{"id":"full_commission-H200280-2025-01-22","awcc_number":"H200280","decision_date":"2025-01-22","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Billy Ealy","employer_name":"Arkansas State Police","title":"EALY VS. ARKANSAS STATE POLICE AWCC# H200280 January 22, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:8"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","shoulder","neck","cervical","lumbar","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ealy_Billy_H200280_20250122.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Ealy_Billy_H200280_20250122.pdf","text_length":38640,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H200280  \n \nBILLY EALY, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS STATE POLICE,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 22, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE FREDERICK S. “RICK” \nSPENCER, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE ROBERT H. \nMONTGOMERY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJune 25, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed \nto prove he sustained a work-related injury or gradual-onset injury.  After \nreviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury.   \nI.  HISTORY \n The record indicates that Billy Ealy, now age 44, became employed \nwith the respondents, Arkansas State Police, in August 2003.  Mr. Ealy \n\nEALY - H200280  2\n  \n \n \ntestified in a deposition of record that he worked with the Arkansas State \nPolice in Lake Village, Arkansas for three years, was employed with the \nrespondents in Little Rock for a time, and was then transferred to \nDamascus, Arkansas in about 2008.  The claimant described his job duties \nin Damascus:  “Made traffic stops at that time.  I was assigned to highway \npatrol, so made traffic stops and worked accidents and do what we call road \nblocks, but that’s about it.”       \n The claimant testified at hearing on direct examination: \nQ.  And that gun belt that you wear just basically – briefly tell \nus what is all – how come it’s up to 60 pounds or over?  Help \nus understand that. \nA.  The belt – the gun belt is thick leather....And then, you \nknow, you have OC spray, and then the gun in a leather \nholster, and then handcuffs, and then extra bullets – \nmagazines.  Then that baton.  Sometimes even a flashlight on \nthe back of that – the gun belt. \nQ.  You have a radio? \nA.  Yes, and radio.   \nQ.  Okay, sir.  And as a trooper, are you having at many times \nto go in rough terrain and be involved in rough terrain? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  Tell us when you first started having trouble with \nyour hip and back when you were working for Arkansas State \nPolice, and just kind of give us a feel for what was going on \nwith the symptoms when you were working for Arkansas State \nPolice? \nA.  With that heavy gun belt, you know, I mean the first time \nyou put it on, I mean, it just bears down on your hips, and your \nlower back.  And it’s just a struggle to get through the day, but \nI toughed it out kind of thing.   \n \n The director of the Arkansas State Police corresponded with the \nclaimant on December 2, 2013: \n\nEALY - H200280  3\n  \n \n \nEffective Wednesday, January 1, 2014, you will be laterally \ntransferred from your present assignment in the Highway \nPatrol Division, Troop A to your new assignment in the \nCriminal Investigation Division, Company A, Polygraph \nExaminer.... \nI want to offer my full support as you enter this new position.   \nThe respondents’ attorney examined the claimant at deposition: \nQ.  Can you explain to me what sort of job duties and all that \nyou had when you were in that division?  What all did that \nrequire? \nA.  I performed polygraph exams, but on top of that I had to \nwork criminal cases, done search warrants, you know, \nsearching for evidence, lifting beds, moving refrigerators, \nhaving to bend down, measuring out scenes.  The main thing \nis doing search warrants.   \n \n Lt. Stacie Rhoads corresponded with the claimant on February 5, \n2019 and stated in part:  “Over the past year, you have been counseled \ntwice due to deficiencies noted in your investigative work and for failure to \ndocument pertinent actions as required by ASP Policy and Directives....We \nvalue what you have to offer in Company A but we also expect that you will \nperform your duties in timely and efficient manner.”   \nThe claimant treated at Greenbrier Family Clinic in October 2019, at \nwhich time the claimant complained of shoulder pain and right hip pain.  Dr. \nGary Wayne Bowman assessed “Acute pain of right shoulder” and “Tensor \nfascia lata syndrome.” \nThe record contains an Arkansas State Police Memorandum to \nMajor Mark Hollingsworth from Lt. Stacie D. Rhoads, dated May 24, 2020: \n\nEALY - H200280  4\n  \n \n \nOn May 21, 2020, Sgt. Blackmon and I met with SA Billy Ealy \nregarding concerns for his physical health.  