{"id":"full_commission-H201405-2025-06-04","awcc_number":"H201405","decision_date":"2025-06-04","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Defrenchi Harris","employer_name":"Hall Tank Co., LLC","title":"HARRIS VS. HALL TANK CO., LLC AWCC# H201405 June 04, 2025","outcome":"affirmed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","fracture","strain","wrist","cervical","rotator cuff","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Harris_DeFrenchi_H201405_20250604.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Harris_DeFrenchi_H201405_20250604.pdf","text_length":33232,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H201405 \n \nDEFRENCHI B. HARRIS, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nHALL TANK CO., LLC,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JUNE 4, 2025 \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 KAREN H. McKINNEY, \nAttorney at Law, 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 \nJanuary 8, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the statute of \nlimitations barred the claim.  After reviewing the entire record de novo, the \nFull Commission reverses the administrative law judge’s opinion.  The Full \nCommission finds that the statute of limitations does not bar the claim, and \nwe find that the claimant proved he was entitled to additional medical \ntreatment.     \nI.  HISTORY \n\nHARRIS - H201405  2\n  \n \n \n The parties stipulated that the employee-employer relationship \nexisted on November 18, 2021.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \nQ.  You were employed with Hall Tank Company and, on \nNovember 18, 2021, you sustained some injuries, did you \nnot? \nA.  Yes, sir, I did.... \nQ.  How did you get hurt? \nA.  At the process, it was – it was at – it was going on right to \nbreak and working at a – at a pace where we was going to \nlunch, and this was working with that strap, ratchet strap, and \nunderhand wrenching it so – and like I said, it was time \npressure from going on lunch break, and I just felt a ripple \neffect as I was tightening the – tightening the strap down....I \nfelt it was a whole ripple effect up my arm.... \nQ.  Now, Mr. Harris, you did receive and have received \nmedical treatment as a result of this accident, correct? \nA.  Correct.   \n \n According to the record, the claimant treated at Concentra on \nNovember 18, 2021:   \nThe patient presents today with Pain in left humerus from \nstrapping down a load....injured on 11/18/2021. \nThis is the result of lifting and Loading tanks on a trailer and \nwhile securing the tanks, he was pushing down on a ratchet \nand felt a pop in his left bicep area.   \nOccurred while at work. \nComplaint of shoulder pain....Pain is located in the right \nanterior shoulder and left biceps tendon....Pain radiates to the \nleft arm and left elbow.  Associated symptoms include \ndecreased range of motion, deformity and stiffness, but no \nnumbness in arm, no shoulder bruising and no swelling.... \nLeft Shoulder:  Appears with a deformity (long bicep head \ndeformity and deltoid hypertrophy).  Tenderness in the AC \njoint, in the deltoid, in the anterior glenohumeral joint, in the \nsupraspinatus muscle, in the anterior shoulder, in the lateral \nshoulder and in the posterior shoulder.... \n\nHARRIS - H201405  3\n  \n \n \nLeft Upper Arm:  Appears with a deformity (volar and mid).... \n \n Miriam Lawrence, NP assessed “1.  Left shoulder pain,” “2.  Injury of \ntendon of long head of left biceps,” and “Suspect tendon rupture.”   \n An x-ray of the claimant’s left shoulder was taken on November 18, \n2021 with the impression, “1.  No radiographic evidence for left shoulder \nfracture or dislocation.  2.  Other findings, suggestions and discussion as \nabove.” \n The parties stipulated that “the claimant’s injury to his left shoulder \nwas accepted as compensable and appropriate benefits were paid.”     \n The claimant followed up at Concentra on November 22, 2021:  \n“Pain is located in the left anterior shoulder and left biceps area....Pain \nradiates to the left arm.” \n An MRI of the claimant’s left shoulder was taken on November 23, \n2021 with the following impression: \n1. Posttraumatic strain of the subscapularis and to a lesser \nextent supraspinatus muscles. \n2. Large posterior labral tear. \n3. Small amount of fluid in the subacromial subdeltoid bursa, \nwhich can be seen with bursitis. \n4. Moderate.   \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s left humerus was taken on November 23, \n2021 with the following impression: \n1. Mild to moderate grade strain of the biceps muscle.  The \ndistal insertion at the elbow is not included within the field \nof view. \n\nHARRIS - H201405  4\n  \n \n \n2. Low-grade strain of the deltoid muscle.   \n \nDr. Philip A. Smith performed surgery on February 9, 2022:  “1.  