{"id":"full_commission-H300483-2024-06-19","awcc_number":"H300483","decision_date":"2024-06-19","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Jason Love","employer_name":"Reynolds Construction Company, Inc","title":"LOVE VS. REYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. AWCC# H300483 JUNE 19, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:6"],"injury_keywords":["back","shoulder","strain","thoracic","fracture","cervical","neck","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Love_Jason_H300483_20240619.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Love_Jason_H300483_20240619.pdf","text_length":26855,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H300483 \n \nJASON B. LOVE, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nREYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nAMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING PA/ \nGALLAGHER BASSETT, CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant appeared pro se. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE KAREN H. McKINNEY, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nDecember 15, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \ndid not prove he sustained a compensable injury.  The Full Commission \nfinds that the claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat he sustained a compensable injury.     \nI.  HISTORY \n Jason Love, now age 33, testified that he became employed with the \nrespondents, Reynolds Construction Company, in about April 2022.  Mr. \nLove testified that he initially worked for the respondent-employer on its \n\nLOVE - H300483  2\n  \n \n \n“painting crew” and eventually became a general laborer with the \nrespondents’ “carpenter crew.”  The parties stipulated that the employee-\nemployer-carrier relationship existed on October 23, 2022 and at all other \npertinent times.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  Tell me what happened at work. \nA.  It was a big furniture move.  We had, I believe, it was 15 or \nplus offices or conference rooms, we needed to get all of the \nfurniture taken out, put in to two large connexes....So that way \nwe could have everything moved out of the room to redo the \nfloors, repaint, I believe, new lighting and in the end of it, \nmove everything back to its proper position in the office to \nwhere it was prior to us moving it. \nQ.  Okay.  So you were moving furniture and what happened \nto you? \nA.  I believe I overstrained and hurt myself at some point and \ncontinued working and it just seemed to escalate and move – \nmove past what I thought was comfortability.   \nQ.  What part of your body was hurting? \nA.  My shoulder....My left shoulder in between my shoulder \nblade and my spine.   \nQ.  Okay.  Did you tell your employer that you got hurt moving \nfurniture? \nA.  I made mention that I was having pain in my shoulder.  I \ndidn’t formally tell them as [an] accident report, because at the \ntime, I didn’t feel like there was anything to report.   \nQ.  Okay.  Did you continue to work? \nA.  Yes, ma’am. \nQ.  Okay.  Full duty? \nA.  Yes, ma’am. \nQ.  Okay.  What happened on October 23\nrd\n, 2022? \nA.  I woke up that morning immobile and in severe pain, took \nme extensive time to get out of the bed and prepared for my \nday; and so, I went to Urgent Care, because I knew at that \npoint something had escalated and it was not simply a sore \nmuscle or something of that nature.  It was something more \nsevere it felt.... \nI believe, I told them that I’d hurt it at work and couldn’t tell \nthem exactly what day it was, but it was some time during our \n\nLOVE - H300483  3\n  \n \n \nmove.  As hectic as everything was, it was hard to pinpoint the \ntiming of it, but had mentioned that I was going to the doctor \nto get things figured out, because it seemed like it was much \nmore severe than previously thought.... \nQ.  Now, you mentioned that you woke up with this pain on \nOctober 23\nrd\n, is that correct? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.   \nQ.  Now, that was a Sunday, is that correct? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.   \nQ.  Were you working that Sunday? \nA.  No, ma’am.... \nQ.  So what was the last date that you worked? \nA.  It would be October 21\nst\n.   \nQ.  Okay.  And did you experience any new injuries on \nOctober 21\nst\n? \nA.  No, ma’am.   \nQ.  Okay.  How did you feel when you left work that Friday? \nA.  General soreness, still located pain in my left shoulder, just \ngeneral tense from working through the week and making it to \nthe weekend.   \nQ.  Did you tell Casey on Friday that you needed to go to the \ndoctor? \nA.  No, ma’am.... \n \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that he sent a text message that \nmorning to his supervisor, Casey Harness.  The record contains excerpts of \ntext messages sent by the claimant beginning Saturday, October 23, 2022:  \n“I’m about to go to urgent care my shoulder has been f---ing with me for \nabout 2 or 3 weeks and I woke up this morning and literally could not move \nat all I was in so much pain it took me almost an hour to get dressed....” \nAccording to the record, the claimant treated at Jefferson Regional \nMedical Center on October 23, 2022.  An Urgent Care Note indicated: \n31 y/o male with complaints of 8/10 back pain medial to left \nshoulder blade x 3 weeks – states he has had pleurisy in the \n\nLOVE - H300483  4\n  \n \n \npast and it feels very similar – states he has a catch in his \nbreath because of the pain.  Denies cough, runny nose, sore \nthroat.  He works construction and lifts heavy objects often.  \nHe has tried ibuprofen without improvement.  Denies chest \npain – pain is primarily in the back.   \n \n An x-ray of the claimant’s chest was done with the impression, “No \nacute pulmonary finding.”  The claimant was discharged from Jefferson \nRegional on October 23, 2022 with the diagnosis “1.  Musculoskeletal \nstrain.”  A physician’s note indicated that the claimant could “return to full \nphysical activity as of 10/24/2022.” \n The record contains a portion of another text message sent by the \nclaimant on October 23, 2022:  “They think I may have tore a muscle and \nmy shoulder and if giving me some muscle relaxers and told me to rest it for \na bit and to try not to over do it ....”    \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  Now, when you went to the Urgent Care on Sunday, \nOctober 23\nrd\n, they inquired, “Is this a work-related injury,” \ndidn’t they? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.   \nQ.  And you told them, “No,” didn’t you? \nA.  Yes, ma’am, I believe so.   \nQ.  So on October 23\nrd\n, you’re thinking it’s an over-exertion \nfrom work, “I’ve over-worked – I wouldn’t be here, if I hadn’t \nworked so hard.”  You still told them, “It’s not a workers’ \ncompensation claim,” didn’t you? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.... \nQ.  And your attorney is claiming the stipulations are that you \ninjured yourself on October 23\nrd\n, 2022.  You didn’t injure \nyourself on that day, did you? \nA.  No, ma’am.   \n\nLOVE - H300483  5\n  \n \n \nQ.  And she got the testimony that moving the furniture, you \nthink, you injured yourself moving furniture, right? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.  \nQ.  But you can’t say when, can you? \nA.  No, ma’am.  That was the only –  \nQ.  You can’t say, “I was moving that desk or that file cabinet,” \ncan you? \nA.  No, ma’am.     \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Following going to the Urgent Care, did you contact Casey \nor Mr. Harness about this being a workers’ comp claim? \nA.  No, ma’am. \nQ.  Okay.  Why not? \nA.  Whenever I went there, they said there was no signs of \npleurisy and that it was probably just a disturbed muscle from \nover-exertion and to let it rest and give it time to heal and it \nshould work out on its own.... \nQ.  And did you notify your employer, though, that you would \nhave to be off work? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.   \n \n The claimant sent a text message on Monday, October 24, 2022 \nindicating, “Gonna give it another tay (sic) of rest.  And have to pick up \nprescription at pharmacy today.”  The claimant’s supervisor, Casey \nHarness, replied through text, “Thats fine.  But you need to be here \ntomorrow.” \n The respondents’ attorney examined Casey Harness: \n  Q.  What do you do for Reynolds? \nA.  I’m construction superintendent, general construction \nsuperintendent.... \nQ.  Was [the claimant] working for you at the Juvenile Justice \nCenter in September and October of last year? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.... \nQ.  What was he doing? \n\nLOVE - H300483  6\n  \n \n \nA.  At that time, we were moving furniture in and out so that \nthey could repaint and lay flooring.... \nQ.  All right.  And Jason was doing this work with your crew? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.  He was on my crew.... \nQ.  Tell me what you know about him getting hurt? \nA.  What I know about Jason getting hurt is he came in one \nMonday morning and he told me that he had injured himself \nover the weekend.  