{"id":"full_commission-H307524-2025-07-03","awcc_number":"H307524","decision_date":"2025-07-03","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kanekalon Bishop","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Corrections","title":"BISHOP VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AWCC# H307524 July 03, 2025","outcome":"reversed","outcome_keywords":["reversed:1","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","wrist","carpal tunnel","cervical","thoracic"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bishop_Kanekalon_H307524_20250703.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Bishop_Kanekalon_H307524_20250703.pdf","text_length":46278,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H307524 \n \nKANEKALON BISHOP, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JULY 3, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. McLEMORE, \nJR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed in part, reversed in part. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nDecember 31, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant’s \nevaluation at Functional Testing Centers, Inc. was reasonably necessary.  \nThe administrative law judge found that the claimant proved she was \nentitled to a 1% permanent anatomical impairment rating.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant proved she was entitled to \nadditional compensation in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n505(Repl. 2012).   \n\nBISHOP - H307524  2\n  \n \n \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthe claimant did not prove the evaluation at Functional Testing Centers, Inc. \nwas reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n508(a)(Repl. 2012).  We find that the claimant did not prove she was \nentitled to a permanent anatomical impairment rating.  However, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved she was entitled to additional \ncompensation in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-505(a)(1)(Repl. \n2012).           \nI.  HISTORY \n The record indicates that Kanekalon Bishop, now age 44, became \nemployed with the respondents, Arkansas Department of Corrections, on \nApril 3, 2023.  The parties stipulated that the employment relationship \nexisted at all pertinent times.  The claimant testified that she was employed \nwith the respondents on November 9, 2023, and that her job title on that \ndate was Administrative Assistant for Maintenance.  The claimant testified \non direct examination: \n  Q.  And did you sustain an injury on November 9, 2023? \n  A.  Yes. \n  Q.  Would you tell the judge what happened? \nA.  We have a thing called Employee Corporation.  So that \nday, we was selling chili dogs and chili and cheese dogs for \nthe employees and I went out to the Riot Gate to hand them – \nwe had run out of cheese and I went to the Riot Gate to hand \nthem something through the Gate and the lady that was in \nmaster control wasn’t paying attention and she let the Gate \nback on my arm as I was handing something....I had to \n\nBISHOP - H307524  3\n  \n \n \nscream.  I was screaming for her to run back and push the \nbutton to open it back up on my arm.   \nQ.  So it, automatically, closed on your right arm? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \n \n According to the record, the claimant treated at MedExpress on \nNovember 9, 2023: \nPatient is a 43 yo female who presents with right forearm \npain.  States while at work gate closed on her arm causing \nimmediate edema and pain.... \n \n A physician’s assessment on November 9, 2023 was “1.  Pain of \nright forearm” and “2.  Contusion of right forearm.”  The record indicates \nthat the respondents began paying temporary total disability benefits on \nNovember 10, 2023.  Amanda Dinwiddie, a WCC Claims Specialist, \ninformed the claimant on November 20, 2023, “Public Employee Claims \nDivision (PECD) administers the workers compensation benefits for ADC – \nMaximum Security Unit/Tucker Max.  PECD has accepted your injury of \n11/09/2023 as compensable and will be responsible for the authorized \nnecessary and reasonable medical treatment associated with this accident.” \nThe claimant began treating with Dr. Brian Norton on January 2, \n2024: \nThis is a 43-year-old female that comes today complaining of \na right forearm pain....The pain began back in November after \na gate slammed on her wrist/forearm.  She has significant \npain since that time.  She was seen by Dr. Hussey who \nordered an MRI of her wrist.  MRI showed no obvious \nsignificant abnormalities.... \nRight Forearm \n\nBISHOP - H307524  4\n  \n \n \nThere is significant tenderness at the intersection of the first \nand second dorsal compartments. \nThere is significant swelling in this area as well....The patient \ncontinues significant pain in the forearm likely due to \nintersection syndrome.  I recommended a steroid injection.  \nAlso recommended her go back into a wrist brace.  I will place \nher on a 5 pound work restriction.  She will come back to see \nme in a few weeks for repeat evaluation. \n \n Dr. Norton noted on January 22, 2024, “1.  The patient is doing \nbetter from her intersection syndrome.  However, she is having some \nnumbness and tingling.  I recommended getting EMG/nerve conduction \nstudy to ensure she does not have carpal tunnel syndrome....I will place her \non a 10 pound work restriction for the right side.” \n Nicholas C. Stewart, Human Resources/Training Administrator for \nthe Arkansas Department of Corrections, corresponded with the claimant \non January 23, 2024: \nYou have been absent from work since November 9, 2023.  \nOn January 12, 2024, you were mailed a letter via Fedex, \ninstructing you to provide a return-to-work date within five \ndays.  You have been denied FMLA and we have been \nunable to get in contact with you.  