{"id":"full_commission-H305931-2025-08-28","awcc_number":"H305931","decision_date":"2025-08-28","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kim Welborn","employer_name":"Inspiration Point Fine Art College","title":"WELBORN VS. INSPIRATION POINT FINE ART COLLEGE AWCC# H305931 August 28, 2025","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Welborn_Kim_H305931_20250828.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Welborn_Kim_H305931_20250828.pdf","text_length":7327,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H305931 \nKIM WELBORN, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \nINSPIRATION POINT FINE ART COLLEGE, \nEMPLOYER                          RESPONDENT \n \nFIRSTCOMP INS. CO., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA         RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2025 \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas.  \nClaimant unrepresented and appearing pro se.  \nRespondents  represented  by  the  HONORABLE RANDY P.  MURPHY, \nAttorney, 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 7, 2025.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge made \nthe following findings of fact and conclusions of law:  \n1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the \npre-hearing  conference  conducted  on  January \n29, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order \nfiled that same date are hereby accepted as fact.  \n \n\n2 \nWELBORN – H305931 \n \n2. Claimant has met her burden of proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to additional medical treatment from Dr. \nDona. This includes PRP (plasma rich protein) \ninjections and hyaluronic acid injections.  \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 7, 2025 \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.  \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).  \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n      \n_______________________________ \n   SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman             \n \n_______________________________ \n   M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner   \n \n                        \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents \n\n3 \nWELBORN – H305931 \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding that the \nclaimant is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of the \ninjections prescribed by Dr. Dona for her compensable right knee injury \nsustained on June 5, 2022. In my de novo review of the record, I find the \ntreatments recommended by Dr. Dona are neither reasonable nor \nnecessary. \n      The claimant suffered a compensable injury while working as \na seasonal costume manager for the respondent employer when she \ntripped on a rubber mat, twisting her knee and tearing her meniscus. The \nclaimant’s current treating physician, Dr. Samuel Dona, prescribed platelet-\nrich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections to treat claimant’s \nongoing symptoms. \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that the \nclaimant is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of the \ninjections prescribed by Dr. Dona.  \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) requires an employer to provide an \ninjured employee with medical and surgical treatment \"as may be \nreasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the \nemployee.\" The claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence the additional treatment is reasonable and necessary. Nichols \n\n4 \nWELBORN – H305931 \nv. Omaha Sch. Dist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d 148 (2010). \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.   \nSpecifically, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, \nrecommends against the use of HA injections due to a lack of generalized \n\n5 \nWELBORN – H305931 \nresults over the course of twenty-eight (28) studies. There is limited \nstatistical proof of the benefit of HA injections. \nIn the course of litigating this claim, the respondents obtained an \nindependent review of the claimant’s medical records by Dr. Owen Kelly, an \northopedic surgeon. In a letter dated April 17, 2024, Dr. Kelly opined that \nthe claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and stated that \nhe would assign the claimant a seven percent (7%) impairment rating to the \nlower extremity. Dr. Kelly opined that regarding future medical treatment: \nNo further treatment is recommended as it relates to \nthe isolated accident. At most, the meniscal tear \nwould be attributed to the incident, but the other \nfindings which included articular cartilage loss \n(arthritis) would not be related to a one-time isolated \naccident. \n  \nThis opinion is substantiated by a post-surgical MRI dated November \n29, 2023, which showed the progression of the claimant’s meniscus.  \nPresently, the claimant has “[p]retty close” to full range of motion of \nher right knee. The injections performed by Dr. Dona to date have resulted \nin only moderate improvement according to the claimant ... “maybe 5, 10 \npercent” improvement to the claimant’s pain. The claimant testified after the \ninjections she only gets a little better and then it plateaus.  \nAs Dr. Kelly highlighted, there is a moderate recommendation \nagainst the use of HA injections due to inconsistent evidence to support its \nuse. Dr. Kelly stated in his report that PRP-Hyaluronic Acid injections are \n\n6 \nWELBORN – H305931 \nnot reasonable and necessary medical treatment for her knee.  Further, Dr. \nKelly reviewed the entirety of the claimant’s medical records prior to issuing \nhis opinion that the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement \nand that any ongoing pain is related to her chronic arthritis. This evidence \nwas arbitrarily disregarded by the ALJ.  \nDr. Kelly’s opinion is strong evidence that the prescribed treatment is \nnot necessary or reasonable for the treatment of the claimant’s \ncompensable injury, as the claimant’s medical records clearly indicate her \ninjury has resolved.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n_______________________________ \nMICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H305931 KIM WELBORN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT INSPIRATION POINT FINE ART COLLEGE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIRSTCOMP INS. CO., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.092Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H305931-2025-08-28","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Welborn_Kim_H305931_20250828.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}