{"id":"full_commission-H204976-2024-10-31","awcc_number":"H204976","decision_date":"2024-10-31","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Lyna Beals","employer_name":"Milligan Racing (allen Milligan)","title":"BEALS VS. MILLIGAN RACING (ALLEN MILLIGAN) AWCC# H204976 & H306277 October 31, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","knee","cervical","back","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Beals_Lyna_H204976-H306277_20241031.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Beals_Lyna_H204976-H306277_20241031.pdf","text_length":37738,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NOS.  H204976 & H306277  \n \nLYNA M. BEALS, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nMILLIGAN RACING (ALLEN MILLIGAN),  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORP./ \nLIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 31, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney \nat Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL E. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nMay 9, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved \nshe sustained a compensable neck injury on May 11, 2022.  The \nadministrative law judge awarded temporary total disability benefits and \ntemporary partial disability benefits.  After reviewing the entire record de \nnovo, the Full Commission affirms the administrative law judge’s finding that \nthe claimant proved she sustained a compensable neck injury on May 11, \n2022.  The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved she was entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits beginning May 14, 2022 and continuing \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  2\n  \n \n \nthrough January 12, 2023.  We find that the claimant proved she was \nentitled to temporary partial disability benefits beginning January 13, 2023 \nand continuing until a date yet to be determined.       \nI.  HISTORY \n Lyna Beals, now age 51, testified that she became employed with \nthe respondent, Milligan Racing, in July 2021.  Ms. Beals testified that she \nwas hired to be a “groom” for the respondent-employer, a horse trainer.  \nThe claimant testified that she was eventually promoted to the position of \nAssistant Trainer.       \nThe parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed at all pertinent times, including April 16, 2022.  The \nclaimant testified on direct examination: \n Q.  Now, what happened on April 16\nth\n of 2022? \nA.  I was in the paddock.  The paddock is this event where the \nlive races come and there’s several stalls 1 through 9 on one \nside, and then 10 through 14 on the other.  I was in stall 8 and \nthe groom, James Aker, he had the horse....So I was standing \nto the right of the horse on the horse’s right front leg, and she \nhas never been in the paddock before for any live race.  She \nis what they call a first-time starter, and so she was very \nnervous and she had jumped and flipped over, and the groom \nhad to take her and walk her a few laps....I was in her right \nfront leg area and the horse just reared up, lunged forward, \nand I was right in her line of fire on the front right of her arm.  \nAnd all I know is I went flying past the 9 hole all the way to the \n– almost to the wall where the people were, and when I \nlanded, I landed on my right shoulder and I hit my right side of \nmy head on the cement, and I landed on my right knee, as \nwell. \n \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  3\n  \n \n \n An Oaklawn Emergency Medical Services ACCIDENT REPORT was \nprepared on April 16, 2022: \nDescription of Accident:  EMS was sitting in the paddock \nwatching the 3\nrd\n race when the #8 horse Chaos Magic reared \nup, and caused the Patient to slam into the ground Injuring \nher elbow, and head.  Ems checked her out, and gave her two \ncold compresses.  She declined an ambulance, and signed an \nAMA.   \n \n The claimant testified that the respondents directed her to treat at \nHot Springs – Sherwood Urgent Care, where the claimant was seen on \nApril 18, 2022:  “Patient comes in today for a Pain, Shoulder, Pain and \nPain, Neck.  She was hurt Saturday while working with horses at racetrack.  \nShe states she was pushed over striking her right shoulder and her neck \nhurts....Pt is here in clinic with complaints of a horse kicking her, with \ninjuries caused for x-ray.”  The assessment was “Pain in right shoulder” and \n“Cervicalgia.”  It was noted, “Xrays are negative.” \n The claimant followed up at Sherwood Urgent Care on April 21, \n2022:  “Pt came in on 04/18/22 stating she was kicked by a horse 2 days \nbefore.  Pt was kicked on the left side by horse but this caused her to fall \nand she landed hard on her right side striking head on ground.  