{"id":"full_commission-H104895-2023-03-08","awcc_number":"H104895","decision_date":"2023-03-08","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Rachel Butler-Green","employer_name":"Parkview Magnet High School/little Rock School District","title":"BUTLER-GREEN VS. PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL/LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H104895 MARCH 8, 2023","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","strain","rotator cuff","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Butler-Green_Rachel_H104895_20230308.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Butler-Green_Rachel_H104895_20230308.pdf","text_length":8585,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H104895\n \n \nRACHEL BUTLER-GREEN, EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \nPARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL/LITTLE ROCK \nSCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER                                         RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                 RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 8, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant appeared pro se \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n  Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative \nLaw Judge filed June 28, 2022. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \nhas jurisdiction over this claim.  \n \n2.  I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed \nstipulations as fact.  \n \n3.  The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury to \nher right arm, neck, or right shoulder.  \n\n \nButler-Green-H104895         2  \n \n \n \n4.  The remaining issues have been rendered moot and \nnot addressed herein this Opinion. \n \n  We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire \nrecord herein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's \ndecision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings of fact made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n  Therefore, we affirm and adopt the June 28, 2022 decision of \nthe Administrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions \ntherein, as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal.  \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n     \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs and dissents. \n  \n\n \nButler-Green-H104895         3  \n \n \nCONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION \n  After my de novo review of the entire record, I concur in part \nwith but must respectfully dissent in part from the majority opinion.  I concur \nwith the majority’s finding that the claimant failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury to \nher right arm and to her neck.  However, I must dissent from the majority \nopinion finding that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder. \n  For the claimant to establish a compensable injury as a result \nof a specific incident, the following requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2002), must be established: (1) proof by a \npreponderance of the evidence of an injury arising out of and in the course \nof employment; (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury \ncaused internal or external physical harm to the body which required \nmedical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102 \n(4)(D), establishing the injury; and (4) proof by a preponderance of the \nevidence that the injury was caused by a specific incident and is identifiable \nby time and place of occurrence.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 \nArk. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \n\n \nButler-Green-H104895         4  \n \n \n  The evidence preponderates that the claimant’s right shoulder \ninjury satisfies the requirements of compensability.  The claimant sustained \nan injury while performing employment services on March 12, 2020.  There \nwere objective findings of the injury in the form of a right shoulder superior \nlabral tear as noted in the July 1, 2020, Operative Report.  In addition, this \ninjury required medical treatment in the form of a right shoulder arthroscopic \nanterior labral repair, biceps tenotomy, subacromial decompression with \nacromioplasty, and AC joint resection. \n  The issue in this matter is whether the claimant’s right \nshoulder injury was caused by her workplace accident.   The claimant \ninitially received treatment for her injuries from Dr. Chen Wang at \nMedExpress on March 12, 2020.  The claimant presented with complaints \nof “injury to neck, injury to shoulder” and right arm pain.  The claimant also \nreported tingling in her hand.  The claimant reported that she was “shoved \nby student”.  The claimant was assessed as having “strain of muscle, fascia \nand tendon at neck level” and prescribed Tizanidine. \n  During her June 3, 2020, wellness physical at Barg Family \nClinic, the claimant reported nighttime pain in the right shoulder to Dr. \nTimothy Hodges. The claimant also indicated that the pain from her right \nshoulder radiates down her arm.   \n\n \nButler-Green-H104895         5  \n \n \n  The claimant saw Dr. Clayton Riley on June 16, 2020, with the \nchief complaint of right shoulder pain.  Dr. Riley diagnosed the claimant with \nan “impingement and possibly a rotator cuff tear” and ordered an MRI.   \n  The claimant underwent an MRI on June 26, 2020, which \nrevealed the following: \nIMPRESSION: \n1. Moderate acromioclavicular osteoarthritis. \n2. Rotator cuff tendinopathy without discrete \ntear. \n3. Possible subacromial subdeltoid bursitis. \n \n  On July 1, 2020, the claimant underwent a “right shoulder \narthroscopic anterior labral repair, biceps tenotomy, subacromial \ndecompression with acromioplasty, and AC joint resection”.  The claimant’s \npost-operative diagnoses were listed as: \n1. Right shoulder superior labral tear from           \n    anterior to posterior. \n2. Anterior labral tear. \n3. Possible posterior labral tear. \n4. Subacromial impingement. \n5. Acromioclavicular joint arthritis. \n \n  Although the claimant initially was unsure how her shoulder \ninjury occurred, the record supports a finding that she injured her right \nshoulder during the workplace incident.  The claimant complained of right \nshoulder pain during her first medical visit following the work incident which \nwas on the same day of the incident.   \n\n \nButler-Green-H104895         6  \n \n \n  Also, the mechanism of the injury correlates with the type of \ninjury the claimant suffered to her right shoulder.  The claimant described \nhow the incident occurred as follows: \nQ   Okay.  Can you tell me what happened? \n \nA ...  He kind of got out of his seat.  I \n pressed the button.  We have a button on \n the wall next to the door to call to the \n office for security.  Before security could \n arrive, he actually came to the door, and I \n was at the door, and he pushed me, \n pushed his way out of the door and \n stormed down the hallway. ... \n \nQ Okay.  So tell me a little about the \n student.  You’ve described him to me \n before, but can you describe him?  He’s \n kind of ...  Is he a big kid or ... \n \nA  He’s a very ...  He’s a football player and \n he’s very large.  I mean, he’s probably six \n three and close to three hundred pounds.  \n He’s still a student there now, a senior \n this year, and he’s aggressive.  ... \n \nQ Okay.  So will you describe for us the ... \n you said he pushed you.  Can you kind of \n describe what that motion looked like and \n how he pushed you? \n \n... \n \nA ...  So I was standing at the door like \n such.  There’s a button here, a white \n button.  I pressed the button.  My hand \n\n \nButler-Green-H104895         7  \n \n \n was on the doorknob.  He came towards \n me and the door, and he pushed to try to \n get out of the door, and he kind of \n grabbed and pulled back, which jarred \n me, and it also pulled my arm, and he \n went out of the door. \n \n  Additionally, I note that the claimant did not have right \nshoulder pain prior to her work accident.  However, within four months, she \nhad to undergo surgical interventions to repair a labral tear. \n  Clearly, there is a causal connection between the claimant’s \nwork incident and her right shoulder injury. \n  Based on the aforementioned, I find that the claimant has \nestablished by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a \ncompensable right shoulder injury. \n  For the foregoing reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part \nfrom the majority opinion.    \n      __________________________ \nM. Scott Willhite, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H104895 RACHEL BUTLER-GREEN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL/LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 8, 2023 U...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.520Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H104895-2023-03-08","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Butler-Green_Rachel_H104895_20230308.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}