{"id":"full_commission-H301483-2024-09-10","awcc_number":"H301483","decision_date":"2024-09-10","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Elias Chavez","employer_name":"Thompson Construction Group, Inc","title":"CHAVEZ VS. THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. AWCC# H301483 September 10, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["hip","shoulder","back","lumbar","strain","fracture","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Chavez_Elias_H301483_20240910.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Chavez_Elias_H301483_20240910.pdf","text_length":30069,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H301483 \n \nELIAS CHAVEZ, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nTHOMPSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE JARROD S. PARRISH, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals and the respondents cross-appeal an \nadministrative law judge’s opinion filed December 13, 2023.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant proved he sustained a \ncompensable left hip injury.  The administrative law judge awarded \nreasonably necessary medical treatment but found that the claimant did not \nprove he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits.  The \nadministrative law judge reserved the issues of permanent anatomical \nimpairment and wage-loss disability.  After reviewing the entire record de \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  2\n  \n \n \nnovo, the Full Commission affirms the administrative law judge’s opinion as \nmodified.     \nI.  HISTORY \n The testimony of Elias Chavez, now age 61, indicated that he \nbecame employed as a “rodbuster” for the respondents, Thompson \nConstruction Group, Inc., in June 2021.  The parties stipulated that the \nemployee-employer-carrier relationship existed on September 9, 2022.  The \nclaimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Could you tell us exactly what happened to you on \nSeptember 9\nth\n of 2022? \nA.  Yes.  It was just a normal day.  We started working at \n7:00....And so we had to start carrying the metal rods down.  \nThere were two packages of Number 7 rods that are 40 \npieces each that we had to carry between two of us.  And so \nas we’re coming in with the rods is when I slipped, because \nmy shoes were muddy and wet, because of the work site, and \nit was just as we were trying to put the rods down that I \nslipped.  My left foot slipped and I was carrying the metal rods \non my right shoulder....I was in a lot of pain....They gave me \nthree pills and sent me home for the rest of the day, and told \nme to come back to work the following morning.  So I came \nback the next day to the office and in the office they asked me \nhow I was doing.  And I told them that the same pain was still \nwith me.  So they told me they were going to send me to work, \nbut not doing the same job, that was just going to be pulling \nrods.... \nQ.  Could you describe your pain for us? \nA.  The pain ran from my back all the way down the length of \nmy legs.... \nQ.  And you’re noting that this is a pain in your left hip and \nthigh that is on the outer side of your left hip? \nA.  From the center of my back.... \nQ.  And when you fell, at that moment, on September 9\nth\n, did \nyou feel that pain immediately? \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  3\n  \n \n \nA.  Immediately.... \nQ.  You got hurt on September 9\nth\n, and you came back to the \njob the next day.  Is that right? \nA.  Yes.     \n \n The parties initially stipulated that the claimant “sustained \ncompensable injuries to his left hip and low back” on September 9, 2022.  \nThe parties stipulated that the respondents “accepted this claim as \ncompensable and paid some benefits.”   \n According to the record, the claimant presented for treatment with \nDr. Sherita D. Willis on November 22, 2022.  The claimant complained of \nMusculoskeletal Pain in his “left hip,” “present for 1-6 months.”  Dr. Willis \nassessed “1.  Acute low back pain.”  Dr. Willis also reported, “Left Hip:  \ntenderness and pain on palpation.”  Dr. Willis recommended conservative \ntreatment, and she noted “Patient to full duty.”   \n The claimant returned to Dr. Willis on January 10, 2023:  “Patient \nstates that he has left lateral back pain that radiates down to the sciatic \nnotch and below.  He states that this occurs regularly and that it gets better \nand worse spontaneously.  He states that he woke up this am and that his \nback was hurting but that when he went to work, he bent over to tie his \nshoe and that it got acutely worse.”  Dr. Willis assessed “Sciatica – Left – \nExplained to patient [that] this pain is chronic and is not a work \ninjury....Patient to see his primary care physician for x ray, PT, and \ndefinitive treatment.”  