Xrays \nperformed of shoulder and cervical spine at WNL’s....Symptoms are now \nbetter....ROM in neck is now normal.”  The assessment was “Contact with \nhorse, struck, initial encounter.” \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  4\n  \n \n \nThe parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed on May 11, 2022.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \nQ.  So did you continue working for [the respondents] during \nthis time that you were getting treatment at Urgent Care? \nA.  Yes.  I worked every day.  There was never a break. \nQ.  Did they have you on light duty? \nA.  No.  Actually, I had more workload....I had to cover \neverything when it came to cleaning out the stalls, gutting the \nstalls.  That meant wheelbarrows full out of all 25 stalls, and \nyou have to just have it clean or else there’s a deposit that he \nwould lose out on, and so everything has to be removed and \nmoved to the farm, which meant the tack, the saddles, bins, \nthe washing machine.  I had to move all of that with my \nhusband in his truck, which was approximately six truckloads \nfull of – of heavy items that I was not supposed to lift.   \nQ.  So what time period was that, that you were doing this \nwork? \nA.  This was around May 11\nth. \n There were horses already \nshipping out and we have, like, a week for us to be out of \nOaklawn completely.  Even if the horses are gone, you still \nhave to clean the remnants of what’s left.   \nQ.  Okay.  So are you still working for Mr. Milligan now? \nA.  No.  On May 14\nth\n I was at the farm working in Royal and \nmy back was out due to all of that lifting and the washing \nmachine and gutting the stalls.  It tore my back up where my \nback was completely out, amongst my shoulder being injured, \nas well, and my neck and everything.  \n \n Thomas Beals, the claimant’s husband, testified and corroborated \nthe claimant’s testimony that she had been performing clean-up work for \nthe respondents.  The respondents’ attorney cross-examined Mr. Beals: \n Q.  You said that she worked up until she got hurt in May? \n A.  Yes, sir.... \nQ.  Did she, as this medical report says on 5-11, she reinjured \nher right shoulder and her neck loading a truck? \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  5\n  \n \n \nA.  Yes.  Yes.  She was in pain immensely.  Honestly, you \nknow, personally I don’t think she should have been doin’ all \nthat but, I mean, yes, she did hurt herself again.   \nQ.  And that’s when she stopped working? \nA.  Yes, and she – then she didn’t no more.   \nQ.  Okay.  And did she – did she tell you she hurt herself \nloading that truck, “I hurt my back”?   \nA.  Yeah.  She was in tears.  She was in a lot of pain.   \n \n An administrative law judge examined Thomas Beals during a \nhearing held January 20, 2023: \nJUDGE BLACK:  Concerning this May 11\nth\n incident, were you \npresent when she allegedly had another injury? \nA.  Yes.  We were loadin’ a truck. \nQ.  What happened? \nA.  We were pickin’ up either a washer or a dryer, it may have \nbeen a little fridge, and she went to pick it up and then she \njust gave out, and I was like, “What’s wrong?”  And she’s like, \n“I hurt myself again.”  And I was like, “Let me get it.”  And I got \nin the truck and she was kinda just holdin’ her neck and her \nshoulder, so I was just – you know, I knew she was in pain \nand I didn’t wanna, you know, I guess interrogate her or \nnothin’. \n \n The claimant testified that she hired another individual to assist with \ncaring for the respondents’ horses, but that the respondent-employer did \nnot approve of the new hire.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  So after Mr. Milligan was upset about this guy that you \nwere having work for you, what happened? \nA.  He called me.  I was at the farm and he called and said he \ndoes not want that guy there and he does not want him \nworking.  And he said, “Unless you are 100% better, I don’t \ncare if it’s one year or 10 years from now, do not come back.”   \nQ.  Okay.  And was that the last time that you worked for him? \nA.  Yes.  That was when I had to gather all my stuff at the \nfarm, all my tack and everything that I had out there. \n \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  6\n  \n \n \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that the respondents terminated \nher employment on or about May 14, 2022.       \nThe claimant treated at Sherwood Urgent Care on June 14, 2022: \nPatient comes in today for a clearance to return to work, Pain, \nNeck, Pain and Pain, Back.... \nPt had an injury at work on 04-18-22 and was seen in clinic.  \nPt returned again for same injury on 04/21/2022.  