{"id":"full_commission-H106980-2024-02-12","awcc_number":"H106980","decision_date":"2024-02-12","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Travis Evans","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Transportation","title":"EVANS VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AWCC# H106980 FEBRUARY 12, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["lumbar","hip","back","knee","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Evans_Travis_H106980_20240212.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Evans_Travis_H106980_20240212.pdf","text_length":12475,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H106980 \n \nTRAVIS EVANS,  \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF \nTRANSPORTATION, EMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nCARRIER \nRESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EDDIE H. WALKER, Attorney \nat Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. \nMCLEMORE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n The respondents appeal and the Claimant cross-appeals an opinion \nand order of the Administrative Law Judge filed May 31, 2023.  In said \norder, the Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of fact and \nconclusions of law:  \n1.  The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing  \n      conference conducted on March 1, 2023 and contained  \n      in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby  \n      accepted as fact. \n                \n 2. Claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of     \n               the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to his          \n\nEVANS- H106980   2\n  \n \n \n               lumbar spine on August 18, 2021. Claimant has failed to prove    \nby preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a \ncompensable injury to his pelvis or left hip on August 18, 2021 or \nthat those are compensable consequences of his left leg injury. \n \n3.  Respondent is liable for payment of all reasonable and necessary \n     medical treatment provided in connection with the claimant’s   \n     lumbar spine injury. \n \n4. Claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance  \n    of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total disability  \n    benefits beginning October 12, 2022 and continuing through   \n    March 27, 2023. \n  \n 5. Claimant did not fail to give notice of his injury pursuant to  \n               A.C.A.§11-9-701.   \n \n6. Respondent is entitled to a credit for temporary total disability  \n    benefits claimant was paid subsequent to his return to work on  \n    December 2, 2021. \n \n7. Respondent has controverted claimant’s entitlement to all unpaid  \n    indemnity benefits.    \n                        \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's May 31, \n2023 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n\nEVANS- H106980   3\n  \n \n \n We therefore affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, \nincluding all findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, and adopt the \nopinion as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal. \n All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and \nwith interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the Administrative \nLaw Judge's decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. \n2012). \n For prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-715(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the Full \nCommission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five \nhundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(b)(Repl. \n2012). \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n\nEVANS- H106980   4\n  \n \n \nI respectfully dissent from the Majority’s Opinion.  In my de novo \nreview of the file, I find that the claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that he sustained a compensable \ninjury to his lumbar spine on August 18, 2021.  Thus, the claimant is not \nentitled to medical treatment or temporary total disability benefits beginning \nOctober 12, 2022, and continuing through March 27, 2023, due to the \nalleged lumbar injury.  I also find the claimant failed to give notice of his \nalleged lumbar injuries pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-701. \nGenerally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising out \nof the course and scope of employment caused by a specific incident \nidentifiable by time and place of an occurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i).  This, therefore, requires that a claimant establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course \nof employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external physical harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an \ninjury as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). \nHowever, a compensable injury may also arise as a compensable, or \nnatural, consequence of a prior specific incident injury.  If an injury is \n\nEVANS- H106980   5\n  \n \n \ncompensable, then every natural consequence of that injury is also \ncompensable.  Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt,  102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d \n91 (2008).  The basic test is whether there is a causal connection between \nthe two episodes.  Walker v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2014 Ark. \nApp. 322, 436 S.W.3d 164 (2014). \nAt the May 15, 2023 hearing, the claimant testified that the injuries \nsustained during his August 2021 fall involved his left leg, stating \nI tore the hamstring somewhere up \nin my hip.  It feels like maybe about \nthe center of my backside.  It hurts \nall the way from my belt loop down \ninto the back of my knee and then \nover  the  side  of  my  knee.    (Hrng. \nTr., P. 10). \n \nAt the time, this was diagnosed as a left hamstring strain by Dr. \nChristopher Bell in the emergency room.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 7-12). Later, Dr. \nBryan Smith, an orthopedic surgeon with Mercy Clinic in Fort Smith, \nobtained an MRI of the claimant’s left lower extremity, and in a report dated \nAugust 26, 2021 opined that the findings were consistent with a complete \ntear of the biceps femoris tendon.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 16-17).  