{"id":"full_commission-H200936-2024-04-18","awcc_number":"H200936","decision_date":"2024-04-18","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Melvin Thompson","employer_name":null,"title":"THOMPSON VS.CITY OF HELENA WEST HELENA AWCC# H200936 APRIL 18, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","sprain","strain","cervical","lumbar","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Thompson_Melvin_H200936_20240418.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Thompson_Melvin_H200936_20240418.pdf","text_length":32718,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H200936 \n \nMELVIN THOMPSON, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nCITY OF HELENA WEST HELENA,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WCT, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED APRIL 18, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE KENNETH A. OLSEN, Attorney \nat Law, Bryant, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MARY K. EDWARDS, \nAttorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nOctober 10, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove he was entitled to additional benefits or medical treatment.  \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that \nthe claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \na compensable injury.  The claimant proved that he was entitled to \nadditional medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits.     \nI.  HISTORY \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  2\n  \n \n \n Melvin James Thompson, now age 56, testified that he sustained a \nback injury in about 2014 while working for another employer.  The record \nindicates that Mr. Thompson treated at Lee County Cooperative Clinic \nbeginning in May 2014.  The claimant complained of lower back pain.  It \nwas noted, “c/o MVA last AUG and re-injury of back on job but did not have \ninsurance to get it checked out.”  An APRN’s assessment in May 2014 \nincluded “Sciatica.”   \n Dr. Harry Andre Michel’s assessment in June 2014 included “Sprain \nand strain of lumbosacral (joint)(ligament)” and “Lumbago”  Dr. Justin \nSeale’s assessment in July 2014 was “1.  Diffuse degenerative disc \ndisease, worse at L2-3 with axial back pain.  2.  Mild scoliosis.”   \nThe claimant continued to periodically follow up with Dr. Michel for \ncomplaints of low back pain.  Dr. Michel assessed “7.  Spasm of muscle” in \nMarch and April 2015.  Dr. Michel assessed “4.  Spasm of muscle of lower \nback” on July 22, 2019.  Dr. Michel assessed “3.  Muscle spasm” on \nDecember 2, 2019.         \n The claimant testified that he became employed with the \nrespondents, City of Helena/West Helena, in about 2021.  The parties \ninitially stipulated that “an employer/employee relationship existed on \nJanuary 11, 2022, when the claimant sustained a back injury.”  The \nclaimant testified on direct examination: \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  3\n  \n \n \n Q.  Would you briefly say how and when you got hurt? \nA.  Yes.  On January 11\nth\n, and we’re on garbage detail, and \nwe got to a resident, where the house was under instruction, \nconstruction, and I went to get the can and I couldn’t move it.  \nSo another co-worker came to help with it, and we both \ncouldn’t pull it.  They had like, you know, bricks in there and \nmud and drywall.  So we both had to get it on the wheel and \npull it to the – they have a front-loader with it, like a \ncommercial dumpster that they have at the grocery stores, \nbecause the garbage truck arm didn’t work, the robotic arm.  \nSo we had to do it manually.  So we got in front of the big \ncommercial dumpster, and we tried to lift it and we couldn’t lift \nit....So we got ready to tilt it, and some of it started sliding out \nand he just walked off, and it tilted over and it had me bent \nover it....So the next day, I couldn’t get out of bed, I was in so \nmuch pain.  So I called my supervisor at 5:30, 6:00, and they \ninstructed me to go to the hospital.   \n \n According to the record, the claimant was treated at Helena Regional \nMedical Center on January 12, 2022, at which time the diagnosis was \n“Sprain of ligaments of cervical spine, initial encounter; Sprain of ligaments \nof lumbar spine.”  It was noted, “Patient states:  that he works for the city \nsanitation and he has been having to lift trash cans for the past 2 weeks.  \nReports that his back and neck is hurting.”  Dr. Shakeb Hashmi \ndocumented the following on January 12, 2022: \nThe patient presents with pain that is acute.  The symptoms \nare located in the low back, left neck.  Onset:  The \nsymptoms/episode began/occurred 2 day(s) ago, and became \npersistent just prior to arrival.  