Pt had a CT \nof head performed on 04/26/22 d/t head injury and migraines \nafter incident.  Pt received the results of 04-28-22.  Pt was told \nto come back in for clearance to return to work.  Pt never \nreturned.  Pt states today her employer told her she can not \nreturn to work until she is “100% better.”  Pt states she does \nnot feel 100% better and wants to know what she needs to \ndo.... \nPt reports continued right sided neck pain from the initial \ninjury.  She did have c-spine and right shoulder xrays when \nshe was in clinic which were found to be normal.... \nReports she hurt her lower back in a separate incident 5/11 \nlifting something at work and it has also continued to bother \nher.... \n \n It was noted on June 14, 2022, “She reports she continues to have \nright neck/shoulder pain.  There was also a secondary lower back injury \nthat happened in a separate incidence 5/11.  I have recommended the \npatient go to physical therapy and follow up in clinic in 2 weeks.  If she does \nnot improve with physical therapy we will move forward with MRI [of] her \nneck and shoulder.  She will continue to be on light duty for now, I do not \nfeel she needs to be placed completely off work.”  The assessment was \n“Pain in right shoulder” and “Strain of muscle, fascia and tendon of lower \nback[.]”   \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  7\n  \n \n \nThe record includes an Excuse for Work dated June 14, 2022:  “The \nabove patient was seen in our clinic for a work related injury/illness and was \nunder the care of Chreene, Robyn, NP.”  The Excuse for Work indicated, \n“FIT FOR RESTRICTED/ACCOMMODATED DUTY” from June 14, 2022 to \nJune 28, 2022.   \n The claimant followed up at Sherwood Urgent Care on June 28, \n2022: \nPt presents to clinic for follow up on neck and back pain.  Pt \nreports no improvement with collar bone or Right Shoulder.  \nPt states she has not returned to work.  Pt also states that \nphysical therapy called and her first appointment is \n7/7/2022.... \nCalled pts boss, Jeanette Milligan to clarify if the patient could \nhave light duty as the patient continues to state she has been \nunable to work due to her boss stating she had to be “100% \nbefore returning to work.”  Pts boss states she never told her \nthat and that she has not been employed with her since 5/9.  \nAt the last visit the patient stated she was injured at work on \n5/11 as well as reinjuring her right shoulder and neck.  \nDiscussed with patient that her boss states she was no longer \nemployed with them and that I was unsure if this was still \ncovered with workers comp as she was not an employee. \nAlternate ice and heat to your shoulder.  Continue with anti-\ninflammatories and physical therapy as planned.   \n \n A physical therapist noted on July 7, 2022, “This 49 y/o pt presented \nto the therapy clinic with complaints of right shoulder pain following a work \nrelated accident.  She works with a horse trainer and was kicked by a horse \nmid April.  She was kicked on the left side and fell onto concrete on the right \nside.  When she fell, she landed on her shoulder and hit her head....She \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  8\n  \n \n \nwas first placed on light duty, but due to her work related activities, she has \nnot been able to work since the incident.”  The claimant began a program of \nphysical therapy beginning July 7, 2022, and the diagnosis included \n“Cervicalgia.”   \nA Physical Therapy Discharge Summary was prepared on August \n25, 2022: \nPatient completed 50% of her written POC.  During the course \nof her therapy sessions, she was more than 15 minutes late \nnumerous times, no showed twice, and called to cancel within \n24 hours notice once.  Due to her habitual no show or \nattending therapy late, she was taken to the utilization review \nwith other therapist to discuss the course of action.  With her \nnot attending therapy in a timely manner and no showing her \nappointments, she will be discharged from therapy.  Her \ndischarge and no show/tardiness will be relayed to her case \nmanager for workmans compensation.   \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on September 27, 2022.  The claimant \ncontended, “Claimant contends she is entitled to medical treatment for her \nneck, right shoulder, and low back.  She contends she is entitled to \ntemporary total disability as result of her injuries sustained on April 16, \n2022.  Claimant reserves all other issues.”   \n The parties stipulated, “The respondents have controverted this \nclaim in its entirety.”  The respondents contended, “The claimant worked as \na groomer at Oaklawn Park during the racing season.  The claimant was \nnot injured due to a fall she had at work on 4-16-22.  