After returning \nto work, the claimant had a second incident when his left hamstring began \nto hurt and “. . . the back of my knee just felt like it opened up like there \nwasn’t nothing holding it. It got to hurting and popping.”  (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 13-\n14).  The claimant believes this incident was a continuation of his initial \n\nEVANS- H106980   6\n  \n \n \nAugust 2021 injury. Id.  Dr. Smith ordered a repeat MRI on the claimant’s \nleft knee which was performed on May 4, 2022 and showed no evidence of \ninternal derangement.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 46-51).  After Dr. Smith performed \na left knee arthroscopy, anterior compartment fat pad debridement, \nchondroplasty patella and medial plica excision on May 18, 2022, he \nrecommended that the claimant began treating for his lumbar spine in \nSeptember 2022 in order to “rule out any compressive lesion that may be \ncontributing to this.”  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 22; Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 54-56). \nIt is important to note that the claimant did not seek medical \ntreatment for his lumbar spine complaints until September 29, 2022, over a \nyear after his initial injury. An MRI conducted on that date revealed “ 1. \nMild-moderate degenerative change throughout the lumbar spine.  2. Small \nbroad-based disc protrusion eccentric to the right at L5-S1.”  (Resp. Ex. 1, \nP. 66).  In March 2023, Dr. William M. Rambo Jr., a neurologist with Mercy \nClinic in Fort Smith, opined that the claimant “has been thoroughly \nevaluated and treated since his work-related injury in 2021.  I think his pain \nis probably multifactorial including hamstring and knee etiologies.  Arguing \nagainst a radiculopathy is that his pain stops at his knee and his MRI \nfindings are mild and mostly right-sided.”  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 39). Dr. Rambo \ndiagnosed the claimant with “[s]pondylosis of lumbar region without \nmyelopathy or radiculopathy” and noted that the claimant’s September 2022 \n\nEVANS- H106980   7\n  \n \n \nMRI revealed “mild to moderate degenerative disc changes at L5-S1 with \nright lateral recess stenosis possibly due to a calcified disc protrusion. \nThere is also some lateral recess stenosis which is more mild, at L4-L5 \nspecifically.”  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 38).  Dr. Rambo was unwilling to provide the \nclaimant with any disability or work restrictions.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 39). \nFrom these records and the claimant’s own testimony, it is clear that \nthe claimant’s lumbar spine complaints did not arise as a result of his \nAugust 2021 fall.  The claimant’s only complaints at that point regarded the \narea from his “belt loop down into the back of my knee.”  None of the \nclaimant’s pain led his treating physicians to believe the source could be \nanything other than his knee and hamstring until September 19, 2022 at the \nearliest.  The claimant sought no treatment for his lumbar spine until over a \nyear after his injury.  There is no evidence, objective or otherwise, that \nwould lead to the conclusion that the claimant’s low back symptoms \ndeveloped as a result of the August 2021 event. \nThere is also no evidence that the claimant’s lumbar spine issues \nresulted as a consequence of his August 2021 fall.  The claimant has \ntreated with two physicians, Dr. Smith and Dr. Rambo, regarding his low \nback and neither stated that the claimant’s condition is at all related to his \nleft knee injury within any degree of medical certainty.  In fact, Dr. Rambo \ndetermined that the claimant’s spinal condition trends to the right-hand side, \n\nEVANS- H106980   8\n  \n \n \naway from the location of the claimant’s complaints.  Ultimately, the weight \nof the medical evidence shows that the claimant’s back condition is largely \ndegenerative in nature.  In fact, each of the conditions Dr. Rambo \ndiagnosed the claimant with were chronic in nature, including spondylosis, \nright lateral stenosis, and degenerative disc changes.  The medical \nevidence is clear that the claimant’s condition is chronic and degenerative \nrather than being related to his fall on August 18, 2021.  For these reasons, \nthe claimant is not entitled to benefits related to his lumbar spine condition. \nThe claimant did not provide proper notice of his lumbar spine injury. \nUnder our Rules, a claimant is required to provide timely notice of any injury \nto her employer. Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-701(a)(1) provides that: \nUnless an injury either renders the \nemployee physically or mentally \nunable to do so, or is made known \nto the employer immediately after it \noccurs, the employee shall report \nthe injury to the employer on a \nform prescribed or approved by the \nWorkers’ Compensation \nCommission and to a person or at \na place specified by the employer, \nand the employer shall not be \nresponsible for disability, medical, \nor other benefits prior to receipt of \nthe employee's report of injury. \n \nThe  claimant  provided  no  notice  of  having  an  injury  to  his  low  back \nuntil  November  16,  2022.    This  contention  would  later  change  on  May  8, \n2023, when the claimant alleged injuries to his left lower extremity, back, left \n\nEVANS- H106980   9\n  \n \n \nhip, and pelvis. The claimant’s previous reports of injuries only addressed his \nleft lower extremity. At no point was the claimant unable to report an injury, \nas  he  had  done  so  on  two  prior  occasions.  We  cannot  construe  that  the \nrespondents have the burden of guessing what injuries a claimant may ever \nallege. Because the claimant did not give timely notice of these complaints, \nthe  respondents  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  benefits  relating  to  the \nclaimant’s  low  back  prior  to  the  claimant  providing  proper  notice  on \nNovember 16, 2022, even if the back claim is found to be compensable.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must respectfully \ndissent. \n   _______________________________ \nMICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H106980 TRAVIS EVANS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.947Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H106980-2024-02-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Evans_Travis_H106980_20240212.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}