{"id":"full_commission-H303578-2024-09-26","awcc_number":"H303578","decision_date":"2024-09-26","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Brandon Shackelford","employer_name":"Allen Family Enterprises, LLC","title":"SHACKELFORD VS. ALLEN FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LLC AWCC# H303578 September 26, 2024","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["back","sprain","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Shackelford_Brandon_H303578_20240926.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Shackelford_Brandon_H303578_20240926.pdf","text_length":25511,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H303578 \n \nBRANDON G. SHACKELFORD, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nALLEN FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nNATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT \nSERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, \nLittle Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE JASON M. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed as Modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nMay 3, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved \nhe sustained a compensable injury.  The administrative law judge found \nthat the claimant proved he was entitled to reasonably necessary medical \ntreatment and temporary total disability benefits.  After reviewing the entire \nrecord de novo, the Full Commission affirms the administrative law judge’s \nopinion as modified.      \nI.  HISTORY \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  2\n  \n \n \n The record indicates that Brandon George Shackelford, now age 38, \nbecame employed with the respondents, Allen Family Enterprises, LLC on \nor about July 15, 2022.  The parties stipulated that the employee-employer-\ncarrier relationship existed on or about May 5, 2023.  The claimant testified \non direct examination: \nQ.  Tell us about May the 5\nth\n of 2023.  Do you remember \nwhere you were? \n A.  Yes. \n Q.  Where was that? \nA.  It’s in Benton, Arkansas....In a residential neighborhood.  I \nshowed up.  Jackson Chandler, the guy that was just in here, \nhe was already working.  And so, I hopped out and I was \nassisting him.  I had tools, he had tools too, shovels, and they \njust wasn’t doing the job.  They wasn’t getting us nowhere for \nus to get any deeper.  So I went back and got a rock bar to \nwhere we could get deeper....The rock bar, I went and got, it’s \nroughly about six foot tall, probably, around 35, fortyish \npounds maybe.   \nQ.  Okay.  This is just a steel bar? \nA.  Yes identical looking like a blown up nail is that it looks \nlike....And so I’m using it.  I grabbed it, stabbed it in the \nground, instantly knew – I felt something in my elbow.  \nSomething was not right.... \nQ.  Now, you’re rubbing here on your right elbow? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  Is that where you felt the pain? \nA.  Yes....A sharp, ripping pain.... \nQ.  And did you finish out the work day? \nA.  I did finish out the work day.   \n \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that he notified the respondent-\nemployer on May 14, 2023 that an accidental injury had occurred, and that \nthe respondents directed the claimant to treat at Saline Memorial Hospital.  \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  3\n  \n \n \nAccording to the record, the claimant treated at Saline Memorial on May 15, \n2023: \n37-year-old male presents emergency room for complaints of \npain in his right elbow extending digitally down his right \nforearm.  Patient states that he is a line worker and was using \na heavy metal bar to break up the ground and the bar twisted \nand got out of balance causing him to twist his elbow.  Onset \nx2 weeks.  States it is just gradually getting worse and he is \nhaving difficulty using his arm....Swelling of the elbow noted, \nRight elbow.   \n \n A Nursing Assessment also indicated, “Pt arrives to the ED for eval \nof R elbow injury caused by manual labor.  Pt had his R elbow twisted in an \nawkward fashion....Injury occurred May 5\nth\n.”  The diagnosis was “Lateral \nEpicondylitis” and the claimant was treated conservatively.   \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that the respondent-employer \ndirected him to treat at Concentra Occupational Health.  The record \nindicates that Clint Bearden, PA-C treated the claimant at Concentra on \nMay 19, 2023 and diagnosed “Right elbow tendonitis.”  The Work Status \nwas, “The claimant can return to work with the following restrictions on:  \nMay 19, 2023.”  The restrictions were “No lifting more than 10 lbs right arm \nlbs.  May not grip/squeeze/pinch with right upper extremity.”  