She does not have a \ncompensable neck injury or head injury as there are no objective medical \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  9\n  \n \n \nfindings.  X-rays and CT scans of the neck, shoulder and head have all \nbeen normal.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether the Claimant sustained compensable injuries to \nher shoulders, right elbow, and right knee. \n2.  Whether the Claimant is entitled to temporary total \ndisability (TTD) compensation beginning on April 17, 2022 \nand continuing through a date yet to be determined. \n3.  Whether the Claimant is entitled to medical benefits for her \nalleged injuries. \n4.  Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted attorney’s fee.   \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on November 16, \n2022: \n  HISTORY:  Diffuse neck pain.   \nFINDINGS:  Structures at the craniovertebral junction are \nunremarkable.  The normal lordotic curvature is minimally \nreversed....Disc desiccation noted throughout the C-spine. \nC2-3:  Unremarkable. \nC3-4:  Unremarkable. \nC4-5:  Mild bilateral facet arthropathy. \nC5-6:  Mild broad-based posterior annular disc bulge.  Mild \nbilateral facet and uncovertebral osteophyte formation.  \nModerate right and mild left neural foraminal stenosis. \nC6-C7:  Moderate bilateral facet arthropathy. \nC7-T1:  Mild bilateral facet arthropathy. \nNo cord signal abnormality.   \nIMPRESSION:  At C5-6, there is moderate right neural \nforaminal stenosis nerve impingement. \nMultilevel degenerative disc and facet changes. \n \n On or about December 19, 2022, the claimant began treating with \nWilliam James, CRNA under the supervision of Dr. John R. Pace.  William \nJames reported, “Neck pain with RUE NT and paresthesias.  Both hands \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  10\n  \n \n \nare numb constantly.  Onset 4/16/22.  Pain into scapula region.  Has went \nto PT.  Reports while majority of symptoms are in RUE; numbness of hands \nis greater left than right.”  Mr. James assessed “1.  Cervical radiculopathy,” \nand he administered C5-6 epidural steroid injections on December 20, 2022 \nand January 3, 2023. \n A hearing was held on January 20, 2023.  The claimant testified on \ndirect examination: \nQ.  So have you worked anywhere else since your \nemployment with [the respondents] ended? \nA.  I always loved horses, obviously, and I just – with my \nhands, I have numbness in my fingers in both hands and \nsharp pains.  I cannot feel a lot in my forearm and my fingers \nso I can’t really do what I was set out to do, which was \ngrooming.  It’s my passion, so I what they called downgraded \nto a hot walker at Oaklawn.  A friend of mine – since they \nalways look for me for work, one of the trainers had asked me, \n“Do you know any hot walkers?  I need a hot walker.”   \nQ.  So did you start as a hot walker? \nA.  Yeah. \nQ.  When was that? \nA.  This was last Friday.   \nQ.  Okay.  Was that the first work you had done since leaving \nMr. Milligan? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  All right.  Do  you anticipate to continue with that job? \nA.  I – I’m giving it a shot.... \nQ.  Do you do any other work for this employer, where you are \nnow, other than walking the horses? \nA.  No.  This is just part-time walking, just simple walk in a \ncircle. \nQ.  Okay.  And how much do you get paid for that? \nA.  It’s $250.00 a week cash.   \nQ.  And how many hours a week are you working? \nA.  Four hours a day, if that. \nQ.  Okay.  So is that four hours a day, five days a week? \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  11\n  \n \n \nA.  Seven days in the horse business.... \nQ.  And has any doctor released you to full duty? \nA.  Not yet, no.     \n \n In the meantime, William James assessed “1.  Arthropathy of \ncervical spine facet joint” on January 31, 2023.  Mr. James performed a \n“pericapsular facet joint injection” at C5/6.   \n William James’ assessment on February 28, 2023 was “1.  Cervical \nradiculopathy – EMG/NCV BUE, RTC with results.”  Mr. James also noted, \n“NEUROLOGIST REFERRAL – Schedule Within:  provider’s discretion.”         \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on April 19, 2023.  The \nadministrative law judge found, in pertinent part: \n3.  The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she sustained a compensable injury to her neck on April \n16, 2022, which resolved no later than April 21, 2022. \n4.  The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence her entitlement to any temporary total disability \ncompensation. \n5.  The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat the medical treatment she received on April 18 and 21, \n2022 was reasonable and necessary treatment for her \ncompensable neck injury.  