He said that he thought that he had pulled \nsomething or did something.  He told me that he had been \nhurt previously and he thought that he had just re-pulled \nsomething and he said he wanted to go to the doctor about \nthat.  At that point, I allowed him to stay and work, because \nJason had been there the entire time.... \nQ.  Was this before we know he went to the Urgent Care on \nOctober 23\nrd\n? \nA.  Yes, I believe so.   \nQ.  Okay. \nA.  That was before he had seen anyone about the shoulder. \nQ.  Okay.  So before he went to the doctor, he told you he got \nhurt over the weekend? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.... \nQ.  Did he ever tell you, “I got hurt at work”? \nA.  He told me he did not get hurt at work.   \n \n The claimant’s attorney cross-examined Casey Harness: \nQ.  Now, you mentioned that Mr. Love said that he never got \nhurt at work.  Did you ask him how he got hurt? \nA.  I didn’t, but he told me that he had been helping his \nbrother and they moved some bottles or some tanks.  I’m not \n– I don’t specifically, know what, he just said he was helping \nhis brother over the weekend moving some heavy objects and \nthat he had pulled something.   \n \n The claimant returned to Jefferson Regional Medical Center on \nOctober 31, 2022:  “Patient reports one month hx of left posterior scapula \npain radiating to middle of back with swelling.  Reports this has been going \non for one month.  Reports for the past week he has had numbness and \n\nLOVE - H300483  7\n  \n \n \ntingling extending to left hand and fingers.  Denies fall or injury.”  The \nclaimant was diagnosed with “Musculoskeletal pain” and “Radicular pain.”   \n A CT of the claimant’s thoracic spine was taken on October 31, 2022 \nwith the following findings: \nNo acute fracture or dislocation.  Alignment is normal.  \nVertebral body heights are normal.  Intervertebral disc spaces \nare within normal limits.  No bony spinal canal stenosis.  No \nneural foraminal stenosis.  Mild pleural/parenchymal scarring \nin the lung apices.  Calcified granulomas in the left lung.  Soft \ntissues otherwise within normal limits.   \nIMPRESSION:  No acute abnormality of the thoracic spine.   \n \n The claimant testified that he did not return to work for any employer \nafter October 31, 2022.   \nAn MRI of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on November 11, \n2022: \nHISTORY:  Neck pain and left upper extremity \nradiculopathy.... \nIMPRESSION:  1.  At C7-T1 there is a left-sided disc \nherniation extending into the region of the foramen.  This \nproduces left foraminal stenosis and appears to impinge upon \nthe left C8 nerve root.   \n2.  At C4-5 there is shallow broad-based central and left \nparacentral disc protrusion.  There is mild left foraminal \nstenosis.   \n3.  At C5-6 there is shallow broad-based diffuse disc \nprotrusion and bony spur.  This effaces the ventral \nsubarachnoid space and produces some mild central canal \nnarrowing.  There is moderate bilateral foraminal stenosis.   \n \nThe record indicates that the claimant signed a Form AR-N, \nEMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF INJURY, on or about December 16, 2022.  The \n\nLOVE - H300483  8\n  \n \n \nACCIDENT INFORMATION section of the Form AR-N indicated that the \nPlace of Accident was “Gradual onset multiple job sites.”  The claimant \nwrote in the Date of Accident section, “Initial doctor visit 10/23/22.”  The \nTime of Accident was “Gradual Onset,” and the claimant wrote that he \nnotified the employer of the accident on October 23, 2022.  The claimant \nreported on the Form AR-N that he injured his “Left shoulder and neck.”  \nThe claimant wrote regarding the cause of injury, \"Began with massive \nfurniture move at JJC.  No prior issues or pain.  Other job site tasks at other \nlocations include lifting sheet rock panels, overhead demolition, and general \nlifting and labor.  Believed it was simply a sore/pulled muscle until an MRI \nrevealed objective finding and was refered (sic) to a specialist.” \nThe claimant testified on direct examination with regard to the Form \nAR-N: \nQ.  And the date on here is December 16\nth\n, 2022.  Is that the \ndate that you gave it to your employer? \nA.  Yes, ma’am, I believe so. \nQ.  Okay.  Who did you give it to? \nA.  I gave it to Mr. Mike Reynolds.   \nQ.  Okay.  So you gave him notice of a workers’ comp injury in \nDecember, is that fair? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.... \n \n The respondents’ attorney examined Mike Reynolds: \n  Q.  