{"id":"full_commission-H201515-2025-05-22","awcc_number":"H201515","decision_date":"2025-05-22","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Jackie Johnson","employer_name":"Ark. Department Of Transportation","title":"JOHNSON VS. ARK. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AWCC# H201515 May 22, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Johnson_Jackie_H201515_20250522.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Johnson_Jackie_H201515_20250522.pdf","text_length":6650,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H201515  \n \nJACKIE JOHNSON, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARK. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED MAY 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 and Adopted. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n The claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nNovember 13, 2024.  The administrative law judge entered the following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  a  pre-hearing \nconference conducted on May 8, 2024, and contained in a pre-\nhearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n \n2. Claimant  has  failed  to  meet  his  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional \nmedical treatment for his compensable injury.   \n \n\nJOHNSON - H201515  2\n  \n \n \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, it is our opinion that the \nadministrative law judge’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the \nevidence, correctly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  The evidence \ndemonstrates that the administrative law judge’s findings are correct and \nare therefore adopted by the Full Commission.   \nThe claimant contends on appeal that his constitutional rights have \nbeen violated.  The claimant did not raise this argument before the \nadministrative law judge, and the Full Commission may refuse to consider \nissues not raised below.  See Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission Rule 099.25(b).  In any event, the claimant has not proven that \nadjudication of his claim is violative of his due process rights.  See Long v. \nWal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, 250 S.W.3d 263 (2007).   \nThe Full Commission affirms and adopts the November 13, 2024 \ndecision of the administrative law judge, including all the findings of fact and \nconclusions of law, as the Full Commission’s opinion on appeal.   \nIT IS SO ORDERED.    \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n\nJOHNSON - H201515  3\n  \n \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \nThe ALJ found that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance \nof the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment for his \ncompensable injury.  I disagree, I would rule in favor of the Claimant \nreceiving additional medical treatment including physical therapy and pain \nmanagement as recommended by Dr. Allan Gocio as it is reasonably \nnecessary for Claimant’s work-related low-back injuries.  Therefore, I must \ndissent with the majority. \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such \nmedical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the \ninjury received by the employee.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a).  The claimant \nbears the burden of proving that he is entitled to additional medical treatment. \nDalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999).  What \nconstitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a question of fact \nfor the Commission.  White Consolidated Indus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, \n45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 \nS.W.3d 333 (2001).  \nThe Arkansas Court of Appeals has held a claimant may be entitled \nto additional medical treatment even after the healing period has ended, if \nsaid treatment is geared toward management of the injury.  See Patchell v. \n\nJOHNSON - H201515  4\n  \n \n \nWal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004); Artex \nHydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983).  \nSuch services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the nature \nand extent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms \nresulting from the compensable injury; maintaining the level of healing \nachieved; or preventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the \ncompensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 \nS.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra. \n In the present case, the Claimant suffered a compensable injury to \nhis low back on February 10, 2022, when he was turning while holding a 5-\ngallon bucket of water.  The Claimant stated he was unable to move for a \nshort period of time after the incident and he began experiencing problems \nwith his left leg which continued through the date of the hearing.  This injury \nwas accepted as compensable by the Respondent, and Claimant received \nmedical treatment from Dr. Allan Gocio.  On April 20, 2022, Dr. Gocio stated \nthe following:  \nPatient symptoms and clinical findings reviewed, treatment options \ndiscussed.  Surgical treatment does not appear likely to benefit the \npatient.  [sic.]  Recommended  continued  symptomatic  management \nwith medication, physical therapy, also have recommended referral to \npain management for comprehensive care.  \n It appears from the evidence in the record that the Claimant received \nmedical treatment from a pain management facility following his work \n\nJOHNSON - H201515  5\n  \n \n \naccident, but that these appointments stopped after Claimant was involved \nin additional accidents.  These include an incident on October 9, 2023, \nwhere the Claimant fell off a roof and another incident on December 14, \n2023, at which time he was lifting a small air conditioner.  Regardless of \nthese two additional accidents, the Claimant remains entitled to receive \nreasonable and necessary medical care as the result of his February 10, \n2022, compensable lower back injury.  Based upon the evidence in the \nrecord it appears that the Respondent has denied these benefits.  \nDue to Claimant’s continuing symptoms related to his admittedly \ncompensable injury, I find the medical treatment originally recommended by \nDr. Allan Gocio to be reasonable and necessary medical treatment. \nTherefore, I would rule that the Claimant has proved by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment and should \nbe allowed to return to Dr. Gocio for further treatment, evaluation and \nreferral.   \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201515 JACKIE JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARK. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.321Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H201515-2025-05-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Johnson_Jackie_H201515_20250522.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}