However, the Claimant failed to \nprove her need for any future medical treatment for her neck \ninjury.   \n \n There was no appeal of the administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nApril 19, 2023.  The administrative law judge thereafter entered an agreed \nstipulation, “5.  All matters concerning AWCC Claim No. H204976 were \nresolved in my April 19, 2023, Opinion and are res judicata.”  \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  12\n  \n \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on November 8, 2023.  The claimant \ncontended, “Claimant contends she is entitled to medical treatment for her \nneck injury, exacerbated on May 11, 2022.  Whether Claimant is entitled to \ntemporary total disability and temporary partial disability benefits from date \nlast worked full time to a date yet to be determined.  Claimant reserves all \nother issues.”   \n The parties stipulated, “4.  The Respondents have controverted this \nclaim in its entirety.”  The respondents contended, “Respondents will assert \nthe following defenses:  The claimant has suggested that her neck injury \nwas exacerbated by another event on 5-11-22.  All matters concerning \nclaim #H204976 were decided in the 4-19-23 opinion and are res judicata.  \nIf there was a new incident, it should not be adjudicated under H204976.  \nHowever, the Form C filed on 6-5-23 shows an injury date of 4-16-22.  The \nclaimant is not entitled to additional treatment for her neck or to TTD per the \nprevious decision that was not appealed.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to \nher neck. \n2.  Whether the Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for \nher alleged neck injury. \n3.  Whether the Claimant is entitled to temporary total \ndisability (TTD) compensation. \n4.  Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted attorney’s fee. \n \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  13\n  \n \n \n After another hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nMay 9, 2024 and found: \n3.  The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she sustained a compensable injury to her neck on May \n11, 2022.   \n4.  The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat the medical treatment of record she received was \nreasonable and necessary treatment for her compensable \nMay 11, 2022 neck injury.  She also proved her entitlement to \nthe additional medical treatment recommended for her neck \nby Dr. John Pace, in the form of a referral to a \nspecialist/neurologist and EMG/NCV studies of both her upper \nextremities.   \n5.  The Claimant proved her entitlement to temporary total \ndisability from May 12, 2022 until January 12, 2023.  She also \nproved her entitlement to temporary partial disability from the \ndate she began working part-time and continuing.   \n \n The respondents appeal to the Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n A.  Res Judicata \n The respondents contend that the claimant’s entitlement to benefits \nis res judicata.  The purpose of the res judicata doctrine is to put an end to \nlitigation by preventing a party who had one fair trial on a matter from \nrelitigating the matter a second time.  Cox v. Keahey, 84 Ark. App. 121, 133 \nS.W.3d 430 (2003), citing Brandon v. Arkansas W. Gas Co., 76 Ark. App. \n201, 61 S.W.3d 193 (2001).  Res judicata applies where there has been a \nfinal adjudication on the merits of the issue by a court of competent \njurisdiction on all matters litigated and those matters necessarily within the \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  14\n  \n \n \nissue which might have been litigated.  Beliew v. Stuttgart Rice Mill, 64 Ark. \nApp. 334, 987 S.W.2d 281 (1998).  The key question regarding the \napplication of res judicata is whether the party against whom the earlier \ndecision is being asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue \nin question.  Cater v. Cater, 311 Ark. 627, 846 S.W.2d 173 (1993).  Res \njudicata applies to decisions of the Commission.  Harvest Foods v. \nWasham, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776 (1996).     \n In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the claimant’s \nentitlement to workers’ compensation benefits is not res judicata.  A pre-\nhearing order was filed on September 27, 2022.  The claimant contended, \namong other things, that she was entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits as a result of injuries she sustained on April 16, 2022.  The \nrespondents contended, among other things, that the claimant “was not \ninjured due to a fall she had at work on 4-16-22.”  