{"id":"full_commission-H206962-2024-02-08","awcc_number":"H206962","decision_date":"2024-02-08","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"James Godwin","employer_name":"Mid South Milling Company, Inc","title":"GODWIN VS. MID SOUTH MILLING COMPANY, INC. AWCC# H206962 & H206963 FEBRUARY 8, 2024","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["back","ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Godwin_James_H206962-H206963_20240208.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Godwin_James_H206962-H206963_20240208.pdf","text_length":47018,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NOS.  H206962 & H206963  \n \nJAMES G. GODWIN, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nMID SOUTH MILLING COMPANY, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2024  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE JARID M. KINDER, Attorney at \nLaw, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE GUY A. WADE, Attorney at \nLaw, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed July \n20, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to \nprove he sustained a compensable injury.  After reviewing the entire record \nde novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained \ncompensable scheduled injuries on August 5, 2022 and September 2, \n2022.  We find that the claimant proved he was entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits beginning September 23, 2022 and continuing until \nDecember 8, 2022.   \nI.  HISTORY \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   2\n  \n \n \n James Godwin, now age 55, testified that he became employed with \nthe respondents, Mid-South Milling Company, in February 2019.  The \nparties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier relationship existed \non August 5, 2022.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \n Q.  And what all did you do for Mid-South? \nA.  Mixing room operator and for a short time a front end \nloader operator.   \nQ.  Now, for the purpose of why we are here, what job were \nyou doing whenever the injury occurred? \nA.  Mixing room operator.... \nQ.  Well, let’s go to why we are here today, which is actually \nthat injury, and it is my understanding that you had a lower \nextremity injury to the right side on August 5\nth\n.  Is that correct? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  What happened? \nA.  The equipment had choked down and after we unchoked, I \nbelieve it was a hammer mill, you turn the equipment on \nbackwards to where it starts.  From there after, wherever the \nmaterial is going, one piece of equipment at a time.  I would \nrun back and forth to the door and, you know, make sure \nthere is nothing squealing and everything is running.  And I hit \na switch, turn on the one particular screw and I got to the \ndoor.  The belts are squealing, you know, it was still choked \nup.  So I turn around and, you know, try to get back to the \nswitch as soon as I could, but the first step I took on my right \nfoot, you know, I felt something give.  I fell to the floor and that \nday I found out it was a partial tear to my Achilles tendon.... \nQ.  So were you sitting down before this incident occurred or \nwere you standing? \nA.  I was standing.   \nQ.  Okay.  And you turned to run to shut a piece of machinery \ndown.  Is that my understanding? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  Okay.  And how fast were you going whenever you were \ngoing to shut this piece of machinery down? \nA.  It was like the first or second step.  You know, kind of like \nyou are in a hurry.  You’ve got to get there now.  So I pivoted \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   3\n  \n \n \nand put all of my weight on my right foot and that is when it \nhappened.   \nQ.  Were you in a hurry at this point? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Why were you in a hurry? \nA.  To shut the equipment down.... \nQ.  Could you walk at that point? \nA.  No.  It was five to 10 minutes before I could get up.   \nQ.  So after these five to 10 minutes go by, what did you do? \nA.  I went to Ben Smith’s office.  I told him what happened.  \nTold him I was going to the hospital.   \nQ.  Did you immediately go to the hospital that day? \nA.  Yes.    \n \nBenjamin Glen Smith testified that he was the respondent-\nemployer’s Operations and Plant Manager.  The respondents’ attorney \nexamined Ben Smith: \nQ.  Now, you’ve heard his description of some events that he \nclaims happened at work.  Is that correct? \nA.  I have heard them, yes.   \nQ.  Now, were you present on August the 5\nth\n of 2022? \nA.  Yes, I was.... \nQ.  Now, do you remember any conversation with Mr. Godwin \non that particular day about an injury or an event that occurred \nat work? \nA.  I do not.   \nQ.  Okay.  Tell me what you do remember about that \nparticular day.   \nA.  On that first said date, he did not come into the office at all.  \nHe actually went to his vehicle and I assume went to get a \ndoctor’s advice or whatever it was, but he basically tried \ncalling and ended up sending a text message to my assistant \nplant manager stating that he had to leave.   \nQ.  Did he describe what he had to leave? \nA.  At that time, no. \nQ.  Had there been any description to you or to anyone else \nclaiming that he was actually injured at work? \nA.  No.   \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   4\n  \n \n \nQ.  Okay.  So when he described today in the courtroom \nabout coming to your office and telling you what had \nhappened and then telling you he was going to go to the \nemergency room, did any of that happen on August the 5\nth\n? \nA.  No.... \nQ.  Now, before August the 5\nth\n of 2022, did you observe the \nclaimant? \nA.  I had. \nQ.  Was he having any problems walking at that particular \ntime? \nA.  He’s always had issues walking, but for a few months \nbefore that he was definitely hobbling around.   \nQ.  Okay.  