Over the past few \nmonths, I noticed that SA Ealy had taken around 40 hours of \nsick leave.  This generally would not cause me alarm, but \nwhile at the firing range last week (May 12\nth\n) I observed some \nmannerisms that cause me concern.  SA Ealy seemed very \nunsteady on his feet and many times had to use his rifle to \nsteady himself while getting out of the kneeling position.  On \none occasion, I was speaking with Sgt Middleton at the tables \nunder the awning and Billy passed us and almost fell into the \npicnic table.  I asked if he was ok and he said yes.  Later that \nsame day, as we were passing by each other, I noticed that \nhe was not walking in a straight line but seemed to veer off \nand almost walked into the side of the building.  I stopped him \nand asked what was going on.  He said he had an ongoing \nissue with his hip.... \nThe amount of sick days coupled with my observations, I \ndecided that we needed to speak with Billy to see if there \nwere any underlying issues that we needed to be aware of.  \nHe denied having any major health issues and reiterated that \nhe had an issue with his hip.... \nI also noted that Billy had obtained a medical waiver in \nOctober 2019, which excused him from participating [in] the \nannual physical assessment test.  The waiver indicated it was \nfrom shoulder pain.   \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Did you ever – did [Stacie Rhoads] ever ask you about \nyour health or seemed like she had any concerns about your \nhealth before you retired? \nA.  She did ask me at the shooting range, because I had \ntrouble getting off the ground in the wrong position....I just had \ntrouble getting up with this right hip.  I just didn’t have any \npower, and when I tried to walk off, you know, I stumbled, \nbecause this right hip didn’t get me any kind of power, and so \nshe asked me about it.... \n \n The parties stipulated that an employee-employer relationship \nexisted on July 1, 2020, “when the claimant contends that he sustained \n\nEALY - H200280  5\n  \n \n \ninjuries to his right hip, groin and lower back that were the result of a \ngradual onset.”  The respondents’ attorney examined the claimant at \ndeposition: \nQ.  So, the workers’ comp file they gave me talks about an \ninjury occurring some time in 2020.   \nA.  Yes.  \nQ.  That’s the date I have on this.  Is that right?  Can you \nexplain to me about your injury and how it occurred, please? \nA.  Well, the thing about it is that I – the gun belt is sitting \nheavy on my hips, on my right hip, and it just kind of got to \nwhere I couldn’t, you know, perform the job correctly, and so \nit’s just sitting on my hips and that’s – that’s the injury.  I \nmean, it just kind of wore, wore me out, wore down my hip \nand that’s all I can think of.   \nQ.  So, let’s talk a little bit about that.  The gun belt you’re \ntalking about, kind of describe that for me.  I know those \nthings are pretty large.  What all did it have on it? \nA.  It has a gun, two magazines of full bullets, a baton, pepper \nspray.  Because it’s thick leather, probably about 50 pounds \nsitting on my hips, but that’s about it that I can think of.   \nQ.  And do you recall – when did you begin – can you \nremember beginning to notice some problems with your hips \nor your body to cause this thing? \nA.  I mean, as soon as – I mean, when I first put the belt on, I \ncould tell it was heavy, but it took probably three or four years \nto notice that my hip couldn’t really take it.  I took it – you \nknow, I lasted for 10 years in the highway patrol area and then \nI asked for a transfer to criminal investigation.... \nQ.  So that would be a gun belt issued to you way back in \n2003? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And if I’m understanding you right, are you saying that – \nwas it in 2020 or thereabouts that you began to notice this \nproblem with your hip? \nA.  Yeah. \nQ.  Or do you remember when it started? \nA.  I don’t.  I can’t remember.   \n \n\nEALY - H200280  6\n  \n \n \n Dr. Bowman diagnosed “Right hip pain” on August 7, 2020.  An x-ray \nshowed “Degenerative changes right hip.”   \nTiffany Epperson, APRN examined the claimant at Conway \nOrthopedic & Sports Medicine Center on August 12, 2020: \nMr. Ealy presents concerning his right hip.  He reports groin \npain that began in 2019.  He doesn’t remember a specific \ninjury and states that the pain has gradually increased.  His \npain radiates to his proximal thigh but no further.  No lateral \nhip or buttock pain.  No lower back pain.  He now has pain \nwith simple activities such as walking.  