{"id":"full_commission-H207258-2025-03-19","awcc_number":"H207258","decision_date":"2025-03-19","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Antwaun Perkins","employer_name":"Central Moloney, Inc","title":"PERKINS VS. CENTRAL MOLONEY, INC. AWCC# H207258 March 20, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","shoulder","strain","rotator cuff","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Perkins_Antwaun_H207258_20250319.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Perkins_Antwaun_H207258_20250319.pdf","text_length":24821,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H207258 \n \nANTWAUN J. PERKINS, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nCENTRAL MOLONEY, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED MARCH 19, 2025 \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 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 \nAugust 6, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed \nto prove he was entitled to additional medical benefits.  The administrative \nlaw judge found that the claimant did not prove he was entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits.  After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full \nCommission reverses the administrative law judge’s opinion.  The Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved the medical treatment of record \nfollowing the compensable injury, including surgery performed by Dr. Birk, \nwas reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n\nPERKINS - H207258  2\n  \n \n \n508(a)(Repl. 2012).  We find that the claimant proved he was entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits beginning September 18, 2023 and \ncontinuing through January 14, 2024.       \nI.  HISTORY \n Antwaun J. Perkins, now age 48, testified that he became employed \nwith the respondents, Central Moloney, Inc., in December 2019.  Mr. \nPerkins testified that he was hired to be a Coil Winder for the respondent-\nemployer.  The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed \non or about September 27, 2022.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \n Q.  Now, what happened back in September 27\nth\n of 2022? \nA.  Okay.  I was working that night.  They had one that was \nbad and the coil was already made and I had to redo it.  I had \nto put it up on the mandrel....and as I attempted to put it on \nthe mandrel, it slipped off and I caught it and that’s when I felt \nthe pain in my right shoulder.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “sustained a compensable \nright shoulder injury” on or about September 27, 2022.  According to the \nrecord, the claimant treated at Jefferson Regional Medical Center on \nSeptember 28, 2022:  “Reports that yesterday while at work he was loading \na coil onto a raised surface and the coil slipped.  To avoid letting the coil fall \nhe reports he used his arm to push it back up and heard a popping \nsensation with immediate pain in the right shoulder....Describes pain as \n7/10 and aching, was throbbing last night but now is an ache.”   \n\nPERKINS - H207258  3\n  \n \n \n An x-ray of the claimant’s right shoulder was taken on September 28, \n2022 with the impression, “Normal exam.”  An APRN diagnosed “1.  \nShoulder strain, right, initial encounter” and “2.  Work related injury.”  The \nclaimant was treated conservatively and was assigned work restrictions.   \n An MRI of the claimant’s right upper extremity was taken on October \n24, 2022 with the following conclusion: \n1. Moderate degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular \njoint.  There is also capsular edema, which could be \nreactive/degenerative in nature or indicative of a \nsuperimposed low-grade capsular injury.  AC alignment is \nmaintained.   \n2. Mild tendinopathy of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus \ntendons without discrete tear.   \n \n Dr. Charles E. Pearce examined the claimant on October 31, 2022: \n46-year-old male who presents as a new patient for evaluation \nof R shoulder pain.  He was lifting a large metal coil on the \nabove-noted date when it slipped and he caught it primarily \nwith his R arm with the arm at his waist.  He felt a pop in the R \nshoulder and experienced immediate pain.  He has had \ncontinued pain since that time....He has completed a course \nof physical therapy although it was of minimal benefit.  He has \nbeen on light duty at work due to his continued shoulder \npain....His pain is primarily over the AC joint.   \nIMAGING:  Radiographs of the R shoulder demonstrate no \nacute osseous abnormalities.  No degenerative changes \nnoted.  Glenohumeral joint is reduced. \nOutside MRI of the R shoulder reviewed.  Rotator cuff tendons \nare intact.  Biceps is located within the groove.  There is \nsignificant edema in the distal clavicle and AC joint capsule.   \n \n Dr. Pearce’s impression was “46-year-old male with acute R AC joint \narthrosis caused by on the job injury as described above.”  Dr. Pearce \n\nPERKINS - H207258  4\n  \n \n \nplanned conservative treatment and he continued the claimant’s work \nrestrictions.   \n Dr. Pearce reported on December 5, 2022: \nThe patient returns for follow-up.  Therapy has been very \nhelpful.  He is having some mild symptoms still about his \nshoulder but seems to be functional.  I think he needs to \ncontinue with home stretching and strengthening program.  \nWe will provide him with Thera-Bands today.... \nIMPRESSION:  Essentially resolved right shoulder pain \npossible underlying mild AC joint arthrosis. \nPLAN:  1.  The patient has reached maximal medical \nimprovement as of today’s date December 5, 2022.   \n2.  The patient can return to regular work duties without \nrestriction. \n  3.  We will provide the patient with Thera-Bands for home use. \n  4.  Continue home stretching daily. \n5.  The patient has sustained a 0% permanent partial \nimpairment as it pertains to the upper extremity.  This is \naccording to the guides to evaluation of permanent \nimpairment set forth by the American Medical Association, 4\nth\n \nedition.   \n6.  Recheck as needed.   \n \n The claimant testified that he felt renewed shoulder pain in \nSeptember 2023, after using a hammer at work.  Dr. Pearce reported on \nSeptember 18, 2023: \nThe patient was last seen by me on December 5, 2022 and \nreleased from care.  He had essentially resolved symptoms.  \nHe tells me that he has had some continued intermittent \ntrouble and points to his trapezius as the area of concern.  No \nnew injury.  He does do a lot of lifting at work.  He works at \nCentral Maloney.  He does not have referred pain.  He has \nbeen taking some ibuprofen as needed for pain.... \nX-rays of his right shoulder ordered and interpreted by me \nshow no bony abnormality.  X-rays of his cervical spine do \nshow some narrowing at C5-C6.   \n\nPERKINS - H207258  5\n  \n \n \nIMPRESSION:  Right shoulder girdle pain possibly cervical in \nnature.   \nPLAN:  1.  The patient is not at maximal medical \nimprovement. \n2. Either MRI scan cervical spine or referral to 1 of our spine \nsurgeons for further evaluation and care.   \n3.  Continue regular work duties. \n4.  Recheck with me as needed. \n5.  No change in impairment rating as it pertains to the \nshoulder.   \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder was taken on October 3, \n2023 with the following findings: \nAC joint:  There is mild degenerative spurring.  Moderate soft \ntissue thickening and mild reactive marrow edema.  No joint \neffusion.  No fluid seen within subacromial/subdeltoid bursa. \nThe biceps tendon is intact.  No joint distension.  \nDegenerative signal superior labrum is suspicious for SLAP \ntear.  Consider further workup with arthrogram as clinically \nwarranted.  No paralabral cyst.   \nThe rotator cuff is intact.  Mild tendinosis infraspinatus.  No \nmuscle edema or atrophy.  No marrow abnormality.   \nIMPRESSION:  Degenerative change AC joint.  Degenerative \nsignal superior labrum.  This is suspicious for SLAP tear.  \nLack of joint distension on this evaluation.  No paralabral cyst.   \nMild tendinosis infraspinatus. \n \n Dr. Roy Burrell’s impression on October 10, 2023 was “1.  Labral \ntear of shoulder, right[.]...At this time, will refer patient to my partner for \npossible labral repair.”  Dr. Burrell also diagnosed “2.  Work related injury” \nand “3.  Right shoulder pain.”   \n Dr. Gordon Birk began treating the claimant on October 16, 2023.  \nDr. Birk planned a right shoulder arthroscopy.  Dr. Birk performed surgery \non November 9, 2023:  “Right shoulder arthroscopic debridement with \n\nPERKINS - H207258  6\n  \n \n \nsubacromial decompression and distal clavicle excision.”  The pre- and \npost-operative diagnosis was “Right shoulder pain with impingement and \nacromioclavicular joint pain.”   \n The claimant testified that he returned to work on January 15, 2024.  \nDr. Birk signed a note on January 18, 2024 which indicated, “Return to work \nwith NO restrictions on 01/16/2024.”     \n A pre-hearing order was filed on March 5, 2024.  According to the \npre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “Whether the claimant is entitled \nto surgery for his right shoulder and temporary total disability benefits.”  The \nrespondents contended, “The claimant was treated and released at MMI, \nfull-duty with no restrictions, for his compensable right shoulder injury on \nDecember 5, 2022.  The claimant sought subsequent treatment that was \nnot authorized or related to the work injury and was instead the result of a \ndegenerative condition that did not exist at the time of the initial treatment or \ntesting following the work injury.  Respondents are, therefore, not \nresponsible for the additional claimed treatment or indemnity benefits.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Claimant’s entitlement to surgery for his right shoulder \ninjury and coverage for past medical treatment. \n2. Temporary total disability benefits from the date last \nworked to the claimant’s return to work on January 15, \n2024. \n3. All other issues reserved.   \n \n\nPERKINS - H207258  7\n  \n \n \nA hearing was held on May 9, 2024.  The claimant testified that his \nphysical condition improved as a result of surgery performed by Dr. Birk.   \nAn administrative law judge filed an opinion on August 6, 2024.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove he was \nentitled to additional medical benefits, and that the claimant did not prove \nhe was entitled to temporary total disability benefits.  The administrative law \njudge therefore denied and dismissed the claim.  The claimant appeals to \nthe Full Commission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n The 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)(Repl. 2012).  \nThe employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary.  Stone v. Dollar \nGeneral Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005).  Preponderance \nof the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).  What constitutes reasonably necessary medical \ntreatment is a question of fact for the Commission.  Wright Contracting Co. \nv. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W.2d 70 (1984).   \n\nPERKINS - H207258  8\n  \n \n \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  The \nclaimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to additional medical benefits related to his right shoulder surgery.”  \nThe Full Commission finds that the treatment of record provided to the \nclaimant following the compensable injury was reasonably necessary in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012). \n The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable \nright shoulder injury on September 27, 2022.  The claimant testified that he \ninjured his right shoulder while attempting to prevent a heavy industrial coil \nfrom falling.  The claimant was diagnosed as having a work-related right \nshoulder strain.  A subsequent MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder showed \n“capsular edema.”  This objective finding was not present prior to the \nstipulated compensable injury.  Dr. Pearce noted on October 31, 2022, \n“There is significant edema in the distal clavicle and AC joint capsule.”  \nHowever, Dr. Pearce opined on December 5, 2022 that the claimant had \nreached maximum medical improvement.  Dr. Pearce returned the claimant \nto regular work duty.  The claimant returned to work for the respondents, \nbut he continued to suffer from post-injury pain in his right shoulder.   \n Following an MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder on October 3, \n2023, Dr. Burrell examined the claimant on October 10, 2023 and reported \na “labral tear.”  Dr. Burrell diagnosed “work-related injury” and “Right \n\nPERKINS - H207258  9\n  \n \n \nshoulder pain.”  The administrative law judge described Dr. Burrell’s \ntreatment as “unauthorized care.”  Nevertheless, it is well-settled that \nunless there is a signed and delivered Form AR-N in the record, the \nclaimant is not bound by change of physician rules.  Tempworks Mgmt. \nServices v. Jaynes, 2023 Ark. App. 147.  Because there was not a signed \nForm AR-N in the record, the claimant was free to seek reasonably \nnecessary medical treatment from any physician of record.  Id.   \n It is the duty of the Full Commission to enter findings in accordance \nwith the preponderance of the evidence and not on whether there is \nsubstantial evidence to support an administrative law judge’s findings.  \nRoberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184, 649 S.W.2d 402 (1983).  In \nworkers’ compensation cases, the Commission functions as the trier of fact.  \nBlevins v. Safeway Stores, 25 Ark. App. 297, 757 S.W.2d 569 (1988).  The \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any \nother witness but may accept and translate into fact only those portions of \nthe testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Farmers Co-op v. Biles, 77 Ark. \nApp. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2022).  An administrative law judge’s credibility \ndetermination is not binding on the Full Commission.  Roberts, supra \n The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant \nwas a credible witness.  The evidence demonstrates that the claimant’s \ncontinued right shoulder complaints, which continued after Dr. Pearce’s \n\nPERKINS - H207258  10\n  \n \n \nrelease, were causally related to the stipulated compensable injury rather \nthan to a pre-existing degenerative condition.  The Commission also has \nthe duty of weighing medical evidence and, if the evidence is conflicting, its \nresolution is a question of fact for the Commission.  Green Bay Packaging \nv. Bartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 695 (1999).  It is within the \nCommission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence and to \ndetermine what is most credible.  Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 \nArk. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  We find in the present matter that the \nopinions of Dr. Burrell and Dr. Birk are credible and are entitled to \nsignificant evidentiary weight.  