Dr. Willis noted “Work full duty.” \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  4\n  \n \n \n Dr. Ricky Carson reported on March 8, 2023: \n60 yo male Hispanic builder man comes for chronic back pain \nand left hip pain for about 6 months after he admits fell over in \nhis job area when he was pushing lifting heavy things on \n09/09/22, but he never go to the Dr. evaluation, he said he \nwent to the Dr. 3 months after trauma event to private clinic \nwith DX [back] pain and hip by facultative he does not bring \nthe complete history resume, he admits still with lumbar back \npain and left side hip that getting worse during flexion \nextension joint [motion] area rate pain 8/10 when he is \nwalking[.]   \n \n Dr. Carson’s assessment included “1.  Low back pain” and “3.  Hip \npain.”    \n Kristina Ward, Senior Resolution Manager, corresponded with the \nclaimant on March 9, 2023: \nGallagher Bassett Services is the Workers’ Compensation \nAdministrator for the above captioned client.  I am handling \nthe above captioned Workers’ Compensation claim on behalf \nof your employer.... \nEnclosed you will find a HIPPA release, two copies of the AR \nForm N (Employee Notice of Injury) and a Medical \nQuestionnaire for you to complete and return to me in the self-\naddressed envelope that I have provided you.  Please feel \nfree to contact me with any questions in this matter.... \n \n The record contains an unsigned “Formulario AR-N.” \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Mr. Chavez, do you remember signing any form labeled a \nForm N that was sent to you by respondents?  I think, its \nGallagher Bassett representing Thompson Construction? \nA.  No.   \nQ.  Okay.  And you understand that respondents have \nsubmitted a Form N for their exhibits today? \nA.  They never had me sign a form.... \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  5\n  \n \n \nQ.  I’m showing you the Form N submitted with the \nrespondents on this.  As you’re looking at this, is any of that \nfilled out? \nA.  No.   \nQ.  Is your signature on that page? \nA.  No. \nQ.  Or on that page? \nA.  No.   \n \n Dr. John Rocco Rodney noted on March 15, 2023: \n60 yo male Hispanic physical laborer presents for follow up a \nweek later on back pain and left hip pain for about 6 months \nafter he fell over in his job area when he was pushing/lifting \nheavy things on 09/09/22, but he never go to the Dr. \nevaluation, he said he went to the company Dr. 3 months after \nthe trauma event to private/work? clinic with DX of chronic \nsciatica not workplace injury.  He reports continued left \nlumbar/sacral back pain and left side hip worse with \nmovement and especially long walking....He has some \ncompany paperwork, reports he can still work at a machine, \nbut walking and lifting and other tasks are too difficult.... \nDifficult to say why still so symptomatic six months after \nsupposedly causative fall.  No red flag back pain symptoms.  \nPE consistent with muscular/conneftive (sic) tissue strain.  XR \nwithout evidence of bony or joint pathology.  Radiation pattern \nnot consistent with sciatica.... \n \n Dr. Rodney assessed “1.  Acute bilateral low back pain without \nsciatica” and “2.  Muscle strain.”  Dr Rodney recommended conservative \ntreatment and noted, “If pt continues to fail conservative therapy \nrecommend orthopedic followup.” \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  When did you leave employment with Thompson \nConstruction? \n  A.  I’m not sure if it was the 22\nnd\n or the 23\nrd\n.   \n  Q.  So somewhere in the mid-20s of this March, correct? \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  6\n  \n \n \n  A.  Or the 21\nst\n....I left on the 25\nth\n to go back to Maryland.   \n \n An MR of the claimant’s left hip was taken on March 27, 2023 with \nthe following impression: \n  1.  Very mild osteoarthritis of both hips. \n2.  Low-grade partial-thickness tears at the origins of bilateral \nhamstring tendons. \n3.  Low-grade partial-thickness tears at the insertions of the \nleft gluteus minimus and medius tendons. \n4.  Low-grade partial-thickness tear at insertion of the right \ngluteus medius tendon.   \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  And I understand that you were struck by a vehicle on \nJune 2\nnd\n of 2023, is that correct? \nYes....I was going to walk in a park.   \n \n The record includes a “State of Maryland Motor Vehicle Crash \nReport” dated June 2, 2023.  The Crash Report indicated that the claimant \nwas struck by a vehicle while walking across a boulevard.  The claimant \nwas admitted to SH Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, Md. on June 2, 2023.  \nAn x-ray of the claimant’s left femur was taken on June 2, 2023 with the \nimpression, “Mild displaced comminuted fracture of the left mid femoral \nshaft.”  A CT of the claimant’s Chest/Abdomen/Pelvis was taken on June 2, \n2023 with the impression, “No acute traumatic abnormality in the chest, \nabdomen, or pelvis.”  Dr. Lisbi Rivas Ramirez reported on June 2, 2023, “I \nreviewed the images my self and no apparent injuries identified other than \nfemur fracture.”     \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  7\n  \n \n \nThe claimant was discharged from SH Suburban Hospital on June 6, \n2023: \nThis is a 60 year old male who presented to the trauma center \nafter being struck by a car.  He was found to have a left femur \nfracture.  Orthopedics was consulted and he underwent an IM \nnail on 6/3.  He is WBAT in a knee immobilizer and has been \nworking with physical therapy, who have recommended either \nacute rehab or home with in home physical therapy \nservices....He is now stable for discharge to home with Home \nPT, which has been arranged by Social Work. \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on July 5, 2023.  The claimant \ncontended, “On 9/9/2022, claimant, in the course and scope of employment \nwith respondent-employer, was carrying a rail when he fell from an elevated \nsection of the construction site, sustaining a left hip injury.  The respondents \ntook two months of the claimant complaining about pain to send him to a \ndoctor, but initially accepted the injury as compensable.  Claimant initially \nwas provided treatment from Dr. Sherita Willis, where his complaints were \nof left hip and blow (sic) back pain.  Claimant was allowed to return to Dr. \nWillis in January of 2023, where she sited (sic) that the claimant’s \ncomplaints of pain were chronic in nature.  Respondents then denied his \nclaim.  Claimant was then forced to treat on his own and went to Dr. Rickey \nCarson, where he complained of low back and left hip pain, and was \nreferred to Dr. John Rocco Rodney.  Claimant underwent an MRI which \nrevealed tears of his bilateral hamstring tendons, the left gluteus minimus \nand medius tendons, and at the right insert of the gluteus medius tendons.  \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  8\n  \n \n \nClaimant contends that he suffered a compensable injury at work, that he is \nentitled to temporary total disability, medical benefits, and that his attorney \nis entitled to an attorney’s fee.  All other issues are reserved.”   \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend they accepted \nthis claim as a medical only.  The claimant continued to work for \nRespondent/Employer through 3/19/23, when he was terminated.  As is \nevidenced by the attached wage information.  The medical documentation \ndoes not support an off work status beyond that.  In light of this, it is \nRespondents’ position Claimant is not entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits.  Additionally, the medical records indicate the claimant does not \nhave any acute objective findings to support an injury on 9/9/22.  The \nclaimant has received unauthorized medical treatment with Drs. Rodney \nand Carson.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether Claimant is entitled to any additional reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment rendered after January of \n2023. \n2.  Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \n(TTD) and permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits from \nSeptember 9, 2022, to a date yet to be determined.   \n3.  Attorney’s fee.  All other issues are reserved.   \n The respondents’ attorney corresponded with the administrative law \njudge on September 29, 2023: \nEnclosed please find the indexes for Respondents’ medical \nand non-medical exhibits.  Claimant has not produced \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  9\n  \n \n \nobjective evidence of an acute, work-related injury to his hip.  \nTherefore, Respondents are not willing to stipulate that he \nsuffered a compensable injury to that body part.  Additionally, \nRespondents assert that Claimant’s current symptoms and \ncomplaints are the result of a new accident occurring 06/02/23 \nwhen he was hit by a car as a pedestrian.  Respondents also \nassert that Claimant is not entitled to temporary total disability \nboth because there is insufficient evidence that he remained \nin a healing period while being totally incapable of working, \nbut also because he returned to work at pre-injury wages after \nhis alleged accident.   \n \n After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nNovember 29, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nproved he sustained a compensable injury to his left hip.  The \nadministrative law judge awarded reasonably necessary medical treatment \nbut found that the claimant was not entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits.   \n The administrative law judge filed an amended opinion on December \n13, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved he \nsustained a compensable injury to his left hip.  The administrative law judge \nawarded reasonably necessary medical treatment but found that the \nclaimant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits.  The \nadministrative law judge reserved the issue of permanent anatomical \nimpairment and wage-loss disability.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission and the respondents cross-appeal. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  10\n  \n \n \n A.  Compensability \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Supp. 2023) 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 be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D(Supp. \n2023).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Supp. \n2023).   \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)(Supp. 2023).  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 An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  \nClaimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \na compensable injury to his left hip on September 9, 2022.”  The Full \nCommission affirms this finding.  The parties stipulated that the employment \nrelationship existed on September 9, 2022.  The claimant testified that he \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  11\n  \n \n \nslipped and fell while carrying a set of rods on the work site.  The claimant \ntestified that he immediately felt pain in his back and left hip.  The parties \ninitially stipulated that the claimant “sustained compensable injuries to his \nleft hip and low back” on September 9, 2022.  The respondents now \ncontend that the claimant did not sustain a compensable left hip injury, but \nthey have not withdrawn their stipulation that the claimant sustained a \ncompensable back injury.   \n The claimant began treating with Dr. Willis on November 22, 2022.  \nThe claimant reported pain in his left hip which had been “present for 1-6 \nmonths,” and Dr. Willis also assessed “1.  Acute low back pain.”  Dr. Willis \ntreated the claimant conservatively.  However, Dr. Willis advised the \nclaimant on January 10, 2023 that his pain was “chronic and is not a work \ninjury.\"  The Commission has the authority to accept or reject a medical \nopinion and the authority to determine its medical soundness and probative \nforce.  Green Bay Packaging v. Bartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 692 \n(1999).  In the present matter, the Full Commission attaches minimal \nevidentiary weight to Dr. Willis’ conclusion that the claimant’s pain was \n“chronic and is not a work injury.”  We find that the claimant’s complaints of \npain were causally related to the compensable injury which occurred on \nSeptember 9, 2022.   \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  12\n  \n \n \n The Full Commission also finds that the claimant proved he \nsustained a compensable left hip injury.  An MR of the claimant’s left hip on \nMarch 27, 2023 showed, among other things, “3.  Low-grade partial-\nthickness tears at the insertions of the left gluteus minimus and medius \ntendons.”  These objective medical findings demonstrated a compensable \ninjury to the claimant’s left hip and were not within the claimant’s voluntary \ncontrol.   \n The parties have stipulated that the claimant sustained a \ncompensable injury to his low back.  The Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant proved he also sustained a compensable injury to his left hip.  The \nclaimant proved that he sustained an accidental injury causing physical \nharm to his left hip.  The injury arose out of and in the course of \nemployment and required medical services.  The injury was caused by a \nspecific incident which was identifiable by time and place of occurrence on \nSeptember 9, 2022.  In addition, the claimant established a compensable \ninjury to his left hip by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  \nDiagnostic testing on March 27, 2023 plainly showed partial thickness tears \nin the claimant’s left gluteus.  We find that these objective medical findings \nwere causally related to the compensable injury and were not the result of a \nprior injury or pre-existing condition.     \n B.  Medical Treatment \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  13\n  \n \n \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. \n2023).  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).  What \nconstitutes reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for \nthe Commission.  Wright Contracting Co. v. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 \nS.W.2d 70 (1984).   \n In the present matter, the claimant sustained a compensable injury to \nhis low back and left hip on September 9, 2022.  The Full Commission finds \nthat the medical treatment of record provided beginning November 22, 2022 \nwas reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injury to the \nclaimant’s low back and left hip.  The evidence does not demonstrate that \nany of the claimant’s medical treatment of record was “unauthorized” in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-514(Supp. 2023).  As we have \nnoted, the record contains an unsigned “Formulario AR-N.”  The claimant \ntestified, however, that he did not sign a Form AR-N, and there is not a \nsigned Form AR-N in the record before the Commission.  