The pain radiates down the \npatient’s left lower extremity, to the right trapezius and right \nlow back....The problem was sustained at work....The patient \nhas not recently seen a physician.... \nBack:  pain, that is moderate, ROM is painful, with rotation to \nthe left, normal spinal alignment noted, no deformity, CVA \ntenderness, is absent, vertebral tenderness, is appreciated at \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  4\n  \n \n \nL3, L4, L5 and sacrum, muscle spasm, is appreciated in the \nright scapular area and right low back.   \n \n The impression from an x-ray of the claimant’s lumbar spine taken \nJanuary 12, 2022 was “No acute lumbar spine abnormality.”  Dr. Hashmi’s \ndiagnosis included “Sprain of ligaments of lumbar spine.”   \n A WORK RELEASE FORM dated January 12, 2022 indicated that \nthe claimant would be able to return to work on January 17, 2022.  The \nclaimant testified that he received temporary total disability benefits for the \nperiod beginning January 12, 2022.   \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Michel on January 14, 2022:  \n“THIS IS THE CASE OF A 54 Y/O BLK MALE WHO PRESENTED FOR A \nFOLLOW UP VISIT HERE TO THE LCCC TODAY 1-14-22 STATUS POST \nRECEIVING TREATMENT AT THE ER OF THE HELENA REGIONAL MED \nCENTER ON 1-12-22 FOR ACUTE NECK PAIN AND LOW LUMBAR \nSPINE PAIN WHICH BEGAN AFTER LIFTING HEAVY TRASH \nCONTAINER WHILE WORKING ON THE SIDE OF A SANITATION \nTRUCK ON 1=12-22.”  Dr. Michel’s assessment included “Lumbar sprain, \nsubsequent encounter.”   \n A CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL/DENTAL CONSULTATION dated \nJanuary 14, 2022 indicated that the claimant would be able to return to work \non February 1, 2022. \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  5\n  \n \n \n An ARKANSAS MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORT indicated that \nthe claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on January 16, 2022.  \nThe MEDICAL INFORMATION section of the ARKANSAS MOTOR \nVEHICLE CRASH REPORT appeared to indicate that the Injury Status was \n“No apparent injury.”  The following NARRATIVE was prepared: \nOn 01/17/2022 At approx. 5:04 PM I, Officer Dr. Jointer and \nOfficer Henderson was patrolling in the area of Perry Street \nand Hwy 242.  When we came in contact with a 2006 Audi.  \nAfter making contact with the car and the driver Who was later \nidentified as Melvin Thompson, Thompson stated, he was \ntraveling West on Perry St. when a black vehicle cut him off \nthe road.  Mr. Thompson stated, he was in the right lane \napproaching a curve and the black car hit his left driver side \nand front bumper area.  Which cause his car to spin to the \nright and hit a hill Thompson stated, his car was left spinning \nand hit the embankment of the hill for the second time.  \nThompson stated, after hitting the hill and the car came to a \nstop he was facing oncoming traffic back East bound on Perry \nSt.   \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Now, just within a week of this injury at work, you had an \nauto accident? \n  A.  Yes.... \n  Q.  And how did that happen? \nA.  I was traveling west on Perry Street, and a vehicle shot \npast me and cut me off, hit my front bumper.... \nQ.  Did you seek medical treatment for any injuries occurring \nin that accident? \nA.  No. \nQ.  Was the condition of your lumbar spine and the symptoms \nfrom it any different following that accident than it was before? \nA.  No. \nQ.  Did you consider yourself to be injured in that accident? \nA.  No.   \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  6\n  \n \n \nQ.  Was your back condition aggravated in any way as a \nresult of that motor vehicle accident? \nA.  No.   \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 January 11, 2022 \nand that the employer was notified of same on January 12, 2022.  The \nclaimant reported on the Form AR-N that he injured his “Back” as the result \nof “Lifting can.”   \nAn MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on March 2, 2022 \nwith the impression, “Disc desiccation and disc bulge from L2-L3 through \nL5-S1 is unchanged.  No significant spinal canal stenosis is noted with mild \nbilateral neural foraminal stenosis at L4-L5.”   \n The claimant treated at Lee County Cooperative Clinic on March 7, \n2022:  “Patient is here to discuss his MRI results.  Also would like to discuss \nwith Dr. Michel about him being in [an] MVA on 1/16/22.”  Dr. Michel \nassessed “1.  Lumbago due to displacement of intervertebral disc.”   \n The claimant testified that he received temporary total disability \nbenefits through March 8, 2022.   \n Dr. LaVerne R. Lovell saw the claimant on March 31, 2022: \nMr. Melvin Thompson comes in today for evaluation and \ntreatment of his neck and low back pain at the request of \nworkman’s compensation.  He reports that on January 11, \n2022 is when he was injured at work.  