Regrettably, we must \nterminate your employment with the Arkansas Department of \nCorrections effective January 23, 2024.... \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \n  Q.  Had you missed work, after November the 9\nth\n? \n  A.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  Did you feel like you were able to do your job at \nthat time? \n  A.  No.... \nQ.  So between November the 9\nth\n and January 23\nrd\n, did you \nget in contact with the Department of Corrections? \n\nBISHOP - H307524  5\n  \n \n \nA.  I did.... \nQ.  And as I understand it, you were still being paid temporary \ntotal disability. \nA.  Right.     \n \n A Nerve Conduction Study/EMG was performed on January 30, \n2024 with the following impression: \n  Abnormal study. \n1. Right median motor temporal dispersion with mild axonal \nmononeuropathy at the wrist (carpal tunnel syndrome). \n2. Mild right ulnar motor conduction block at the elbow \n(cubital tunnel syndrome). \n \nDr. Norton noted on February 13, 2024, “Patient underwent nerve \nconduction study on 1/30/2024.  The nerve study shows significant carpal \ntunnel syndrome as well as some cubital tunnel syndrome....I \nrecommended proceeding with surgery.  This will be in the form of right \ncarpal tunnel release, intersection syndrome release, as well as radial \ntunnel release.”   \nDr. Norton performed surgery on March 13, 2024:  “1.  Right radial \ntunnel release.  2.  Right carpal tunnel release.  3.  Right second dorsal \ncompartment tenosynovectomy.”  The pre- and post-operative diagnosis \nwas “1.  Right radial tunnel release.  2.  Right carpal tunnel release.  3.  \nRight second dorsal compartment tenosynovectomy.”  \nDr. Norton provided follow-up treatment after surgery, and he noted \non April 23, 2024, “At this point I will allow her to return to work without \nrestrictions.  She will continue with therapy in the form of range of motion \n\nBISHOP - H307524  6\n  \n \n \nand strengthening.  She will come back to see me in 6 weeks.”  Dr. Norton \nsigned a Return to Work/School form dated April 23, 2024:  “May return to \nwork/school on:  4/23/2024....Work limitations:  No restrictions.”  The record \nindicates that the respondents paid temporary total disability benefits until \nApril 23, 2024.       \nAmanda Dinwiddie corresponded with the claimant on April 25, 2024: \nI have been notified by Dr. Norton’s office that you were \nreleased to return to work full duty on 4/23/2024.   \nYour last temporary total disability (TTD) check in the amount \nof $292.26 representing date 4/18/2024 to 4/23/2024 has \nbeen ordered.  Please find this check enclosed.   \nPublic Employee Claims Division will continue to pay for any \nmedical treatment that is reasonable and necessary related to \nyour workcomp injury.   \n \n The claimant’s attorney corresponded with Amanda Dinwiddie on \nApril 26, 2024: \nMy understanding is that Ms. Bishop was terminated by the \nRespondent Employer while she was off for her injuries.  Now \nthat she has been released to return to work, please accept \nthis correspondence as the Claimant’s formal demand that his \nemployment with Respondents be reinstated immediately.  In \naddition, we must insist that her employment pick up where it \nleft off regarding her probationary period and all benefits \nwhich had previously accrued.  In other words, she should be \nreinstated with the same position, pay, seniority, and progress \nregarding her probationary period as if her employment had \nnever been terminated in the first place.  The Claimant \ndemands to be returned to work with the same wages and \nbenefits.  Please advise as soon as possible whether the \nRespondent employer will meet our demands as outlined in \nthis correspondence.  It should be noted that her \nreinstatement should be done without causing her any \n\nBISHOP - H307524  7\n  \n \n \nprejudice as a result of her termination which was the result of \na work-related injury.   \nTo the extent that the Respondents contend that they do not \nhave any work available within the Claimant’s physical and \nmental limitations, please advise of any and all positions \ncurrently available and/or posted on any job site or otherwise \nmade known to the public.   \n \n Randall Watson, an Institutional Human Resource Manager with the \nrespondent-employer, informed the claimant on May 3, 2024, “I received \nyour application for an Administrative Specialist I.  Your interview will be \nMay 6, 2024, at 9AM, at the Maximum-Security Unit[.]...”  \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  I see an e-mail addressed to you on Friday, May 3\nrd\n, that \nsays, “Received your application.”  Had you applied? \nA.  Yes.  They told me I had to reapply again.  I had to restart \nwhen my attorney reached out to – they told me I had to \nreapply all over again.  I had to start all over again....I had to \ninterview.   \n \n Nicholas C. Stewart thereafter e-mailed Randall Watson and several \nothers on May 3, 2024: \nRandall, we are reinstating her employment.  She does not \nhave to interview.  Just call her to come complete paperwork \n(computer based).  She needs to complete the onboarding \ndue to ARCareers protocol.... \n \n An e-mail from Randall Watson dated May 10, 2024 indicated that \nthe claimant’s employment with the respondents was to begin on May 13, \n2024.  The claimant testified that she returned to work on May 13, 2024. \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \n\nBISHOP - H307524  8\n  \n \n \nQ.  So when you started May 13, you, actually, went back to \nyour original job? \nA.  Yes, and then, they moved me – about three or four weeks \nlater, they moved me to Commissary.   \n \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Norton on May 29, 2024:  “1.  \nOverall patient is doing well.  She was released from therapy.  At this point I \nbelieve she can return to work without restrictions.  I will also place her at \nMMI.  She will come back to see me as needed.”   \nA pre-hearing order was filed on June 27, 2024.  The claimant \ncontended, “The Claimant contends that she sustained injuries to her right \nwrist in the course and scope of her employment on or about November 9, \n2023.  Respondents initially accepted the claim and paid medical and \nindemnity benefits.  The Claimant was released by Dr. Norton on or about \nApril 23, 2024.  The Claimant has not yet been assigned a rating but she is \nentitled to PPD due to the surgery to repair her carpal tunnel syndrome and \nlesion of the radial nerve.  Claimant was terminated by the Respondents \nwhile off of work per her Dr. Norton’s order.  Once the Claimant was \nreleased, Respondents did not offer her a return to work despite a demand \nfor reinstatement.  Respondents finally reluctantly reinstated the Claimant \non or about May 20, 2024.  The Claimant contends that she is entitled to \nbenefits pursuant to 11-9-505(a)(1) during the refusal and attorney’s fees.  \nAll other issues are reserved.”   \n\nBISHOP - H307524  9\n  \n \n \n The respondents contended, “The Respondent contends that the \nclaimant reported having an injury to her right arm occurring November 9, \n2023 which Respondent accepted as compensable.  Respondent has \nprovided medical treatment reasonable and necessary for the claimant’s \ninjury, including carpal tunnel release surgery performed by Dr. Brian \nNorton on March 13, 2024.  Respondent paid TTD benefits to the claimant \nfrom November 10, 2023 until April 23, 2024 when she was released by Dr. \nNorton to return to work full duty.  The claimant has not been assigned an \nimpairment rating, but does have a follow up appointment with Dr. Norton.  \nThe claimant has in fact returned to work for her employer already since her \nrelease to work full duty, and therefore has no claim for benefits under §11-\n9-505(a)(1).  The Respondents reserve the right to raise additional \ncontentions, or to modify those stated herein, pending the completion of \ndiscovery.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether the claimant is entitled to PPD benefits. \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to benefits under §11-9-\n505 related to the time between her termination and \nreinstatement. \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to attorney’s fees.  All \nother issues are reserved. \n \nDr. Norton reported on July 1, 2024: \nKanekalon Bishop is a 43-year-old female that underwent \nright carpal tunnel release, intersection syndrome release, \nand radial tunnel release in March.  Following the surgery the \n\nBISHOP - H307524  10\n  \n \n \npatient completed a course of therapy.  She did well during \nher therapy and has gotten progressively better.  At her last \nvisit on 5/29/2024 I released her to drive to work without \nrestrictions.  She will come back to see me as needed. \nImpairment rating is 0%.  This impairment rating is based on \nthe AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, \nFourth Edition.  This statement is made with a reasonable \ndegree of medical certainty.   \n \n The claimant testified that her attorney arranged a visit at Functional \nTesting Centers, Inc.  Casey Garretson, an Occupational Therapist, \nprovided an “IMPAIRMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY – Upper Extremity” \nat Functional Testing Centers, Inc. on August 16, 2024.  Casey Garretson \nassigned the claimant a “Total Loss of Motion Impairment” of 1%.  Mr. \nGarretson noted, “Measurement of passive maximum radial and ulnar \ndeviation are recorded using goniometer readings using measurement \ntechnique below.”  Mr. Garretson measured the passive “Radial/Ulnar \nDeviation” to be 1%.  The claimant testified that the respondent-carrier had \nnot paid the 1% permanent impairment rating assigned by Casey \nGarretson.       \nDr. Norton reported on August 21, 2024: \nPatient follows up today after right radial tunnel release, right \nintersection release, and right carpal tunnel release performed \non 3/13/2024.  The patient had recurrent numbness and \ntingling in the hand as well as some cramping.  [She] has a \nnumbness and tingling ring and small finger.... \nAssessment \nStatus post right radial tunnel release, right intersection \nrelease, and right carpal tunnel release. \nRight cubital tunnel syndrome. \n\nBISHOP - H307524  11\n  \n \n \nPlan \n1. The patient now seems to be having recurrent numbness \nand tingling as well as cramping in the hand.  I did \nrecommend a repeat EMG/nerve conduction study for \nevaluation.  Patient remain on normal work without \nrestrictions.  Patient will come back see me after the nerve \ntest.   \n \nThe claimant contended the following on September 17, 2024: \nThe Claimant contends that she sustained injuries to her right \nwrist in the course and scope of her employment on or about \nNovember 9, 2023.  Respondents initially accepted the claim \nand paid medical and indemnity benefits.  The Claimant was \nreleased by Dr. Norton on or about April 23, 2024.  Dr. Norton \ndid not assign a rating but she is entitled to PPD due to the \nsurgery to repair her carpal tunnel syndrome and lesion of the \nradial nerve.  The Functional Testing Centers has assigned \nthe Claimant a 1% rating to the upper extremity which has \nbeen controverted by the Respondents.  Claimant was \nterminated by the Respondents while off of work per her Dr. \nNorton’s order.  Once the Claimant was released, \nRespondents did not offer her a return to work despite a \ndemand for reinstatement.  Respondents finally reluctantly \nreinstated the Claimant on or about May 13, 2024.  The \nClaimant contends that she is entitled to the 1% impairment \nrating; benefits pursuant to 11-9-505(a)(1) during the \nRespondents refusal to return her to work and attorney’s fees.  \nAll other issues are reserved.   \n \n The respondents corresponded with the administrative law judge on \nSeptember 24, 2024: \nPlease accept the attached exhibits on behalf of the \nRespondent in this matter, Arkansas Department of \nCorrections and Public Employee Claims Division (PECD), \nincluded is Respondent’s Medical Exhibit and Respondent’s \nDocumentary Exhibit which I will introduce into evidence at \nthe hearing set Thursday October 3, 2024 at 12 noon in Pine \nBluff.  Thank you for your assistance with this filing. \n\nBISHOP - H307524  12\n  \n \n \nThe claimant has added new contentions that she is entitled \nto an impairment rating she obtained herself from an \nunauthorized physician, and that Respondent should have to \npay for that unauthorized visit.  Respondent contends that it is \nnot liable for this unauthorized treatment, and that this was not \na reasonable and necessary medical treatment since the \ntreating physician has already addressed the claimant’s \npermanent impairment and found that the claimant has 0% \npermanent impairment.  The claimant had demanded on July \n29 a return visit to Dr. Norton, who had performed the \nclaimant’s surgery.  Respondent notified the claimant on July \n30 that the return visit to Dr. Norton would be provided, on \nAugust 2 that the doctor’s office was trying to reach the \nclaimant, and on August 7 that an appointment was scheduled \nAugust 21.  The claimant notified Respondent on August 20 \nthat she had obtained her own impairment rating from an \nunauthorized provider on August 16.  At the August 21 \nappointment, Dr. Norton ordered a new EMG study of the \nclaimant, with a follow up visit afterward.  These visits were \nscheduled September 19 and 24 respectively, however, the \nclaimant elected to reschedule the appointments October 10 \nand 16, after the hearing set October 3, while continuing to \ncontend that she needs treatment and that she has a \npermanent impairment.  Respondent contends that the \nclaimant’s contentions are contradictory, that Respondent is \nnot liable for treatment the claimant had from an unauthorized \nafter she was given the appointment she demanded from the \nauthorized provider, that permanent impairment is premature \nif the claimant is seeking additional treatment, and that the \nclaimant has not established she is entitled to an impairment \nrating at this time. \n \n The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on September 24, 2024.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section \nof the Form AR-N indicated that the Date of Accident was November 9, \n2023:  “The employee stated she was handing something to someone at \n\nBISHOP - H307524  13\n  \n \n \nthe gate.  The gate went back and closed on her right arm, jamming it.  She \nscreamed and someone opened the gate for her to release her arm.”   \nA hearing was held on October 3, 2024.  The claimant testified on \ndirect examination: \n Q.  What is your job title and position now? \n A.  Commissary down at Tucker Work Release. \n Q.  So you’re at a different facility? \n A.  Yes. \n Q.  Doing a different job? \n A.  Yes. \n Q.  Are you making the same amount of money, though? \n A.  Yes.   \nQ.  Okay.  And since returning to work in May, you’ve had \nadditional problems with your right arm, correct? \nA.  That’s correct.... \nQ.  And as I understand it and from the records that have \nbeen introduced, Dr. Norton has ordered some additional \ntesting.  He’s ordered a new EMG? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And a follow-up visit, after you have that nerve conduction \nstudy? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  You have not had that? \nA.  No. \nQ.  But it’s upcoming? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  And you’re still having problems with that arm? \nA.  Yes.   \nJUDGE HOWE:  Well, is that treatment something that’s at \nissue here? \n  MR. CALDWELL:  The additional treatment, no. \n  JUDGE HOWE:  Okay. \nMR. CALDWELL:  The respondents have accepted and \nthey’re paying the additional treatment by Dr. Norton. \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \n\nBISHOP - H307524  14\n  \n \n \nQ.  Do you like the treatment that you’ve had so far with Dr. \nNorton? \n  A.  Yes. \nQ.  Do you have any problems or issues with Dr. Norton’s \ntreatment? \n  A.  No. \nQ.  Okay.  What about that surgery?  I understand that you \nhad a surgery with Dr. Norton.  We just discussed all the \ntreatment you had.  Do you feel like the surgery helped your \nsymptoms? \nA.  No. \n \n After the October 3, 2024 hearing, the respondents proffered EMG \nand NCV findings from OrthoArkansas, dated October 10, 2024 with the \nfollowing impression: \n  Normal study. \n1. No evidence of right median or ulnar mononeuropathy. \n2. No evidence of right cervical radiculopathy.   \nRecommendations:  Follow up with Dr. Norton.  Thank you.   \n \n The respondents also proffered a report from Dr. Norton dated \nOctober 16, 2024: \nPatient follows up today after right radial tunnel release, right \nintersection release, and right carpal tunnel release performed \non 3/13/2024.  Nerve conduction study was performed on \n10/10/2024.  I went over the nerve study with her today.  The \nnerve study was normal.  The patient continues to have vague \nsymptoms in the right arm.... \nAssessment \n1. Status post right radial tunnel release, right intersection \nrelease, and right carpal tunnel release – 3/13/2024. \n2. Right cubital tunnel syndrome. \n3. Likely right thoracic outlet syndrome. \nPlan \n1. I believe the patient likely has thoracic outlet syndrome.  I \nam going to refer her to therapy for some scalene \n\nBISHOP - H307524  15\n  \n \n \nexercises.  I will see her back in 6 weeks for repeat \nevaluation....Patient will return to the office as needed.   \n \nOn October 25, 2024, the respondents served a MOTION TO \nINTRODUCE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  The respondents \nprayed “that the aforementioned newly discovered evidence be introduced \ninto the record on this claim or that further hearing for the purpose of \nintroducing additional evidence be granted pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-705(c)(1)(C).”  The claimant requested that the motion be denied.   \nThe respondents then proffered yet another set of medical records, \nincluding a report from Dr. Norton dated December 11, 2024: \nPatient follows up today after right radial tunnel release, right \nintersection release, and right carpal tunnel release performed \non 3/13/2024.  Nerve conduction study was performed on \n10/10/2024.  The patient continues to have vague pain and \nwrist in the hand.  I recommended therapy for thoracic outlet \nsyndrome.  She states she has not started this yet.... \nRight wrist:  The wound has healed without evidence of \ninfection.  There is no significant swelling, inflammation, \nerythema, or edema. \nRight hand:  The wound has healed without evidence of \ninfection.  There is no significant swelling, inflammation, \nerythema, or edema.  There is full motion in the fingers.  \nSensory exam is intact to light touch.  There is no \nhyperesthesia or hypoesthesia along the palm of the hand.   \nAssessment \n1. Status post right radial tunnel release, right intersection \nrelease, and right carpal tunnel release – 3/13/2024. \n2. Right cubital tunnel syndrome. \n3. Likely right thoracic outlet syndrome. \nPlan \n1. I confirm today that the fax was sent over to JRMC \ntherapy.  Will once again send another therapy order....I \nstill recommend therapy for thoracic outlet syndrome.  She \n\nBISHOP - H307524  16\n  \n \n \nwill continue to work without restrictions.  She will see me \nback in 4 to 6 weeks.   \n \nOn December 12, 2024, the respondents served a SECOND \nMOTION TO INTRODUCE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  The \nrespondents prayed “that the aforementioned newly discovered evidence \nbe introduced into the record on this claim or that further hearing for the \npurpose of introducing additional evidence be granted pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-705(c)(1)(C).”  The claimant requested that the motion be \ndenied. \nAn administrative law judge filed an opinion on December 31, 2024.  \nThe administrative law judge denied the respondents’ motions to introduce \nnewly-discovered evidence.  The administrative law judge found that the \nclaimant’s visit at Functional Testing Centers, Inc. was reasonably \nnecessary, and that the claimant proved she was entitled to a 1% \npermanent anatomical impairment rating.  The administrative law judge \nfound that the claimant proved she was entitled to additional compensation \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-505(Repl. 2012).   \n The respondents appeal to the Full Commission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION \nA.  Medical Treatment \nThe employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such \nmedical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the \n\nBISHOP - H307524  17\n  \n \n \ninjury received by the employee.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  \nThe 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).  Preponderance \nof the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).  What constitutes reasonably necessary medical \ntreatment is a question of fact for the Commission.  Wright Contracting Co. \nv. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W.2d 70 (1984).   \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “4.  The \nclaimant has met her burden on proving that the impairment evaluation was \nreasonably necessary treatment for which the respondents are responsible \nfor the cost.”  The Full Commission does not affirm this finding.  The \nclaimant sustained a compensable scheduled injury on November 9, 2023.  \nThe claimant testified that an automatic gate closed on her right arm.  An \nexamining physician diagnosed right forearm pain and a right forearm \ncontusion.  The claimant began treating with Dr. Norton on January 2, 2024.  \nA Nerve Conduction Study/EMG taken January 30, 2024 showed carpal \ntunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome.   \nOn March 13, 2024, Dr. Norton performed a right radial tunnel \nrelease, right carpal tunnel release, and right second dorsal compartment \n\nBISHOP - H307524  18\n  \n \n \ntenosynovectomy.  Dr. Norton provided follow-up treatment after surgery.  \nDr. Norton determined on May 29, 2024 that the claimant had reached \nmaximum medical improvement.  It is well-settled that a claimant may be \nentitled to ongoing medical treatment after the healing period has ended, if \nthe medical treatment is geared toward management of the claimant’s \ninjury.  Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 \n(2004), citing Hydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d \n845 (1983).   \nNearly three months after Dr. Norton’s assessment of maximum \nmedical improvement, the claimant’s attorney arranged for an “Impairment \nEvaluation” at Functional Testing Centers, Inc.  Casey Garretson, an \nOccupational Therapist, saw the claimant at Functional Testing Centers on \nAugust 16, 2024.  Casey Garretson did not provide or recommend \noccupational therapy but instead assessed a purported anatomical \nimpairment rating.  The evidence does not demonstrate that the \n“Impairment Evaluation Summary” prepared by Casey Garretson can be \ninterpreted as reasonably necessary medical treatment in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The record does not show that \nthe impairment evaluation was “geared toward management of the \nclaimant’s injury.”  See Patchell, supra.  The Full Commission therefore \nreverses the administrative law judge’s finding that the impairment \n\nBISHOP - H307524  19\n  \n \n \nevaluation was reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable \nscheduled injury sustained by the claimant on November 9, 2023.   \nB.  Additional Compensation \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-505(a)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n(1) Any employer who without reasonable cause refuses to \nreturn an employee who is injured in the course of \nemployment to work, where suitable employment is \navailable within the employee’s physical and mental \nlimitations, upon order of the Workers’ Compensation \nCommission, and in addition to other benefits, shall be \nliable to pay to the employee the difference between \nbenefits received and the average weekly wages lost \nduring the period of the refusal, for a period not exceeding \none (1) year.   \n \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “I find that \nthe claimant is entitled to benefits under A.C.A. §11-9-505 for the time \nbetween her release, beginning 24 April 2024, and her eventual return to \nwork on 13 May 2024.”  The Full Commission affirms this finding.  Before \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-505(a)(Repl. 2012) applies, several requirements \nmust be met.  See, Torrey v. City of Fort Smith, 55 Ark. App. 226, 934 \nS.W.2d 237 (1996).  The employee must (1) prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she sustained a compensable injury; (2) that suitable \nemployment within her physical and mental limitations is available with the \nemployer; (3) that the employer has refused to return her to work; and (4) \nthat the employer’s refusal to return her to work was without reasonable \ncause.  Id.   \n\nBISHOP - H307524  20\n  \n \n \nIn the present matter, the claimant (1) proved by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she sustained a compensable injury.  The claimant \nsustained a compensable scheduled injury on November 9, 2023.  The \nrespondents began paying temporary total disability benefits on November \n10, 2023.  Dr. Norton subsequently performed surgery, and he released the \nclaimant to return to work with no restrictions on April 23, 2024.  The \nrespondents paid temporary total disability benefits until April 23, 2024.   \nOn April 26, 2024, the claimant’s attorney corresponded with the \nrespondents and “demanded” that the claimant immediately be returned to \nwork.  The record indicates that the claimant applied for resumed \nemployment with the respondents, and that the respondent-employer \ninitially planned to require the claimant to interview for re-employment.  \nHowever, the respondents’ Human Resources/Training Administrator \ncommunicated on May 3, 2024, “[W]e are reinstating her employment.  She \ndoes not have to interview.”  The claimant testified that she returned to her \nformer employment position with the respondents on May 13, 2024.  The \nevidence of record indicates that (2) suitable employment was available \nwith the respondents, (3) the employer for a time refused to return the \nclaimant to work, and (4) that the employer did not present a reasonable \ncause for initially refusing to return the claimant to work.  The Full \nCommission therefore affirms the administrative law judge’s finding that “the \n\nBISHOP - H307524  21\n  \n \n \nclaimant is entitled to benefits under A.C.A. §11-9-505 for the time between \nher release, beginning 24 April 2024, and her eventual return to work on 13 \nMay 2024.”     \nC.  Anatomical Impairment/Admission of Newly-Discovered \nEvidence \nPermanent impairment is any functional or anatomical loss remaining \nafter the healing period has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 \nArk. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  The Commission has adopted the \nAmerican Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent \nImpairment (4\nth\n ed. 1993) to be used in assessing anatomical impairment.  \nSee Commission Rule 34; Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-521(h)(Repl. 2012).  It is \nthe Commission’s duty, using the Guides, to determine whether the \nclaimant has proved she is entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment.  \nPolk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).   \nAny determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment \nshall be supported by objective and measurable physical findings.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-704(c)(1)(B)(Repl. 2012).  Objective findings are those \nfindings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  Although it is true that the \nlegislature has required medical evidence supported by objective findings to \nestablish a compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is \n\nBISHOP - H307524  22\n  \n \n \nrequired to establish each and every element of compensability.  Stephens \nTruck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).  All that \nis required is that the medical evidence be supported by objective findings.  \nSingleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244 S.W.3d 709 (2006).  \nMedical opinions addressing impairment must be stated within a reasonable \ndegree of medical certainty.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(B)(Repl. 2012).   \nPermanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that \nthe compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means \n“more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of major cause \nshall be established according to the preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(14)(Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  \nMetropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d \n252 (2003).     \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  The \nclaimant has met her burden on proving that she is entitled to PPD benefits \nconsistent with a one percent (1%) impairment rating to the whole body.\"  \nThe Full Commission does not affirm this finding.  