Clint Bearden \nreferred the claimant for physical therapy. \n The claimant testified that light duty with the respondent-employer \nwas not made available, and that the respondents eventually terminated his \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  4\n  \n \n \nemployment.  The claimant agreed on cross-examination that the \nrespondents paid him through May 26, 2023.         \n The claimant filed an APPLICATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT \nINSURANCE BENEFITS on July 27, 2023.  The claimant reported on the \nAPPLICATION that he had been discharged on May 29, 2023.  The \nclaimant reported that the “final incident that caused the discharge” was \n“INJURY ON THE JOB” which occurred on May 5, 2023.   \n A pre-hearing order was filed on September 19, 2023.  According to \nthe pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The claimant contends he \nsustained compensable injuries on or about May 5, 2023, to his right arm \nand elbow; that he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits continuing \nthrough a date yet to be determined.  Claimant further contends he is \nentitled to payment of medical expenses, as well as attorney’s fees.”  The \nrespondents contended that the claimant “did not sustain a compensable \ninjury.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Compensability. \n2. Temporary total disability benefits. \n3. Medical benefits. \n4. Controversion. \n \nAn MRI of the claimant’s right elbow was taken on September 28, \n2023 with the following impression: \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  5\n  \n \n \n1. Lateral epicondylitis, manifested by high grade \nintrasubstance tearing of the common extensor tendon, on \na background of severe tendinosis. \n2. Low-grade lateral ulnar collateral ligament sprain. \n3. Mild common flexor tendinosis. \n4. Low-grade sprain anterior band ulnar collateral ligament. \n5. Mild distal biceps tendinosis.  Mild reactive bicipitoradial \nedema and/or bursitis is noted. \n6. Mild elbow osteoarthrosis.  \n \nDr. Brian Norton performed surgery on October 9, 2023:  “1.  Right \nlateral epicondylectomy with common extensor tendon repair.”  The pre- \nand post-operative diagnosis was “1.  Right lateral epicondylitis.  2.  Right \ncommon extensor tendon tear.”   \nDr. Norton signed a Return to Work/School form on January 22, \n2024:  “Please excuse Brandon for 01/22/2024.  Activity is restricted as \nfollows:  Brandon must remain off work for 4 weeks.”  The claimant testified \nthat he was undergoing physical therapy visits recommended by Dr. Norton.     \nA hearing was held on February 7, 2024.  The respondents’ attorney \nexamined Chandler Jackson Brinkman: \nQ.  Were you employed with the respondents in May of last \nyear? \n A.  Yes, sir.   \nQ.  And did you work along side the claimant, Mr. \nShackelford, who is here today? \nA.  Yes, sir.... \nQ.  What were you and the claimant doing on that day? \nA.  Most of the general labor stuff, digging holes, locating \nutilities.... \nQ.  Do you recall a time when you and Mr. Shackelford were – \nor borrowed a rock bar from another contractor? \nA.  Yes, sir.... \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  6\n  \n \n \nQ.  And do you recall which day that was? \nA.  That was on Monday, May the 1\nst\n.   \nQ.  Okay.  And you, specifically, recall that being a Monday? \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  Okay.  And can you just tell me what happened at that \ntime? \nA.  So we got there the previous day, the previous work day.  \nOur supervisor had looked, like, indicated with spray paint \nwhere he wanted us to find certain utilities.  So we got to work \nand the ground was a little harder than we expected, so we \nwent a borrowed a rock bar, which was crooked.  We got to \nworking on it, me and Brandon together and we used the rock \nbar for – well, I used it a little less than he did, but for a \nconsiderable period of time.   \nQ.  Okay.  And did Mr. Shackelford strike the ground with the \nrock bar more than once? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \nQ.  Did he indicate at any time to you that he had injured any \npart of his body? \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  At what time? \nA.  I’d say probably 20 minutes, 30 minutes in to using the \nequipment.   \nQ.  What exactly did he tell you? \nA.  Just that he didn’t think the rock bar was working right, that \nit wasn’t good to use.   \nQ.  Did he, specifically, say, “I have injured my arm”? \nA.  Yeah, I guess, you could say that.   \nQ.  Did he indicate which arm? \nA.  Not to me in particular.   \nQ.  Okay.  Do you recall what he said? \nA.  Yeah, just – you know, just, you know, “My arm’s hurting.”   \nQ.  Okay.   \nA.  Nothing sudden or –  \nQ.  And was that after multiple strikes with the rock bar by the \nclaimant? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \nQ.  Okay.  And it’s your testimony that that occurred on the \n1\nst\n? \nA.  