The robotic arm on the \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  7\n  \n \n \ndump truck was out of order, and he and a couple of his crew \nmates were having to lift heavy trashcans into the front loader.  \nHe says that one particularly heavy can required 3 of them, \nand when they were about half way into lifting the trashcan, \nanother person let go of their side, which kind of jolted him up \non his toes.  He reports that additionally that week they had \nbeen lifting up to 130 cans a day for at least a week.  He says \na couple of days after this particular incident, is when he \nstarted to notice neck and back pain.  He has been treated \nwith Skelaxin and tramadol, but has had no other formal \ntreatment.  He has been off of work since the incident.  He \ncontinues to report pain in his neck, upper back, and lower \nback....He does admit to episodic episodes of low back pain \nstarting in 2014.... \n \n Dr. Lovell gave the following impression:  “Mr. Thompson has been \nhaving increased neck and lower back pain since his work incident in \nJanuary.  His new lumbar MRI does have a right side disc bulge that is new \ncompared to his 2020 MRI.  This does correlate with his thigh complaints of \npins and needles.”  Dr. Lovell planned, “He has not had much conservative \ntreatment, so we will order physical therapy 3 x a week for four weeks....We \nwill put him on light duty with restrictions to include no commercial driving, \nand a 10 pound lifting restriction.  We will follow up after the completion of \nhis physical therapy.”   \n Dr. Lovell signed a Work Status/Work Ability form on March 31, 2022 \nindicating that the Date of Injury was January 11, 2022, and that the \ndiagnosis was “LBP/neck pain.”  The Return to Work Date was March 31, \n2022 and the Work Status was “Restricted.”  There was a 10-pound lifting \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  8\n  \n \n \nlimit with “No commercial driving.”  Dr. Lovell checked a “Yes” box \nindicating, “Physical Therapy Required.”     \n Dr. Michel stated in part on April 1, 2022, “PLEASE [REFER] TO \nFENTER PHYSICAL THERAPY CENTER IN HELENA, ARKANSAS FOR \nPHYSICAL [THERAPY]” as recommended by Dr. Lovell. \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Now, you saw Dr. LaVerne Lovell one time in March of \n2022, correct? \n  A.  Yes. \n  Q.  And were you scheduled to come back and see him? \n  A.  Yes. \n  Q.  Were you able to make the appointment? \n  A.  No.   \n  Q.  Why weren’t you able to go back and see him? \nA.  I was referred to follow up with physical therapy, and I \ncalled them to set up the appointment and they told me that \nthey have to follow up with workman’s comp to see if they \napprove the treatment.... \nQ.  Physical therapist? \nA.  Yes.  If workman’s comp will pay for the treatment and at \nthat point, I believe, a week later, they said that my benefits \nhad been canceled.  So, you know, I won’t be able to get my \ntreatments.   \nQ.  You heard us talking before the hearing that the claim \nwas, initially, accepted and paid, is that correct? \nA.  Yeah, I was told that. \nQ.  And were you notified after that, that your claim was now \nbeing denied? \nA.  Yes.   \n \n On October 28, 2022, the claimant filed a COMPLAINT IN THE \nCIRCUIT COURT OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS.  The claimant \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  9\n  \n \n \nstated, among other things, that he suffered from “A.  Chest Pain, Rib Pain \nand Back Pain” as a result of the January 16, 2022 motor vehicle accident.  \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  Now, on January 16\nth\n of 2022, you were involved in a car \naccident.  Correct? \n  A.  Yes. \nQ.  And I don’t want to necessarily get to the specifics of the \ncar accident, but your testimony today is that you did not \ninjure your back in that car accident.  Is that correct? \nA.  Correct.   \nQ.  Okay.  However, you filed a lawsuit claiming that you \nsustained injuries in that car accident.  Correct? \nA.  No.... \nQ.  This was the Complaint that was filed by the attorney on \nyour behalf in the car accident, and actually, if you’ll turn to \npage 17, paragraph 8. A. shows that you sustained chest \npain, rib pain, and back pain....So you’re saying that’s not \naccurate? \nA.  It's accurate.... \nQ.  So you did sustain back pain in that car accident? \nA.  No.   \nQ.  No, you didn’t, but that’s what this paper says. \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.   \nA.  Chest pain, they really put the back pain down wrong.   \nQ.  Okay.  So speaking of that lawsuit that dealt with the car \naccident, you actually, settled that recently, correct? \nA.  Yes.        \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on January 18, 2023.  