{"id":"full_commission-H208285-2025-03-12","awcc_number":"H208285","decision_date":"2025-03-12","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Teresa Wright","employer_name":"Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC","title":"WRIGHT VS. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC AWCC# H208285 March 12, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","back","shoulder","neck","strain","sprain","rotator cuff","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wright_Teresa_H208285_20250312.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Wright_Teresa_H208285_20250312.pdf","text_length":25274,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H208285  \n \nTERESA A. WRIGHT, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nLOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES \nINC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED MARCH 12, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE MARK ALAN PEOPLES, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE RANDY P. MURPHY, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:   Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nOctober 2, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nproved a cervical anterior fusion was reasonably necessary.  After \nreviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant did not prove a cervical anterior fusion was reasonably necessary.     \nI.  HISTORY \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nSeptember 20, 2022.  Teresa Wright, now age 58, testified on direct \nexamination: \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  2\n  \n \n \nQ.  You got hurt back in September of 2022.  Tell the judge \nwhat happened. \nA.  I worked for the MST team, and we moved beams and set \nbays in Lowe’s.  We do all the preparation to get it done, so \nwe were moving a beam 15 feet off the floor....So we were \nmoving that beam from one location to another, and we were \nwaiting on a tape measure because we didn’t get that spot \nmarked; and the – while we were standing there holding the \nbeam, the other girl that was on the other end of that beam – \n‘cause it’s like 75 to 100 pounds for one beam, so two people \nhad to do it – she dropped her end of the beam, and I did not \nsee it happening.  And we were on ladders, and the beam \nstarted falling, and it pulled on my arm and almost pulled me \nover the side of the ladder as it was falling and jerked me real \nbad.  And my shoulder was hurting, my back was hurting, my \nneck was hurting, my left shoulder was hurting, all of my arm.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “sustained compensable \ninjuries to her right shoulder, arm, elbow, neck, and back” on September \n20, 2022. \n According to the record, the claimant received emergency treatment \non September 20, 2022:  “C/O right shoulder pain.  Limited ROM to right \nshoulder.  Pt was at work at Lowe’s.  She and a coworker were on ladders.  \nEach of them were holding an end of a metal beam.  Pt reports her co-\nworker dropped her end of the beam.”   \n An x-ray of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on September 20, \n2022: \n1. No fractures or subluxations are evident in the cervical \nspine. \n2. Spondylosis at the C4-5 through C6-7 levels. \n3. Mild facet arthropathy is present in the lower cervical \nspine.   \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  3\n  \n \n \n \nA physician diagnosed “Right shoulder strain” and “Elbow sprain, \nright.” \nDr. Michael Hussey performed a right arthroscopic rotator cuff repair \non November 15, 2022.  The post-operative diagnosis included “1.  Rotator \ncuff tear.”  The claimant received a series of physical therapy visits at \nPhysical Therapy Institute beginning January 3, 2023.  Physical therapy \nwas primarily related to the claimant’s right shoulder.   \nAn x-ray of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on January 16, \n2023 with the following findings: \nCervical alignment and vertebral body height appear normal.  \nThe disc spaces are mildly narrowed see 5-6-7.  The lateral \nmasses are aligned.  No osseous lesion or level suspicious for \nacute fracture.  There is no evidence of prevertebral soft \ntissue swelling.  Loss of lordosis. \nIMPRESSION:  No acute traumatic osseous abnormality.   \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on January 30, \n2023 with the following conclusion:   \n1. Moderate spinal canal stenosis at C5-C6 secondary to a \nbroad-based posterior disc protrusion and ligamentum \nflavum thickening.  There is mass effect on the ventral \ncord without definitive cord signal abnormality.  Moderate \nbilateral neural foramen stenosis is also present at this \nlevel. \n2. Severe left and moderate right neural foramen stenosis at \nC6-C7 secondary.  Mild spinal canal stenosis is also \npresent at this level. \n3. Additional mild multilevel spinal canal and neural foramen \nstenoses as above.   \n \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  4\n  \n \n \nThe record indicates that Dr. Edward Saer examined the claimant on \nor about February 21, 2023: \nMs. Wright is a 56-year-old woman who works at Lowe’s and \ninjured her neck at work on September 20, 2022.  She was on \na ladder with another coworker on another ladder, stacking \nshelving beams.  The other person dropped [hers] and, Ms. \nWright had to actually go down a couple steps on the ladder \nas she tried to hold onto [hers] and it jerked her right shoulder \nand she subsequently was diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear \nand other problems.  She had surgery for that by Dr. Hussey \non November 15, 2022.  She also jerked her neck and says \nshe has diffuse posterior cervical pain.... \nX-rays:  AP lateral cervical films show degenerative disc \nchanges at C6-7, mild disc narrowing at C5-6 and a little bit at \nC4-5. \nMRI of the cervical spine done at RAPA on January 30, 2023 \nwas reviewed.  There is a central disc bulge at C5-6 that \nabuts but does not compress the cord.  There is some \nforaminal narrowing at C6-7 on the left.  Otherwise she has \nmild degenerative changes that are relatively normal for age.   \n \n Dr. Saer assessed “Probable cervical strain/sprain.  I think some \nphysical therapy would be helpful and I will give her a referral for that.  She \nmay continue working with the same restrictions, that Dr. Hussey gave.  I \nwill plan to see her back in several weeks.”   \nA note at Physical Therapy Institute on February 24, 2023 indicated, \n“Pt states her doctor thinks she has whiplash due to her incident at \nwork....Add cervical exercises and manual therapy techniques to reduce \npain in her neck per new script.”   \nThe claimant followed up with Dr. Saer on March 28, 2023:  “She has \nbeen going to physical therapy and went for about 4 weeks.  She thinks it \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  5\n  \n \n \nhelped.  She is still having pain in the back of her neck....I reviewed her \nimaging with her today and we had a long discussion about this.  I \nexplained that the problem is not the bulging disc in her neck.  She has \nlikely had a soft tissue strain or sprain causing her pain.  That will improve \nbut is going to take some time.  I will give her a referral for some more PT \nsince that seems to be helping her.”   \nDr. Hussey performed surgery on May 11, 2023:  “Right elbow \nextensor tendon debridement and repair.”  The pre- and post-operative \ndiagnosis was “Right elbow high-grade partial-thickness extensor tendon \ntear.”        \n The diagnosis at Physical Therapy Institute on July 3, 2023 was \n“Pain in right shoulder” and “Cervicalgia.”      \nAn MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on September 26, \n2023 with the following impression: \n1. Multilevel degenerative disease. \n2. Severe left foraminal stenosis at C6-7. \n3. Moderate foraminal stenoses on the left at C3-4 and on \nthe right at C6-7. \n4. Mild foraminal stenoses on the right at C3-4 and bilaterally \nat C5-6.  Mild central canal stenoses at C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, \nand C6-7.   \n5. Broad central protrusion type disc herniation at C3-4, with \ncontact of the left ventral cord. \n6. No evidence of cord contusion, epidural hematoma, \ncompression fracture, or ligament disruption.   \n \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  6\n  \n \n \nDr. Saer’s diagnosis on September 26, 2023 was “Radiculopathy, \ncervical region.”  The symptoms were described as “Neck pain that radiates \ninto Rt arm.  1 yr.” \nDr. Saer noted on October 2, 2023, “Ms. Wright was seen on \nSeptember 28, 2023.  She is at MMI from the standpoint of her cervical \nspine and has no permanent restrictions related to her cervical spine.  \nThere is no permanent impairment related to her cervical spine.” \nDr. Hussey reported on December 28, 2023: \n1. Patient may return back to work without restrictions to the \nright upper extremity. \n2. Patient is now at MMI as of date 5/28/2023 with a 2% \nimpairment rating to the right upper extremity, which \ncorresponds to a 1% whole person impairment rating \naccording to the 4\nth\n Edition AMA Guides to the Evaluation \nof Permanent Impairment.  Impairment is due to mild \nrestriction in range of motion of the shoulder joint.   \n3. No further follow-up is necessary.  The statements given \nabove are within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.   \n \nThe claimant began treating with Dr. Reza Shahim on January 4, \n2024: \nPatient was involved in a work-related injury last 2022 \nSeptember resulting in shoulder and arm injury she has had \nright shoulder surgery right elbow surgery continues to have \nradicular pain she also has severe axial neck pain \ninterscapular pain suboccipital headaches is persistent.  She \nhas had physical therapy for many weeks on her cervical \nspine without any improvement. \nSince the extremity symptoms are persistent I will ask \nWorker’s Comp. to consider referring to orthopedics for \nsecond opinion.   \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  7\n  \n \n \nShe does have a cervical disc injury at C5-6 and some \ndegrees of C6-7 I would suggest she goes through series of \ncervical injection in preparation for possible surgical \nintervention if she does not improve she is a smoker and a \ndiabetic.  I would recommend smoke cessation prior to the \nsurgical treatment in the cervical spine.   \n \n Dr. Shahim planned on February 12, 2024, “Patient has a work-\nrelated injury in 2021 has been followed by orthopedics outside clinic she \ncontinues to have radicular symptoms.  I had requested spinal injection \nwhich was not approved previously she says she prefer to have surgery \nsince she has significant spinal stenosis C5-6 and degenerative disc \ndisease at C6-7 I would recommend an anterior fusion at C5-6 and possibly \nat C6-7.  I will reach out to the Worker’s Comp. authorization if that \nprocedure was denied and I will release her from my care until the condition \nis settled through the Worker’s Comp. adjuster’s.”     \nA pre-hearing order was filed on April 10, 2024.  The parties agreed \nto litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether Claimant is entitled to any additional reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment. \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary partial disability \nbenefits (TPD) due to work hours being substantially \nreduced. \n3. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to controverted \nattorney’s fees.  All other issues are reserved.   \n \nDr. Owen L. Kelly corresponded with the respondents’ attorney on \nMay 13, 2024 and stated in part: \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  8\n  \n \n \nMs. Wright was involved in an accident at work on 9/20/22.  \nShe was holding a heavy beam when a co-worker dropped \none side and it jerked her arm.  She underwent treatment for \nthe right shoulder, right elbow, and cervical spine. \n1.  MAXIMUM MEDICAL IMPROVEMENT: \nPer the medical records, Dr. Hussey has placed Ms. Wright at \nMaximum Medical Improvement and assigned an impairment \nrating of 2% to the right upper extremity and 1% whole \nperson.  Both of these seem consistent/reasonable.  MMI date \nwas placed at 5/8/23 which appears consistent. \n2.  FURTHER/FUTURE TREATMENT: \nFurther treatment for Ms. Wright’s right elbow and right \nshoulder are not necessary or indicated.  Both of these \naccepted injuries have reached maximum medical \nimprovement as documented in the provided records. \n3.  CERVICAL SPINE: \nThe cervical spine MRI findings confirm degenerative findings.  \nMs. Wright may have sustained a sprain/strain, but the \nobjective MRI findings are not related to injury or trauma.  No \nfurther medical treatment or surgery would be recommended \nfor the cervical spine as it relates to incident of 9/20/22. \nAn anterior cervical fusion has been suggested by a \nsubsequent treating physician.  This physician indicated that \ninjury was the reason for the surgery.  This directly contradicts \nthe opinion of the initial treating spine specialist.  The initial \ntreating spine specialist documented clearly and precisely the \nreasoning while surgery would not be related.  This initial \nopinion appears correct, objectively based and is supported \nby the medical records.  The anterior cervical fusion \nprocedure would not be related to the one-time isolated \naccident.   \n4.  RESTRICTIONS/ABILITY TO WORK: \nThe Functional Capacity Evaluation results were reviewed.  \nThe functional pain results were unreliable per the testing \ntherapist.  Dr. Hussey’s letter noted the unreliable results and \nMs. Wright was released for full duty to the right upper \nextremity.  There is no disagreement with Dr. Hussey’s \nrelease for full duty.  Without an accurate and honest \neffort/result, full duty is recommended.   \n \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  9\n  \n \n \n Dr. Shane McAlister corresponded with the respondents’ attorney on \nJune 17, 2024 and stated in part: \nYou have asked me to review medical records and diagnostic \nimaging on Ms. Teresa Wright (dob 08/04/1966) and provide \nyou with a written report of the findings contained therein.... \nThese records report that Ms. Wright was standing on a \nladder on 9-20-2022 holding one end of a steel “beam” while a \nco-worker at her work place was on another ladder holding \nthe other end.  The co-worker dropped their end.  Ms. Wright \nsaid she had both hands holding the piece of shelving, her left \nhand released, and her right hand didn’t, thereby pulling her \nright shoulder down.  She was seen that day at Baptist Health \nNorth Little Rock.... \nIn summary, Ms. Wright was holding a steel shelving beam \nwhile standing on a ladder on 9-20-2022.  Her coworker, who \nwas holding the other end, dropped it.  The beam fell from Ms. \nWright’s left hand while her right hand was still holding it.  She \nstated this pulled her right shoulder down.  She was seen that \nday in the ED with right shoulder pain.  Physical examination \nand diagnostic imaging revealed no objective finding of acute \ntraumatic injury.  