Hip extension while \nstriding out is painful.  He works as an Arkansas State Police \nOfficer.... \nX-ray:  AP pelvis and lateral view of the right hip obtained \ntoday in clinic show well-maintained femoral acetabular \ncartilage interval, no acute abnormalities or fractures.  \nOsteophytes to the superior lateral aspect of the acetabulum.   \n \n Tiffany Epperson’s impression was “right hip pain,” “Possible right \nhip acetabular impingement,” and “Possible right hip labral tear.”   \n An MRI of the claimant’s right hip was taken on August 17, 2020 with \nthe following conclusion: \n1. Small tear involving the anterior superior labrum.  An os \nacetabuli incidentally noted. \n2. Small bony protuberance of the superior lateral femoral \nhead neck junction with small amount of associated \nmarrow edema.  Additionally, the alpha angle is borderline \nelevated.  These findings could represent CAM type \nfemoral acetabular impingement syndrome in the \nappropriate clinical setting. \n \n The claimant followed up with Tiffany Epperson on August 19, 2020:  \n“The MRI results were reviewed with the patient and options were \n\nEALY - H200280  7\n  \n \n \ndiscussed at length.  I explained that it can take up to weeks for the steroid \ninjection to become fully effective.  Given the physical nature of his job with \nthe Arkansas State Police, I recommend referral to Dr. James Tucker for \nfurther evaluation and management of his labral tear.\"   \n Dr. James Tucker examined the claimant on September 15, 2020: \nRight hip pain x 1 year.  No specific injury.  Had a hip injection \nAug. 2020.... \nHe presents with right hip pain he is a state trooper and \nindicates he has groin pain and posterior pain with activities \nalso has problems when he has been sitting for long period of \ntime.  He has an MRI which shows a labral tear.... \nX-rays we obtained a Dunn view and a frog-lateral of his right \nhip they show an alpha angle of 70 degrees and center edge \nangle of 45 degrees he also has an os acetabuli he has no \nsigns of any significant tonus changes.  No loss of joint space.   \nAssessment and plan \nCombined femoral acetabular impingement with labral tear \nand no degenerative changes.   \nWe are going to proceed with physical therapy working on \ncore strengthening and hip strengthening but not range of \nmotion.... \n \n Dr. Tucker assessed “1.  Body mass index 30+ - obesity” and “2.  \nPain in right hip joint.” \n Dr. Tucker performed a procedure on December 2, 2020:  \n“Diagnostic arthroscopy with Acetabuloplasty right hip.  Femoroplasty.  \nLabral repair.”  The post-operative diagnosis was “Combined \nfemoroacetabular impingement right hip.  Labral tear.” \n The respondents’ attorney examined the claimant at deposition: \n\nEALY - H200280  8\n  \n \n \nQ.  Let’s say prior to your first surgery in December of 2020, \ncan you recall ever telling anybody at State Police that I think \nmy hip problem might be related to the job that you had done \nover the years?  Did you ever do that? \nA.  No.  I did not.   \n \n The claimant testified that he did not return to work for the \nrespondent-employer following the December 2020 surgery.  The record \nindicates that the claimant underwent “Hip arthroscopy, with chondroplasty, \nabrasion arthroplasty and/or resection of labrum (surg) – 03/03/2021.” \n Dr. Tucker referred the claimant to Dr. David Gordon Newbern, who \nreported on or about July 1, 2021: \nBilly Ealy is a 41 year old Male who presents to discuss \nconcerns about their Hip, that began on 07/01/2020.... \nMr. Ealy presents today as a pleasant, 41-year-old gentleman \nhaving trouble with pain in his right hip.  He has had a large os \nacetabuli around the right hip that was causing pain as well as \na labral tear, and this was treated arthroscopically by Dr. \nTucker.  Unfortunately, he developed a significant amount of \nheterotopic bone formation in the anterior hip, and this \nresulted in second surgery to remove this.  The labral repair \nhad held up, but now he is still having some troubles and CT \nimaging reveals that he has had a regrowth of heterotopic \nbone in the anterior hip, especially in the very anterior portion \nof the hip where the bed of some of the previous bone \nremoval has reformed bone and this projects downward and \nvery likely is causing impingement and pain.  He also has had \nfemoroplasty to reduce the pincer impingement in the area.  \nUnfortunately, he has continued to have pain and is eager to \nmove on and get better and do better.... \nX-rays are reviewed as well as CT imaging.  We do see the \nprevious femoroplasty.  We see the heterotopic bone that has \nreformed in the anterior acetabulum which is hooking down \ninto the anterior aspect of the hip joint as a source of \npersistent impingement, and also two small fragments of \nheterotopic bone in the more lateral hip capsule.   \n\nEALY - H200280  9\n  \n \n \n \n Dr. Newbern assessed “Arthritis as a consequence of impingement \nand heterotopic bone formation about the right hip....I think the quickest \nway to a more rapid recovery will be through hip replacement with removal \nof overhanging bone at that time but also with a single dose of low-dose \nradiation therapy to prevent heterotopic bone formation about the right hip.”   \n Dr. Newbern’s assessment on July 1, 2021 was “1.  Body mass \nindex 30+ - obesity,” “2.  Localized, primary osteoarthritis,” and “3.  \nHeterotopic ossification of joint.”   \n Dr. Newbern performed a “Total hip arthroplasty” on August 9, 2021.  \nThe claimant testified that he began suffering from symptoms of Multiple \nSclerosis “several months after that hip replacement,” after he was no \nlonger employed with the respondents.     \n Donna Barron, PA reported on October 7, 2021: \nThe patient returns today 8 weeks postop from a right total hip \nand removal of HO bone.  His surgery was August 9, 2021.  \nHe reports that 1-2 weeks after our last visit, his right hip pain \nreturned and was accompanied by significant weakness.  He \nhas fallen twice in his home even while using his walker.  He \ndoes not feel steady on his feet.... \nHe reminds me that he works for the AR State Police and is \ncurrently off from work.  He fears that he will be unable to \nreturn to work in 4 weeks as expected.  He reminds me that \nwhile working, he is expected to carry a 50lb belt.  He has \npresent (sic) catastrophic leave papers today for \nconsideration....The anterior groin pain is new....With the \nprofound weakness and unsteady gait, I am concerned that \nhe has developed a nerve palsy.   \n \n\nEALY - H200280  10\n  \n \n \n Dr. Newbern reported on November 18, 2021: \nMr. Ealy is my patient with ongoing treatment for his recent \nright hip replacement three months ago.  He has a year-long \naudacity of trying to improve his function with a painful right \nhip and difficulty walking.  He has had a quite physical job \nover the last 10 years as a state trooper wearing a heavy \nequipment belt, significant lifting, and getting into unusual \npositions and stresses in the line of duty of his work.   \nAt this time, it seems very likely the stresses of his work duties \nhave contributed to his loss of ability to work and function.   \nAt this time, he is still undergoing further investigation and \ntreatment of the right hip.  MRI of his cervical and lumbar \nspine is ongoing.  There are further documents to review his \nhistory but at this time, I do believe it is more than 50% that \nthe stress and strains of his work, that is the physical \nrequirements, have compounded, if not caused, his current \ndisability.... \n \n The claimant corresponded with Colonel William J. Bryant, Arkansas \nState Police, on November 19, 2021 and stated in part, “I respectfully \nsubmit my medical retirement from the Arkansas State Police effective \n01/01/22.”  Colonel Bryant replied on December 8, 2021, “Allow me to \ncongratulate you on your retirement effective December 31, 2021.”  The \nparties stipulated that an employee-employer-carrier relationship existed \nuntil on or about December 31, 2021. \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Help the judge understand what was going on with pain \nand symptoms that got to the point where you had to retire.  \nYou didn’t really have choice, did you? \nA.  No choice.  Cause -    \nQ.  Yeah.  Tell the judge about that. \nA.  Yeah.  With this right hip it just catches.  It just gets like \nlocked up.  It locks up on me.  It just makes it tough to walk, \n\nEALY - H200280  11\n  \n \n \nbetter than that even run.  Something that I had to do a lot of \ntimes, and it just go so painful that I couldn’t do it anymore.  \nThat’s why I had to retire.... \nQ.  Do you remember any specific injury, really, that \nhappened before? \nA.  No. \nQ.  It was all gradual? \nA.  It was all gradual.     \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  I’ve heard you testify that there was no specific injury to \nyour hip, that it’s just a gradual event.  Is that correct? \nA.  Yes, I remember saying that, but I mean, it’s gradual onset \nwith this hip, because of the gun belt.... \nQ.  Did you ever report an injury to your hip to work? \nA.  No, I did not.   \n \n The record indicates that the claimant signed a Form AR-C, CLAIM \nFOR COMPENSATION, on January 6, 2022.  The ACCIDENT \nINFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the Date of \nAccident was July 1, 2020.  The claimant described the cause of injury:  \n“The claimant sustained a gradual onset injury to his right hip, groin and \nlower back.  