{"id":"full_commission-H301023-2024-09-30","awcc_number":"H301023","decision_date":"2024-09-30","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Williemae Battles","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Correction / (benton Work Release Center)","title":"BATTLES VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION / (BENTON WORK RELEASE CENTER) AWCC# H301023 September 30, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","hip","wrist","fracture","carpal tunnel"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Battles_WillieMae_H301023_20240930.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Battles_WillieMae_H301023_20240930.pdf","text_length":13965,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H301023 \nWILLIE MAE BATTLES, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION/ \n(BENTON WORK RELEASE CENTER),  \nEMPLOYER                          RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA         RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas.  \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE WILLIAM C. FRYE, Attorney, \nNorth Little Rock, Arkansas.  \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE ROBERT H. \nMONTGOMERY, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas.  \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted.  \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Respondent appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed May 6, 2024.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge made \nthe following findings of fact and conclusions of law:  \n1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation \nCommission has jurisdiction over this claim.  \n \n\n2 \nBATTLES – H301023 \n2. I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed \nstipulations as fact.  \n \n3. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of \ncredible evidence that all the authorized medical \ntreatment of record by Dr. Bowen and Rhodes \nwas reasonably necessary for her compensable \ninjuries of January 29, 2023. I also find that the \nrecommended surgery by Dr. Rhodes for her \nright arm/hand injury is reasonably necessary in \nconnection with the injury received by the \nClaimant in January 2023.  \n \n4. The Claimant proved her entitlement to \ntemporary total disability compensation from \nMay 2023 until a date yet to be decided, such as \nuntil the pronouncement of maximum medical \nimprovement by Dr. Rhodes following her \nsurgery.  \n \n5. The Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted attorney’s fee on the indemnity \nbenefits awarded in this opinion.  \n \n6. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under \nthe Arkansas Workers' Compensation \nCommission Act.  \n \nWe have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge’s May 6, 2024 \ndecision 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 made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n\n3 \nBATTLES – H301023 \nAll accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and \nwith interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the Administrative Law \nJudge’s decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).  \nFor prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, Claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn.  §11-9-715  (Repl.  2012).  For  prevailing  on  appeal  to  the  Full \nCommission, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five \nhundred  dollars  ($500),  pursuant  to Ark.  Code Ann.  §11-9-715(b)  (Repl. \n2012). \nIT 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 \nI respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.  In my de novo \nreview of the record, I find that the Claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that she is entitled to additional \nmedical treatment recommended by Dr. Rhodes and Dr. Bowen, and the \n\n4 \nBATTLES – H301023 \nclaimant has failed to prove that she is entitled to additional temporary total \ndisability benefits.  \nThe claimant was employed with the respondent employer when she \ntripped and fell, injuring her right hand, right shoulder, back, and right hip on \nJanuary 29, 2023.  The claimant received treatment for her hand from \nJenna Pardoe, PA-C at OrthoArkansas and was treated by Dr. Victor \nVargas, also of OrthoArkansas, for her hip and shoulder injuries.  The \nclaimant was released at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and full \nduty employment with no restrictions by Ms. Pardoe on April 10, 2023, and \nDr. Vargas on May 22, 2023. \nAt the February 6, 2024 hearing on this matter, the claimant sought \nadditional medical treatment recommended by Dr. David Rhodes and Dr. \nScott Bowen, as well as additional temporary total benefits from May 2023 \nto a date to be determined.  The administrative law judge agreed, granting \nthe claimant the proposed medical treatment and additional TTD 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 that \nthe additional treatment is reasonable and necessary. Nichols v. Omaha \nSch. Dist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d 148 (2010). \n\n5 \nBATTLES – H301023 \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 \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). \nIt is within the Commission's province to weigh all the medical \nevidence to determine what is most credible and to determine its medical \nsoundness and probative force. Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark. App. \n459, 637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  \nIn weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily \ndisregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness. Id.  However, \nthe Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions. \nWilliams v. Ark Dept. of Community Corrections, 2016 Ark. App. 427, 502 \nS.W. 3d 530 (2016).  Furthermore, it is the Commission's duty to use its \nexperience and expertise in translating the testimony of medical experts \ninto findings of fact and to draw inferences when testimony is open to more \nthan a single interpretation. Id.  In the present matter, the weight of the \nobjective evidence proves the claimant is not entitled to additional medical \ntreatment. \n\n6 \nBATTLES – H301023 \nThe claimant first reported an injury to her right hand after a fall on \nJanuary 29, 2023.  During the course of her treatment, the claimant \nunderwent an X-ray with three views of her right hand and a nerve \nconduction study, both of which were interpreted as normal.  A triple phase \nbone scan of the claimant’s right wrist was also normal. \nAn X-ray and MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder revealed only \ndegenerative findings.  An X-ray of the claimant’s right hip and pelvis also \nrevealed only degenerative findings. \nAccording to the claimant’s original treating orthopedic specialist, Dr. \nVictor Vargas, the electromyography studies of the claimant’s upper \nextremities were normal.  In addition, the findings in the claimant’s right \nshoulder were degenerative as were the findings of the studies of the \nclaimant’s right hip and pelvis.  