We find, based on the \ncurrent record, that the claimant did not prove she sustained a permanent \nanatomical impairment as a result of her compensable injury. \n\nBISHOP - H307524  23\n  \n \n \nThe claimant sustained a compensable injury on November 9, 2023 \nwhen an automatic gate closed on her right arm.  A Nerve Conduction/EMG \nstudy taken January 30, 2024 was abnormal, showing carpal tunnel \nsyndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome.  Dr. Norton performed a right radial \ntunnel release, right carpal tunnel release, and second dorsal compartment \ntenosynovectomy on March 13, 2024.  Dr. Norton opined on May 29, 2024 \nthat the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement.  Dr. Norton \nreleased the claimant to return to work without restrictions, and he did not \nassign a permanent anatomical impairment rating.  Dr. Norton specifically \nreported on July 1, 2024, “Impairment rating is 0%.  This impairment rating \nis based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, \nFourth Edition.  This statement is made with a reasonable degree of \nmedical certainty.”   \nThe 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).  The Full Commission finds that Dr. Norton’s opinion is corroborated \nby the record and is entitled to significant evidentiary weight.  Dr. Norton, \nthe treating surgeon, opined that the claimant did not sustain a permanent \nanatomical impairment as a result of the compensable injury and surgery.  \nThe Full Commission recognizes the opinion of occupational therapist \n\nBISHOP - H307524  24\n  \n \n \nCasey Garretson, who stated on August 16, 2024 that the claimant had \nsustained permanent anatomical impairment in the amount of 1%.  Mr. \nGarretson based his opinion in part on purported “Radial/Ulnar Deviation.”  \nIt is within the Commission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence \nand to determine what is most credible.  Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, \n337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  In the present matter, the Full \nCommission places greater evidentiary weight on the opinion of the treating \nsurgeon than we do a one-time evaluation by an occupational therapist. \nThe claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a permanent anatomical impairment as a result of the \ncompensable injury and surgery.   \nThe respondents have filed two motions to “Introduce Newly-\nDiscovered Evidence.”  In order to introduce newly-discovered evidence, \nthe moving party must prove that the evidence is relevant, is not \ncumulative, would change the result, and the moving party must prove it \nwas diligent.  Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982), \nciting Mason v. Lauck, 232 Ark. 891, 340 S.W.2d 575 (1960).  An \nadministrative law judge found in the present matter, “The respondents’ \nmotions to introduce new evidence are denied.”  The Full Commission does \nnot affirm this finding.  We find that the new evidence should be admitted \ninto the record.   \n\nBISHOP - H307524  25\n  \n \n \nThe claimant testified on October 3, 2024 that she approved of the \ntreatment Dr. Norton had provided her, but that the claimant asserted that \nthe surgery performed by Dr. Norton did not relieve her symptoms.  The \nclaimant testified that Dr. Norton had recommended additional diagnostic \ntesting.  The respondents have proffered the results of EMG/NCV findings \nperformed at OrthoArkansas on October 10, 2024.  This electrodiagnostic \ntesting showed “no evidence of right median or ulnar mononeuropathy” and \n“no evidence of right cervical radiculopathy.”  The respondents also seek to \nadmit into the record examinations performed by Dr. Norton on October 16, \n2024 and December 11, 2024.  In these follow-up visits, Dr. Norton \ndiagnosed “right cubital tunnel syndrome” and “Likely right thoracic outlet \nsyndrome.”   \nThe Workers’ Compensation Commission has broad discretion with \nreference to admission of evidence, and our decision will not be reversed \nabsent a showing of abuse of discretion.  Brown v. Alabama Electric Co., 60 \nArk. App. 138, 959 S.W.2d 753 (1998).  The Commission is directed to \n“conduct the hearing in a manner as will best ascertain the rights of the \nparties.”  Bryant v. Staffmark, 76 Ark. App. 64, 61 S.W.3d 856 (2001).  The \nCommission should be more liberal with the admission of evidence, rather \nthan more stringent.  Id. \n\nBISHOP - H307524  26\n  \n \n \nThe Full Commission finds in the present matter that the newly-\ndiscovered evidence proffered by the respondents should be admitted into \nthe record.  In said evidence, Dr. Norton described his additional diagnostic \ntesting treatment about which the claimant had already testified at the \nhearing held October 3, 2024.  Dr. Norton’s follow-up diagnoses beginning \nOctober 16, 2024 included right cubital tunnel syndrome and likely right \nthoracic outlet syndrome.  Dr. Norton did not assess a permanent \nanatomical impairment rating, which reiterates Dr. Norton’s finding on July \n1, 2024 that the claimant had not sustained a permanent anatomical \nimpairment.  Dr. Norton described his additional treatment efforts, which \nincluded physical therapy and a repeat evaluation.  The Full Commission \nfinds that the newly-discovered evidence is relevant, is not cumulative, and \nwould change the result in that it reiterates Dr. Norton’s earlier conclusion \nthat the claimant had not sustained a permanent anatomical impairment.  \nThe Full Commission also finds that the respondents were diligent in \nintroducing the newly-discovered evidence, which evidence was not yet in \nexistence at the time of the October 3, 2024 hearing.  The Full Commission \ntherefore directs that the newly-discovered evidence proffered by the \nrespondents shall be admitted into the record.  \nAfter our de novo review of the entire record currently before us, the \nFull Commission finds that the claimant’s evaluation at Functional Testing \n\nBISHOP - H307524  27\n  \n \n \nCenters, Inc. was not reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  We find that the claimant did not prove she \nsustained a permanent anatomical impairment as a result of the \ncompensable injury.  The Full Commission affirms the administrative law \njudge’s finding that the claimant was “entitled to benefits under A.C.A. §11-\n9-505 for the time between her release, beginning 24 April 2024, and her \neventual return to work on 13 May 2024.”  Based on this award of additional \ncompensation, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing \nin part on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of \nfive hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n715(b)(1)(Repl. 2012). \nIT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton Concurs, in part, and Dissents, in part. \n \n \nCONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION \n \nI concur with the finding that the claimant failed to prove the \nevaluation at Functional Testing Centers, Inc. was reasonably necessary in \n\nBISHOP - H307524  28\n  \n \n \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012), that she failed \nto prove she was entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment rating, and \nthat the respondents’ Motion to Introduce Newly Discovered Evidence \nshould have been granted.  However, I must respectfully dissent from the \nfinding that the claimant proved she was entitled to additional compensation \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-505(a)(1)(Repl. 2012). \nThe claimant sustained a compensable injury on November 9, 2023. \nBetween January 2, 2024, and May 29, 2024, the claimant underwent \nsubstantial treatment with Dr. Brian Norton.  Dr. Norton released the \nclaimant at MMI with a zero percent (0%) impairment rating on May 29, \n2024.  \nThe claimant was returned to work at full duty and her employment \nwas reinstated on May 3, 2024.  She resumed work on May 13, 2024.  \nOur Rules provide that any employer who without reasonable cause \nrefuses to return an employee who is injured in the course of employment \nto work, where suitable employment is available within the employee's \nphysical and mental limitations, upon order of the Workers' Compensation \nCommission, and in addition to other benefits, shall be liable to pay to the \nemployee the difference between benefits received and the average weekly \nwages lost during the period of the refusal, for a period not exceeding one \n(1) year.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a)(1). \n\nBISHOP - H307524  29\n  \n \n \n Our Courts have ruled that for this provision to be applicable: \nan employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that he \nsustained a compensable injury; (2) that suitable employment which is \nwithin his physical and mental limitations is available with the employer; (3) \nthat the employer has refused to return him to work; and (4) that the \nemployer's refusal to return him to work is without reasonable cause. \nRoark v. Pocahontas Nursing & Rehab., 95 Ark. App. 176, 235 S.W.3d 527 \n(2006) (citing Torrey v. City of Fort Smith, 55 Ark. App. 226, 934 S.W.2d \n237 (1996)). \n In the present case, the respondent employer never refused to return \nthe claimant to work.  The claimant was released to work full duty by Dr. \nNorton on May 3, 2024.  That day, the claimant’s employment was \nreinstated to the same job she had prior to her injury.  Her start date was \nMay 13, 2024.  While the claimant may have initially been told that she \nwould need to apply and have an interview to return to employment, that \nwas not the case, and her employment was reinstated to the same job she \nhad prior to her injury on the same day.  The claimant only needed to \ncomplete paperwork and onboarding before returning. \n In his opinion, the ALJ seems to describe an uncertainty of \nemployment as a basis for the award of benefits under § 11-9-505. There is \nno basis in our rules for this finding, nor was there any uncertainty that the \n\nBISHOP - H307524  30\n  \n \n \nclaimant’s position would be reinstated after her release to return to work. \nFactually, the respondent employer never refused to return the claimant to \nwork. \n The ALJ stated: \n[t]he respondents argued at the hearing that the claimant’s \ntime without employment or any benefits should be excused \nas distinct from a “refusal” to reinstate her due to the nature \nof prison operations and the administrative time and process \nit takes to onboard someone into such a role.  I do not find \nthe caselaw supports such a distinction or demurrer from an \nemployer’s obligations under the law. The claimant should \nhave been reinstated upon her release without restriction. \n \nIn this holding, the ALJ is carving out an area of our Rules that is not \ncontemplated in the statute.  It is untenable to expect that every employer in \nthe state immediately return an injured employee to work without any \nprocessing delay.  The statute requires for a claimant to be entitled to \nrecovery under this statute, an employer must refuse to return an employee \nto work without reasonable cause.  \nThe ALJ’s findings far exceed the language of the statute, and it is \nclear that there was absolutely no refusal to return the claimant to work. \nThe ALJ should be reversed on this issue. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I concur, in part and \ndissent, in part. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H307524 KANEKALON BISHOP, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 3, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.136Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H307524-2025-07-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bishop_Kanekalon_H307524_20250703.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}