The injuries are as a result of the clamant (sic) performing his \njob duties which required him to wear a heavy belt, to perform heavy lifting \nand to be physically active which required him to get into unusual \npositions.” \nThe record contains a “Company Nurse” Report of Injury dated \nJanuary 13, 2022.  The Report of Injury indicated that an incident occurred \non July 1, 2020, and that the incident was reported on January 13, 2022.  \n\nEALY - H200280  12\n  \n \n \nThe Nature of Incident/body part was “Hip (Lower Extremities).”  The Triage \nNotes indicated, “The employee stated that his right hip started giving him \ntrouble.  The employee stated that his supervisor noticed he was having \ntrouble.”  The Triage Notes indicated that the accident was related to \n“Work.”  The Triage Notes additionally indicated: \nThe employee stated that he received a letter from his \nattorney to report the injury.  The employee stated that there \nis not a specific time or of injury so he does not know what \ntime he started work on the day of the injury.  The employee \nstated that the address of the injury is unknown due to his job.  \nThe employee stated that he does not have a time or date of \nthe injury because it was onset.... \n \n Captain Stacie D. Rhoads prepared a memorandum dated January \n18, 2022 and stated in part: \nRegarding Billy Ealy’s worker’s comp claim, Ealy never \nreported a work related injury to me.  He never reported any \nissues he was having with his physical health as being related \nto work or occurring while working in his official capacity as a \nspecial agent.  The reported date of injury as noted on \nworker’s comp documents indicate he was injured on or about \nJuly 1, 2020 and that I was aware of the injury.  I was on \nannual leave for several weeks surrounding the reported \ninjury date and was never told by Billy that he had sustained a \nwork injury.... \n \nSgt Blackmon and [I] met with Billy on May 21, 2020, and he \ndenied having any major health issues and reiterated that he \nhad an issue with his hip.  He said that he was supposed to \ngo to physical therapy but had not gone as directed by his \nphysician.  He never conveyed to me his hip issue was from a \nwork related injury.  Based on his statement that he had \nrefused to participate in previously prescribed physical \ntherapy, he obviously had sought medical attention on an \nunrelated personal injury.  Ealy never reported any type of \n\nEALY - H200280  13\n  \n \n \nwork related injury to me and there is no definitive indication \nof when a work injury could have occurred.   \n \n The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on January 19, 2022.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of \nthe Form AR-N indicated that the Date of Accident was July 1, 2020:  “The \nemployee stated that his right hip started giving him trouble.  The employee \nstated that his supervisor noticed he was having trouble.” \n The respondents’ attorney examined the claimant: \nQ.  As of January 19\nth\n of this year, can you recall if you had \ntold people at State Police that, if you can remember, that you \nfelt like your hip problem or surgeries were related to either \nthe gun belt or just the job itself?  Do you remember ever \ntelling anybody that? \nA.  No, I did not.  I don’t remember telling anybody.   \n \n Dr. Erika Santos Horta stated on September 27, 2022:  “Mr. Billy \nEaly has Multiple Sclerosis that effects (sic) the central nervous system.  \nThis neurological disease does not have effects on the bones.  Therefore, \nhim needing a hip surgery is not related to his diagnosis of Multiple \nSclerosis.”     \nThe parties deposed Dr. Newbern on May 19, 2023.  Dr. Newbern \ndescribed the claimant’s work for the respondents as “physically stressful.”  \nThe claimant’s attorney examined Dr. Newbern: \nQ.  It’s my understanding based upon your letter of November \n18\nth\n of ’21, you do believe that the major cause of that would \nbe all of the work that he had had to do for the State of \nArkansas as an Arkansas state policeman.  Is that correct? \n\nEALY - H200280  14\n  \n \n \nA.  Well, I mean, really, at the time that I wrote that letter, I’m \ntrying to – we still don’t know why he’s having such trouble, so \nit’s – I think it’s complicated.  I think he does have – I think his \nhip definitely is a problem with him being able to perform his \nduties.  I think the multiple sclerosis with the significant – \nability walking and the tremulous and all those issues he was \nhaving, which has gotten somewhat better, it seemed, at his \nlast visit, I was pleased to see.  But I think it’s really – it’s a \ncombination of those two things.... \nQ.  