She later had right shoulder and right elbow \nsurgery for repair of tendon tears that were confirmed on MRI \nscanning.  She later had neck symptoms that were diagnosed \nas a sprain/strain by a spine specialist, Dr. Saer.  MRI \nscanning revealed age commensurate degenerative changes \nwith no evidence of any bony or soft tissue injury.  \nSprain/strains are diagnosed when the patient reports \nsymptoms, but there is no evidence of any anatomic injury.  \nThey typically resolve in days to weeks.... \nThese records and the diagnostic imaging submitted do not \ndocument any traumatic injury to the cervical spine from the \nincident on 9-20-2022.  There was no axial loading on the \nspine as a mechanism for injury to the discs or vertebral \nbodies, and the MRI scanning is the most sensitive imaging \navailable for evaluation acute injury or soft tissue injury, and \nnone was found.  Any further treatment for the cervical \nsymptoms would be related to the underlying degenerative \nprocess or other etiology. \nThese findings are stated to a reasonable degree of medical \ncertainty.    \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  10\n  \n \n \n \n After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nOctober 2, 2024.  The administrative law judge found, among other things, \nthat the claimant proved a cervical anterior fusion was reasonably \nnecessary.  The respondents appeal to the 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)(Supp. \n2024).  The 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 An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  The \nClaimant has proven, and I find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nClaimant has proven that a cervical anterior fusion for her C5-C6, not her \nC6-C7, is reasonable and necessary medical treatment for her \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  11\n  \n \n \ncompensable neck injury.”  The Full Commission does not affirm this \nfinding.   \n The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained compensable \ninjuries to her right shoulder, arm, elbow, neck, and back on September 20, \n2022.  The claimant testified that she sustained a compensable injury while \nhelping to stack a shelving beam.  An x-ray of the claimant’s cervical spine \non September 20, 2022 showed mild facet arthropathy, spondylosis, and \n“no fractures or subluxations.”  Dr. Saer subsequently described the \ncompensable injury to the claimant’s neck as a “probable cervical \nstrain/sprain.”  The claimant was provided conservative medical treatment \nin connection with her compensable neck injury.  An x-ray of the claimant’s \ncervical spine on January 16, 2023 showed “No acute traumatic osseous \nabnormality.”  An MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine on January 30, 2023 \nshowed moderate spinal canal stenosis and a “broad-based posterior disc \nprotrusion.”  The claimant was provided physical therapy as a result of her \ncervical strain/sprain.  The claimant reported benefit from physical therapy.   \n Dr. Saer reported on October 2, 2023, “She is at MMI from the \nstandpoint of her cervical spine and has no permanent restrictions related \nto her cervical spine.  There is no permanent impairment related to her \ncervical spine.”  The claimant began treating with Dr. Shahim on January 4, \n2024.  Dr. Shahim recommended “an anterior fusion at C5-6 and possibly at \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  12\n  \n \n \nC6-7.”  However, Dr. Kelly opined on May 13, 2024, “No further medical \ntreatment of surgery would be recommended for the cervical spine as it \nrelates to incident of 9/20/22.”  Likewise, Dr. McAlister examined the \nmedical records and did not opine that surgery was reasonably necessary.  \nDr. McAlister reported on June 17, 2024, “Any further treatment for the \ncervical symptoms would be related to the underlying degenerative process \nor other etiology.  These findings are stated to a reasonable degree of \nmedical certainty.” \n A claimant who has sustained a compensable injury is not required \nto offer objective medical evidence in order to prove she is entitled to \nadditional benefits; however, the claimant bears the burden of proving she \nis entitled to additional medical treatment.  See Ark. Health Ctr. v. Burnett, \n2018 Ark. App. 427, 558 S.W.3d 408.  In the present matter, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant did not prove she was entitled to \nsurgical treatment recommended by Dr. Shahim.  The evidence \ndemonstrates that the claimant sustained a compensable cervical \nstrain/sprain on September 20, 2022, for which the claimant received \nreasonably necessary medical treatment.  The Full Commission attaches \nsignificant evidentiary weight to Dr. Saer’s opinion that the claimant reached \nmaximum medical improvement no later than October 2, 2023. \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  13\n  \n \n \nWe recognize that a claimant may be entitled to ongoing medical \ntreatment after the healing period has ended, if the medical treatment is \ngeared toward management of the claimant’s injury.  