And was he noticeably limping or having difficulty \ngetting from station to station? \nA.  Yes.  He has always had difficulty getting from station to \nstation.... \nQ.  Now, at any point in time on August the 5\nth\n of 2022, did he \never come to you complaining of the problem that occurred at \nwork? \nA.  He had not.   \n \n According to the record, however, the claimant treated at Mercy \nHospital Fort Smith on August 5, 2022.  The claimant complained of an \n“Ankle injury” and “Leg Pain (PT complains of right posterior leg pain that \nbegins at ankle region and extends up his posterior leg.  This began to \nbother him 6 weeks ago.  But significantly worsened.  Pt fell after feeling \nsomething move in his leg give out.  Alert and Oriented x 4).  The diagnosis \nincluded “Partial tear of Achilles tendon, initial encounter.”   \nDr. Seth Bartholomew reported on August 5, 2022: \nJames Godwin is a 54-year-old man who presents emergency \ndepartment today with complaints of right heel and leg pain.  \nPatient states he’s [had] right achilles tendon pain for \napproximately 6 weeks and has seen his primary care \nphysician for this.  Patient was initially referred for an MRI to \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   5\n  \n \n \nevaluate the extent of his injury but it was denied by his \ninsurance company so he was scheduled to start physical \ntherapy this next week.  Patient states at work today that he \nlunged forward quickly and bore all of his weight on the ball of \nhis right foot.  Patient states that he felt an instant pain \nextending from the heel of his right foot up through the calf \nmuscle and states he feels like something is “moving in there.”  \nPatient states the leg gave way causing him to fall.... \nMusculoskeletal: \nGeneral:  Swelling, tenderness and signs of injury present.  \nNormal range of motion.... \nComments:  Swelling and tenderness with palpation 2-3 \ninches superior to right heel.   \n \n A radiologist’s impression on August 5, 2022 was “Intact but \nthickened and heterogeneous right Achilles tendon at real-time imaging.  \nThis is consistent with tendinopathy and/or partial tear.  No full-thickness \ntear.”  It was noted on August 5, 2022, “Patient is ambulatory here in the \nemergency department and had a negative Thompson’s test.  The \nultrasound results reveal a partial tear of the right achilles tendon.  \nPatient has a pending appointment on Thursday for evaluation and \nassessment by Physical Therapy.”   \n An APRN provided the following Excuse/Letter on August 5, 2022:  \n“James Godwin was seen and treated in our emergency department on \n8/5/2022.  He may return to work on (sic).  No climbing ladders until \nevaluated and cleared by physical therapy to safely perform the task.” \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that he returned to work for the \nrespondents on August 8, 2022.   \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   6\n  \n \n \n The claimant treated at Mercy Clinic Free Ferry on August 9, 2022.  \nStefanie A. Ellis, APN reported at that time: \nJames has come in for his pain in the rt achilles region x  ̴ 3 \nmonths.  Patient was initially referred for an MRI to evaluate \nthe extent of his injury but it was denied by his insurance \ncompany so he was scheduled to start physical therapy this \nweek.  Last week states while at work lunged forward quickly \nand bore all of his weight on the ball of his right foot.  States \nthat he felt an instant pain extending from the heel of his right \nfoot up through the calf muscle and states he felt like \nsomething was “moving in there.”  Patient states the leg gave \nway causing him to fall.... \nRight ankle:  Swelling present.  Tenderness present.   \nRight Achilles Tendon:  Tenderness present.   \n \n Ms. Ellis assessed the following:  “Negative Thompson’s test.  The \nultrasound results reveal a partial tear of the right achilles tendon.  Patient \nhas a pending appointment on Thursday for evaluation and assessment by \nPhysical Therapy....Walking boot RX will be sent in for patient.  He is \nencouraged to wear it while up, not to drive with it, not to sleep with it on.”   \n The claimant was provided physical therapy visits beginning August \n11, 2022.  A physical therapist recorded the following observations on \nAugust 11, 2022:  “Inspection of the right ankle reveals considerable soft \nswelling of the foot, ankle and lower leg with some redness over lower \nachilles tendon.”     \n The parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed on September 2, 2022.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   7\n  \n \n \n  Q.  What happened then? \nA.  I was changing a screen in a hammer mill.  I took one out \nand I lifted the other and I had to twist to put it into position \nand it snapped again.... \nQ.  Did you fall? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  And did you report this incident? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  Who did you report this incident to? \nA.  Ben Smith.   \nQ.  And what was his response? \nA.  He said, “Okay.”     \n \n The respondents’ attorney examined Ben Smith: \nQ.  Now, you heard him describe a second event on \nSeptember the 2\nnd\n of 2022.  Is that correct? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Did he come to you that day and report an injury to you? \nA.  No.   \nQ.  Did he have any conversation with you claiming that he \nwas injured on September the 2\nnd\n of 2022? \nA.  Not during that time, no.   \n \n According to the record, Dr. Justin Clayton examined the claimant on \nSeptember 7, 2022: \n54-year-old male who had an Achilles injury on the right about \na month ago or a little bit more than that.  He had another \ninjury just about 5 days ago which seems to have completed a \npartially torn Achilles as best he can tell.  In a walking boot.... \nHe has a palpable defect in his Achilles and some tenderness \nto palpation in that location.... \nImaging:  I reviewed the plain radiographs that were done \npreviously are unremarkable.   \nMedical decision making:  54-year-old male with an Achilles \ntendon rupture on the right.  I discussed with him how this \nwould best be treated without surgical intervention.  It is \nimportant that he follows the nonsurgical protocol which we \nhave given him and he can also give a copy to his physical \ntherapist.  We will place a heel lift into his boot today.  He \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   8\n  \n \n \nshould not be on ladders and should have a 15 pound lifting \nrestriction we will see him in 4 weeks for exam only no \nimaging.   \n \n Dr. Clayton stated on September 7, 2022, “James Godwin was seen \nin my clinic on 9/7/2022.  He may return to work with no use of ladders, and \na 15 lb lifting restriction.”   \n A physical therapist noted on September 13, 2022, “Patient reports \nhe has experienced further injury to right achilles on 9/2/22 when he was \nlifting a heavy screen at work and felt a pop in his right achilles with sudden \nincrease in pain.  Patient has been in to see ortho MD and is now on non-\noperative achilles rupture protocol.  Patient is now wearing a wedge in his \nright cam-walker boot.”   \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  Why is it you no longer work for Mid-South? \nA.  September 23\nrd\n, I asked for some workmen’s comp so I \ncould get some short-term disability, which their insurance did \nnot have, and at the end of the shift that day they let me go.... \nQ.  And it’s your understanding you were terminated.  Is that \ncorrect? \nA.  They said, quote, I was suspended.  About a week later, I \ngot a letter in the mail from my insurance saying my medical \ninsurance had been terminated on September 23\nrd\n.   \nQ.  Do you know the reason you might have been \nsuspended? \nA.  Because I asked for workmen’s comp.... \nQ.  Did you remain off of work between September 23\nrd\n of ’22 \nand December 8\nth\n of 2022? \nA.  Did I remain off work? \nQ.  Yes. \nA.  Yes, I did.   \n \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   9\n  \n \n \n The respondents’ attorney examined Ben Smith: \nQ.  Now, at some point later, do you recall a conversation with \nMr. Godwin discussing a work-related injury that he was \nclaiming? \nA.  He did come to my office – again, the dates escape me – \nbut he did come to my office one morning and asked if I would \nput him down for two dates for workmen’s comp.   \nQ.  Now, he’s described that on September the 23\nrd\n of 2022 \nthat he was suspended at that point.  Does that sound about \nthe right time? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  So about three weeks after this claimed second event on \nSeptember 2\nnd\n is when he had that conversation? \nA.  That is correct. \nQ.  Okay.  Now, at that point, was that the first time you had \nlearned of any claimed work injury? \nA.  That would be correct.   \nQ.  Now, what did you ask him at that point in time? \nA.  I stated, “Do you feel like this is work-related?”  And his \ncomment was, “That doesn’t matter.”   \nQ.  Meaning what? \nA.  I didn’t know.  I basically stated to him, “Well, it does \nmatter.  If you feel like it was work-related, we have ways to \ndeal with it.”  He then walked away and I had conversations \nwith HR and stuff like that.... \nQ.  Now, at some point he was suspended.  Is that correct? \nA.  That is correct. \nQ.  And what was the purpose of the suspension? \nA.  We felt like he was wrongfully trying to claim workers’ \ncomp on something that, again, he never previously stated \nwas.   \nQ.  And that would have been on September the 23\nrd\n, not on \nAugust the 5\nth\n and not on September the 2\nnd\n which he now \nclaims those events occurred.  Is that right? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \nQ.  Did you have any knowledge before September the 23\nrd\n of \nany claimed injury at work? \nA.  I did not. \nQ.  He had never reported anything to you? \nA.  No, sir. \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   10\n  \n \n \nQ.  Not ever claimed or said anything about being work-\nrelated? \nA.  Not work-related.  He claimed, you know, he had an injury.  \nYou know, again, showed us papers.  We give him the \nopportunity to still do his job, but he couldn’t walk up things \nand lift things.   \n \n The claimant’s attorney cross-examined Ben Smith: \n  Q.  Are you denying that Mr. Godwin fell on 8/5 of ’22? \n  A.  I am not denying that. \nQ.  Are you denying that Mr. Godwin hurt himself on 8/5 of \n’22? \n  A.  I honestly do not know.   \n \nThe claimant filed a Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION,  on \nSeptember 28, 2022.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of the Form \nAR-C indicated that the Date of Accident was August 5, 2022.  The claimant \nwrote regarding the cause of injury, “Short sprint toward equipment controll \n(sic).  Right achilles tendon tore causing me to fall.”  The CLAIM \nINFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the claimant \ncontended that he was entitled to “initial benefits,” that is, “Temporary \nPartial Disability.”  The claimant also contended that he was entitled to \n“additional benefits,” namely “Additional Medical Expenses.”   \n The claimant filed a second Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR \nCOMPENSATION, on September 28, 2022.  The ACCIDENT \nINFORMATION section of the Form AR-C indicated that the Date of \nAccident was September 2, 2022.  The claimant wrote regarding the cause \nof injury, “Trying to position screen in Hammer-mill, right achilles tendon \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   11\n  \n \n \ntore & caused fall.”  The claimant contended that he was entitled to \n“Temporary Partial Disability” and “Additional Medical Expenses.”     \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Clayton on December 7, 2022: \nHPI:  Patient who has been treated nonsurgically for an \nAchilles tendon rupture on the right.  