The idea behind workers’ comp is that the cost of doing \nbusiness should be borne by the employer and not by the \ntaxpayer and Medicare or Medicaid, and that’s the reason that \nit’s so open in terms of causation.  And that’s all I really \nwanted to confirm with you is that at least more than 50 \npercent, which is what you said, with the stress and strains of \nhis work, physical requirements, is the cause for the need for \ntreatment, at least, if not the need – you said disability, but at \nleast is the need for treatment.  Would you agree with that? \nA.  Yes, sir.  Based on all – the determination happened \nbefore I even had met him.  That kind of had already been \ndetermined, and I did agree with that.   \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on July 11, 2023.  According to the text \nof the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The claimant alleges that \nas a result of his job duties as a state trooper, he sustained injuries to his \nright hip, groin and lower back.  He was required to wear a heavy \nequipment belt, perform heavy lifting and be physically active which \nrequired him to get into unusual positions.  All these combined duties was \n(sic) the cause of his injuries.  The claimant contends that he is entitled to \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment and past due temporary total \ndisability benefits (dates to be determined).”   \n\nEALY - H200280  15\n  \n \n \n The parties stipulated that the respondents “have controverted this \nclaim in its entirety.”  The respondents contended, “The claimant alleges he \nsustained gradual on set (sic) work-related injuries to his right hip, groin and \nlower back.  The claimant lists the date of injury as July 1, 2020 and filed a \nForm AR-C which was dated January 6, 2022.  The Form AR-C appeared \nto have been received by Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \non January 11, 2022, and by the respondent/Public Employee Claims \nDivision on January 12, 2022.  The Company Nurse Report of injury is \ndated January 13, 2020, at which time the claimant reported his alleged \ninjuries.  That report states that the claimant indicated there was no specific \ndate or time of the alleged injury.  Respondents would contend that the \nnotice provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-701(a)(1) apply to the facts of \nthis claim and the respondents are not responsible for disability, medical, or \nother benefits prior to receipt of the employee’s report of injury.”   \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that the \nclaimant did not sustain compensable injuries while employed with the \nArkansas State Police.  The claimant had longstanding problems with his \nhip and underwent extensive medical treatment and never reported a work-\nrelated condition to his employer prior to January 13, 2022.  The claimant \napplied for FMLA leave and completed the necessary FMLA paperwork \nduring the time he was receiving medical treatment for his hip problems.  \n\nEALY - H200280  16\n  \n \n \nHe did not indicate that he had sustained any work-related injur(ies).  The \nclaimant contends that he sustained gradual injuries to various body parts, \nand therefore the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A) apply to the \nfacts of this case.  The claimant ultimately chose to retire from his \nemployment with the Arkansas State Police.  He then filed this workers’ \ncompensation claim.  The claimant had long-standing hip problems which \nwere not the result of his work activities with the ASP.  As the claimant’s hip \nproblems are not work-related, he is not entitled to the benefits he seeks.”   \n The respondents contended, “In the alternative, if it is determined the \nclaimant sustained a compensable injur(ies) and is entitled to any benefits, \nthe respondents hereby request an offset for all benefits paid by the \nclaimant’s group health carrier, all short-term and/or long-term disability \nbenefits received by the claimant, and all unemployment benefits received \nby the claimant.  Respondents contend that it (sic) would be entitled to a \ncredit pursuant to Ark. Coe (sic) Ann. §11-9-411 against any additional \nindemnity benefits that may be awarded to the claimant.  Respondents \nreserve the right to offer additional contentions, or to modify those stated \nherein, pending the completion of discovery.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Compensability of the right hip, groin and lower back that \nwas the result of a specific incident and a gradual onset.   \n2. Entitlement to reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment. \n\nEALY - H200280  17\n  \n \n \n3. Entitlement to past due temporary total disability benefits \n(dates to be determined). \n4. Disability rating. \n5. Controverted attorney fees. \n6. Respondents raise the issue of lack of appropriate notice. \n7. All other issues reserved.   \n \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on June \n25, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant “has failed \nto satisfy the required burden of proof to show that the claimed injury to the \nright hip, groin, and lower back, is in fact work related and compensable \nunder the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.”  The claimant appeals to \nthe Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \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 \nthe body and arising out of and in the course of \nemployment if it is not caused by a specific incident or is \nnot identifiable by time and place of occurrence, if the \ninjury is: \n(a)  Caused by rapid repetitive motion.... \n(b) A back or neck injury which is not caused by a specific \nincident or which is not identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence[.]   \n \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 \n\nEALY - H200280  18\n  \n \n \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. \n2012).   \nArk. 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 \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)(Repl. 2012).   \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “4.  That the \nclaimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that he \nsustained a work-related injury on the specific date of July 1, 2020.”  The \nclaimant on appeal does not contend that he sustained an accidental injury \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  The \nadministrative law judge further found, “5.  The claimant has failed to satisfy \n\nEALY - H200280  19\n  \n \n \nthe required burden of proof to show that he sustained a gradual onset \ninjury to his right hip, groin, and lower back.”  The administrative law judge \nconcluded that the claimant failed to prove he sustained a compensable \ninjury as the result of rapid repetitive motion.  With regard to the alleged \ncompensable injury to the claimant’s back, the administrative law judge \nerred as a matter of law.  The claimant was not required to prove that his \nalleged compensable back injury was caused by rapid repetitive motion.  \nSee Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(b)(Repl. 2012), supra.   \n Nevertheless, the Full Commission reviews an administrative law \njudge’s decision de novo, and it is the duty of the Full Commission to \nconduct our own fact-finding independent of that done by the administrative \nlaw judge.  Crawford v. Pace Indus., 55 Ark. App. 60, 929 S.W.2d 727 \n(1996).  The Full Commission enters its own findings in accordance with the \npreponderance of the evidence.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. \n230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990). \n The claimant contends on appeal that he sustained a compensable \n“gradual-onset” injury.  The Full Commission finds that the claimant did not \nprove he sustained a compensable injury to his right hip, groin, or lower \nback in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(ii) et seq.  As we \nhave discussed, the claimant became employed with the respondents, \nArkansas State Police, in 2003.  The claimant testified that he was required \n\nEALY - H200280  20\n  \n \n \nto wear a thick leather belt as part of his employment.  The claimant \ntestified that the belt carried OC spray, a gun, handcuffs, bullets, a \nmagazine, a baton, and occasionally a flashlight.  The claimant testified, \n“With that heavy gun belt, you know, I mean the first time you put it on, I \nmean, it just bears down on your hips, and your lower back.”   \n The claimant was transferred to the respondent-employer’s Criminal \nInvestigation Division effective January 1, 2014.  The claimant testified at \ndeposition that he was no longer required to wear a heavy gun belt when he \nbegan working in the respondents’ Criminal Investigation Division.  The \nclaimant testified that he began wearing “a plastic hip holster.”  In any \nevent, the claimant contended that he sustained gradual-onset injuries to \nhis right hip, groin, and lower back on July 1, 2020.  The Full Commission \nreiterates the claimant’s testimony regarding these alleged gradual-onset \ninjuries: \nQ.  Can you explain to me about your injury and how it \noccurred, please? \nA.  Well, the thing about it is that I – the gun belt is sitting \nheavy on my hips, on my right hip, and it just kind of got to \nwhere I couldn’t, you know, perform the job correctly, and so \nit’s just sitting on my hips and that’s – that’s the injury.  I \nmean, it just kind of wore, wore me out, wore down my hip \nand that’s all I can think of.   \n \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 \n\nEALY - H200280  21\n  \n \n \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).  See also Tucker v. \nRoberts-McNutt, Inc., 342 Ark. 511, 29 S.W.3d 706 (2000).  In the present \nmatter, the Full Commission does not find credible the claimant’s testimony \nthat he sustained gradual-onset injuries to his right hip, groin, and lower \nback as the result of wearing a leather belt in the course of his employment \nwith the respondents.  With regard to the alleged compensable injuries to \nthe claimant’s right hip and groin, the evidence does not demonstrate that \nthe claimant’s tasks were repetitive or were performed rapidly.  See Malone \nv. Texarkana Public Schools, 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998).  Nor \ndoes the record show that the claimant sustained injuries to his right hip, \ngroin, or back as the result of activities such as executing search warrants, \nlifting beds and refrigerators, or bending to measure crime scenes.   \n The Full Commission recognizes Dr. Newbern’s opinion stated on \nNovember 18, 2021, “I do believe it is more than 50% that the stress and \nstrains of his work, that is the physical requirements, have compounded, if \nnot caused, his current disability.\"  Dr. Newbern re-stated his causation \nopinion at a deposition taken May 19, 2023.  However, it is within the \nCommission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence and to \ndetermine what is most credible.  Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 \n\nEALY - H200280  22\n  \n \n \nArk. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  The Commission has the authority to \naccept or reject a medical opinion and the authority to determine its \nprobative value.  Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 \nS.W.3d 878 (2002).  In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that \nDr. Newbern’s opinion is entitled to minimal evidentiary weight.  The \nprobative evidence does not demonstrate that “more than 50 percent” of the \nclaimant’s physical condition involving his right hip, groin, or lower back was \ncaused by the “stresses and strains” of the claimant’s employment duties \nwith the respondents.  We also note the claimant’s testimony that he never \nreported an alleged work-related injury to the respondents prior to the \nclaimant’s retirement effective December 31, 2021.  A supervisor with the \nrespondents, Major Stacie Rhoads, confirmed in her correspondence of \nrecord and in her testimony that the claimant never reported a work-related \ninjury prior to his retirement.   \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a “compensable injury” in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(Repl. 2012).  The \nclaimant did not prove that he sustained an injury causing internal or \nexternal physical harm to the body which arose out of and in the course of \nemployment.  The claimant did not prove that he sustained a compensable \ninjury to his right hip or groin which was caused by rapid repetitive motion.  \n\nEALY - H200280  23\n  \n \n \nNor did the claimant prove he sustained a back injury which was not caused \nby a specific incident or was not identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  The claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that the alleged compensable injury was the major cause of the \ndisability or need for treatment with regard to his right hip, groin, or lower \nback.   \n After reviewing the entire record, the Full Commission affirms the \nadministrative law judge’s implicit finding that the claimant failed to prove he \nsustained a compensable injury to his right hip, groin, or lower back.  The \nclaimant did not prove that he sustained a compensable injury as a result of \nthe “positional risk doctrine” enunciated in Deffenbaugh Indus. v. Angus, \n313 Ark. 100, 852 S.W.2d 804 (1993).  The claimant did not prove that any \nportion of Act 796 of 1993 as administered by the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission was unconstitutional.  See Rippe v. Delbert \nLogging, 100 Ark. App. 227, 266 S.W.3d 217 (2007); Murphy v. Forsgren, \n99 Ark. App. 223, 258 S.W.3d 794 (2007); Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 \nArk. App. 70, 250 S.W.3d 263 (2007).  This claim for workers’ \ncompensation benefits is respectfully denied and dismissed. \n  \n \n \n\nEALY - H200280  24\n  \n \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H200280 BILLY EALY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 22, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.680Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H200280-2025-01-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ealy_Billy_H200280_20250122.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}