Yes, sir.... \n \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  7\n  \n \n \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on May 3, 2024.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant proved he sustained a \ncompensable injury.  The administrative law judge awarded medical \ntreatment and temporary total disability benefits.  The respondents appeal \nto the Full Commission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n A.  Compensability \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 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 \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  8\n  \n \n \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.  The \nclaimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a \ncompensable injury to his right arm/elbow by specific incident.”  The Full \nCommission affirms this finding.  The parties stipulated that the employment \nrelationship existed on or about May 5, 2023.  The claimant testified that, \nwhile performing employment services for the respondents, he manually \n“stabbed” a ground surface with a heavy steel bar.  The claimant testified \nthat he felt an instant “sharp, ripping pain” in his right elbow.  A co-worker, \nChandler Brinkman, testified that he was present at the work site in May \n2023, and he corroborated the claimant’s testimony that a work-related \nincident occurred.   \n The claimant testified that the respondents directed him to seek \ntreatment at Saline Memorial Hospital.  The nursing notes at Saline \nMemorial on May 15, 2023 corroborated the claimant’s testimony that he \ninjured his right elbow while “using a heavy metal bar to break up the \nground.”  The medical report indicated, “the bar twisted and got out of \nbalance causing him to twist his elbow....Injury occurred May 5\nth\n.”  \nObjective findings were noted on May 15, 2023, namely “Swelling of the \nright elbow[.]”  Additional objective findings were reported in the MRI of the \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  9\n  \n \n \nclaimant’s right elbow taken September 28, 2023.  These objective medical \nfindings included “intrasubstance tearing of the common extensor tendon[.]” \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a “compensable injury” in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  The \nclaimant proved that he sustained an accidental injury causing physical \nharm to the body.  The claimant proved that the accidental injury arose out \nof and in the course of employment, required medical services, and resulted \nin disability.  Whether the accident occurred on May 1, 2023 as alleged by \nMr. Brinkman, or May 5, 2023, as contended by the claimant, the injury was \ncaused by a specific incident and was identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  The occurrence of the injury was “capable of being identified.”  \nSee Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 346 Ark. 487, 58 S.W.3d 369 \n(2001).  In addition, the claimant established a compensable injury by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings.  These objective medical \nfindings included post-injury swelling in the claimant’s right elbow and the \n“intrasubstance tearing” shown in the September 28, 2023 MRI.  The \nclaimant proved that these objective medical findings were causally related \nto the compensable injury and were not the result of a prior nonwork-related \ninjury or pre-existing condition.          \n B.  Temporary Disability \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  10\n  \n \n \n For scheduled injuries the injured employee is to receive temporary \ntotal disability benefits during the healing period or until the employee \nreturns to work, whichever occurs first.  Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, \n73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001); Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n521(a)(Repl. 2012).  A loss in earnings is conclusively presumed under Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-521(a)(Repl. 2012).  Wheeler Constr. Co., supra, citing \nMinnesota Mining & Mfg. v Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).   \n The healing period is that period for healing of the injury which \ncontinues until the employee is as far restored as the permanent character \nof the injury will permit.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 \nS.W.2d 457 (1994).  If the underlying condition causing the disability has \nbecome stable and nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that \ncondition, the healing period has ended.  Id.  Whether an employee’s \nhealing period has ended is a question of fact for the Commission.  Ketcher \nRoofing Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark. App. 63, 901 S.W.2d 25 (1995). \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “4.  