Left \nshoulder arthroscopy with labral debridement and biceps tenodesis.  2.  \nSubacromial decompression with bursectomy and acromioplasty.”  Dr. \nSmith returned the claimant to restricted work on February 18, 2022. \nThe claimant followed up with Dr. Smith on March 15, 2022: \nHistory:  Status post left shoulder arthroscopy with biceps \ntenodesis.  He is almost 6 weeks out from surgery.  He has \nnot been in therapy.  He has been in a sling his entire time.  \nHe says he was in an automobile accident last week but then \nmissed his follow-up appointment.  He is very argumentative \nand combative today.  He keeps telling me that his arm is not \nright....He has atrophy of his left upper extremity due to \nnonuse.  He is able to move his hand and his wrist and his \nelbow....I told him I saw no structural abnormality today.  I told \nhim he needs to get started in therapy.... \n \n The claimant was provided physical therapy visits beginning March \n25, 2022. \nOn March 31, 2022, the claimant filed with the Commission a Form \nAR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION \nsection of the Form AR-C indicated that the Date of Accident was \nNovember 18, 2021, “EMPLOYEE INJURED SHOULDER AND ARM.”  The \nCLAIM INFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the claim \nwas for “additional benefits,” including “Additional Medical Expenses.”     \nThe claimant followed up with Dr. Smith on April 26, 2022: \n\nHARRIS - H201405  5\n  \n \n \nHistory:  Status post left shoulder arthroscopy with labral \ndebridement biceps tenodesis.  He is 2 and half months out \nfrom his surgery.  He is still complaining of pain in the left \nupper extremity.  He has been dedicated with therapy.   \nPhysical exam:  Left upper extremity shows atrophy of the left \ndeltoid and bicep.  He states that when he injured his left arm \nhe had a pulling sensation of the left shoulder.  It is possible \nthat he could have had a disc herniation that is causing the \nincreasing pain and weakness in his left upper extremity.  I \nwould like to order an MRI of his cervical spine to evaluate his \nleft C5 nerve root.  He is going to continue in therapy and \ncontinue with work restrictions.   \n \n Dr. D’Orsay D. Bryant, III reported on June 28, 2022: \nThe patient is a 47-year-old male with the complaint of a work-\nrelated injury to the left shoulder, sustained on 11/18/2021.  \nThe patient worked as a “yard truck operator” at Hall Tank \nGroup company, where his major job function was to load and \nunload tanks.  He was putting ratchet straps on a truck, and \nhe severely injured his shoulder and heard a “pop and a \nripple” in his left shoulder.... \nOn 02/09/2022, Dr. Smith performed the following surgical \nprocedures: \n1. Left shoulder arthroscopy with labral debridement and \nbiceps tenodesis. \n2. Subacromial decompression with bursectomy and \nacromioplasty.... \nOn today’s office visit, the patient complains of persistent left \nshoulder pain, stiffness, and occasional numbness....He \nexperiences left shoulder pain with prolonged walking, and he \ndescribes his left shoulder hanging as “dead weight.”  He \nstated that despite the physical therapy, he cannot raise the \nleft shoulder fully overhead.  He experiences left shoulder \nnight pain, and he has to sleep only on the unaffected right \nshoulder.... \nX-rays of the left shoulder were negative for acute bony injury.  \nHe has inferior subluxation of the humeral head on the \nglenoid.   \n \n\nHARRIS - H201405  6\n  \n \n \n Dr. Bryant assessed “1.  Left shoulder posterior labral tear.  2.  \nStatus post left shoulder arthroscopy with labral debridement and biceps \ntenodesis....[A]n EMG/NCS study is indicated and recommended to rule out \nan axillary nerve injury to the shoulder or other left upper extremity \nneurological deficit, that causes the patient’s left upper extremity numbness \nand inferior subluxation of the humeral head on the glenoid.” \n A left shoulder arthrogram was taken on September 13, 2022 with \nthe impression, “No evidence of rotator cuff tear.”  An MR shoulder with \ncontrast was done on September 13, 2022 with the impression, “Prior \nbiceps tendon tenodesis.  Moderate osteoarthritis of the AC joint and \nglenohumeral joint.  Superior labral tear.”   \n The record contains a Neurodiagnostics Laboratory report dated \nNovember 8, 2022: \n47 y/o Male who has pain in the left shoulder and elbow, prior \nleft shoulder surgery, minor numbness and tingling in the left \narm, and neck pain, pt initially injured his left arm while at \nwork about 1 year ago, and no right arm symptoms.... \nConclusion:  1.  Probable left brachial plexopathy, with severe \ninvolvement of the upper trunk, vs. polyradiculopathy.  There \nis minimal residue innervation of the deltoid and infraspinatus \nmuscles.  MRI imaging of the cervical spine and brachial \nplexus are recommended.   \n \n Upon Dr. Bryant’s recommendation, an MRI of the claimant’s cervical \nspine was taken on December 9, 2022 with the following impression:   \nAbnormal ventral cord signal bilaterally at C3-4 suspected to \nreflect myelomalacia, within in the lateral left hemicord at C4-5 \n\nHARRIS - H201405  7\n  \n \n \nsuspected to reflect myelomalacia, and in the bilateral ventral \nC5-6 cord favored to reflect myelomalacia but a component of \nactive impingement related myelopathic changes of the cord \nat C5-6 not excluded.   \nC5-6:  Moderate central canal and severe neural foraminal \nstenosis with cord impingement from disc bulging and \nspondylosis. \nC4-5 and C3-4:  Mild central canal and severe neural \nforaminal stenosis from disc bulging and spondylosis. \n \n An MRI of the brachial plexus was done on December 9, 2022 with \nthe impression, “Negative MRI of the left brachial plexus without contrast.  \nCervical spine MRI reported separately.”   \n Dr. Bryant reported on December 15, 2022: \nThe patient is a 48-year-old male who comes in today for a \nfollowup of his left shoulder work-related injury on 11/18/2021.  \nThe patient underwent a left shoulder surgery at that time, but \nhe has failed to improve following the surgery and postop \nphysical therapy.  An EMG/NCS revealed a severe injury to \nthe left shoulder brachial plexus which contributes to the \npersistent severe left shoulder pain and stiffness following the \narthroscopic shoulder procedure.  Dr. Michael Chesser who \nperformed the EMG/NCS, recommended cervical spine MRI \nas well as a left brachial plexus MRI, which have been \nperformed.... \nThe MRIs were discussed in detail with the patient and he \nwas able to read them.  The pathology of the cervical spine \ncorrelates to the severe brachial shoulder plexopathy found \non the EMG/NCS.  The patient is a suitable candidate for \nreferral to a neurosurgeon for examination of the cervical \nspine and myelomalacia and to assess the left shoulder \nbrachial plexopathy.  The referral to the cervical spine \nsurgeon will be made when approved by the worker’s \ncompensation carrier.  This workup definitively explains the \npatient’s claims of persistent left shoulder pain and weakness \nfollowing his work-related injury of 11/18/2021.   \n \n Dr. James Adametz reported on March 14, 2023: \n\nHARRIS - H201405  8\n  \n \n \nThis is a 48-year-old male who was working in October 2021 \nwhen he just was tightened (sic) down some ratchet straps \nand felt a strange sensation on the left side of his shoulder \nchest and upper arm.  He had felt a pop in his shoulder the \nmonth before and had reported this.  He saw an orthopedic \nsurgeon who ended up doing an MRI scan and find (sic) a \nlabral tear and doing (sic) surgery on his shoulder.  He says \nthat he was having symptoms involving everything from the \nbase of the neck on the left side down to the elbow which \ncontinued after surgery.  He now has significant atrophy of his \nleft deltoid and biceps he saw a neurologist who did an EMG \nand came to the conclusion that he either had a cervical spine \nproblem or brachial plexus injury.  An MRI of the brachial \nplexus was normal but the cervical spine reveals multiple \nabnormalities....My assessment is I think that this is more of \nthe cervical spine and spinal cord issue than a brachial plexus \ninjury.  Naturally some of it could have been from the shoulder \nand shoulder surgery but I believe is more extensive than you \ncould explain from that.  I can only determine the cause of the \nproblem from his history and he says all of his symptoms \nstarted the day that he reported the strange sensations in his \nleft chest and arm.  He denies any significant change in his \nsymptoms with the motor vehicle accident.  He does have a \ncongenitally small canal which made this more likely to occur.  \nAt this point I am not sure anything can be done to really \nreverse his neurologic symptoms but to prevent further \ndamage he would likely benefit from surgery on the cervical \nspine.   \n \n Dr. Jesse Abeler reported on August 8, 2023: \n[DeFrenchi] Harris presents to clinic today for independent \nmedical exam regarding the left shoulder.  His initial date of \ninjury was 11/18/2021, he was working to tiedown ratchet \nstraps while he was performing his usual customary work at \nHall tank company.  He states he felt a sudden pull along the \nleft upper extremity, this radiated pain into his shoulder, \nacross his chest and into his neck....He was taken for left \nshoulder arthroscopy, subacromial decompression, biceps \ntenodesis and this was performed on 2/9/2022....An MRI of \nthe brachial plexus is obtained on 12/9/2022, demonstrates no \napparent abnormalities.  Also on 12/9/2022 he underwent \n\nHARRIS - H201405  9\n  \n \n \ncervical spine MRI without contrast, this demonstrates severe \nbilateral neural foraminal stenosis at C3-4, C4-5, C5-6 and \nC6-7.  