{"id":"full_commission-H207039-2024-08-28","awcc_number":"H207039","decision_date":"2024-08-28","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Billy Wright","employer_name":"Reynolds Consumer Products","title":"WRIGHT VS. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS AWCC# H207039 August 28, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wright_Billy_H207039_20240828.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Wright_Billy_H207039_20240828.pdf","text_length":9645,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.  H207039 \n \nBILLY WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nREYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT \nSERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE AARON L. MARTIN, Attorney at \nLaw, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL E. RYBURN, \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 March 15, 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 \njurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as \nfact. \n \n3. The Claimant failed to establish by medical evidence supported \nby objective findings that he sustained a compensable injury to \n\n \nWRIGHT - H207039  2\n  \n \n \nhis low back on May 20, 2022, while performing his employment \nduties for the respondent-employer.  \n \n4. The remaining issue pertaining to reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment has been rendered moot and not addressed \nherein this opinion. \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 March 15, \n2024 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings 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 \n \n\n \nWRIGHT - H207039  3\n  \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”) \nfound that Claimant failed to establish by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings that he sustained a compensable injury to his low back on \nMay 20, 2022, while performing his employment duties for the Respondent-\nEmployer, and that the remaining issue pertaining to reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment was moot as Claimant did not sustain a \ncompensable injury to his low back.  After my de novo review of the entire \nrecord, I disagree with the ALJ’s findings and would find that Claimant \nproved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a \ncompensable injury to his low back on May 20, 2022, and that he is entitled \nto reasonable and necessary medical treatment as recommended by Dr. \nReza Shahim.  \n1. The Claimant has established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings that he sustained a compensable injury to his low \nback on May 20, 2022, while performing his employment duties for \nthe Respondent-employer.  \n \n\n \nWRIGHT - H207039  4\n  \n \n \nTo establish a compensable injury by a preponderance of the \nevidence the Claimant must prove: (1) an injury arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16), establishing the injury; and (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific and identifiable time and place of occurrence.  A \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability must be \nstated within a degree of medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 \nArk. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002).  \nThe Claimant was an employee of the Respondent for more than \neighteen years. On May 20, 2022, he was picking up a 140-pound O-Ring \nplate when he felt a twinge in his left-low back.  As he continued to work, he \nexperienced pain and tingling into his left leg and foot.  Claimant was seen \nby Dr. Mark Larey on June 2, 2022, who provided an initial diagnosis of \nlumbago with sciatica.  Dr. Mark Larey referred the Claimant for an MRI which \nwas completed on June 21, 2022.  After identifying a “large bulging disc L4-\n5,” Dr. Larey referred the Claimant for further evaluation by a neurosurgeon.  \n\n \nWRIGHT - H207039  5\n  \n \n \nOn July 28, 2022, the Claimant was seen by Dr. Reza Shahim who noted the \nfollowing “Impression/Plan:” \nLumbar pain patient had a injury at work where he was lifting \n80 pound object resulting in new onset of back hip and leg \nsymptoms the year before this injury he denies any is now \nhaving radicular pain in the on the left side and L4-5 and L5-S1 \ndistribution.  \nPatient  with  worsening  acute  on  chronic  back  pain  with \nintermittent hip and leg pain.  \nFurther, Dr. Shahim stated that he reviewed the Claimant’s Lumbar MRI in \ndetail which showed “spondylosis with stenosis L4-5 left disc \nsubligamentous disc herniation facet disease annual tear at L5-S1.”  After \nrecognizing the Claimant’s pre-existing degenerative condition, Dr. Shahim \nclearly identifies “a new facet injury of left L4-5 annular tear at L5-S1” which \n“is a work-related injury.”  The Claimant was offered treatment options of \n“spinal decompression surgery” or a more conservative route which \nincluded “injections, medications and physical therapy.”  Physical therapy \nwas initiated on August 3, 2022, and after six sessions the Claimant \nreturned to Dr. Shahim for diagnostic lumbar facet blocks.  The Claimant \nwas seen again by Dr. Shahim approximately two weeks later and the \n“Impression/Plan” was as follows:  \nLumbar pain patient is having chronic radiculopathy on the left \nside this persisted after physical therapy spinal injection he \nhas work-related injury at L4-5.  \n\n \nWRIGHT - H207039  6\n  \n \n \nPatient  with  worsening  acute  on  chronic  back  pain  with \nintermittent hip and leg pain.  \nAfter noting that Claimant had no significant improvement from conservative \ncare, Dr. Shahim recommended surgical treatment including a “redo \ndiscectomy” and the possibility of a future lumbar fusion.  Additional \nphysical therapy was provided, as well as further evaluations by Dr. \nShahim.  On October 12, 2022, Dr. Shahim noted the “combination of facet \nand disc herniation causing severe nerve root compression” which was \n“missed (sic) read by outside radiologist.”  Surgical authorization was \nrequested as a result of this evaluation.  The Claimant was also seen in \nJanuary and March of 2023, at which time his symptoms were once again \ndirectly attributed to his work accident on May 20, 2022, and Dr. Shahim \nstated that he was waiting on authorization to perform surgery on Claimant.  \nThe final note, dated April 3, 2023, indicates that the request for surgical \nauthorization had been met with multiple denials.  \nThe surgery recommended by Dr. Shahim was primarily to address \nnerve root compression at the L4-5 level of the Claimant’s lower back.  Dr. \nShahim related the cause of the injury and symptoms to the Claimant’s \nwork accident.  A review of the MRI’s taken before and after the work \naccident appear to show an objective difference at the L4-5 level of the \n\n \nWRIGHT - H207039  7\n  \n \n \nClaimant’s lower back.  Therefore, the credible evidence suggests that \nClaimant suffered a compensable injury to his low back.  \n2. The Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical care for \nhis compensable low back injury recommended by Dr. Reza Shahim \nin the form of a discectomy in Claimant’s L4-L5 level of his spine.  \n \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 he is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment.  Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 \n(1999).   What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a \nquestion of fact for the Commission.  White Consolidated Indus. v. \nGalloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. \nJones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001).  \n In the present case, the Claimant has undergone physical therapy, \ninjections and a diagnostic lumbar facet block at the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 \nlevels of his spine.  Each form of treatment provided minimal relief of the \nClaimant’s symptomatic compensable injury to his back.  Dr. Shahim notes \non September 21, 2022, that Claimant has failed conservative management \nof his compensable back injury.  Further Dr. Shahim recommends surgical \n\n \nWRIGHT - H207039  8\n  \n \n \ntreatment in the form of a discectomy at the L4-5 level of Claimant’s spine.  \nTherefore, I would find that the Claimant is entitled to reasonable and \nnecessary medical care for his compensable low back injury in the form of a \ndiscectomy in Claimant’s L4-L5 level of his spine as recommended by Dr. \nShahim.  \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. H207039 BILLY WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2024 Upon review before the FULL COMM...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.189Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H207039-2024-08-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wright_Billy_H207039_20240828.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}