The \nclaimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nTTD benefits from 15 May 2023 to a date yet to be determined, less the \namount of credit the respondents may claim against any unemployment \nbenefits received by the claimant.”  The Full Commission finds that the \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  11\n  \n \n \nclaimant proved he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits \nbeginning May 27, 2023 until a date yet to be determined.   \n The Full Commission has found that the claimant proved he \nsustained a compensable scheduled injury on or about May 5, 2023.  The \nclaimant was assigned work restrictions beginning May 19, 2023.  However, \nthe claimant testified that the respondent-employer did not make restricted \nwork available, and that the respondents terminated his employment.  The \nclaimant agreed on cross-examination that the respondents paid his wages \nthrough May 26, 2023.   \n The Full Commission therefore finds that the claimant proved he has \nnot returned to work after May 26, 2023 and that the claimant remains \nwithin his healing period.  The claimant underwent a right lateral \nepicondylectomy on October 9, 2023.  The Full Commission finds that Dr. \nNorton’s treatment was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  As we have noted, Dr. Norton signed a \nReturn to Work/School from on January 22, 2024:  “Please excuse Brandon \nfor 01/22/2024.  Activity is restricted as follows:  Brandon must remain off \nwork for 4 weeks.”  The claimant testified that he was receiving physical \ntherapy as recommended by Dr. Norton.  The evidence therefore \ndemonstrates that the claimant remains within a healing period and has not \nreturned to work.  There are no reports from Dr. Norton or another qualified \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  12\n  \n \n \nphysician indicating that the claimant has reached the end of his healing \nperiod with regard to the compensable scheduled injury.   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury.  The claimant proved that he was entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits beginning May 27, 2023 until a date yet \nto be determined.  The respondents are entitled to an appropriate credit for \nunemployment insurance benefits received by the claimant pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-506(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant proved that the medical \ntreatment of record, including surgery performed by Dr. Norton, was \nreasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal \nservices in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For \nprevailing on appeal to the Full Commission, the claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents \n \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  13\n  \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \nI must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding that the \nclaimant met his burden of proving that he sustained a compensable \nspecific incident injury on May 5, 2023, is entitled to reasonably necessary \nmedical treatment and temporary total disability benefits from May 27, \n2023, to a date to be determined as well as an attorney’s fee.  \n The claimant contends that he was injured on May 5, 2023, while \nusing a rock bar tool to help loosen solid ground while working for the \nrespondent employer.  The claimant testified that when he stabbed the \nthirty-five (35) pound bar into the ground, he “instantly knew -- I felt \nsomething in my elbow.  Something was not right.”  \n Ten days later, the claimant presented to the emergency room at \nSaline Memorial Hospital where he was diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis \nleft elbow.  The claimant was ultimately referred to Dr. Brian Norton, and on \nOctober 9, 2023, over 5 months after the alleged injury, Dr. Norton \nidentified tearing at the right extensor tendon and performed surgery. \n After the claimant’s employment with the respondent employer \nended, the claimant applied for and was awarded $4,880.00 in \nunemployment benefits. \n As of his January 22, 2024 post-op follow-up with Dr. Norton, the \nclaimant was to remain off work for an additional four weeks.  \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  14\n  \n \n \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 \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.  \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  15\n  \n \n \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 Enterprises, 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 \n(2001). \nHere, the claimant alleges that he sustained a compensable specific \nincident injury on May 5, 2023; however, this contention is not supported by \nthe medical evidence.  The claimant’s injury, lateral epicondylitis (or tennis \nelbow), is widely considered to be a repetitive use injury.  