If there is not a \nsigned and delivered Form AR-N in the record, then the claimant is not \nbound by the Change of Physician rules and is free to seek reasonably \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  14\n  \n \n \nnecessary medical treatment from any physician.  Tempworks Management \nServices v. Jaynes, 2023 Ark. App. 147, 662 S.W.3d 280 (Ark. App. 2023).      \n The record does not demonstrate that there was an independent \nintervening cause on June 2, 2023 in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-102(4)(F)(iii)(Supp. 2023).  The claimant was struck by a vehicle while \ncrossing a boulevard on June 2, 2023.  The claimant sustained a \n“comminuted fracture of the left mid femoral shaft.”  The evidence does not \ndemonstrate that the claimant re-injured his low back or left hip on June 2, \n2023.  A CT on June 2, 2023 specifically showed “No acute traumatic \nabnormality in the chest, abdomen, or pelvis [emphasis supplied].”  Dr. \nRamirez reported on June 2, 2023, “I reviewed the images my self and no \napparent injuries identified other than femur fracture [emphasis supplied].”   \n C.  Temporary Disability \n Finally, temporary total disability is that period within the healing \nperiod in which the employee suffers a total incapacity to earn wages.  Ark. \nState Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  \n“Healing period” means “that period for healing of an injury resulting from an \naccident.”  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(12)(Supp. 2023).  The healing period \ncontinues until the employee is as far restored as the permanent character \nof the injury will permit.  Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Parker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 \nS.W.2d 582 (1982).  The determination of when the healing period has \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  15\n  \n \n \nended is a question of fact for the Commission.  Porter Seed Cleaning, Inc. \nv. Skinner, 1 Ark. App. 235, 615 S.W.2d 380 (1981). \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “5.  \nClaimant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to temporary total disability benefits for any period of time.”  The \nFull Commission affirms this finding.  The claimant sustained a \ncompensable injury to his low back and left hip on September 9, 2022.  The \nclaimant testified that he returned to work the day after his compensable \ninjuries.  Dr. Willis reiterated on November 22, 2022 that the claimant could \nwork at “full duty.”  The claimant testified that he voluntarily left his \nemployment with the respondents on or about March 25, 2023.  Whether or \nnot the claimant remained within a healing period for his compensable \ninjuries, the evidence does not demonstrate that the claimant was ever \nincapacitated from earning wages.  The claimant therefore did not prove \nthat he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits.   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved he sustained a compensable injury to his low back \nand left hip.  The claimant was not bound by the change of physician rules \nbecause there was not a signed and delivered Form AR-N in the record.  \nNor does the record show that the June 2, 2023 pedestrian accident \nconstituted an “independent intervening cause” in accordance with Ark. \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  16\n  \n \n \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(4)(F)(iii)(Supp. 2023).  The claimant proved that the \nmedical treatment of record was reasonably necessary in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Supp. 2023).  The Commission notes Dr. \nRodney’s March 15, 2023 recommendation of “orthopedic followup” if \nconservative treatment failed.  The claimant did not prove he was entitled to \nany period of temporary total disability benefits.  Based on the record \ncurrently before us, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not \nprove he was entitled to permanent anatomical impairment or wage-loss \ndisability.  For prevailing in part on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is entitled \nto a fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n715(b)(Supp. 2023).   \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 \n \n \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  17\n  \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant proved he sustained a compensable injury to his low back and left \nhip and that the medical treatment of record was reasonably necessary. \nI. The claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that he \nsustained a compensable left hip or low back injury or his \nentitlement to related medical treatment. \n \na. There are no objective medical findings of a specific incident \ninjury. \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102 (4)(A)(i) provides that a \ncompensable injury includes “[a]n accidental injury causing internal or \nexternal physical harm to the body. . . An injury is ‘accidental’ only if it is \ncaused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.”  \nGenerally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising out \nof the course and scope of employment caused by a specific incident \nidentifiable by time and place of an occurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i).  This, therefore, requires that a claimant establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course \nof employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external physical harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  18\n  \n \n \ninjury as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence \nsupported by \"objective findings.\"  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). \nObjective findings cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16).  \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. \nApp. 459, 637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  In weighing the evidence, the \nCommission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony \nof any witness.  Id.  \nThe Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the \nclaimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into findings of \nfact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. \nWhite v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). \nHere, the claimant was examined by Dr. Sharita Willis on November \n22, 2022, and January 10, 2023.  Dr. Willis ultimately opined that the \nclaimant’s pain was chronic and not a result of any work injury, and she \nreferred the claimant to his primary care physician for treatment.  \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  19\n  \n \n \nThe claimant was released to work at full duty on January 10, 2023, \nand he worked for nearly three months prior to obtaining his own MRI on \nMarch 27, 2023.  The MRI revealed, primarily, “very mild osteoarthritis of \nboth hips.” \nWith regard to the claimant’s alleged low-back injury, Dr. Willis \nassessed “Sciatica – Left – Explained to patient this pain is chronic and is \nnot a work injury.”  A later x-ray was normal with no evidence of bony or \njoint pathology, and no evidence of sciatica. \nThe claimant did not seek treatment for his alleged left hip injury for \nthree (3) months.  He never received any actual treatment for his back and \nthere were no objective medical findings on his MRI.  His treating physician \nopined his problems were chronic and not work related. \nb. The claimant’s June 2, 2023, car accident was an \nindependent intervening event.   \nOur rules provide that: \n \nbenefits shall not be payable for a \ncondition which results from a \nnonwork-related independent \nintervening cause following a \ncompensable injury which causes \nor prolongs disability or a need for \ntreatment.  A nonwork-related \nindependent intervening cause \ndoes not require negligence or \nrecklessness on the part of a \nclaimant. \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  20\n  \n \n \n \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(5)(F)(3). \n \n On June 2, 2023, the claimant was struck by a car in a severe \naccident while he was walking across an intersection in Montgomery \nCounty, Maryland, resulting in a comminuted intertrochanteric left femur \nfracture.  Claimant underwent surgery for this injury on June 3, 2023, and \nreceived extensive medical treatment for this injury which was on the same \nside of the body and in very close proximity to the alleged left hip and low \nback injuries.  \nIt is impossible to state that being hit by a moving vehicle in the \nsame area as the alleged work-related injuries is not an independent \nintervening event extinguishing the respondent’s responsibility for any \nbenefits after June 2, 2023.  In fact, the claimant has not received any \ntreatment for his left hip or low back since June 2023 that is not related to \nthe June 2, 2023 vehicular accident.  \n The evidence is clear that any treatment the claimant has received \nsince June of 2023 is the direct result of this accident on June 2, 2023, \nwhen he was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street.  While the \nclaimant attempts to distinguish between the symptoms of his alleged on-\nthe-job injury and the 2023 car accident, the records do not support his \nclaims.  \n\nCHAVEZ - H301483  21\n  \n \n \nThe claimant was not receiving treatment for his hip or back in \nMaryland prior to the accident in June 2023, and the only evidence he \npresented at the hearing indicates that all treatment has been associated \nwith that accident.  Thus, the claimant has failed to prove he sustained a \ncompensable injury to his left hip or low back.   \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H301483 ELIAS CHAVEZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.951Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H301483-2024-09-10","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Chavez_Elias_H301483_20240910.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}