There is central canal stenosis at these levels as well \nwith cord edema, somewhat concerning for myomalacia.   \nOn clinical exam today he demonstrates considerable atrophy \nof the left upper trapezius, left deltoid, left biceps and triceps.  \nHe has abnormal sensation along the shoulder and upper \narm, concerning for a neurologic origin to his weakness, \nmechanical complaints, and abnormal sensation.  It is my \nopinion his cervical findings of foraminal stenosis and canal \nstenosis are creating these complaints and he would benefit \nfrom an evaluation and possible treatment with a \nneurosurgeon.  It is my opinion that his initial injury the “ripple” \nthat he felt along his upper extremity were neurologic in \nnature at his initial reported injury and related to his initial \ninjury on 11/18/2021.  I feel the shoulder treatment has been \nreasonable, review of the operative note demonstrates an \nappropriate technique for labrum debridement, biceps \ntenodesis, and subacromial decompression.  This procedure \ntypically does not create the neurologic disorder seen with the \npatient today.  I expect he has reached maximal medical \nimprovement regarding specifically the shoulder biceps \ntenodesis, and he demonstrates a separate issue regarding \nthe neck related to his initial injury.   \nDue to the physicality of his work, I feel he is unable to use \nthe left upper extremity for heavy gripping, lifting, grasping, \npushing, or pulling, or any degree of overhead work due to the \nweakness and the type of work expected of him.   \nIn my expert opinion I feel he would benefit from a \nneurosurgery evaluation and addressing the multiple level \ncervical canal and foraminal stenosis, which I feel is leading to \nhis left shoulder and upper arm atrophy and objective \nweakness.   \n \n On July 15, 2024, the claimant filed with the Commission another \nForm AR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.  The ACCIDENT \nINFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the Date of \nAccident was November 18, 2021, “Briefly describe the cause of injury and \n\nHARRIS - H201405  10\n  \n \n \nthe part of body injured:  Claimant sustained multiple injuries, including his \nleft shoulder and left breast area and neck while tightening a loading strap.”  \nThe CLAIM INFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the \nclaim was for “initial” benefits and “additional” benefits.   \nA pre-hearing order was filed on August 20, 2024.  The claimant \ncontended, “Claimant contends he sustained admitted compensable injuries \nto his left shoulder, but Respondents have indicated that they are denying \ncompensability and treatment for the left breast and neck area that was also \ninjured in his compensable accident.  This matter has been controverted for \npurposes of attorney’s fees.  Claimant’s attorney respectfully requests that \nany attorney’s fee owed by claimant on controverted benefits paid by award \nor otherwise be deducted from claimant’s benefits and paid directly to \nclaimant’s attorney by separate check, and that any Commission Order \ndirect the respondent to make payment of attorney’s fees in this manner.”    \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that the \nclaimant sustained a left shoulder, upper arm and elbow injury on \nNovember 18, 2021 for which he has received all benefits to which he is \nentitled.  Respondents have not controverted any benefits related to the left \nshoulder injury.  Respondents anticipate accepting an impairment rating \nand paying permanent partial disability benefits for the impairment once a \nrating has been assigned.”   \n\nHARRIS - H201405  11\n  \n \n \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that the \nclaimant reported an injury to his shoulder from working to tiedown ratchet \nstraps and he felt a ripple or tear in his left shoulder.  An MRI revealed an \nintact rotator cuff but a possible labrum tear.  The claimant underwent a left \nshoulder arthroscopy, subacromial decompression, and biceps tenodesis \non February 9, 2022.  The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle \naccident post-surgery.  Claimant’s treating surgeon did not note any issues \nwith claimant’s shoulder at his follow up appointment after the MVA.  The \nclaimant petitioned for and received a Change of Physician from Dr. Phillip \nSmith to Dr. D’Orsay Bryant in El Dorado.  Dr. Bryant opined that the \nclaimant’s current problems were either related to his cervical spine or a \nbrachial plexus.  An MRI of the brachial plexus was normal.  Dr. James \nAdametz performed an IME and opined that the claimant’s issues were not \nrelated to the brachial plexus.  Dr. Jesse Abler performed an IME of the \nclaimant’s left shoulder and opined that all treatment the claimant has \nreceived to date was reasonable.  