{"id":"full_commission-H110044-2023-11-16","awcc_number":"H110044","decision_date":"2023-11-16","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Scott Metzger","employer_name":"Winsupply, Inc","title":"METZGER VS. WINSUPPLY, INC. AWCC# H110044 NOVEMBER 16, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["neck","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Metzger_Scott_H110044_20231116.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Metzger_Scott_H110044_20231116.pdf","text_length":6259,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H110044\n \n \nSCOTT METZGER, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nWINSUPPLY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSENTRY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, \nLittle Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE JARROD S. PARRISH, \nAttorney at 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 Law \nJudge filed July 18, 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 \njurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.  That an employer/employee relationship existed on November 4, \n2020, the date that the claimant suffered a compensable injury, \nincluding but not limited to his neck and back. \n \n \n\n \nMETZGER - H110044  2\n  \n \n \n3. That the claimant’s average weekly wage was $1080.00, which \nentitled him to temporary total disability and permanent partial \ndisability in the amount of $711.00 / $533.00, respectively. \n \n4.  That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of \nproof, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, to prove that \nthe medical treatment recommended by Dr. Frankowski is \ncausally related to and reasonably necessary for his work-related \ninjuries. \n \n5.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay for the \ncost of the transcript forthwith. \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 July 18, \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 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 decision of the Administrative Law \nJudge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as the decision of the \nFull Commission on appeal.  \n \n \n \n\n \nMETZGER - H110044  3\n  \n \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs and dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \nThe Administrative Law Judge found that the Claimant failed to \nprove, by a preponderance of credible evidence, that he is entitled to \nmedical treatment recommended by Dr. Frankowski as causally related to \nand reasonably necessary for his work-related injuries.  I disagree, I would \nrule in favor of the Claimant receiving additional medical treatment by Dr. \nFrankowski as it is reasonably necessary for his work-related injuries.                                          \n An 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).  The \nclaimant bears the burden of proving entitlement to additional medical \ntreatment.  Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 \n(1999).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a \nquestion of fact for the Commission.  White Consolidated Indus. v. \n\n \nMETZGER - H110044  4\n  \n \n \nGalloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. \nJones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001).      \n The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held a claimant may be entitled \nto additional medical treatment even after the healing period has ended, if \nsaid treatment is geared toward management of the injury.  See Patchell v. \nWal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004); Artex \nHydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983).  \nSuch services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the nature \nand extent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms \nresulting from the compensable injury; maintaining the level of healing \nachieved; or preventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the \ncompensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 \nS.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra.       \n In the present case, the Claimant has received two separate L4-L5 \ndiagnostic medial branch blocks.  After each procedure both Dr. Frankowski \nand Dr. Paulus advocated for further treatment in the form of a \nradiofrequency neurotomy at Claimant’s L4-5.  Dr. Frankowski opined “we \nfeel like he would still benefit ultimately from an RFN [Medical abbreviation \nof “Radiofrequency neurotomy”] treatment but would need documentation \nthat the medial branch diagnostic block was enough of a benefit,” and \n\n \nMETZGER - H110044  5\n  \n \n \nadvocated for a second diagnostic medial branch block so further \ndocumentation would show the benefits of this procedure to the Claimant.  \nDr. Paulus stated “Given [Claimant’s] appropriate benefit from a diagnostic \nmedial branch block, I discussed with the patient proceeding with \nradiofrequency neurotomy targeting bilateral L4-5 facet joints with the \nexpectation of more sustained relief.”  Claimant confirmed the success of \nthe diagnostic procedure at the hearing stating “it worked great” and he was \nexperiencing “tremendous relief.”  Claimant was a successful candidate for \nthe radiofrequency neurotomy of the L4-L5 to reduce his overall pain level \nwhich he received as a result of his admittedly compensable injury from his \nwork-related accident.               \n Therefore, I would rule that the Claimant has proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment in the form of a bilateral radiofrequency neurotomy of the L4-L5 \nas recommended by Dr. Frankowski .       \n For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n  M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H110044 SCOTT METZGER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WINSUPPLY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SENTRY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2023 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.094Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H110044-2023-11-16","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Metzger_Scott_H110044_20231116.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}