This X-ray of the claimant’s lower back only \nrevealed degenerative osteoarthritis.   \nDr. David Rhodes suggested surgery on the claimant’s right upper \nextremity with no objective medical evidence to support the surgery.  Dr. \nRhodes acknowledged the nerve conduction study was unremarkable or \nnormal.  His physical examination revealed the claimant’s right hand and \nelbow were basically normal with no objective medical findings.  The X-rays \nhe ordered of the claimant’s right hand and elbow were both normal.  Dr. \nRhodes opined there was no fracture dislocation or bony involvement of the \nright elbow and no fracture dislocation or bony impingement seen.  \n\n7 \nBATTLES – H301023 \nThere are no objective tests or findings whatsoever in the record to \nsupport his findings of right cubital syndrome or carpal tunnel syndrome. \nSubjective complaints and findings cannot be substitutes for objective \nmedical findings.  In any event, the claimant has refused and declined the \nsurgery.  \nLikewise, Dr. Scott Bowen has supplied no objective medical \nevidence to support his suggestions for additional medical treatment.  His \nphysical examination did not reveal any objective medical findings. \nAccording to Dr. Bowen, the studies of the claimant’s right hip \nrevealed only mild arthritis which he determined to be pre-existing \nosteoarthritis which is degenerative.  Dr. Bowen opined that the findings in \nthe claimant’s right shoulder were not specified as traumatic, which means \nthese findings are not related to the accident in question.  All the findings of \nDr. Bowen were degenerative and pre-existed the accident in question, and \nthe respondents are not responsible for treatment of these unrelated \nmedical issues.  \nWhile the claimant complained of ongoing pain throughout her \ntreatment, no diagnostic studies revealed any objective source of the \nclaimant’s pain, numbness, and tingling.  \nAfter the claimant’s physical therapist reported that the claimant was \nnot making any progress, Physician Assistant Jenna Pardoe conducted a \nmini-validity test, which the claimant “essentially failed [as] she was unable \n\n8 \nBATTLES – H301023 \nto participate in al the maneuvers.”  Ms. Pardoe opined that as of April 10, \n2023: \nThere have been many observed inconsistencies with \nthe patient’s performance in therapy along with \nultimately not participating. The patient is very capable \nand aware however she is regularly observed to \nmaintain full/extreme extension of the \ndigits/thumb/wrist when being observed and manually \nstretched. They have attempted passive range of \nmotion, however she forces her digits into extension \nagainst their pressure avoiding any motion. She \ncontinues to have daily pain described as an 8 out of \n10 on the pain scale and does not get any relief from \nher prescribed medications. When focused on another \narea of the hand or arm, she has been observed to \nrest the fingers or thumb and even move them, \nhowever once attention is paid to these areas they \nbecome very rigid in extension and immovable. She \nprovides minimal efforts and only furlough (sic) certain \ndirections. \n \nAt her current level, we cannot make any \nimprovements for her condition . . . . At this time, there \nis no other treatment I would recommend.  \n \nShe will be placed at maximal (sic) medical \nimprovement and may return to work at full duty with \nher right hand.  \n \n The claimant was later returned to full duty regarding her shoulder \nand other complaints by Dr. Vargas on May 22, 2023.  \n \nThere is simply no objective evidence that the claimant is entitled to \nadditional medical treatment, including the surgery recommended by Dr. \nRhodes, or pain management as recommended by Dr. Bowen.   \nAll the objective medical testing has been normal with no objective \nmedical findings.  The only findings have been degenerative, pre-existing \n\n9 \nBATTLES – H301023 \nconditions, or subjective complaints of pain.  The claimant’s condition has \nplateaued, and there is no indication in her records that this further \ntreatment is reasonable and necessary.  \nThe claimant has been released at MMI by her two initial treating \npractitioners and has shown extensive evidence of symptom exaggeration. \nFurther, neither Dr. Rhodes nor Dr. Bowen has related the additional \nmedical treatment to the claimant’s work-related injuries.  Thus, the \nclaimant has failed to meet her burden of proof on this issue. \nOur Rules require that to prevail on a request for additional \ntemporary total disability benefits, the claimant must prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he is totally incapacitated from earning \nwages and remains in his healing period.  Hickman v. Kellogg, Brown Root, \n372 Ark. 501, 277 S.W.3d 591 (2008).  \nThe healing period ends when the employee is as far restored as the \npermanent nature of his injury will permit, and if the underlying condition \ncausing the disability has become stable and if nothing in the way of \ntreatment will improve that condition, the healing period has ended.  The \ndetermination of when the healing period has ended is a factual \ndetermination for the Commission. \nAs discussed above, the claimant is indisputably no longer in her \nhealing period.  She has been released at MMI at full duty by her initial \n\n10 \nBATTLES – H301023 \ntreating practitioners for all relevant complaints and is no longer entitled to \nbenefits for those subjective complaints.  \nUpon being released to return to work, the claimant elected to apply \nfor FMLA and then ultimately retire rather than return to work.  The \nclaimant’s own testimony reflects that she elected not to return to work and \nhas not looked for work since her employment with the respondent \nemployer ended.  The claimant is currently drawing social security disability \nbenefits and state retirement benefits.  She should not be rewarded with \nadditional income for her personal decision to retire.  \nNot only has the claimant magnified her symptoms as reported in the \nrecords of OrthoArkansas, but she refused the additional treatment \nsuggested by Dr. Rhodes.  It defies logic to award continued temporary \ndisability benefits when the claimant has refused and declined the treatment \nsuggested by her treating physician.  Therefore, the claimant is not entitled \nto additional temporary total disability benefits from May 2023 to a date to \nbe determined. \n \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n                                                            ______________________________                  \n               MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H301023 WILLIE MAE BATTLES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION/ (BENTON WORK RELEASE CENTER), EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.095Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H301023-2024-09-30","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Battles_WillieMae_H301023_20240930.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}