Patchell v. Wal-Mart \nStores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004).  In the present \nmatter, the evidence does not demonstrate that surgery recommended by \nDr. Shahim would be geared toward management of the compensable \ncervical injury.  It is within the Commission’s province to weigh all of the \nmedical evidence and to determine what is most credible.  Minnesota \nMining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  The Full \nCommission finds in the present matter that the expert opinions of Dr. Saer, \nDr. Kelly, and Dr. McAlister are entitled to significant evidentiary weight and \nare more credible than the opinion of Dr. Shahim.  Neither Dr. Saer, Dr. \nKelly, or Dr. McAlister opined that surgical treatment was reasonably \nnecessary.      \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not prove a cervical anterior fusion was reasonably \nnecessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Supp. 2024).  \nWe therefore reverse the administrative law judge’s opinion, and this claim \nis respectfully denied and dismissed. \n \n \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  14\n  \n \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \nThe ALJ found that the Claimant proved by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment for her compensable neck injury including an additional cervical \nanterior fusion at the C5-C6 level.  After conducting a thorough review of \nthe record, I would concur with the ALJ, and dissent with the majority.  \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\nWRIGHT - H208285  15\n  \n \n \nThe Arkansas Court of Appeals has held a claimant may be entitled \nto additional medical treatment even after the healing period has ended, if \nsaid treatment is geared toward management of the injury.  See Patchell v. \nWal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004); Artex \nHydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983).  \nSuch services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the nature \nand extent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms \nresulting from the compensable injury; maintaining the level of healing \nachieved; or preventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the \ncompensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 \nS.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra. \nIn the present case, the Claimant suffered a compensable injury to \nher cervical spine on September 20, 2022.  Claimant was initially treated by \nDr. Michael Hussey for a compensable right shoulder injury resulting from \nthe work accident on September 20, 2022.  During Claimant’s treatment, \nshe was also assessed as having a probable cervical sprain and sent to \nphysical therapy.  The treatment initially resolved some of Claimant’s \ncervical symptomology, but as her symptoms worsened the Claimant was \nseen by Dr. Edward Saer who recommended an additional MRI.  The MRI \nimpression identified a disc osteophyte complex, joint hypertrophy and \nstenosis at the C5-6 level of the Claimant’s cervical spine.  Following this \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  16\n  \n \n \nMRI, Dr. Saer was hesitant to continue treatment or had no further \ntreatment to offer Claimant.  As a result, the Claimant requested and \nreceived a Change of Physician Order and began Treatment with Dr. Reza \nShahim.  Dr. Shahim opined on January 4, 2024, that Claimant had a \ncervical disc injury and recommended a series of cervical injections in \npreparation for possible surgical intervention if she did not improve as a \nresult from the September 20, 2022 accident.  Dr. Shahim further states \nthat he reviewed the Claimant’s cervical spine MRI which found the \nClaimant as having cervical spondylosis with stenosis at the C5-6 and C6-7 \nlevels.  On February 12, 2024, Claimant followed up with Dr. Shahim who \nrecommended an anterior fusion at C5-6 and possible C6-7 levels of her \ncervical spine due to her compensable cervical injury.  At that time, Dr. \nShahim also stated that the insurance carrier had denied his request to \nperform injections for the continued radicular symptoms the Claimant was \nsuffering from.  \nIn light of the admittedly compensable cervical injury, the continued \nsymptoms the Claimant suffered from and the credible evidence in the \nrecord, I would rule that the Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of a \ncervical anterior fusion of the C5-C6 as recommended by Dr. Shahim. \n  For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.   \n\nWRIGHT - H208285  17\n  \n \n \n              ___________________________________ \n       M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208285 TERESA A. WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 12, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.505Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H208285-2025-03-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wright_Teresa_H208285_20250312.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}