The parties did not agree \nto litigate compensability concerning an injury occurring any other date \nexcept April 16, 2022.  After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an \nopinion on April 19, 2023.  The administrative law judge found, among other \nthings, that the claimant “sustained a compensable injury to her neck on \nApril 16, 2022, which resolved no later than April 21, 2022.”  The \nadministrative law judge thereafter entered an agreed stipulation, “5.  All \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  15\n  \n \n \nmatters concerning AWCC Claim No. H204976 were resolved in my April \n19, 2023, Opinion and are res judicata.”   \n The party asserting the defense of res judicata has the burden of \nproof.  JeToCo Corp. v. Hailey Sales Co., 268 Ark. 340, 596 S.W.2d 703 \n(1980).  In the present matter, the claimant does not contend that she is \nentitled to benefits related to the compensable injury which occurred on \nApril 16, 2022, and which the administrative law judge determined “resolved \nno later than April 21, 2022.”  Rather, the claimant contends that she is \nentitled to benefits related to an accidental injury allegedly occurring on May \n11, 2022.  The Full Commission recognizes that there was testimony at the \nprevious hearing which pertained to the alleged May 11, 2022 accident, but \nthere was not litigation or an adjudication related to same.  The \nrespondents did not prove that the claimant’s entitlement to benefits related \nto an accident occurring on May 11, 2022 was res judicata.       \n B.  Compensability \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. \n2012), provides, in pertinent part: \n  (A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external physical \nharm to the body ... arising out of and in the course of \nemployment and which requires medical services or results in \ndisability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused \nby a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence[.]   \n \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  16\n  \n \n \n A compensable injury must also 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 The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she 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 found in the present matter, “3.  The \nClaimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a \ncompensable injury to her neck on May 11, 2022.”  The Full Commission \naffirms this finding.  The parties stipulated that the employment relationship \nexisted on May 11, 2022.  The claimant testified that she was cleaning \nstalls for the respondents, and that this work required lifting heavy \nappliances.  The claimant testified that she injured her neck while lifting a \nwashing machine on or about May 11, 2022.  The claimant’s husband, \nThomas Beals, corroborated the claimant’s testimony.  The administrative \nlaw judge examined Thomas Beals at hearing, and Mr. Beals expressly \ntestified that the claimant injured her neck while lifting a heavy appliance in \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  17\n  \n \n \nthe course of employment.  It was noted at Sherwood Urgent Care on June \n28, 2022 that the claimant had injured her neck on May 11, 2022.     \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a “compensable injury” \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  The \nclaimant proved that she sustained an accidental injury causing physical \nharm to her neck.  The claimant proved that the accidental injury arose out \nof and in the course of employment, required medical services, and resulted \nin disability.  The injury was caused by a specific incident which was \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence on or about May 11, 2022.  The \nclaimant also established a compensable injury by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings which included reversal of the normal \nlordotic curvature as demonstrated in the cervical MRI taken November 16, \n2022.  Such an abnormality can be interpreted as objective medical \nevidence establishing a compensable injury.  See Saline Cnty. Judge v. \nCrouch, 2013 Ark. App. 589; King v. Peopleworks, 97 Ark. App. 105, 244 \nS.W.3d 729 (2006).  The Full Commission finds that the objective medical \nevidence was causally related to the compensable injury which occurred on \nMay 11, 2022 and was not the result of a pre-existing condition or prior \ninjury.   \n C.  Temporary Disability \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  18\n  \n \n \n Temporary total disability is that period within the healing period in \nwhich the employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages, whereas \ntemporary partial disability is that period within the healing period in which \nthe employee suffers only a decrease in her capacity to earn the wages she \nwas receiving at the time of the injury.  Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, \n272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  “Healing period” means “that period \nfor healing of an injury resulting from an accident.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(12)(Repl. 2012).  Whether an employee’s healing period has ended is \na question of fact for the Commission.  Dallas County Hosp. v. Daniels, 74 \nArk. App. 177, 47 S.W.3d 283 (2001). \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “5.  The \nClaimant proved her entitlement to temporary total disability from May 12, \n2022 until January 12, 2023.  She also proved her entitlement to temporary \npartial disability from the date she began working part-time and continuing.”   \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved she was entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits beginning May 14, 2022 and continuing \nuntil January 12, 2023.  We have determined supra that the claimant \nproved she sustained a compensable injury to her neck on May 11, 2022.  \nThe claimant’s testimony indicated that she continued to work until the \nrespondents terminated her employment on or about May 14, 2022.  The \nFull Commission therefore finds that the claimant remained within a healing \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  19\n  \n \n \nperiod and was totally incapacitated from earning wages beginning May 14, \n2022.  The claimant testified at a hearing held January 20, 2023 that she \nbegan working part-time for another employer the previous Friday, January \n13, 2023.  The record therefore shows that the claimant was no longer \ntotally incapacitated from earning wages as of January 13, 2023.  The \nclaimant proved that she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits \nbeginning May 14, 2022 and continuing until January 12, 2023.   \nThe evidence does not demonstrate that the claimant was totally \nincapacitated from earning wages after January 12, 2023.  However, the \nrecord shows that the claimant has remained within a healing period since \nthat time.  No doctor or treating medical professional has opined that the \nclaimant’s healing period has ended for the compensable injury the \nclaimant sustained to her neck on May 11, 2022.  A hearing was held on \nFebruary 9, 2024.  The claimant testified on cross-examination that she had \nbeen employed with “Doc Clement” for approximately one month.  The \nclaimant testified, “It’s a full watch center, and basically you watch the \ncameras and look for foals and mares in distress.  It’s still horses but it’s \nnothing that I’m used to doing, which was grooming.”  The claimant testified \nthat she was working approximately 30 hours per week.  The Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved she remained within a healing \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  20\n  \n \n \nperiod and was partially incapacitated from earning wages beginning \nJanuary 13, 2023 until a date yet to be determined. \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, therefore, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury to her neck on May 11, \n2022.  The respondents did not prove that res judicata bars the claim.  The \nclaimant proved that the medical treatment of record following the \ncompensable injury, including the February 28, 2023 recommendation of \nreferral to a neurologist, was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant proved she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits \nbeginning May 14, 2022 and continuing through January 12, 2023.  The \nclaimant proved that she was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits \nbeginning January 13, 2023 until a date yet to be determined.   \nThe claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing \non appeal to the Full Commission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an \nadditional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n \n \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  21\n  \n \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED.         \n \n \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 \nclaimant proved she sustained a compensable injury to her neck on May \n11, 2022, for which she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits, \ntemporary partial disability benefits and medical benefits.  Compensability \nof the claimant’s May 11, 2022 neck injury is res judicata. \nRes judicata applies where there has been a final adjudication on the \nmerits of the issue by a court of competent jurisdiction on all matters \nlitigated and those matters necessarily within the issue which might have \nbeen litigated.  