The pre-hearing \norder indicated that the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  According to claimant, compensability, entitlement to \nmedical and indemnity benefits, controversion, and attorney’s \nfees.  Respondents reserve all other issues and specifically \nreserve the right to file an amended Response to the \nPrehearing Questionnaire.   \n \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  10\n  \n \n \n A hearing was held on April 20, 2023.  An administrative law judge \nstated at that time, “The contentions of the claimant are that the claimant \ncontends that he is entitled to medical indemnity benefits and attorney’s \nfees....[T]he respondents contend that the claimant sustained an injury on \nJanuary 11, 2022, while working for the City of Helena/West Helena.  \nRespondents accepted the injury as compensable and starting paying \nrelated benefits; however, the claimant re-injured his back in a motor \nvehicle accident on January 16, 2022, and that injury is not work-related.  \nRespondents contend that any continued problems claimant is currently \nexperiencing or was at the time of the filing are related to that motor vehicle \naccident and not the workplace injury of January 11, 2022.”   \n The claimant contended that he was “entitled to indemnity to a date \nyet to be determined.”  The respondents contended, “So originally, we did \nstipulate that there was a back injury on January 11, 2022; however, that’s \nnot entirely correct....The respondents initially accepted the back injury, but \nthen, later amended a Form 2 filing and denied it in its entirety.  So the \nissues read that they are compensability and indemnity benefits and \nmedical benefits, and attorney’s fees, and that’s correct....Respondents \ncontend that claimant did not sustain a back injury within the course and \nscope of his employment on January 11, 2022.  Claimant injured his back in \na motor vehicle accident on January 16, 2022, and this injury is not work-\n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  11\n  \n \n \nrelated.  Additionally, claimant has an extensive history of back problems.  \nRespondents contend that any back complaints claimant is currently \nexperiencing are related to the pre-existing issues and/or the motor vehicle \naccident and not the incident at work on January 11, 2022.” \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on October 10, 2023.  \nThe administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove he was \nentitled to “any additional benefits or medical treatment.”  The \nadministrative law judge therefore denied and dismissed the claim.  The \nclaimant appeals to the Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n A.  Compensability \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n  (A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external physical \nharm to the body ... \narising out of and in the course of employment and which \nrequires medical services or results in disability or death.  An \ninjury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident \nand is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]   \n \n A compensable injury must 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 \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. \n2012). \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  12\n  \n \n \n The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he sustained a compensable injury.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(E)(i)(Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence means the \nevidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l \nBank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \n An administrative law judge determined in the present matter, “On \nthis record the claimant simply cannot prove, by a preponderance of the \nevidence, that he suffered a compensable injury that entitled him to benefits \nand/or treatment beyond what the respondents already provided.”   \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 determination of the credibility and weight to be given a \nwitness’s testimony is within the sole province of the Commission.  Murphy \nv. Forsgren, Inc., 99 Ark. App. 223, 258 S.W.3d 794 (2007).  The \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any \nother witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those \nportions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Farmers Co-op v. Biles, \n77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002).  An administrative law judge’s \nfindings with regard to credibility are not binding on the Full Commission.  \nRoberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184, 649 S.W.2d 402 (1983).  The \nFull Commission has the duty to adjudicate the case de novo and we are \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  13\n  \n \n \nnot bound by the characterization of evidence adopted by an administrative \nlaw judge.