caused by rapid repetitive motion, \nthe standard is a two-pronged test:  (1)  the tasks must be repetitive, and \n(2)  the repetitive motion must be rapid.  Malone v. Texarkana Public \nSchools, 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998).   \nA compensable injury must also be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D)(Repl. \n2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. \n2012).   \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) further provides, in \npertinent part: \n(E)  BURDEN OF PROOF.  The burden of proof of a \ncompensable injury shall be on the employee and shall be as \nfollows: \n(ii)  For injuries falling within the definition of compensable \ninjury under subdivision (4)A)(ii) of this section, the burden of \nproof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence, and the \nresultant condition is compensable only if the alleged \ncompensable injury is the major cause of the disability or need \nfor treatment.   \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      14\n  \n \n \n \n Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater \nweight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 \nArk. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003).  “Major cause” means “more than \nfifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of major cause shall be \nestablished according to the preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-102(14)(A)(Repl. 2012).    \n In workers’ compensation cases, the Commission functions as the \ntrier of fact.  Blevins v. Safeway Stores, 25 Ark. App. 297, 757 S.W.2d 569 \n(1988).  The Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the \nclaimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into findings of \nfact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Farmers \nCo-op v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002).  The Full \nCommission has the duty to decide the case de novo and we are not bound \nby the characterization of evidence adopted by the administrative law judge.  \nTyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990).   \n In the present matter, an administrative law judge found, among \nother things, that the claimant proved his job duties for the respondents \n“constituted rapid repetitive motion.”  The Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a \ncompensable injury.  The claimant became employed with the respondents \nin 2016.  The claimant described his work on a “carousel” assembly line as \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      15\n  \n \n \ninvolving rapid repetitive motion with both upper extremities.  The claimant \ntestified regarding his assembly-line work, “Most of the time we ran units 12 \nto 15 seconds, you know, per unit and taking the high end, just saying \nmaybe 15 seconds, there was going to be about 200 units an hour or 240 \nunits an hour maybe, and that’s about 2,000 I think a day.”  The claimant’s \nwork required “torquing down screws” and “pulling wires” at a rapid, \nrepetitive pace over a period of several hours.  Dr. Norton described \n“repetitive gripping and pinching activities” in July 2018 and eventually \nperformed a left thumb A1 pulley release.   \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that he returned to work for the \nrespondents following the surgery to his left upper extremity.  The claimant \ntestified that his physical condition was “tolerable until December of 2019.”  \nThe claimant testified that his job duties were increased and caused more \nstress and bending of his right wrist.  The claimant subsequently began \ntreating with the respondent-employer’s company nurse for increased work-\nrelated symptoms in his right upper extremity.  A First Aid report on July 1, \n2020 described “repetative (sic) motion” in the claimant’s right wrist.  FIRST \nAID NOTES on July 14, 2020 indicated that the claimant “Must bring MD \nrelease to return to work.”  A Human Resources letter on July 15, 2020 \nstated that the claimant’s work included a “Fast paced work environment” \nwith “Use of hand held power tools.”  Melanie McGuire, APRN began \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      16\n  \n \n \ntreating the claimant in October 2020 and related the claimant’s right wrist \npain to his work for the respondents.  Ms. McGuire reported that the \nclaimant should no longer use hand-held power tools “and must wear wrist \nbrace/splint with any activity.”  The claimant also treated with Dr. Frazier \nand Dr. Norton.     \n Whether or not an employee was performing rapid repetitive motion \nis not a mathematical formula but is a finding of fact based on the \ncircumstances of each particular case.  Hapney v. Rheem Manufacturing \nCo., 67 Ark. App. 8, 992 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  In the present matter, the \nclaimant’s credible testimony indicates that his assembly line work for the \nrespondents was both rapid and repetitive.  