{"id":"full_commission-H202952-2024-01-03","awcc_number":"H202952","decision_date":"2024-01-03","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Riddle","employer_name":"Friendship Community Care, Inc","title":"RIDDLE VS. FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC. AWCC# H202952 JANUARY 3, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","fracture","wrist"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Riddle_-Sonja_H202952_20240103.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Riddle_-Sonja_H202952_20240103.pdf","text_length":14819,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H202952 \n \nSONJA RIDDLE, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nFRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC. \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nATA WC TRUST/RISK MANAGEMENT \nRESOURCES, CARRIER \n \nRESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 3, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n Respondent appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed June 19, 2023.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:  \n1.  The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing \nconference conducted on May 18, 2023, and contained in a pre-\nhearing order filed on May 26, 2023 are hereby accepted as fact. \n \n2.  Claimant has met her burden of proof proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that her left knee fracture and her \nleft wrist fractures are compensable consequences of her right \nknee injury of April 2, 2021. \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  2\n  \n \n \n3.  Respondent is liable for payment of all reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment provided in connection with Claimant’s left \nknee and left wrist injuries; this includes surgery performed by Dr. \nNguyen.  \n \n4.  Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from October \n13, 2021 and continuing through April 20, 2022.   \n \n5. Respondent has controverted Claimant’s entitlement to all unpaid \nindemnity benefits. \n \n6. Claimant’s request for benefits is not barred by the provisions of \nA.C.A § 11-9-701 regarding notice. \n \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's June 19, \n2023 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and \nwith interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the Administrative \nLaw Judge’s decision in accordance with Ark Code Ann. §   11-9-809 (Repl. \n2012).   \n  \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  3\n  \n \n \n For prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-715(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the Full \nCommission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five \nhundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(b)(Repl. \n2012). \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \nI respectfully dissent from the majority finding that the claimant’s left knee \nfracture and left wrist fracture are compensable consequences of her right knee \ninjury of April 2, 2021, that Respondents are liable for payment of all reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment provided in connection with Claimant’s left knee \nand  left  wrist  injuries  including  surgery  performed  by  Dr.  Nguyen  and  that  the \nclaimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from October 13, 2021 and \ncontinuing through April 20, 2022.   \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  4\n  \n \n \n The claimant in this matter worked as a teacher’s aide for infants and \ntoddlers for Friendship Community Care (“Friendship”) beginning in 2012. (Hrng. \nTr., Pp. 9-10). Her job duties included riding the van that transported children. Id. \nOn April 2, 2021, the claimant was riding the van as it arrived at Friendship when \none of the children vomited on himself. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 28-29). As the claimant \nwas trying to clean up the sick child and help other students out of the van, she \nlost her balance on the van’s running board and grabbed the door handle. (Hrng. \nTr., Pp. 29-30). She did not fall to the ground, but “[i]t was such a twist that my \nright knee popped.” (Hrng. Tr., P. 30). \n The claimant’s supervisor, Charity Knight, and other employees helped \nthe claimant into the building where the claimant filled out paperwork. Id. At that \ntime, claimant was suffering from pain in her right knee. Id. The claimant was \ntreated at Chambers Memorial the following Monday. (Hrng. Tr., P. 30). \n The claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Jeffrey Stambough obtained an MRI \nof the claimant’s right knee and recommended rest. (Hrng. Tr., P. 31)  Dr. \nStambough released the claimant from his care in June of 2021. Id. At that visit, \nthe claimant informed Dr. Stambaough that her left knee was becoming \nbothersome, but that it was “not related to a work-related injury . . . She would \nlike to be seen for this separately outside of the work comp claim.” (Cl. Ex. 1, P. \n24). The claimant later began treating for her left knee with Dr. Larry Nguyen in \nJuly 2021. (Cl. Ex. 1, Pp. 30-32). Dr. Nguyen conducted a left knee scope with \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  5\n  \n \n \ndebridement, abrasion chandroplasty, subchandroplasty, biomex accufil, and \nhardware removal on October 25, 2021. (Cl. Ex. 1, Pp. 53-57). The claimant later \nfell on October 28, 2021, due to using crutches after her left knee surgery and \ninjured her left wrist. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 22-23). She now asserts that her left knee \nand left wrist injuries are compensable consequences of her April 2, 2021 fall. \nGenerally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising out of the \ncourse and scope of employment caused by a specific incident identifiable by \ntime and place of an occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). This, \ntherefore, requires that a claimant establish by a preponderance of the evidence: \n(1) an injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury \ncaused internal or external harm to the body which required medical services or \nresulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings establishing an injury; and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific \nincident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i). \nHowever, a compensable injury may also arise as a compensable, or \nnatural, consequence of a prior specific incident injury. If an injury is \ncompensable, then every natural consequence of that injury is also \ncompensable. Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt,  102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d 91 \n(2008). The basic test is whether there is a causal connection between the two \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  6\n  \n \n \nepisodes. Walker v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 322, 436 \nS.W.3d 164 (2014). \nFrom the outset, it is evident that the claimant’s left knee complaints did \nnot arise from her April 2, 2021 accident. At the May 18, 2023 hearing on this \nmatter, the claimant testified that when walking sideways to exit a passenger \nvan, she lost her balance stepping onto the running board and felt a twist and \npop in her right knee. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 29-30). The injury “was just a twist” to the \nright knee. (Hrng. Tr., P. 35). The claimant was released by Dr. Jeffrey \nSambough on 75% duty on June 17, 2021. (Cl. Ex. 1, Pp. 24-26). At that visit, the \nclaimant informed Dr. Stambaough that her left knee was becoming bothersome, \nbut that it was “not related to a work related injury . . . She would like to be seen \nfor this separately outside of the work comp claim.” (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 24). Dr. \nStambough did not evaluate her knee at that time or as part of this claim. Id. For \nthese reasons, it is clear that the claimant’s left knee complaints cannot be \nattributed to the specific incident on April 2, 2021. \nThe claimant also fails to prove, however, that her left knee injury is a \nnatural consequence of her right knee injury. The medical evidence here is \ncompelling. Dr. Kirk Reynolds reviewed the claimant’s medical records and \ndeposition testimony to determine causation of the claimant’s left knee \ncomplaints and opined that: \nWith regards to her left knee pathology. It is my professional \nmedical opinion that, at most, this represents an acute \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  7\n  \n \n \nexacerbation of a chronic underlying condition. She has \ndocumented evidence of chronic degenerative changes in \nthe knee based upon prior history of recurrent patellar \ndislocations requiring realignment osteotomy, as well as, the \ndescription of her articular cartilage in Dr. Nguyen’s \noperative report dated October 15, 2021. She has an \napproximate 4mm x 4 mm area of subchondral edema in the \nmedial femoral condyle underlying an area of articular \ncartilage wear. It is my professional medical opinion that this \nis a normal appearance of degenerative joint disease on MRI \nscan. Furthermore, it is my professional medical opinion that \nsubchondroplasty in this area was not indicated. \nSubchondroplasty of the femoral condyle has been shown to \nhave inferior results to the tibial plateau. I also see no \nmedical indication for hardware removal from the tibial \ntuberosity as this was never described as being painful. The \ndocumentation is contradictory in that she was described as \nhaving pain primarily laterally and subsequently underwent a \nmedial femoral condyle subchondroplasty. Accordingly, it is \nmy professional medical opinion that her left knee pathology \nand subsequent left knee surgery are less than 51% directly \nor causally related to the twisting injury to her right knee \nwhich occurred on April 21, 2021. \n \n (Resp. Ex. 3). \nThere is every indication that the claimant’s left knee condition is chronic. \nOn May 13, 2021, Dr. Stambough stated that the claimant had a history of a \n“tibial tubercle osteotomy in the left knee for recurrent patellar dislocations.”  