Dr. Abler further opined that surgery \nperformed on the claimant does not typically create the neurologic disorder \nexperienced by the claimant.  Dr. Abler found that the claimant had reached \nmaximum medical improvement regarding the shoulder injury.”   \n The respondents contended, “Claimant has not stated with any \nspecificity in his Prehearing Questionnaire Responses what benefits he is \n\nHARRIS - H201405  12\n  \n \n \nseeking.  If the claimant is asserting a claim for additional TTD benefits, \nRespondents contend that they at all times offered the claimant light or \nsedentary duty within his medical restrictions.  Claimant initially worked light \nduty for Respondent employer until such work was no longer available.  \nClaimant was paid TTD until he was again offered work within his \nrestrictions through a Transition Return to Work program, working for a non-\nprofit.  The claimant refused this offer of work within his restrictions by \nfailing to report to work as instructed.  Respondents contend that the \nclaimant is barred from any additional TTD pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-526.”   \n The respondents contended, “The claimant, through his attorney, \nfiled an initial AR-C on March 31, 2022, for an injury to claimant’s shoulder \nand arm.  The 3/31/22 AR-C only claimed ‘Additional Benefits’ for the \nshoulder injury.  The claimant did not file a claim for an injury to the ‘left \nbreast and neck” until his current attorney filed an AR-C on July 15, 2024.  \nThe alleged neck and breast injuries were never accepted as compensable.  \nThe claimant cannot claim additional benefits for injuries that were never \naccepted or for which benefits were never paid.  Therefore, the initial AR-C \nfiled on 3/31/22 requesting only additional benefits, was not and could not \nhave been a claim for initial benefits for the alleged neck and breast \ninjuries.  As such the AR-C filed on 3/31/22 for additional benefits for a \n\nHARRIS - H201405  13\n  \n \n \nshoulder injury did not toll the statute of limitations for an initial injury to the \nneck or breast.  The claimant did not file an AR-C alleging an injury to new \nbody parts until the July 15, 2024, AR-C was filed.  This AR-C was filed \nmore than 2 years after the November 18, 2021, injury date.  Accordingly, \nRespondents contend that any claim for an injury to any body part not \npreviously accepted nor previously tolled by the 3/31/22 AR-C is barred by \nthe statute of limitations.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Compensability of a left breast and neck injury. \n2. Medical Benefits. \n3. The respondents have raised the defense of the statute of \nlimitations. \n4. Attorney fees.   \n \nA hearing was held on October 22, 2024.  At that time, the claimant \ntestified that he wished to return to Dr. Bryant for additional treatment.  The \nclaimant testified, “I’m still feeling burning.  It’s like a burning sensation to \nthe shoulder.”     \nAn administrative law judge filed an opinion on January 8, 2025.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the statute of limitations barred the \nclaim.  The claimant appeals to the Full Commission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION \nA.  Medical Treatment \n\nHARRIS - H201405  14\n  \n \n \nThe 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)(Supp. \n2024).  The 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 (2005).  Preponderance \nof the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).  What constitutes reasonably necessary medical \ntreatment is a question of fact for the Commission.  Wright Contracting Co. \nv. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 258, 676 S.W.2d 70 (1984).   \nIn the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the claimant \nproved he was entitled to additional medical treatment as recommended by \nDr. Bryant.  The claimant sustained a work-related accidental injury on \nNovember 18, 2021.  The claimant testified that he felt a “ripple effect” in his \nleft arm and shoulder while performing employment services on November \n18, 2021.  A Nurse Practitioner’s assessment on November 18, 2021 was \n“1.  Left shoulder pain” and “2.  Injury of tendon of long head of left biceps.”  \nThe parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to \nhis left shoulder on November 18, 2021.   \n\nHARRIS - H201405  15\n  \n \n \nDr. Smith performed a left shoulder arthroscopy on February 9, \n2022.  The claimant subsequently reported that he had been in a nonwork-\nrelated motor vehicle accident, but Dr. Smith found “no structural \nabnormality” on March 15, 2022.   \nThe claimant began treating with Dr. Bryant on June 28, 2022.  Dr. \nBryant noted that the claimant continued to suffer from chronic pain in his \nleft arm and shoulder following the compensable injury.  