{"id":"full_commission-H204851-2025-01-27","awcc_number":"H204851","decision_date":"2025-01-27","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Janet Foster","employer_name":"Goodwill Industries Of Ar","title":"FOSTER VS. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AR AWCC# H204851 January 27, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["hernia"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Foster_Janet_H204851_20250127.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Foster_Janet_H204851_20250127.pdf","text_length":7621,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H204851 \nJANET FOSTER, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \nGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AR,  \nEMPLOYER                          RESPONDENT \n \nATA WORKERS’ COMP SI TRUST/RISK MGT., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA         RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 27, 2025 \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas.  \nClaimant  represented  by  the  HONORABLE EDDIE  H.  WALKER,  JR., \nAttorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas.  \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney, \nLittle Rock, Arkansas.  \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted.  \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Respondent appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed May 15, 2024.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge made \nthe following findings of fact and conclusions of law:  \n1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-\nhearing conference conducted on November 8, \n2023, and contained in an amended pre-hearing \norder  filed  February  23,  2024,  are  hereby \naccepted as fact.  \n\n2 \nFOSTER – H204851 \n \n2. Claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  is \nentitled to additional medical treatment from Dr. \nShamim.  \n \n3. Claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that the proposed \nweight  loss  program  at  Metabolic  Research \nCenter  is  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment for her compensable injury.  \n \n4. Claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  is \nentitled to temporary total disability benefits from \nDecember  19,  2022  through  January  6,  2023. \nRespondent  is  entitled  to  a  credit  for  any \ntemporary total disability benefits previously paid.  \n \n5. Claimant’s attorney is entitled to the maximum \ncontroverted  attorney  fee  on  any  indemnity \nbenefits which were unpaid.  \nWe have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge’s May 15, \n2024 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.  \nAll 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 Law \nJudge’s decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).  \n\n3 \nFOSTER – H204851 \n \nFor 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). \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n      \n_______________________________ \n   SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman             \n \n_______________________________ \n   M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner   \n \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.  In my de novo \nreview of the file, I find the claimant is not entitled to additional treatment in \nthe form of a weight loss program.   \nThe claimant, Janet Foster, suffered a compensable hernia on June \n6, 2022.  The claimant underwent a hernia repair without mesh on \nDecember 19, 2022, and now seeks additional medical treatment in the \n\n4 \nFOSTER – H204851 \n \nform of a weight loss program and additional temporary total disability \nbenefits.  \nAn administrative law judge correctly determined the claimant is only \nentitled to TTD benefits through January 6, 2023, but found the claimant is \nentitled to a weight loss program and additional medical treatment by her \ntreating physician. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) requires an employer to provide an \nemployee with medical and surgical treatment \"as may be reasonably \nnecessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.\"  The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the \nadditional treatment is reasonable and necessary.  Nichols v. Omaha Sch. \nDist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d 148 (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). \n The  ALJ  granted  the  claimant  additional  medical  treatment  with  Dr. \nAdeel  Shamim  and  weight  loss  treatment  through  the  Metabolic  Research \nCenter.  However,  the  claimant  has  been  diagnosed  with  Type  2  diabetes \n\n5 \nFOSTER – H204851 \n \nwith hyperglycemia since approximately 2010 and “really struggles with her \nweight.”  She admits that while attempting to lose weight for Dr. Shamim to \nconduct a hernia repair, she gained ten pounds. \n This has been an ongoing concern for the claimant who is “always \nattempting to try to lose weight.”  Approximately one year prior to her on-the-\njob injury, the claimant visited the Metabolic Research Center but determined \nthat their program was too expensive.  Prior to her injury in 2022, the claimant \nhad also seen a physician recommending diet pills, a dietician, and a clinic \nrecommending weight loss surgery.  \n Despite  her  weight,  Dr.  Shamim  performed  a  hernia  repair  without \nmesh on December 19, 2022.  Dr. Shamim indicated that the claimant was \n“not optimized for a hernia repair” and performed the repair without mesh to \n“buy some time for her to lose weight in the future and perform a standard of \ncare hernia repair with mesh at that time.”  \n However,  the  claimant  is  unsure  if  she  wants  or  needs  the  hernia \nrepair with mesh.  The claimant has expressed concern to Dr. Shamim about \nthe procedure and has concerns about “the mesh floating around and tearing \nup everything else and that kind of worries me.”  She also believes that “[i]f I \ncould lose the weight, I feel that there wouldn’t be a need for the mesh” or \nthe second surgery at all.  The medical records do not contain any current \nrecommendation  for  the  repair  with  mesh  and  the  claimant  does  not  know \n\n6 \nFOSTER – H204851 \n \nhow  much  weight  she  would  need  to  lose  for  Dr.  Shamim  to  perform  that \nprocedure.  \n The record is clear that the claimant’s need for weight loss is pre-\nexisting.  She made multiple inquiries to weight loss programs prior to her \ninjury and has made previous attempts to lose weight without success.  The \nclaimant is uncertain how much weight she would need to lose to undergo \nthe hernia repair with mesh, but she is also not sure that she would even \nneed the surgery if she lost weight.  It is clear that the claimant’s need for \nweight loss is not causally related to her injury or reasonable and necessary \nfor the treatment of her injury.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n                                     _______________________________                                   \n               MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H204851 JANET FOSTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AR, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WORKERS’ COMP SI TRUST/RISK MGT., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 27, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSIO...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.696Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H204851-2025-01-27","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Foster_Janet_H204851_20250127.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}