The evidence demonstrates that surgery \nperformed by Dr. Birk on November 9, 2023 was reasonably necessary in \nconnection with the stipulated compensable injury.  As we have noted, the \nclaimant testified that his physical condition improved as a result of surgery \nperformed by Dr. Birk.  Post-surgical improvement is a relevant \nconsideration in determining whether surgery was reasonably necessary.  \nHill v. Baptist Medical Center, 74 Ark. App. 250, 48 S.W.3d 544 (2001). \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the treatment of record provided to the claimant following the stipulated \ncompensable injury, including surgery performed by Dr. Birk on November \n9, 2023, was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  Said reasonably necessary medical treatment shall \n\nPERKINS - H207258  11\n  \n \n \nbe the responsibility of the respondents in the present matter.  The \nevidence demonstrates that the claimant re-entered a healing period and \nwas totally incapacitated from earning wages beginning September 18, \n2023 and continuing through January 14, 2024.  The claimant testified that \nhe returned to work for the respondents on January 15, 2024.  The claimant \ntherefore proved that he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits \nbeginning September 18, 2023 and continuing through January 14, 2024.  \nSee Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 \n(1981).  The 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 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 \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n\nPERKINS - H207258  12\n  \n \n \n  I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion finding the claimant \nproved the medical treatment of record following the compensable injury \nincluding the surgery performed by Dr. Birk was reasonably necessary, the \nclaimant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning \nSeptember 18, 2023, and continuing through January 14, 2024, and the \nclaimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services. \nThe claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right shoulder on \nSeptember 27, 2022, while employed by the respondent employer.  The \nclaimant who initially reported his injury was treated at Jefferson Regional \nMedical Center on September 28, 2022.  \nOn December 5, 2022, Dr. Charles Pearce, an orthopedic surgeon, \nreleased the claimant to return to work at regular duties without restrictions.  \nHe also advised the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement \nand had sustained a 0% permanent partial impairment rating.  \n In September 2023, a year after the incident in question, the claimant \nalleged he felt shoulder pain, which he reported to his employer.  The \nclaimant was again treated by Dr. Pearce who examined the claimant and \nfound no evidence of a new injury.  Dr. Pearce noted the claimant could \ncontinue regular work duties with no change in his impairment rating.  The \nrespondent carrier then terminated authorization of medical treatment. \n\nPERKINS - H207258  13\n  \n \n \nIt was not until an October 3, 2023 MRI that Dr. Roy Burrell, with \nwhom the claimant treated without authorization of the respondent carrier, \nnoted “[d]egenerative signal superior labrum.  This is suspicious for SLAP \ntear,” and referred the claimant to his partner, Dr. Gordon Birk, for possible \nlabral tear.  \nThe claimant underwent a right shoulder arthroscopy on November \n9, 2023, and surgical notes revealed there was no tear, only some fraying \naround the labrum.  The claimant returned to work on January 14, 2024. \n The claimant has filed an appeal from the administrative law judge’s \nopinion finding he has not met his burden of proving he is entitled to \nadditional benefits related to his right shoulder surgery and has not met his \nburden of proving he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits.  \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) requires an employer to provide an \nemployee with medical and surgical treatment \"as may be reasonably \nnecessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.\"  The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the \nadditional treatment is reasonable and necessary.  Nichols v. Omaha Sch. \nDist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d 148 (2010). \nWhat constitutes reasonably necessary treatment is a question of \nfact for the Commission.  Gant v. First Step, Inc., 2023 Ark. App. 393, 675 \nS.W.3d 445 (2023).  In assessing whether a given medical procedure is \n\nPERKINS - H207258  14\n  \n \n \nreasonably necessary for treatment of the compensable injury, the \nCommission analyzes both the proposed procedure and the condition it \nsought to remedy.  Walker v. United Cerebral Palsy of Ark., 2013 Ark. App. \n153, 426 S.W.3d 539 (2013).  \nIn workers’ compensation cases, a decision often rests solely on the \ncredibility of the claimant as a witness.  