{"id":"full_commission-H206949-2024-09-19","awcc_number":"H206949","decision_date":"2024-09-19","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Glenda Lurry","employer_name":"Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc","title":"LURRY VS. COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC. AWCC# H206949 September 19, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:2","granted:4","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lurry_Glenda_H206949_20240919.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Lurry_Glenda_H206949_20240919.pdf","text_length":4266,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H206949 \n \nGLENDA F. LURRY, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nCOCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nINDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF \nNORTH AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE RICK BEHRING, JR., \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed January 5, 2024.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction \nover this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby \naccepted. \n \n3. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe is entitled to additional treatment of her stipulated compensable \nlower back injury.  \n\n \nLURRY - H206949  2\n  \n \n \n4. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe is entitled to temporary total disability benefits for any period in \nconnection with her stipulated compensable lower back injury. \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 January 5, \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 of fact made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n Therefore we affirm and adopt the decision of the Administrative Law \nJudge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as the decision of the \nFull Commission on appeal.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n \n \n\n \nLURRY - H206949  3\n  \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n The ALJ in this case found that the Claimant failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional treatment of \nher stipulated compensable lower back injury and that she failed to prove \nby a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits for any period in connection with such stipulated injury.  \nAfter a de novo review of the record, I would rule in favor of the Claimant as \nhaving proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to \nadditional treatment of her stipulated compensable lower back injury, but \nconcur with the ALJ’s findings of denial of temporary total disability benefits \nfor any period.   \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 \nclaimant bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to additional \nmedical treatment.  Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 \nS.W.2d 543 (1999).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment is a question of fact for the Commission.  White Consolidated \nIndus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut \nCorp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001).  \n\n \nLURRY - H206949  4\n  \n \n \nClaimant  continuously  suffered  symptoms  from  her  compensable \ninjury  and  as  a  result  exercised  her  one-time  right  to  change  physicians. \nClaimant  was  seen  by  Dr.  Jordan  Walters  who  recommends  additional \nmedical treatment in the form of medial branch blocks.  I find Dr. Walters’s \nrecommended  treatment  is  reasonable  and  necessary  and  would  grant \nClaimant’s entitlement to additional medical treatment in the form of medical \nbranch blocks.  \nFor the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n  M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H206949 GLENDA F. LURRY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 Upon review before th...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.970Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H206949-2024-09-19","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Lurry_Glenda_H206949_20240919.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}