He has been a little more \naggressive that we would like to have seen however he needs \nto be back at work and at this point is not having a significant \namount of pain nor is he having significant dysfunction.   \nExam:  He is ambulatory in the office without assistive devices \nand in regular shoewear.  He does not have complete \ncontinuity of his Achilles but it does appear to be better than it \nwas before.   \nImaging:  No new imaging. \nMDM:  Achilles tendon rupture on the right at this point we can \nlet him use it as tolerated and he can be seen as needed.   \n \n Dr. Clayton stated on December 8, 2022, “James Godwin was seen \nin my office on 12/7/2022.  He may return to work with no restrictions.” \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Now, it looks like you were released to return to work on \n12/8 of ’22.  Is that correct? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Why were you returned to work? \nA.  Well, I’ve got bills.  They’ve got to be paid.   \nQ.  Did you request that Dr. Clayton return you to work? \nA.  Yes.   \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on March 16, 2023.  According to the \ntext of the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “He sustained a \ncompensable lower extremity injury on August 8, 2022 while working for \nMidsouth Milling Company in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  Despite objective \nevidence of injury, the respondents denied compensability of the claimant’s \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   12\n  \n \n \ninjury.  The claimant contends that he is owed medical benefits as well as \ntemporary total disability benefits from September 23, 2022 through a date \nyet to be determined.  Due to the controversion of entitled benefits, the \nrespondents are obliged to pay one half of the claimant’s attorney’s fee.  \nClaimant reserves the right to raise additional contentions at the hearing in \nthis matter.” \n The parties stipulated that the respondents “have controverted the \nclaim in its entirety.”  The respondents contended that the claimant “did not \nsustain a compensable injury on either date.  Claimant’s complaints are the \nresult of a preexisting condition and/or condition which did NOT occur at \nwork.  As a result, the claimant is not entitled to any medical or indemnity \nbenefits.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury on \nAugust 5, 2022 and September 2, 2022, regarding his right \nlower extremity.   \n2.  Compensation rate. \n3.  If compensable, whether claimant is entitled to medical \nbenefits, and temporary total disability benefits.   \n4.  Attorney’s fees.   \n \n The parties reserved all other issues.   \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on July \n20, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to \nprove he sustained a compensable injury.  The administrative law judge \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   13\n  \n \n \ntherefore denied and dismissed the claim.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION  \n A.  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 A compensable injury must 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 he 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 1.  August 5, 2022   \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   14\n  \n \n \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsuffered a compensable injury to his right Achilles tendon on August 5, \n2022, or on September 2, 2022.”  The Full Commission does not affirm this \nfinding.  We find that the claimant proved he sustained compensable \ninjuries on August 5, 2022 and September 2, 2022.   \n The claimant testified that he became employed with the \nrespondents in 2019.  The parties stipulated that the employment \nrelationship existed on August 5, 2022.  The claimant testified that he was \nworking for the respondents that day as a “Mixing Room Operator.”  The \nclaimant testified that he “felt something give” in his right foot while stepping \ntoward a malfunctioning industrial machine.  The claimant testified that he \nwas “in a hurry” and stated, “I pivoted and put all of my weight on my right \nfoot and that is when it happened.”   \n The claimant testified that he reported the August 5, 2022 accident to \nhis supervisor, Ben Smith.  Ben Smith denied that the claimant reported an \naccidental injury to him.  The administrative law judge determined that Ben \nSmith was a credible witness and that the claimant was not credible.  \nNevertheless, it is the function of the Commission to determine the \ncredibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.  \nJohnson v. Hux, 28 Ark. App. 187, 772 S.W.2d 362 (1989).  It is the duty of \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   15\n  \n \n \nthe Full Commission to enter findings in accordance with the \npreponderance of the evidence; our function is not to determine whether \nthere is substantial evidence to support an administrative law judge’s \nfindings.  Johnson, supra, citing Jones v. Scheduled Skyways, Inc., 1 Ark. \nApp. 44, 612 S.W.2d 333 (1981).  \n The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant \nwas a credible witness.  The medical evidence of record corroborated the \nclaimant’s testimony.  It was noted at Mercy Hospital on August 5, 2022, “Pt \nfell after feeling something move in his leg give out.”  The diagnosis on \nAugust 5, 2022 was “Partial tear of Achilles tendon, initial encounter.”  The \nrecord contains no diagnosis of a partial Achilles tendon tear prior to the \nAugust 5, 2022 accidental injury.  Dr. Bartholomew directly corroborated the \nclaimant’s testimony on August 5, 2022:  “Patient states at work today that \nhe lunged forward quickly and bore all of his weight on the ball of his right \nfoot.  Patient states that he felt an instant pain extending from the heel of \nhis right foot up through the calf muscle and states he feels like something \nis ‘moving in there.’”  Dr. Bartholomew reported “swelling” in the claimant’s \nright lower extremity.  “Swelling” is an objective medical finding establishing \na compensable injury.  See White County Medical Center, LLC v. Johnson, \n2022 Ark. App. 262, 646 S.W.3d 245.  There were no medical reports of \n“swelling” in the claimant’s right lower extremity prior to the August 5, 2022 \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   16\n  \n \n \naccidental injury.  Nor were any abnormalities shown in the claimant’s right \nAchilles tendon prior to the August 5, 2022 work-related accident.     \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a “compensable injury.”  \nThe claimant proved that he sustained an accidental injury causing physical \nharm to the body.  The claimant proved that the injury arose out of and in \nthe course of employment and required medical services.  The injury was \ncaused by a specific incident and was identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence on August 5, 2022.  The claimant also established a \ncompensable injury by medical evidence supported by objective findings, \nnamely a “Partial tear of the Achilles tendon” and “swelling” in the claimant’s \nright lower extremity.  The Full Commission finds that these objective \nmedical findings were causally related to the August 5, 2022 accidental \ninjury and were not causally related to a prior injury or pre-existing \ncondition.  These objective medical findings include “swelling” physically \nnoted in the claimant’s right ankle on August 9, 2022, in addition to the \nAugust 11, 2022 report of “soft swelling of the foot, ankle and lower leg with \nsome redness over lower Achilles tendon.”  These objective medical \nfindings established a compensable injury to the claimant’s right lower \nextremity.   \n 2.  September 2, 2022 \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   17\n  \n \n \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nSeptember 2, 2022.  The claimant testified that his right lower leg “snapped” \nwhile changing a screen in the respondent-employer’s hammer mill.  \nAlthough supervisor Ben Smith denied that the claimant reported a work-\nrelated injury that day, the medical evidence again corroborated the \nclaimant’s testimony.  Dr. Clayton reported on September 7, 2022 that the \nclaimant had reported an injury five days earlier:  “He had another injury just \nabout 5 days ago which seems to have completed a partially torn Achilles \nas best he can tell....He has a palpable defect in his Achilles and some \ntenderness to palpation in that location.”  Dr. Clayton diagnosed “Achilles \ntendon rupture on the right.”  The record does not show that the claimant \nsuffered from a complete Achilles tendon rupture prior to the September 2, \n2022 accidental injury. \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a “compensable injury.”  \nThe claimant proved that he sustained an accidental injury causing physical \nharm to the body.  The claimant proved that the injury arose out of and in \nthe course of employment, required medical services, and resulted in \ndisability.  The claimant proved that the injury was caused by a specific \nincident and was identifiable by time and place of occurrence on September \n2, 2022.  The claimant also established a compensable injury by medical \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   18\n  \n \n \nevidence, namely, the “Achilles tendon rupture on the right” diagnosed by \nDr. Clayton on September 7, 2022.  The claimant proved that this objective \nmedical finding was causally related to the September 2, 2022 accidental \ninjury. \n B.  Temporary Disability \n For scheduled injuries the injured employee is to receive temporary \ntotal disability benefits during his healing period or until he returns to work, \nwhichever occurs first.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-521(a)(Repl. 2012); Wheeler \nConstr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  The \nhealing period is that period for healing of an injury which continues until the \nemployee is as far restored as the permanent character of the injury will \npermit.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 \n(1994).  If the underlying condition causing the disability has become more \nstable and nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that \ncondition, the healing period has ended.  Id.  Whether an employee’s \nhealing period has ended is a question of fact for the Commission.  Ketcher \nRoofing Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark. App. 63, 901 S.W.2d 25 (1995).     \n In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the claimant \nproved he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning \nSeptember 23, 2022 and continuing until December 8, 2022.  The Full \nCommission has determined that the claimant proved he sustained a \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   19\n  \n \n \ncompensable scheduled injury on August 5, 2022.  The claimant testified \nthat he returned to work for the respondents on August 8, 2022.  We have \nfound that the claimant proved he sustained another compensable \nscheduled injury on September 2, 2022.  Dr. Clayton returned the claimant \nto restricted work beginning September 7, 2022.  The respondents opted to \nterminate the claimant’s employment effective September 23, 2022.  Ben \nSmith testified that the respondents terminated the claimant’s employment, \nessentially asserting that the claimant “was wrongfully trying to claim \nworkers’ comp.”  Nevertheless, the evidence shows no wrongful conduct on \nthe claimant’s part, nor does the record show that the claimant “unjustifiably \nrefused suitable employment.”  See Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-526(Repl. 2012); \nRobertson v. Pork Group, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 448, 384 S.W.3d 649.   \n The Full Commission therefore finds that the claimant proved he was \nentitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning September 23, 2022, \nthe date the respondents terminated the claimant’s employment.  