Mr. Reynolds, what do you do for a living? \n  A.  I am president of Reynolds Construction.... \nQ.  Do you remember him coming in to your office with this \nform, this AR-N? \n  A.  Yes, I do.... \n\nLOVE - H300483  9\n  \n \n \nQ.  So after he filed a claim and you became aware that he \nwas saying he got hurt at work, did you have a conversation \nwith him? \nA.  I’m sure I did, but I don’t remember exactly. \nQ.  Okay.  But did he ever tell you he got hurt at work from a \nspecific incident? \nA.  He did say that the strain, he thought, came from moving \nthe furniture, yes.   \nQ.  Okay.  But did he tell you when that happened? \nA.  Not with a specific incident, no.   \nQ.  Did he ever report injuring himself to you or Casey or \nanybody else, before filing this claim in December of last \nyear? \nA.  No, ma’am.  There was no First Report of Injury done.  \nThere was no accident report done.  There was no post-\naccident drug screen performed.   There was nothing – none \nof the procedures that have been laid out in our company \nhandbook followed.... \nQ.  If he had told you, “I got hurt at work,” what would you \nhave done? \nA.  He would have been sent to Healthcare Plus, which is who \nwe use for our – most of our accident stuff, immediately for a \npost-accident drug screen.  There would have been a First \nReport of Injury form filled out as well as an accident report, \nand the workers’ comp claim would have kicked in at that \npoint. \nQ.  All right.  And that did not happen here? \nA.  That did not happen here.   \n \n The claimant signed a Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION, \non January 20, 2023.  The claimant wrote in the ACCIDENT \nINFORMATION section of the Form AR-C, “Massive furniture move, \noverhead work, and demolition work.  Pain began in left shoulder blade \nleading to doctor visits to discover (by MRI) 2 herniated discs, bone spur, \nand a pinched nerve.  Sent to a specialist at Ortho Arkansas and awaiting \nthe appointment to determine next step in treatment.”   \n\nLOVE - H300483  10\n  \n \n \nDr. Jared Seale examined the claimant on or about February 8, \n2023: \nJason Love is a 31 year old Male who presents to discuss \nconcerns about their Neck pain, OTHER (Shoulder pain and \npinched nerve) that began on 10/23/2022.... \n31-year-old gentleman status post a gradual work related \ninjury when he developed severe left-sided neck pain that \noccasionally radiates down the arm with functional numbness \nand weakness/neurologic deficit. \nHis symptoms started at work 3 months ago.  Since that time \nhe [has] really been fighting a legal issue with Worker’s Comp. \nand been unable to obtain help.... \nAP and lateral x-ray of the cervical spine ordered, obtained, \nand interpreted today reveals mild disc space degenerative \nchanges with spurring at C5-6.  C7-T1 is easily approachable \nanteriorly. \nMRI of the cervical spine reviewed on disc today reveals mild \ndegeneration at C5-6.  Most pertinent finding is acute disc \nprotrusion on the left at C7-T1 that extends into the foramen \ncausing severe impingement of the exiting C8 nerve root.   \n \n Dr. Seale assessed “Disc protrusion, large, left, C7-T1 with functional \nneurologic deficit/numbness/weakness, left C8 with neck pain” and “C5-6 \ndegenerative disc disease, asymptomatic.”  Dr. Seale discussed, “The \npatient has a significant functional neurologic deficit on the left side.  His \nsymptoms have been ongoing for over 3 months.  My recommendation is \nfor decompression to give the nerve root the best chance to improve but the \npatient and his mother understand that decompression does not guarantee \nimprovement of symptoms....The patient’s cervical MRI does showed (sic) \nan acute injury of a disc protrusion on the left at C7-T1 which correlates \nwith the patient’s clinical symptoms.  The patient’s objective signs on the \n\nLOVE - H300483  11\n  \n \n \nMRI correlate perfectly with his subjective complaints of symptoms.  The \npatient’s symptoms began on and after the work injury.  The patient has no \nhistory of pain in the neck pain or pain down the arm prior to the work injury.  \nTherefore it is within a certain degree of medical certainty that at least 51% \nof the patient’s current symptoms are directly related to their work injury.”   \n The Commission received another Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR \nCOMPENSATION, on March 29, 2023.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION \nsection of this Form AR-C indicated that the Date of Accident was October \n23, 2022:  “The claimant was injured during the course and scope of \nemployment.  