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 37 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d \n348 (1990). \n In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the claimant \nproved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a \ncompensable injury.  As we have discussed, the claimant testified that he \nbecame employed with the respondents, City of Helena/West Helena, in \nabout 2021.  The parties initially stipulated that the claimant “sustained a \nback injury” on January 11, 2022.  The claimant testified that he was \nworking on “garbage detail” for the respondents.  The claimant testified that \nhe injured his back while lifting a large trash receptacle.  The claimant \ntestified that “it tilted over and it had me bent over it....So the next day, I \ncouldn’t get out of bed, I was in so much pain.”  The claimant testified that \nthe respondents directed him to treat at Helena Regional Medical Center, \nwhere the claimant was diagnosed with “Sprain of ligaments of lumbar \nspine” on January 12, 2022.  Dr. Hashmi physically examined the claimant \non January 12, 2022 and reported “muscle spasm” in the claimant’s right \nlow back.  Muscle spasm has been held to be an objective medical finding.  \nSmith v. County Market/Southeast Foods, 73 Ark. App. 333, 44 S.W.3d 737 \n(2001).  We recognize that the claimant had already been assessed with \n“Spasm of muscle” as early as 2015.  However, there were no reports of \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  14\n  \n \n \nmuscle spasm noted after December 2, 2019.  The Full Commission finds \nthat Dr. Hashmi’s observation of muscle spasm on January 12, 2022 was \ncausally related to the January 11, 2022 accidental injury and was not \ncausally related to a prior injury or pre-existing condition.   \n The claimant in the present matter proved by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he sustained a \"compensable injury\" in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012) et seq.  The claimant proved that \nhe sustained an accidental injury causing physical harm to the body.  The \nclaimant proved that the injury arose out of and in the course of \nemployment, required medical services, and resulted in disability.  The \nclaimant proved that the injury was caused by a specific incident and was \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence on or about January 11, 2022.  \nThe claimant also established a compensable injury by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings, namely, Dr. Hashmi’s observation of \nmuscle spasm on January 12, 2022.  The claimant proved that this \nobjective medical finding was causally related to the January 11, 2022 \ncompensable injury and was not related to a prior injury or pre-existing \ncondition.     \n B.  Medical Treatment \n The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such \nmedical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  15\n  \n \n \ninjury received by the employee.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  \nThe employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary.  Stone v. Dollar \nGeneral Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2002).  It is the \nCommission’s duty to translate the evidence of record into findings of fact.  \nGencorp Polymer Prods. v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 \n(1991).  It is also within the Commission’s province to weigh all of the \nmedical evidence and to determine what is most credible.  Minnesota \nMining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  What \nconstitutes reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for \nthe Commission.  Wright Contracting Co. v. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 \nS.W.2d 750 (1984).   \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  The \nclaimant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is \nentitled to any additional benefits or medical treatment.”  The Full \nCommission does not affirm this finding.  The claimant proved that he \nsustained a compensable injury on January 11, 2022.  Dr. Hashmi \ndiagnosed “Sprain of ligaments of lumbar spine” on January 12, 2022.  The \nrespondents initially accepted compensability of the claim and provided \nmedical treatment.  The claimant alleged that he was involved in a \nnonwork-related motor vehicle accident on January 16, 2022.  The claimant \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  16\n  \n \n \ninformed the Helena/West Helena Police Department that another car had \nstruck his vehicle.  The respondents assert that the claimant’s back \nproblems are causally related to the alleged January 16, 2022 motor vehicle \naccident instead of the January 11, 2022 compensable injury.  Indeed, the \nclaimant filed a COMPLAINT in Phillips County Circuit Court on October 28, \n2022 and stated that he was suffering from “Back Pain” as the result of the \nJanuary 16, 2022 alleged accident.  