After \nx-rays were conducted, Dr. Stambough found “degenerative changes that is \nworse in the patellofemoral compartments.” In fact, a May 27, 2021 x-ray \nrevealed that, “[t]here is no acute fracture or dislocation. No joint effusion. Single \nscrew is seen within the proximal tibia. IMPRESSION: No acute findings. (Resp. \nEx. 1, P. 3). Later, on July 21, 2021, the claimant indicated to Dr. Larry Nguyen \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  8\n  \n \n \nwith Bowen Hefley Orthopedics that her “symptoms gradually began over time.” \nA July 21, 2021 MRI scan ordered by Dr. Nguyen showed “no evidence of acute \nmeniscal tear.” Dr. Kirk Reynolds opined that this MRI showed: \n[s]ignificant degenerative changes seen throughout the \npatellofemoral compartment. Deficiency of the lateral \nretinaculum consistent with lateral retinacular release. \nSignificant metallic artifact seen throughout the tibial  \nplateau secondary to the partially-threaded cannulated \nscrew.  (Resp. Ex. 3, P. 7). \n \nThe ALJ’s findings disregard the weight of this medical evidence and \nrelies entirely on the claimant’s own statements in June 2021 that her left knee \nbegan hurting “because she had to change how she walked,” or later, in July \n2021 that she hurt her knee while attending physical therapy. Importantly, a \nclaimant's testimony is deemed controverted as a matter of law.  Davis v. \nRemington Arms Co., 2018 Ark. App. 390, 557 S.W.3d 894 (2018). \nThe objective medical evidence contradicts those statements. In May of \n2021, there were no objective findings related to the claimant’s left knee, and by \nJuly the claimant’s pain was proved to be degenerative and ongoing since the \n1980’s. Beyond the claimant’s own self-serving statements, there is no proof that \nher left knee pain resulted in any way from her April 2021 injury and she is not \nentitled to benefits for this claim. \nSimilarly, the claimant asserts that she injured her left wrist in a fall in \nOctober 2021 while using crutches for her left knee pain. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 22-23). \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  9\n  \n \n \nBecause the claimant’s left wrist injury was a consequence of her non-\ncompensable left knee injury, it is not compensable. \nUnder our Rules, a claimant is required to provide timely notice of any \ninjury to her employer. Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-701(a)(1) provides that: \nUnless an injury either renders the employee \nphysically or mentally unable to do so, or is made \nknown to the employer immediately after it occurs, the \nemployee shall report the injury to the employer on a \nform prescribed or approved by the Workers' \nCompensation Commission and to a person or at a \nplace specified by the employer, and the employer \nshall not be responsible for disability, medical, or \nother benefits prior to receipt of the employee's report \nof injury. \n \nThe respondent employer in this matter has a specific process by which \nemployees report an injury. According to the claimant’s supervisor, Charity \nKnight, the procedure to report a work-related injury:  \n“is to talk to the supervisor if there is an injury and \nthen fill out the workmen’s comp paperwork, call the \n1-800 phone number that we get. And we also call our \ndirect supervisor . . . and whoever is over workmen’s \ncomp for Friendship to let them know that a claim has \nbeen made. \n \n(Hrng, Tr., Pp. 37-38). \n At the hearing, Ms. Knight testified that she was present on the date of \nclaimant’s accident. Id. When asked if the claimant mentioned anything about her \nleft knee that day, Ms. Knight stated, “Not that I recall, No, not that I recall.” Id. In \n\nRIDDLE- H202952  10\n  \n \n \nfact, Ms. Knight had no notice that the claimant was alleging left knee pain until a \nForm AR-C was filed with the Commission on April 15, 2022. Id. \n The claimant’s failure to provide sufficient notice of her purported left knee \ninjury rendered the respondents unable to exercise their statutory right to direct \nthe claimant’s medical care pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-514(a).  \nThe respondents were also unable to provide preauthorization for treatment as \nprovided by Rule 099.30.  \nThe claimant was not physically or mentally incapable of providing notice \nat any point during the period from April of 2021 until the AR-C was filed on April \n15, 2022.  She simply chose not to do so. Even if the left knee and/or left wrist \nare found to be compensable, the Respondents are not responsible for any \nbenefits of any kind until April 15, 2022 \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H202952 SONJA RIDDLE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC. EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WC TRUST/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.009Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H202952-2024-01-03","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Riddle_-Sonja_H202952_20240103.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}