The claimant sustained injuries to the neck, left shoulder, left \narm, back and other whole body.”     \nA pre-hearing order was filed on June 6, 2023.  According to the pre-\nhearing order, the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether Claimant sustained compensable injuries to his \nneck, back, and left shoulder by specific incident.   \n2.  Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment. \n3.  Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits from October 24, 2022, to a date yet to be \ndetermined. \n4.  Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s \nfee.  All other issues have been reserved.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the respondents “have controverted this \nclaim in its entirety.”   \n\nLOVE - H300483  12\n  \n \n \n Dr. Seale performed surgery on June 23, 2023:  “1.  Anterior cervical \ndecompression with arthrodesis, C7-T1.  2.  Instrumentation, anterior, C7-\nT1.  3.  Insertion of machined interbody spacer, anterior, C7-T1.”  The pre- \nand post-operative diagnosis was “1.  Disc protrusion, left, foraminal, C7-\nT1.  2.  Degenerative disk disease, C7-T1.  3.  Cervical radiculopathy.”  Dr. \nSeale noted, “Mr. Levin (sic) is a 32-year-old gentleman a chronic, \nprogressive history of neck pain radiating into left arm.  The pain has \nprogressively worsened over time.”   \n A hearing was held on September 14, 2023.  At that time, an \nadministrative law judge read the claimant’s contentions that “on October \nthe 23\nrd\n, 2022, the claimant was moving furniture in the scope and course \nof employment when he felt a strain on his neck, left shoulder, and back.  \nThe claimant continued to work, the pain increased.  Respondents denied \nthe claim in its entirety and the claimant received medical treatment on his \nown.  An MRI revealed a herniation at C7 to T1, and protrusions at C4, C6.  \nThe claimant contends that he sustained a compensable injury and that he \nis entitled to TTD, medical benefits, and his attorney’s fee, and all other \nissues were reserved per that questionnaire response.  The respondents on \nthe other hand contend that the claimant did not sustain a compensable \ninjury at work on the 23\nrd\n of October 2022, that is identifiable by time and \nplace of occurrence or any other time.  Respondents further contend that \n\nLOVE - H300483  13\n  \n \n \nthe claimant’s issues with his back, left shoulder, and neck are pre-existing \nand did not arise out of his employment.  Claimant cannot meet his burden \nof proof that he sustained a compensable injury as defined by the Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Act.” \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on December 15, 2023 \nand found that the claimant did not prove he sustained a compensable \ninjury.  The administrative law judge therefore denied and dismissed the \nclaim.  The claimant appeals to the Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \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 ... \narising out of and in the course of employment and which \nrequires medical services or results in disability or death.  An \ninjury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident \nand is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]   \n \n A compensable injury must also 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\nLOVE - H300483  14\n  \n \n \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 In workers’ compensation cases, the Commission functions as the \ntrier of fact.  Blevins v. Safeway Stores, 25 Ark. App. 297, 757 S.W.2d 569 \n(1988).  The determination of the credibility and weight to be given a \nwitness’s testimony is within the sole province of the Commission.  Murphy \nv. Forsgren, Inc., 99 Ark. App. 223, 258 S.W.3d 794 (2007).  The \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any \nother witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those \nportions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Farmers Co-op v. Biles, \n77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002).   \n The Full Commission reviews an administrative law judge’s decision \nde novo, and it is the duty of the Full Commission to conduct its own fact-\nfinding independent of that done by an administrative law judge.  Crawford \nv. Pace Indus., 55 Ark. App. 60, 929 S.W.2d 727 (1996).  The Full \nCommission enters its own findings in accordance with the preponderance \nof the evidence.