{"id":"full_commission-H301278-2024-08-16","awcc_number":"H301278","decision_date":"2024-08-16","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Michelle Burnett","employer_name":"Southside High School","title":"BURNETT VS. SOUTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL AWCC# H301278 & H303725 August 16, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","knee","lumbar","cervical","neck","shoulder","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Burnett_Michelle_H301278-H303726_20240816.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Burnett_Michelle_H301278-H303726_20240816.pdf","text_length":13507,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NOS. H301278 & H303725  \n \nMICHELLE BURNETT, EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \n \n \nSOUTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL, EMPLOYER                          RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, \nCARRIER                                                                               RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 16, 2024 \n \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., \nAttorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE GUY ALTON WADE, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed March 12, 2024. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-\nhearing conference conducted on August 21, 2023, \nand contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed August 22, \n2023, are hereby accepted as fact.  \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 2  \n \n \n \n \n2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she sustained compensable injuries \nto her low back, right knee, right arm, and coccyx on or \nabout February 24, 2023.  \n \n3. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she is entitled to medical treatment for \nher compensable low back injury of January 18, 2023, \nin the form of an MRI of the lumbar spine.  \n \n4. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she sustained a compensable \ncervical spine injury on January 18, 2023, and/or \nFebruary 24, 2023.  \n \n5. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she is entitled to medical treatment \nfor her cervical spine. \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein, and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's decision is \nsupported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies \nthe law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from a preponderance \nof the evidence that the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law \nJudge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission.  \n Therefore, we affirm and adopt the March 12, 2024 decision of the \nAdministrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as \nthe decision of the Full Commission on appeal.   \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 3  \n \n \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n     \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n   The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”) \nfound that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she sustained compensable injuries to her low back, right knee, right \narm, and coccyx on or about February 24, 2023, that she proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to medical treatment for \nher compensable low back injury of January 18, 2023, in the form of an MRI \nof the lumbar spine, that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable cervical spine injury on \nJanuary 18, 2023 and/or February 24, 2023, and finally, that the Claimant \nhas failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nto medical treatment for her cervical spine.  I concur in part and dissent in \npart.  \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 4  \n \n \n \n1. The Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her coccyx on or \nabout February 24, 2023.  \n  \n To  establish  a  compensable  injury  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence  the  Claimant  must  prove:  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm to \nthe body which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; \n(3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code \nAnn.  §11-9-102(16),  establishing  the  injury;  and  (4)  that  the  injury  was \ncaused  by  a  specific  and  identifiable  time  and  place  of  occurrence.    A \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability must be \nstated within a degree of medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. \nApp. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002).  \n On  February  24,  2023,  Claimant  fell  at  work,  falling  on  her  right \nbuttocks.    The  Claimant  presented  to  the  emergency  department at  Mercy \nHospital  in  Fort  Smith  where  she  was  diagnosed  with  a  contusion  of  the \ncoccyx.  On March 2, 2023, Claimant presented to Dr. Thomas Cheyne for \nevaluation  of  her  coccyx.  Dr.  Cheyne  noted  that  the  Claimant  was  quite \ntender over her coccyx and diagnosed the Claimant with coccydynia.  \n Claimant continued treatment with Dr. Cheyne for her coccydynia and \non April 26, 2023, Dr. Cheyne stated that Claimant’s coccydynia was likely \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 5  \n \n \n \nfrom her February 24, 2023, fall.  A doctor is not required to be absolute in \nan opinion nor are the magic words “within a reasonable degree of medical \ncertainty” even required to be used by the doctor for an injury to be related to \nthe work accident.  Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296 (2001).  \nRather, the medical opinion must simply be more than speculation.  Id. If a \ndoctor renders an opinion about causation of a workers’ compensation injury \nwith language that goes beyond possibilities and establishes that work was \nthe reasonable cause of the injury, this should pass muster.  Id. \n Therefore, I would rule that Claimant proved by a preponderance of \nthe  evidence  that  she  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  coccyx  as  a \nresult of her work accident on February 24, 2023.  \n2. The Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe sustained a compensable cervical spine injury on January 18, \n2023, and/or February 24, 2023.  \n \n To  establish  a  compensable  injury  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence  the  Claimant  must  prove:  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm to \nthe body which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; \n(3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code \nAnn.  §11-9-102(16),  establishing  the  injury;  and  (4)  that  the  injury  was \ncaused  by  a  specific  and  identifiable  time  and  place  of  occurrence.    A \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 6  \n \n \n \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability must be \nstated within a degree of medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. \nApp. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002).  \n The  employer  takes  the  employee  as  he  finds  him.  Conway \nConvalescent Center v. Murphree, 266 Ark. 985, 585 S.W.2d 462 (Ark. App. \n1979).  A pre-existing disease or infirmity does not disqualify a claim if the \nemployment  aggravated,  accelerated,  or  combined  with  the  disease  or \ninfirmity  to  produce  the  disability  for  which  compensation  is  sought.   See, \nNashville Livestock Commission v. Cox, 302 Ark. 69, 787 S.W.2d 664 (1990); \nConway Convalescent Center v. Murphree, 266 Ark. 985, 585 S.W.2d 462 \n(Ark. App. 1979); St. Vincent Medical Center v. Brown, 53 Ark. App. 30, 917 \nS.W.2d 550 (1996).  An increase in symptoms of a pre-existing degenerative \ncondition is sufficient to establish a compensable injury.  Parker v. Atlantic \nResearch Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W.3d 449 (2004). \n The Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in July of \n2022 where she was t-boned at a rate of approximately 40 miles per hour.  \nThe Claimant underwent treatment for her injuries as a result of the motor \nvehicle accident and she was diagnosed with whiplash, neck pain and \nshoulder pain on the left side.  Claimant had an MRI of her cervical spine on \nSeptember 26, 2022, which showed:  \n Impression: \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 7  \n \n \n \n C5-C6 central right paracentral disc protrusion indenting subarachnoid    \nspace and cord.  Causing central canal stenosis.  \nBroad-based central disc bulge spurring C3-4 with mild canal stenosis.  \nProminent foraminal spurs.  Three broad-based central disc bulge.  \n C6-C7: canal stenosis.  \n T2-T3 small central disc protrusion.  \n \n On January 18, 2023, Claimant was walking up the stairs at her place \nof work when she lost her footing and landed on her knees and then fell back \nonto  the  stairwell  wall.  Claimant  presented  to  the  Mercy  Occupational \nMedicine Clinic in Fort Smith and was seen by Dr. Ian Cheyne who diagnosed \nher with an initial encounter for her fall.  \n On  February  24,  2023,  Claimant  was  walking  back  into  the  school \nwhen she tripped on a curb causing her to fall backwards and onto her right \nside.      Claimant   presented   to   Mercy   Hospital   Fort   Smith   Emergency \nDepartment where she was again diagnosed with an initial encounter for her \nfall.  \n Claimant  continued  to  treat  her  symptoms  and  followed  up  with  Dr. \nJeffrey Hamby on June 2, 2023.  Dr. Hamby noted on Claimant’s physical \nexamination  that  she  had  a  diminished  range  of  motion  in  her  neck  and \nneeded  an  MRI  of  her  cervical  spine.    Dr.  Hamby diagnosed  the  Claimant \nwith cervicalgia and radiculopathy affecting her upper extremities.  Claimant \nunderwent an MRI of her cervical spine on June 6, 2023, which showed new \nfindings of:   \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 8  \n \n \n \nAt C3-4, there is mild retrolisthesis by 2 or 3 mm.  There is a central \ndisc herniation, moderately severe canal stenosis, there may be mild \ncord  compression.  Additionally, moderate bilateral foraminal \nspurring/exit foramina stenosis at this level.  \nAt  the  C4-5  level,  there  is  mild  broad  disc  bulging.  There  is  left \nforaminal disc herniation producing moderately severe stenosis of the \nleft exit foramen. Mild narrowing right exit foramen.  Mild central canal \nstenosis.  \n \nDr. Hamby read Claimant’s MRI of her C-spine on June 22, 2023, where he \ndiagnosed  her  with  a  herniated  cervical  disc  and  referred  Claimant  to  a \nneurosurgeon  for  evaluation  and  treatment  options.  Claimant  was  seen  by \nDr. Zane Grimes on August 15, 2023, who noted the history of her injury as \nbeing:  \nShe reports progressive neck pain after a fall at work in January of this \nyear.  She  describes pain through the right side [of] her neck which \nextends to the right  shoulder but does not typically radiate down the \narms. \n \nDr.   Grimes   diagnosed   the   Claimant   with   cervical   spondylosis   with \nmyelopathy,   cervical   stenosis   of   the   spine,   and   cervical   spinal   cord \ncompression.      Dr.   Grimes   recommended   surgery   in   the   form   of \ndecompression of the spinal cord.  \n Claimant has marked differences in her cervical spine as visualized \nin the September 26, 2022, and June 2, 2023, MRIs.  Prior to Claimant’s \ntwo work accidents, Claimant did not have pathology at the C3-4, or C4-5 \nlevels.  Therefore, I would rule that the Claimant has proven by a \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 9  \n \n \n \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury to \nher cervical spine on January 18, 2023, and/or February 24, 2023.  \n3. The Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe is entitled to medical treatment for her cervical spine.  \n  \n An 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).  \nReasonable and necessary medical services may include those necessary \nto accurately diagnose the nature and extent of the compensable injury; to \nreduce or alleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; or to \nmaintain the level of healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of \nthe damage produced by the compensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, \nInc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995).  \n Claimant suffered a compensable injury to her cervical spine after \nher two work related falls on January 18, 2023 and February 24, 2023.  As \nnoted above, Dr. Grimes recommended surgery for Claimant’s \ncompensable injury in the form of decompression of the spinal cord \nbecause if left untreated this injury carries an increased risk of spinal cord \ninjury.  This treatment is reasonable and necessary to prevent the further \ndeterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury.  \n\n \nBurnett – H301278, H303725 10  \n \n \n \n Therefore,   I   would   rule   that   the   Claimant   has   proven   by   a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to medical treatment for \nher cervical spine.  \nFor the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n                                                                  \n_________________________________ \n                                                M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS. H301278 & H303725 MICHELLE BURNETT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SOUTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 16, 2024 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in L...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.145Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H301278-2024-08-16","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Burnett_Michelle_H301278-H303726_20240816.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}