The claimant testified that he \nwas assembling 200-240 units per hour over the course of a full day’s work \nshift, and that such work required strenuous use of his left and right hands.  \nThe evidence demonstrates that the claimant’s tasks in the respondents’ \nemployment were repetitive, and that the repetitive motion was rapid.  \nMalone, supra \n The claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a “compensable injury” in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(A)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant proved that he sustained an \ninjury causing physical harm to the body, that the injury arose out of and in \nthe course of employment, and that the injury was caused by rapid \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      17\n  \n \n \nrepetitive motion.  The claimant also established a compensable injury by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings, namely the reports of \n“swelling” in the claimant’s right wrist and hand as observed by Dr. Frazier, \nMs. McGuire, and Dr. Norton.  Swelling can be an objective medical finding \nestablishing a compensable injury.  White County Med. Ctr. v. Johnson, \n2022 Ark. App. 262, 646 S.W.3d 245.  Finally, the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that the compensable injury was the major \ncause of his need for treatment.   \n After reviewing the entire record, therefore, the Full Commission \nfinds that the claimant proved he sustained a compensable injury to his \nright wrist and hand, which injury was caused by rapid repetitive motion in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012) et seq.  \nThe claimant proved that the medical treatment of record provided on and \nafter December 19, 2019 was reasonably necessary in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the \nFull Commission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal \nservices, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n \n \n \n \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      18\n  \n \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED.   \n  \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant proved he sustained a compensable injury to his right wrist. \nArkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-102 (4)(A)(ii) (Repl. 2002) provides \nthat a compensable injury includes: \n(ii) An injury causing internal or external \nphysical harm to the body and arising out \nof and in the course of employment if it is \nnot caused by a specific incident or is not \nidentifiable by time and place of \noccurrence, if the injury is: \n \n(a) Caused by rapid repetitive motion. \n \nWhen a rapid repetitive motion injury is argued to be an aggravation \nof a pre-existing condition, the claimant must prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that the injury: (1) arose out of and in the course of his \nemployment; (2) caused internal or external physical harm to the body \nrequiring medical services; (3) was caused by rapid repetitive motion; (4) \nwas the major cause of the disability or need for treatment; and (5) was \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      19\n  \n \n \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  Parker v. \nAtlantic Research Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W.3d 449 (2004); See \nalso Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A) and (E). \nThere is no medical evidence or testimony that supports a finding \nthat the claimant’s right wrist osteoarthritis was a result of his work with the \nrespondent employer.  As an initial matter, the claimant admitted in his \ntestimony that he has never received any kind of permanent disability \ndiagnosis.  (Hrng. Tr, Pp. 54-55).  The only medication the claimant takes \nfor his purported injury is over the counter Ibuprofen “[a]s I need it.  It \nstiffens up sometimes, tightens up, and I take over-the-counter Ibuprofen.” \n(Hrng. Tr, Pp. 49, 58).  The claimant occasionally wears a wrist brace but \nwas not wearing one at the time of the hearing and has not seen a doctor \nfor his right wrist in approximately two years.  (Hrng. Tr, Pp. 50, 56). \nThe claimant first received medical treatment for his right wrist at \nHope Family Practice Center where he complained of chronic right wrist \npain.  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 3). Claimant was diagnosed with “[o]steoarthritis of \nright wrist, unspecified osteoarthritis type and . . . Chronic pain of right \nwrist.”  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 4).  He was prescribed ibuprofen at that time.  Id.  \nAt an October 28, 2020 visit with Hope Family Practice Center, APRN \nMelanie Hearnsberger McGuire reviewed an X-ray of the claimant’s wrist \nand found “widening of scapholunate interval and cystlike changes along \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      20\n  \n \n \nthe radial aspect of the distal scaphoid pole” and diagnosed “[i]njury of the \nright scapholunate ligament with no instability.”  