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, 792 \nS.W.2d 348 (1990). \n\nLOVE - H300483  15\n  \n \n \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “4.  The \nclaimant has not proven that he suffered a compensable injury on 23 \nOctober 2022.”  The Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove \nby a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012). \n The claimant testified that he became employed with the \nrespondents in April 2022.  The claimant testified that he “overstrained and \nhurt myself” while moving heavy furniture for the respondents.  The parties \nstipulated that the employment relationship existed on October 23, 2022, \nwhich date the parties agreed was a Sunday, and that claimant was not \nperforming employment services for the respondent-employer that day.  \nThe claimant testified that he sent a text message to his supervisor, Casey \nHarness.  The record includes a text message sent to Casey Harness in \nwhich the claimant stated he had been suffering from shoulder pain which \nthe claimant did not attribute to work.  The claimant sought treatment at \nUrgent Care on October 23, 2022 and reported that he had been suffering \nfrom left shoulder and back pain for three weeks.  Although it was noted \nthat the claimant “lifts heavy objects often,” the claimant did not attribute his \npain to a work-related incident.  The claimant admitted on cross-\nexamination that he did not inform the medical providers at Urgent Care \nthat he had sustained a work-related injury.  Casey Harness, the claimant’s \n\nLOVE - H300483  16\n  \n \n \nsupervisor and a superintendent for the respondents, testified, “He told me \nhe did not get hurt at work.”  Mr. Harness testified, “[H]e just said he was \nhelping his brother over the weekend moving some heavy objects and that \nhe had pulled something.”  A co-worker, James Tillman, corroborated \nCasey Harness’ testimony that the claimant had reported sustaining an \ninjury while assisting his brother away from the workplace.  Another co-\nworker, Wes Brandon, also testified that the claimant did not report \nsustaining an injury while performing work for the respondents.   \n The claimant sought medical treatment on October 31, 2022 and it \nwas expressly noted at that time, “Denies fall or injury.”  The claimant \nsigned a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF INJURY, on December \n16, 2022 and alleged that the Place of Accident was “Gradual onset \nmultiple job sites.”  Mike Reynolds, company president, testified that the \nclaimant did not report a work-related specific incident to him.  Dr. Seale \nexamined the claimant on February 8, 2023 and noted an alleged “gradual \nwork related injury.”  Dr. Seale eventually performed surgery.   \n The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant \nwas not a credible witness.  The claimant’s testimony was not corroborated \nby the evidence of record or the testimony of Casey Harness, James \nTillman, Wes Brandon, or Mike Reynolds.  The Full Commission finds that \nthe claimant did not prove he sustained a compensable injury in \n\nLOVE - H300483  17\n  \n \n \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  The \nclaimant did not prove that he sustained an accidental injury causing \nphysical harm to the body.  The claimant did not prove that he sustained an \ninjury which arose out of and in the course of employment, required medical \nservices, or resulted in disability.  We attach minimal evidentiary weight to \nDr. Seale’s conclusion that the claimant’s symptoms were “directly related \nto their work injury.”  Nor did the claimant prove that the alleged injury was \ncaused by a specific incident which was identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  See Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 346 Ark. 487, 58 \nS.W.3d 369 (2001).   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant does not contend that he sustained \na compensable injury in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(A)(ii)(b)(Repl. 2012).  This claim is respectfully denied and \ndismissed. \n  \n \n \n \n\nLOVE - H300483  18\n  \n \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H300483 JASON B. LOVE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT REYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING PA/ GALLAGHER BASSETT, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.350Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H300483-2024-06-19","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Love_Jason_H300483_20240619.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}