Castleberry v. Elite Lamp Company, 69 Ark. App. 359, 13 \nS.W.3d 211 (2000).  It is well settled that this doctrine applies to decisions \nof the Commission.  Harvest Foods v. Washam, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 \nS.W.2d 776 (1996).  \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  22\n  \n \n \nThe key question regarding the application of res judicata is whether \nthe party against whom the earlier decision is being asserted had a full and \nfair opportunity to litigate the issue in question.  Castleberry, 69 Ark. App. \n359, 13 S.W.3d 211.  Res judicata bars the relitigation of not only issues \nactually litigated, but also those issues that could have been litigated. \nRothrock v. Advanced Envtl. Recycling, 2018 Ark. App. 88, 544 S.W.3d 61 \n(2018).  \nFor the purposes of workers’ compensation claims, a decision \nbecomes final and res judicata applies when no appeal is made from a \ndecision within 30 days.  Harvest Foods, 52 Ark. App. 72, 914 S.W.2d 776. \n In the present matter, the question is not whether the claimant’s May \n11, 2022 injury was actually litigated, but rather whether it could have been \nlitigated at the 2023 hearing.  The alleged injuries here occurred less than \none month apart.  \nThe claimant obtained an MRI of her cervical spine on November 16, \n2022, showing foraminal stenosis and nerve impingement at C5-6 and \nbegan treating with Mr. William James, CRNA in December 2022, receiving \nsteroid injections for that issue.  However, the claimant did not file a form \nAR-C for her May 2022 injury until September 26, 2023, conveniently after \nthe administrative law judge’s April 2023 opinion. \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  23\n  \n \n \n The claimant is clearly attempting to resurrect issues that she had a \nfull and fair opportunity to litigate in 2022, using our procedures as a safety-\nnet for a claim supported by her own self-serving testimony.  The claimant \nfailed to address her May 2022 injury at the 2023 hearing and for this \nreason, this issue is res judicata.  \nThere are simply no objective findings that an injury occurred on May \n11, 2022, and for these reasons the claimant has failed to meet her burden \nof proving that she sustained a compensable injury on that date. \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102 (4)(A)(i) provides that a \ncompensable injury includes “[a]n accidental injury causing internal or \nexternal physical harm to the body. . . An injury is ‘accidental’ only if it is \ncaused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.”  \nGenerally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising out \nof the course and scope of employment caused by a specific incident \nidentifiable by time and place of an occurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i).  This, therefore, requires that a claimant establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course \nof employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external physical harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  24\n  \n \n \ninjury as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence \nsupported by \"objective findings.\" Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). \nObjective findings cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16).  \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. \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.  \nThe Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the \nclaimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into findings of \nfact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. \nWhite v. Gregg Agricultural Enterprises, 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 \n(2001). \nHere, the self-serving testimony of the claimant and her husband are \nthe only evidence that the claimant’s alleged May 2022 injury was the \nsource of her cervical problems.  The claimant is a 50-year-old woman with \n\nBEALS - H204976 & H306277  25\n  \n \n \nneural impingement that is largely degenerative.  There are no objective \nfindings linking these issues to the claimant’s alleged injury.  \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 NOS. H204976 & H306277 LYNA M. BEALS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MILLIGAN RACING (ALLEN MILLIGAN), EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORP./ LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.863Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H204976-2024-10-31","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Beals_Lyna_H204976-H306277_20241031.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}