This is reflected in \nthe records from the claimant’s initial visit to the emergency room at Saline \nMemorial, which state, “pt ambulatory to triage for eval of non-traumatic \nright forearm pain x 2 weeks; gradually worsening, full rom noted in triage”.  \nAnother finding during the initial ER exam was, “Impression:  overuse \nsyndrome”. \nOn the basis of the medical records alone, it is obvious that the \nclaimant did not suffer a specific incident injury on May 5, 2023.  There is \nsimply no evidence that a specific incident on that date was mentioned in \nthe days or weeks following his purported injury.  The claimant’s claim \nshould be rejected on this basis alone.  However, this matter ultimately \ncomes down to a question of the claimant’s credibility. \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  16\n  \n \n \nIn workers’ compensation cases, a decision often rests solely on the \ncredibility of the claimant as a witness.  A determination of the weight and \ncredibility of a witness's testimony is exclusively within the province of the \nCommission.  Wade v. Mr. C. Cavenaugh's, 298 Ark. 363, 768 S.W.2d 521 \n(1989).  The Commission has the right to believe or disbelieve the \ntestimony of any witness, and the Commission's decision is entitled to the \nweight we give a jury verdict.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Disheroon, 26 Ark. App. \n145, 761 S.W.2d 617 (1988).  Importantly, a claimant’s testimony is never \nuncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d \n457 (1994). \nThe sole witness on behalf of the claimant to prove he sustained a \nspecific incident was the claimant himself.  Throughout the process from the \ntime of the claimant’s injury to the time of the hearing, the claimant \nmisrepresented himself or the facts on multiple occasions.  In fact, the \nclaimant’s testimony was directly controverted by Chandler Brinkman who \nwas present at the time of the alleged injury.  \nMr. Brinkman testified that the claimant’s alleged injury occurred on \nMay 1, 2023, rather than May 5, 2023, as alleged by the claimant.  He \nfurther testified that he and the claimant dug a hole for more than an hour, \nnot the short period of time described by the claimant.  \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  17\n  \n \n \nThe claimant had been using the rock bar for a considerable amount \nof time, approximately twenty to thirty minutes, before he told Mr. Brinkman \nthat his arm was hurting.  In fact, the claimant continued working at his \nregular job through the rest of that week, and Mr. Brinkman did not recall \nthe claimant complaining about his arm. \nBeyond his unreliability regarding his alleged on-the-job injury, the \nclaimant has a history of misrepresenting the truth to further his own \nagenda.  \nWhen asked at his October 2023 deposition if he had ever been \ncharged with a crime, the claimant testified that he had a DWI in 2009 and \nstated that he had no other criminal record.  However, upon further \nquestioning, the claimant finally admitted that he pled guilty to possession \nof drug paraphernalia in 2017.  The claimant did not inform the \nrespondent’s attorney of this guilty plea because he believed his record had \nbeen sealed.  \nThe claimant also misrepresented the truth to obtain unemployment \nbenefits after his employment with the respondent employer ended.  When \nhe applied for benefits, the claimant stated that he could begin work \nimmediately, could work full time, and had no disabilities which limited his \nability to perform his normal job duties.  However, at the hearing, the \n\nSHACKELFORD - H303578  18\n  \n \n \nclaimant stated, “my doctor said for me to remain off of work and don’t even \nthink about getting ready to go back.”  \nThe claimant’s testimony in this matter is simply not credible and we \nare left to rely solely upon the medical evidence and testimony of \nuninterested parties to reach our judgment.  The weight of the credible \nevidence fails to show the claimant sustained a compensable specific injury \nin May 2023.  The claimant’s history of failing to be truthful when it suits him \nto protect himself or to obtain benefits cannot be disregarded here. \nTherefore, I find that the claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the \ncredible evidence that he sustained a compensable injury, thus, all other \nissues are moot. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303578 BRANDON G. SHACKELFORD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ALLEN FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.079Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H303578-2024-09-26","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Shackelford_Brandon_H303578_20240926.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}