{"id":"full_commission-H107091-2023-12-15","awcc_number":"H107091","decision_date":"2023-12-15","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Margaret Macon","employer_name":"Mineral Springs, Saratoga School District","title":"MACON VS. MINERAL SPRINGS, SARATOGA SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H107091 DECEMBER 15, 2023","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["neck","back","shoulder","hip","cervical","herniated","lumbar","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Macon_Margaret_H107091_20231215.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Macon_Margaret_H107091_20231215.pdf","text_length":8630,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.  H107091 \n \nMARGARET A. MACON, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nMINERAL SPRINGS, SARATOGA SCHOOL \nDISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION \nWCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 15, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GREGORY R. GILES, Attorney \nat Law, Texarkana, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n Respondents appeal an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed June 12, 2023.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nover this claim. \n \n2. I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact.  \n \n3. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained compensable injuries to her neck and back on October 6, \n\nMACON – H107091  2\n  \n \n \n2020, while leaning against a table that collapsed, causing her to fall \nto the floor landing on her buttocks.  \n \n4. The Claimant proved that all the medical treatment of record was \nreasonably necessary treatment for her compensable back and \nneck injuries. She also proved her entitlement to additional \ntreatment to include the surgery, as proposed by Dr. Rajesh Arakal \nand any other pain management as recommended by her treating \nphysicians.  \n \n5.  All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Act.  \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 decision is \nsupported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies the \nlaw, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from a preponderance of \nthe evidence that the findings made by the Administrative Law Judge are \ncorrect and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission.  \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\nMACON – H107091  3\n  \n \n \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(a)(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 \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \nI respectfully dissent from the majority finding that the claimant has \nproven by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained \ncompensable injuries to her neck and back during her October 6, 2020 fall,  \nthat all the medical treatment of record was reasonably necessary for her \ncompensable back and neck injuries, that she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment to include surgery as proposed by Dr. Rajesh Arakal and any other \npain management as recommended by her treating physicians. \n\nMACON – H107091  4\n  \n \n \nThe claimant in this matter is a 70-year-old woman who worked as a \nseventh and eighth grade teacher for Mineral Springs School District.  (Hrng. \nTr, P. 20).  It is undisputed that on October 6, 2020, the claimant was \nleaning against a table when the table collapsed beneath her.  (Hrng. Tr, P. \n22).  The claimant fell to the ground, landing on her bottom with her hands \nout.  Id. \nA hearing was held on March 14, 2023, wherein the Administrative \nLaw Judge determined that the claimant sustained compensable injuries to \nher neck and back during her October 6, 2020 fall.  \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 death; \n(3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an injury \nas defined in Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-102(16) and; (4) that the injury was \ncaused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). \n\nMACON – H107091  5\n  \n \n \nHere, the claimant contends that her injuries are the result of her \nOctober 6, 2020 fall when a table collapsed beneath her.  (Hrng. Tr., P. 22). \nWhen the table collapsed, the claimant landed on her bottom with her legs \nout in front of her and her neck and shoulder were not directly impacted. \n(Hrng. Tr, P. 44).  The claimant testified that after the fall, she only “felt a \nlittle something” and had resulting stiffness in her back and right hip that \nevening.  Id.  At the hearing, Carla Lamb, another teacher for the respondent \nemployer, testified that the claimant said she felt a “twinge” in her lower back \nafter the fall.  (Hrng. Tr, Pp. 13-14).  Ms. Lamb could not recall when the \nclaimant began complaining about her neck.  (See Hrng. Tr, P. 14). \nThere is significant evidence that the herniations in the claimant’s \nneck are pre-existing.  The claimant was hit by an 18-wheeler, resulting in \nneck and shoulder pain in October 2016.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 5).  In October \n2016, claimant had a CT scan of her cervical spine, which revealed: \nThe C4-5 level has a right paracentral to posterolateral \ndisc bulge or herniation, potentially causing mild right \nanterior cord impingement.  C6-7 level has a mild \nbroad posterior disc bulge on sagittal images . . . \nSignificant disc bulge or herniation on the right at the \nC4-5 interspace.   \n \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1). \nAn MRI, also conducted in October 2016, showed: \nAt the C4 5 level, there is a right paracentral disc \nherniation deforming the right ventral aspect of the \n\nMACON – H107091  6\n  \n \n \nthecal sac and spinal cord.  Moderate bilateral neural \nforaminal stenosis seen.  At the C5-6 level, there is a \ncentral disc herniation deforming the ventral thecal sac \nand spinal cord.  Moderate bilateral neural foraminal \nstenosis with compression of the existing C6 roots. \n \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 3). \n \nThe claimant was later treated for neck pain following a motor vehicle \naccident in May 2017.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 24).  Conversely, an MRI conducted \non December 22, 2020 revealed only “[m]ild multilevel degenerative disease” \nof the cervical spine.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 42). \nThe record is clear that at the time of the claimant’s 2020 fall, she \nonly felt a “twinge” or a “little something” resulting in low back and hip \nstiffness that evening.  The claimant has been suffering with herniated discs \nin her cervical spine since as early as 2016.  There is, in fact, no medical \nevidence supporting the finding that the claimant’s purported herniated \ncervical discs resulted from her work-related fall, and the claimant cannot \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that her alleged neck injuries \nresulted from a specific incident.  Any medical treatment related to the \nclaimant’s cervical complaints are the result of her pre-existing cervical \nherniations.  \nThe imaging performed on October 9, 2020, three days after the fall in \nquestion, revealed a normal lumbar spine, no fracture, no scoliosis or \n\nMACON – H107091  7\n  \n \n \nspondylolisthesis with normal alignment (Clmt. Ex. 1, P. 60).  As a result, the \nclaimant has not proven she sustained a compensable injury to her back. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent from the \nmajority’s opinion. \n \n \n                                       _____________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H107091 MARGARET A. MACON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MINERAL SPRINGS, SARATOGA SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 15, 2023 Upon review b...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.089Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H107091-2023-12-15","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Macon_Margaret_H107091_20231215.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}