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 8).  \nAfter a referral from APRN McGuire, the claimant visited Dr. G. \nThomas Frazier, an orthopedic surgeon at UAMS, on November 9, 2020. \n(Resp. Ex. 2, Pp. 10-24).  Dr. Frazier reviewed the claimant’s radiographic \nfindings and observed “scapholunate diastasis with dorsal intercalated \nsegment instability.  There are arthritic changes at the radial styloid \nconsistent with a scapholunate advanced collapse deformity.”  (Resp. Ex. 2, \nP. 13).  The claimant received a steroid injection at that time, and Dr. \nFrazier recommended symptomatic treatment.  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 19).  Dr. \nFrazier did not take the claimant off work at that time and made no \nconnection between the claimant’s work and his complaints. \nOn December 30, 2020, the claimant obtained a referral for second \nopinion from Dr. Brian Norton who had conducted a previous surgery on the \nclaimant’s left hand.  (Resp. Ex, 2, P. 29).  As of March 10, 2021, Dr. \nNorton’s findings mirrored those of Hope Family Practice and Dr. Frazier: \nradiographic findings showed scapholunate diastases with evidence of \nadvanced collapse, and Dr. Norton diagnosed primary osteoarthritis in the \nright wrist.  (Resp. Ex. 2, Pp. 36-37).  Like Dr. Frazier, Dr. Norton made no \nconnection between the claimant’s work and his condition. \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      21\n  \n \n \nThe record is clear that the claimant’s right wrist condition is \ndegenerative in nature.  There is no indication that any purported rapid \nrepetitive motion could have resulted in the claimant’s osteoarthritis, nor \ndoes any medial practitioner or orthopedic specialist state that the \nclaimant’s scapholunate diastasis is the result of his working conditions. \nThere is simply no objective evidence that this injury was work related, was \nthe major cause of the claimant’s need for treatment or has been \nestablished by medical evidence supported by any objective findings. \nIn workers’ compensation cases, a decision often rests solely on the \ncredibility of the claimant as a witness.  A determination of the weight and \ncredibility of a witness' testimony is exclusively within the province of the \nCommission.  Wade v. Mr. C. Cavenaugh's, 298 Ark. 363, 768 S.W.2d 521 \n(1989). The Commission has the right to believe or disbelieve the testimony \nof any witness, and the Commission's decision is entitled to the weight we \ngive a jury verdict.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Disheroon, 26 Ark. App. 145, 761 \nS.W.2d 617 (1988). \n In the present case, we are unable to rely on the claimant’s \ntestimony regarding the source and nature of his injury, as he has proven \nhimself to be unreliable.  From the outset, the claimant was dishonest on \nhis application for unemployment insurance through the Arkansas \nDepartment of Workforce Services, stating he was unemployed due to \n\nCHEATHEM - H005060      22\n  \n \n \nmedical leave.  (See Resp. Ex. 3).  Further, the respondents obtained an \ninvestigator to observe the claimant, who found that he “is very active with \nhis right hand.”  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1).  On October 22, 2020, the investigator \nobserved the claimant walking a dog holding “the leash with his left hand \nand at times with his right hand at other times.  The dog often pulled and \ntugged on the leash.  The subject did not have a brace or any other device \non either wrist or hand.”  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1).  This was a consistent pattern \nwith the claimant through October of 2023.  (See Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 3, 5, 7). \nThe claimant testified that the dogs in question are American Bulldogs that \ncan weigh up to fifty pounds.  (Hrng. Tr, P. 41).  At the time of the hearing, \nthe claimant had six of these dogs in his care. (Hrng. Tr, P. 51). \n From these observations and the claimant’s own responses when \npressed, it is clear that his capabilities far exceed what the claimant asserts. \nWhile the claimant alleges chronic, debilitating pain, he is consistently able \nto continue the daily activities of life and the care of the dogs he hopes to \none day enter the business of selling.  For this reason, any testimony by the \nclaimant regarding the source and nature of his injury must be disregarded. \nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H005060 STANLEY R. CHEATHEM, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP./ CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP., INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.969Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H005060-2024-02-22","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cheathem_Stanley_H005060_20240222.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}