A determination of the weight and \ncredibility of a witness' testimony is exclusively within the province of the \nCommission.  Wade v. Mr. C. Cavenaugh's, 298 Ark. 363, 768 S.W.2d 521 \n(1989).  The Commission has the right to believe or disbelieve the \ntestimony of any witness, and the Commission's decision is entitled to the \nweight we give a jury verdict.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Disheroon, 26 Ark. App. \n145, 761 S.W.2d 617 (1988). \n An October 24, 2022 MRI revealed: \n1. Moderate degenerative changes of the \nacromiclavicular joint. There is also capsular edema, \nwhich could be reactive/degenerative in nature or \nindicative of a superimposed low-grade capsular \ninjury.  AC alignment is maintained. \n \n2. Mild tendinopathy of the supraspinatus and \ninfraspinutus tendon without discrete tear. \n \nDr. Pearce opined the MRI reflected “[m]oderate AC Joint \ndegeneration”.  However, by December 5, 2022, the claimant’s shoulder \ninjury had “essentially resolved” when Dr. Pearce opined: \n\nPERKINS - H207258  15\n  \n \n \n1. The  patient  has  reached  maximal  medical \nimprovement as of today’s date December \n5, 2022. \n2. The patient can return to regular work duties \nwithout restriction. \n3. We will provide the patient with Thera-\nBands for home use. \n4. Continue with home stretching daily. \n5. The patient has sustained a 0% permanent \nimpairment   set   forth   by   the   American \nMedical Association, 4\nth\n Edition. \n6. Recheck as needed. \n \n The claimant did not seek additional medical treatment or report any \nfurther pain to the respondent employer until approximately one year after \nthe initial injury.  \nOn September 18, 2023, Dr. Pearce once again examined the \nclaimant finding no new injury and no abnormalities or instability in his right \nshoulder.  X-rays revealed “some narrowing at C5-C6” but no bony \nabnormality.  Id.  The respondents then denied any further medical \ntreatment and the claimant began seeking unauthorized treatment.  \nAn October 3, 2023 MRI revealed:  \nAC Joint:  There is mild degenerative spurring. \nModerate soft tissue thickening and mild \nreactive marrow edema.  No joint effusion.  No \nfluid seen within subacromial/subdeltoid bursa.  \n \nThe biceps tendon is intact.  No joint \ndistention.  Degenerative signal superior \nlabrum is suspicious for SLAP tear.  Consider \nfurther workup with arthrogram as clinically \nwarranted. No paralabral cyst.  \n \n\nPERKINS - H207258  16\n  \n \n \nThe rotator cuff is intact.  Mild tendinosis \ninfraspinatus. No muscle edema or atrophy. \nNo marrow abnormality.  \n \nIMPRESSION:  Degenerative change AC joint. \nDegenerative signal superior labrum.  This is \nsuspicious for SLAP tear.  Lack of joint \ndistention on this evaluation.  No paralabral \ncyst.  Mild tendinosis infraspinatus. \n \nAt an October 16, 2023 visit, Dr. Timmothy Reece recommended a \nright shoulder arthroscopy, which the claimant underwent on November 9, \n2023.  While conducting surgery, Dr. Gordon Birk observed some fraying \naround the labrum, but no tears.  \nThe claimant was released at maximum medical improvement in \nDecember 2022, and was not examined again until September 2023, a year \nafter the injury in question.  Dr Pearce advised in his note dated September \n18, 2023, the claimant’s right shoulder appeared normal with full motion, \ngood strength, and no instability.  The X-ray of the shoulder showed no \nbony abnormalities.  There was no change in his 0% anatomical rating, and \nhe was released to continue regular work duties.  \nThe unnecessary surgery performed on November 9, 2023, by Dr. \nGordon Birk confirmed the findings of Dr. Pearce that there were no tears, \nno significant lesions and no significant loss in any of the areas inspected.  \nThe only findings as a result of the surgery were some minor degenerative \nchanges for which the respondents are not responsible.  \n\nPERKINS - H207258  17\n  \n \n \nThe gap in time between the claimant’s initial injury and his reports of \nongoing pain a year later is significant.  Dr. Pearce did not discuss or \nrecommend any treatment or surgery following his September 2023 \nexamination of the claimant, nor did he observe any abnormalities.  \nThe surgery performed by Dr. Birk confirmed the findings of Dr. \nPearce.  The claimant had an unnecessary surgery which proved he had no \ntears, only underlying and pre-existing degenerative problems which are not \ncompensable.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above based on my review of \nthe testimony and the medical records, I must dissent. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207258 ANTWAUN J. PERKINS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CENTRAL MOLONEY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 19, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.542Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H207258-2025-03-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Perkins_Antwaun_H207258_20250319.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}