Dr. \nClayton reported on December 7, 2022 that the claimant was “ambulatory in \nthe office without assistive devices and in regular shoewear.”  Dr. Clayton \nopined that the claimant was able to return to work with no restrictions on \nDecember 8, 2022.  The evidence therefore demonstrates that the claimant \nreached the end of a healing period for his compensable scheduled injury \nno later than December 8, 2022.  Temporary disability benefits cannot be \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   20\n  \n \n \nawarded after a claimant’s healing period has ended.  Milligan v. West Tree \nServ., 57 Ark. App. 14, 946 S.W.2d 697 (1997).  The Full Commission thus \nfinds that the claimant proved he was entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits beginning September 23, 2022 until December 8, 2022.  The \nclaimant testified that he earned $15.00 per hour and was working 50 hours \nweekly at the time of his compensable injuries.  The Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant’s average weekly wage was $549.45.  See Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-501(Repl. 2012) and Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-518(Repl. 2012).   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved he sustained compensable scheduled injuries on \nAugust 5, 2022 and September 2, 2022.  The claimant proved he was \nentitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning September 23, 2022 \nand continuing until December 8, 2022.  The claimant proved that the \nmedical treatment of record was reasonably necessary in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n \n \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   21\n  \n \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED.    \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s determination that the \nclaimant proved he sustained compensable scheduled injuries on August 5, \n2022, and September 2, 2022, and is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits beginning September 23, 2022, and ending December 8, 2022. \nThe claimant contends that his injuries arose from specific, work-\nrelated incidents on August 5, 2022, and September 2, 2022.   A specific \nincident injury is an accidental injury arising out of the course and scope of \nemployment caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i).  This statute requires that \na claimant establish by a preponderance of the evidence:  (1) an injury \narising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused \ninternal 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 \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   22\n  \n \n \nspecific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) and Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(D). \"Arising out of \nthe employment\" refers to the origin or cause of the accident, while the \nphrase \"in the course of the employment\" refers to the time, place, and \ncircumstances under which the injury occurred.  White Cnty. Med. Ctr. v. \nJohnson, 2022 Ark. App. 262, 646 S.W.3d 245 (2022). \nThe record is clear that the claimant’s lower extremity pain was \ndocumented and treated long before his alleged injuries on August 5, 2022, \nand September 2, 2022.  In fact, the claimant admitted at the hearing on \nthis matter that he had treated with his primary care physician, APN \nStefanie Ellis, for these complaints prior to August 5, 2022. (Hrng. Tr, P. \n31).  According to the claimant’s medical records, prior to August 5, 2022, \nthe claimant was treated for the same complaints which he alleges occurred \nas the result of an on-the-job injury.  APN Ellis ordered an MRI to evaluate \nhis pain and physical therapy prior to August 5, 2022, but claimant’s \ninsurance denied the request for an MRI.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 24).   \nWhen claimant treated at Mercy Hospital in Fort Smith on August 5, \n2022, Dr. Seth Bartholomew reported that the claimant “complains of right \nposterior leg pain that begins at ankle region and extends up the posterior \nleg.  This began to bother him 6 weeks ago.  But significantly worsened.” \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1).  Dr. Bartholomew went on to report, “James G. Godwin \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   23\n  \n \n \nis a 54-year-old man who presents [sic] emergency department today with \ncomplaints of right heel and leg pain.  Patient states he’s [sic] right Achilles \ntendon pain for approximately 6 weeks and has seen his primary care \nphysician for this.” (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 24) \nWhen the claimant later visited APN Ellis on August 9, 2022, records \nreflect that the claimant’s right Achilles region complaints began three \nmonths prior.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 59).  There is simply no evidence beyond the \nclaimant’s own testimony supporting the conclusion that the claimant’s \ninjury arose from the alleged specific incident on August 5, 2022.  The \nclaimant had been receiving treatment for the same complaints prior to his \nalleged injury and admitted to his medical providers he had been suffering \nfrom the pain in his right Achilles region from 6 weeks up to 3 months prior \nto August 5, 2020, the date of the alleged compensable injury.  \nThe question of credibility further shows these claims should be \ndenied.  While it is the function of the Commission to determine the weight \nand credibility of a witness, we should not wholly disregard the findings of \nan Administrative Law Judge who viewed a witness in person and was, \ntherefore, able to consider their disposition and expression in his findings. \nIn this instance, the claimant’s credibility is lost when he alleges at every \nturn on cross examination that he cannot recall conversations held with his \nphysicians.  