Dr. Bryant \nrecommended additional diagnostic testing, and abnormalities were \nrevealed in an MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine taken December 9, \n2022.  Dr. Bryant also reported that electrodiagnostic testing showed “a \nsevere injury to the left shoulder brachial plexus which contributes to the \npersistent severe left shoulder pain and stiffness following the arthroscopic \nshoulder procedure.”  Dr. Bryant opined, “The pathology of the cervical \nspine correlates to the severe brachial shoulder plexopathy found on the \nEMG/NCS.”  Dr. Adametz examined the claimant on March 14, 2023 and \nagreed that “the cervical spine reveals multiple abnormalities....My \nassessment is I think that this is more of a cervical spine and spinal cord \nissue than a brachial plexus injury.”  Dr. Abeler reported on August 8, 2023, \n“On clinical exam today he demonstrates considerable atrophy of the left \nupper trapezius, left deltoid, left biceps and triceps....I expect he has \nreached maximal medical improvement regarding specifically the shoulder \n\nHARRIS - H201405  16\n  \n \n \nbiceps tenodesis, and he demonstrates a separate issue regarding the neck \nrelated to his initial injury [emphasis supplied].”   \nIf an injury is compensable, then every natural consequence of that \ninjury is also compensable.  Hubley v. Best Western Governor’s Inn, 52 Ark. \nApp. 226, 916 S.W.2d 143 (1996).  The basic test is whether there is a \ncausal connection between the two episodes.  Jeter v. B.R. McGinty \nMechanical, 62 Ark. App. 53, 968 S.W.2d 645 (1998).  The burden is on the \nclaimant to establish the necessary causal connection.  Nichols v. Omaha \nSch. Dist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d 148.  Whether there is a causal \nconnection is a question of fact for the Commission.  Jeter, supra.   \nIn the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the claimant’s \ncontinued symptoms related to his left upper extremity, left brachial plexus, \nand cervical spine are a natural consequence of the compensable left \nshoulder injury sustained by the claimant on November 18, 2021.  The \nCommission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinion and the \nauthority to determine its medical soundness and probative force.  Green \nBay Packaging v. Bartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 692 (1999).  The \nFull Commission attaches significant evidentiary weight to the opinions of \nDr. Bryant, Dr. Adametz, and Dr. Abeler.  We interpret the opinions of these \ntreating physicians to indicate that the claimant’s continued symptoms in his \nleft upper extremity, left brachial plexus, and cervical spine were causally \n\nHARRIS - H201405  17\n  \n \n \nconnected to the injury sustained by the claimant on November 18, 2021, \nwhich injury was accepted as compensable by the respondents.   \nB.  Filing of claim \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702(Supp. 2024) provides, in pertinent part: \n (b)  TIME FOR FILING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. \n(1)  In cases in which any compensation, including disability or \nmedical, has been paid on account of injury, a claim for \nadditional compensation shall be barred unless filed with the \ncommission within one (1) year from the date of the last \npayment of compensation or two (2) years from the date of \nthe injury, whichever is greater.   \n \n An administrative law judge found in part in the present matter, “3.  \nThat the claim involving injuries to the neck and left breast are (sic) barred \nby the statute of limitations.”  The Full Commission does not affirm this \nfinding.  As we have discussed, the parties stipulated that the claimant \nsustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder on November 18, 2021.  \nThe parties stipulated that “appropriate benefits were paid.”  On March 31, \n2022, the claimant filed with the Commission a “Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR \nCOMPENSATION.”  The CLAIM INFORMATION section of the Form AR-C \nindicated that the claim was for “additional benefits,” including “Additional \nMedical Expenses.”  The filing of a claim for additional benefits tolls the \nrunning of the statute of limitations.  Kent v. Single Source Transp., Inc., \n103 Ark. App. 151, 287 S.W.3d 619 (2008), citing Spencer v. Stone \nContainer Corp., 72 Ark. App. 450, 38 S.W.3d 909 (2001).  In the present \n\nHARRIS - H201405  18\n  \n \n \nmatter, the claimant’s claim for additional benefits filed on March 31, 2022 \nwas filed well within the two-year period required by Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n702(b)(1)(Supp. 2024) as well as within the one-year period enumerated in \nthe statute.  The applicable statute of limitations does not bar the claim for \nadditional benefits.   \n     After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission \nfinds that the claimant proved he was entitled to additional conservative, \nnon-surgical medical treatment as recommended by Dr. Bryant.  We find \nthat the claimant’s continued symptoms related to his left upper extremity, \nleft brachial plexus, and cervical spine were a natural consequence of the \ncompensable injury sustained by the claimant on November 18, 2021.  We \nfind that said medical treatment is reasonably necessary in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Supp. 2024).  The Full Commission finds that \nthe claimant timely filed a claim for additional medical treatment, and that \nthe statute of limitations does not bar said claim.  For prevailing on appeal, \nthe claimant’s attorney is entitled to a fee of five hundred dollars ($500), \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Supp. 2024).   \n  \n \n \n \n\nHARRIS - H201405  19\n  \n \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the statute \nof limitations does not bar this claim. \nThe burden of proof is on the claimant to prove by a preponderance \nof the credible evidence of record that he timely filed his claim within the \nstatutorily mandated time frames. The burden of proof is not on the \nrespondents.  Stewart v. Ark. Glass Container, 2010 Ark. 198, S.W.3d 359 \n(2010).   \nArkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-702 sets forth the following \nlimitations:  \n(a) Time for filing additional \ncompensation.  \n \n(b) In cases in which \ncompensation, including disability \nor medical, has been paid on \naccount of an injury, a claim for \nadditional compensation shall be \nbarred unless filed with the \ncommission within one (1) year \nfrom the date of the last payment \nof compensation or two (2) years \n\nHARRIS - H201405  20\n  \n \n \nfrom the date of the injury \nwhichever is greater.  \n \n(c) A claim for additional \ncompensation must specifically \nstate that it is a claim for additional \ncompensation.  Documents which \ndo not specifically request \nadditional benefits shall not be \nconsidered a claim for additional \nbenefits.   \n \nIn cases where the information contained in an AR-C is vague or \ninsufficient, the Form’s filing is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations. \nOur Rules require strict construction of the Act.  Strict construction is \nnarrow construction and requires that nothing be taken as intended that is \nnot clearly expressed.  Hapney v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 341 Ark. 548, 26 \nS.W.3d 771 (2000).  The doctrine of strict construction requires this court to \nuse the plain meaning of the language employed.  White County Judge v. \nMenser, 2020 Ark. 140,597 S.W.3d 640 (2020). \nHere, the claimant filed his initial AR-C on March 31, 2022, for a \nshoulder and arm injury.  This form clearly states that the claimant \nsustained an injury to his shoulder and arm and specifically requests \nadditional benefits for that injury.  It was not until nearly three years after the \ndate of the accident in question that the claimant filed a second AR-C on \nJuly 15, 2024, asserting “multiple injuries, including his left shoulder and left \n\nHARRIS - H201405  21\n  \n \n \nbreast area and neck.”  The respondents denied the claim for left breast \nand neck injuries. \nIn assessing whether the claimant’s alleged left breast and cervical \ninjuries could be causally related to his compensable shoulder injury, the \nMajority goes beyond the call of the plain language of Arkansas Code \nAnnotated § 11-9-702.  To reach a conclusion on this issue, we are not \nasked whether the claimant’s request for additional medical treatment is \nrelated to his initial injury, but rather whether those injuries were specifically \ncontemplated in his timely AR-C filing.  They were not.  The claimant never \nfiled a claim  for left breast and cervical injuries until July 15, 2024, which \nwas well over two years from the date of the accident in question, \nNovember 18, 2021. \nBased upon a strict reading of our Rules and the guidelines set forth \nby our courts, it is clear that the claimant’s March 31, 2022 Form C filing \nwas insufficient to toll the statute of limitations regarding his alleged left \nbreast and neck injuries.  For these reasons, the ALJ’s findings should be \naffirmed. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n                                  _________________________________  \n     MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201405 DEFRENCHI B. HARRIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HALL TANK CO., LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 4, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.193Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H201405-2025-06-04","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Harris_DeFrenchi_H201405_20250604.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}