This circumstance certainly diminishes \nthe claimant’s overall credibility.  Nevertheless, the probative medical \nevidence before the Commission does not demonstrate that the claimant \ninjured his back on January 16, 2022.  Nor do the respondents expressly \ncontend that the alleged January 16, 2022 accident was a “nonwork-related \nindependent intervening cause” in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(F)(iii)(Repl. 2012).   \n The claimant in the present matter sustained a compensable lumbar \nsprain on January 11, 2022.  The probative medical evidence does not \ndemonstrate that the claimant re-injured his back on January 16, 2022.  Dr. \nLovell examined the claimant on March 31, 2022 and recommended \nphysical therapy.  Dr. Michel stated on April 1, 2022, “PLEASE [REFER] TO \nFENTER PHYSICAL THERAPY CENTER IN HELENA, ARKANSAS FOR \nPHYSICAL [THERAPY]” as recommended by Dr. Lovell.  The Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved a course of physical therapy, as \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  17\n  \n \n \nrecommended by Dr. Lovell and Dr. Michel, was reasonably necessary in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).   \n C.  Temporary Disability \n Finally, temporary total disability is that period within the healing \nperiod in which the employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages.  Ark. \nState Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  \n“Healing period” means “that period for healing of an injury resulting from an \naccident.”  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(12)(Repl. 2012).  The determination \nof when the healing period has ended is a question of fact for the \nCommission.  Carroll Gen. Hosp. v. Green, 54 Ark. App. 102, 923 S.W.2d \n878 (1996).   \n In the present matter, the claimant proved by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he sustained a compensable injury on January 11, 2022.  Dr. \nHashmi diagnosed “Sprain of ligaments of lumbar spine” on January 12, \n2022.  The claimant testified that he received temporary total disability \nbenefits for the period beginning January 12, 2022 and continuing through \nMarch 8, 2022.  Dr. Lovell examined the claimant on March 31, 2022 and \nreleased the claimant to restricted work.  The evidence therefore \ndemonstrates that the claimant was no longer incapacitated from earning \nwages after March 31, 2022.  The claimant proved that he was entitled to \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  18\n  \n \n \nadditional temporary total disability benefits beginning March 9, 2022 and \ncontinuing through March 31, 2022.   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury on January 11, 2022.  The claimant proved \nthat physical therapy as recommended by Dr. Lovell and Dr. Michel was \nreasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant proved that he was entitled to additional \ntemporary total disability benefits beginning March 9, 2022 and continuing \nthrough March 31, 2022.  The claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal \nservices in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For \nprevailing on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee \nof five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n IT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  19\n  \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION      \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant has proven that he is entitled to additional medical treatment and \ntemporary total disability benefits. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012) requires an employer to \nprovide an employee with medical and surgical treatment \"as may be \nreasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the \nemployee.\"  The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that the additional medical treatment is reasonable and \nnecessary.  Nichols v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d \n148 (2010).  \nWhat constitutes reasonably necessary treatment is a question of \nfact for the Commission.  Gant v. First Step, Inc., 2023 Ark. App. 393, 675 \nS.W.3d 445 (2023).  In assessing whether a given medical procedure is \nreasonably necessary for treatment of the compensable injury, the \nCommission analyzes both the proposed procedure and the condition it \nsought to remedy.  Walker v. United Cerebral Palsy of Ark., 2013 Ark. App. \n153, 426 S.W.3d 539 (2013). \nIt is within the Commission's province to weigh all the medical \nevidence to determine what is most credible and to determine its medical \nsoundness and probative force.  Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark. \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  20\n  \n \n \nApp. 459, 637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  In weighing the evidence, the \nCommission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony \nof any witness.  Id.  However, the Commission has the authority to accept \nor reject medical opinions.  Williams v. Ark. Dept. of Community \nCorrections, 2016 Ark. App. 427, 502 S.W. 3d 530 (2016).  Furthermore, it \nis the Commission's duty to use its experience and expertise in \ntranslating the testimony of medical experts into findings of fact and to draw \ninferences when testimony is open to more than a single interpretation.  Id. \nHere, the claimant has reported ongoing back problems since 2014 \nwhen he sustained two separate low back injuries on January 17 and June \n6, 2014, for which he received “epidurals and block shots” as well as \nrhizotomies.  (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 14, 15; Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 1-2).  \nThe claimant has received multiple MRIs over the years and was \ndiagnosed with canal and foraminal stenosis and degenerative disc disease \nof L4-L5 on August 20, 2014, and had an epidural injection at Legacy \nNeurology in Little Rock on October 8, 2014.  (Jt. Ex. 1, Pp. 17, 27).  \nA later MRI conducted on May 30, 2017, revealed a generalized disc \nbulge with mild ligamentum flavum/facet hypertrophy at L2-L3 and L4-L5 \nresulting in mild bilateral neural foraminal stenosis.  (Jt. Ex. 1, P. 67).  This \ndiagnosis was confirmed with a third MRI on March 25, 2020.  (Jt. Ex. 1, P. \n113).  \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  21\n  \n \n \nIn November 2015, the claimant’s primary care physician, Dr. Harry \nMichel, noted that the claimant “wants to be off work due to lower back pain \nthat radiates into the lateral and posterior aspect of his right leg but \nexplained that his lower back pain does not require him to be permanently \noff of work.”  (Jt. Ex. 1, Pp. 44-49). \nWhen the claimant sustained his alleged injury on January 11, 2022, \nhe sought treatment at Helena Regional Medical Center and was released \nto return to work on January 17, 2022.  (Jt. Ex. 1, Pp. 125-132).  Claimant \nthen followed up with Dr. Michel on January 14, 2022, who diagnosed the \nclaimant with a lumbar sprain and took him off of work until February 1, \n2022, and prescribed Viagara.  (Jt. Ex. 1, Pp. 133-136).  Dr. Michel did not \nrecommend any additional medical treatment.  Id.  \nShortly after his visit with Dr. Michel, the claimant was in a motor \nvehicle accident on January 16, 2022.  The claimant returned to Dr. Michel \nto discuss this accident on March 7, 2022, and Dr. Michel explained the \nMRI on March 2, 2022, revealed bulging discs in the claimant’s lumbar \nspine.  (Jt. Ex. 1, Pp. 143,144).  \nThe claimant was examined by Dr. LaVerne Lovell on March 31, \n2022, at the request of the respondents.  (Jt. Ex. 1, Pp. 148-152).  Dr. \nLovell recommended physical therapy and returned the claimant to work on \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  22\n  \n \n \nlight duty.  Id.  At this juncture, the respondents denied further treatment \nand the claimant did not complete physical therapy. \nAt the hearing on April 20, 2023, the claimant described his back as \nbeing “good,” and stated that he could not recall the last time he took \nmedication for his back.  He testified he is capable of working at regular \nduty and does not need any medical treatment for his back.  (Hrng. Tr., P. \n27). \nThere is no evidence in the record to support the claimant’s petition \nfor additional medical treatment or additional temporary disability benefits. \nThe whole of the claimant’s medical records reflect that his low back pain is \ndegenerative in nature and that he has been receiving treatment for these \nissues for ten years.  In addition, the claimant was involved in a motor \nvehicle accident five (5) days after the accident in question.  As a result of \nthe motor vehicle accident, the claimant filed a civil lawsuit alleging back \ninjuries.  \nIt is clear the any back issues of which the claimant has complained \nare due to his degenerative condition or the motor vehicle accident which \noccurred on January 16, 2022, only five (5) days after the accident in \nquestion.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n\nTHOMPSON - H200936  23\n  \n \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H200936 MELVIN THOMPSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF HELENA WEST HELENA, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 18, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.805Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H200936-2024-04-18","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Thompson_Melvin_H200936_20240418.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}