The claimant baselessly disputed any record that proved that \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   24\n  \n \n \nhis injury was pre-existing with no supporting evidence, simply insinuating \nthat multiple independent practitioners were either wrong or lying.  For \nexample, respondent’s attorney, Mr. Guy Wade, had the following dialogue \nwith the claimant on cross-examination: \n By Mr. Wade: \nQ: On this day it says, “This began to \nbother him six weeks ago.” That is \nPage 1 of the Respondent’s \nExhibit.  So, the pain you are \ndescribing, “Leg pain: Patient \ncomplains of right posterior leg \npain that begins at ankle region \nand extends at his posterior leg.” \nAnd then they say, “This began to \nbother him six weeks ago.”  So, \nthey are saying that the same pain \nyou are complaining of on August \nthe 5th had been going on for six \nweeks? \n \nA: I do not recall that. \n \nQ: Now, you have already gone to \nyour doctor, Dr. Ellis, with the \nsame complaints, correct? \n \nA: Correct. \n \nQ: Okay.  Because on Page 24 in the \nsame record, the August the 5th, \n2022 Mercy Hospital emergency \nroom record, “Patient states his \nright Achilles tendon pain for \napproximately six weeks and has \nseen his primary care physician for \nthis.  Patient was initially referred \nfor an MRI to evaluate the extent \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   25\n  \n \n \nof his injury, but it was denied by \nhis insurance company so he was \nscheduled to start physical therapy \nthis next week.”  So, you had seen \nDr. Ellis before August the 5\nth \n.  \nShe had already recommended an \nMRI which was denied, but she \nhad already scheduled you for \nphysical therapy; correct? \n \nA: She had not scheduled me for \nphysical therapy until after the \ntendon tear. \n \nQ: Well, this says she scheduled the \ntherapy because you couldn’t have \nthe MRI.  So is this wrong? \n \nA: The MRI was not scheduled until \nafter the tear. She tried to refer me \nfor it. \n \nQ: Sir, she tried to refer you for an \nMRI before August the 5th of 2022 \nbecause of your Achilles pain you \nwere having six weeks before \nAugust the 5th, correct? \n \nA: That is not correct. \n \nQ: Well, that is the way the record \nreads.  That is what somebody told \nthe emergency room. \n \nA: I’ve never before been referred for \nan MRI for anything before my \ntendon tear. \n \nQ: Did you tear your tendon before \nAugust the 5\nth\n  of 2022 because \nyou are complaining of the same \npain that began in June? \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   26\n  \n \n \n \nA: No, sir. \n \nQ: So you are saying this medical \nrecord is wrong? \n \nA: I am saying that the dates may be \nmixed up. \n \nQ: Well, sir, let me ask you and I will \nlet you to read [sic] it because I \nwant to make sure I read it \ncorrectly and that you understand. \n \nA: Okay. \n \nQ: Did you read that? \n \nA: I read it.  \n \nQ: This is August the 5th of 2022.  So \nyou are telling us today that all of \nthis happened:  You saw your \nprimary care physician, you had an \nMRI denied, and you have had \nphysical therapy scheduled all on \nthat day? \n \nA: I told her I had pain in my foot \nprior, but I had not been referred \nfor an MRI before the tendon tear. \nAnd my insurance did deny it. \n \nQ: Sir, that didn’t all happen on \nAugust 5th.  That happened before \nAugust 5th because you told them \nthat; correct? \n \nA: Then that is something I don’t \nrecall.  I suppose it did happen, \nthen. \n \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   27\n  \n \n \nQ: Did anybody go the hospital with \nyou when you were telling the \nemergency room this information? \n \nA: No.  \n \nQ: Was anybody else present to give \nthem the history of the prior \ncomplaints or problems you had \nhad with your right foot? \n \nA: No.  \n \nQ: So you would have been the only \nperson giving them this \ninformation; correct? \n \nA: Correct.  \n \nQ: Okay.  So you already had \nphysical therapy scheduled based \non this as a result of your visit with \nDr. Ellis; correct? \n \nA: After the tear, yes.  \n \nQ: Now, when you say after the tear -- \n \nA: After August 5\nth\n.  \n \nQ: Well, this says you already had \nphysical therapy scheduled \nwhenever you saw Dr. Ellis.  \n \nA: Well, that is wrong.  (Hrng. Tr., Pp. \n31-34)  \n \nLater in his cross-examination, the claimant continued to \nevade direct questions. \n \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   28\n  \n \n \nQ: When you were in the emergency \nroom on August the 5\nth\n of 2022 \nwhen it says“ Patient states his \nright Achilles tendon pain has been \ngoing on for approximately six \nweeks,” is that reporting what you \ntold them? \n \nA: I don’t remember. \n \nQ: When it says, “He has seen his \nprimary care physician for this,” \nyou didn’t see Dr. Ellis on August \n5\nth\n, did you? \n \nA: No. \n \nQ: Okay.  It says, “Patient was initially \nreferred for an MRI to evaluate the \nextent of his injury, but it was \ndenied by the insurance company \nso he was scheduled to start \nphysical therapy next week.”  That \nwas already in the works because \nyou had seen Dr. Ellis or APN Ellis \nnot on August 5\nth\n of 2022 because \nyou didn’t see her that day; \ncorrect? \n \nA: I didn’t start physical therapy until \nafter the tendon –  \n \nQ: I am not denying that.  What it \nsays is it was already scheduled to \nstart because Dr. Ellis had \nscheduled before August the 5\nth\n of \n2022.  Do you understand?  \nAugust the 25th [sic], the only \nmedical provider you saw was the \nhospital emergency room; correct? \n \nA: On August 5\nth\n.  \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   29\n  \n \n \n \nQ: Okay.  \n \nA: The next person I seen was my \nprimary. \n \nQ: I understand that.  \n \nA: Then she referred me to physical \ntherapy.  \n \nQ: Well, I understand that is what \nyour mind may tell you, but you \nhad already been scheduled for \nphysical therapy before that; \ncorrect? \n \nA: If that is what she says, then it is \ntrue.  \n \nQ: Listen to my question.  August the \n5\nth\n, the day you claimed you were \ninjured, you went to the emergency \nroom; correct? \n \nA: Yes.   \n \nQ: And that is the only place you went \nthat day? \n \nA: Yes.  \n \nQ: And that day you told the \nemergency room personnel this \nhad been going on for six weeks, \ncorrect, based on this record? \n \nA: I suppose so.  \n \nQ: You also told them that you had \nseen Nurse Ellis or APN Ellis \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   30\n  \n \n \nbefore August the 5\nth\n of 2022; \ncorrect? \n \nA: Yes. \n \nQ: You also told them that you had \ninitially been referred for an MRI, \nbut that was denied; correct? \n \nA: I suppose.  I don’t recall. \n \nQ: You also told them that you were \nscheduled to start physical therapy \nthe next week based on what Dr. \nEllis did or APN Ellis; correct? \n \nA: I do not remember.  \n \nQ: But you would not have gotten that \ninformation from anywhere else \nbecause you didn’t see Dr. Ellis \nthat day; correct? \n \nA: Correct. \n \nQ: Okay.  Now, when you did see Dr. \nEllis, as the Court has pointed out \non Page 59, that was August the \n9\nth\n of 2022, so it would be four \ndays later; correct? \n \nA: Sounds right. \n \nQ: And at that time she says, “James \nhas come in today for his pain in \nhis right Achilles region times three \nmonths;” that you have been \nhaving this pain in this area for \nthree months.  Do you know where \nshe would have gotten that if she \ndidn’t get that from you? \n \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   31\n  \n \n \nA: I don’t know.   \n \nQ: And it goes on to say, “Patient was \ninitially referred for an MRI, but it \nwas denied by his insurance \ncompany, so he was scheduled for \nphysical therapy to start this \nweek.”  That is the same thing the \nemergency room record says; isn’t \nit? \n \nA: I don’t know.  I was not scheduled \nfor physical therapy until after the \ntear.  \n \nQ: I understand it didn’t take place \nuntil after the tear, but it was \nscheduled beforehand based on \nthese records; correct? \n \nA: I don’t know.  That has been a \nwhile.  (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 38-41). \n \n   Benjamin Glen Smith was the operations/plant manager for the \nrespondent employer and testified on the date of the alleged accident, \nAugust 5, 2022, the Claimant never came to the office, never described \nwhy he had to leave work or reported he had been injured on the job.  \n(Hrng. Tr. Pp. 47, 48) \n   Mr. Smith testified as follows concerning the claimant’s issues with \nwalking prior to August 5, 2022: \n  By Mr. Wade: \nQ: Now, before August the 5\nth\n of \n2022, did you observe the \nClaimant? \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   32\n  \n \n \n \nA: I had. \n \nQ: Was he having any problems \nwalking at that particular time? \n \nA: He’s always had issues with \nwalking, but a few months before \nthat he was definitely hobbling \naround.  \n \nQ: Okay. And was he noticeably \nlimping or having difficulty getting \nfrom station to station? \n \nA: Yes.  He has always had difficulty \ngetting from station to station.  \nTypically speaking, when he would \nhave to turn in a sample, which is \npart of his job, he would have to \nwalk probably 200 yards and he \nwould stop at least three to four \ntimes before getting to that and \nthree to four times coming back to \nhis station.  \n \nQ: And this was before August the 5\nth\n \nof 2022? \n \nA: It was. \n \nQ: Now, had this become noticeably \nworse prior to that? \n \nA: Not really, I guess. \n  \nQ: Okay.  Now, at any point in time on \nAugust the 5\nth\n of 2022, did he ever \ncome to you complaining of the \nproblem that occurred at work? \n \nA: He had not. \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   33\n  \n \n \n  \nQ: Now, he returned to work the next \ntime he was scheduled; is that \ncorrect? \n \nA: That is correct. \n \nQ: And at that point in time, did you \nhave any conversations with him? \n \nA: He mentioned that he was having \nissues and went to a doctor.  \n \nQ: Okay.  \n \nA: But still never claiming it was a \nwork-related issue.  \n  \nQ: Now, did you ask him if something \nhad happened at work? \n \nA: I had not.  \n \nQ: Not at that time? \n \nA: Not at that time.  \n \nQ: Did he report that something had \nhappened at work? \n \nA: Never. \n  \nQ: On August the 5\nth\n? \n \nA: No.         \n \nMr. Smith went on to testify that the claimant did not report a work-\nrelated injury on  the second date of the alleged accident of September 2, \n2022.  It was not until approximately three weeks later that he asked Mr. \n\nGODWIN - H206962 & H206963   34\n  \n \n \nSmith to put him down for two dates for workman’s [sic] compensation.  \nThis was the first time the claimant mentioned any alleged work-related \naccident. (Hrng. R. Pp. 51,52). \nThe record clearly shows that the claimant was evasive at best and \nuntruthful at worst.  For this reason, the only portions of the record that we \ncan rely on are the medical records, which clearly show the claimant was \nhaving the same medical issues he now claims were work-related for up to \nthree months prior to August 5, 2022, and the testimony of Mr. Benjamin \nSmith that the claimant had issues walking and was hobbling around \nmonths before the alleged accident date. The sum total of the reliable \nevidence proves that the claimant suffered from right lower extremity pain \nlong before his alleged injuries on August 5, 2022, and September 2, 2022.    \nFor the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS. H206962 & H206963 JAMES G. GODWIN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MID SOUTH MILLING COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.934Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H206962-2024-02-08","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Godwin_James_H206962-H206963_20240208.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}