{"id":"full_commission-H400805-2025-02-11","awcc_number":"H400805","decision_date":"2025-02-11","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Chase Boyd","employer_name":"Cwc Mechanical LLC","title":"BOYD VS. CWC MECHANICAL LLC AWCC# H400805 February 11, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Boyd_Chase_H400805_20250211.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Boyd_Chase_H400805_20250211.pdf","text_length":11024,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H400805 \n \nCHASE BOYD, EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \n \nCWC MECHANICAL LLC, EMPLOYER                                 RESPONDENT \n \n \nACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF \nAMERICA, CARRIER                                                             RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 11, 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 JARROD S. PARRISH, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed October 1, 2024. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \nhas jurisdiction over this claim. \n  \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are \nhereby accepted.  \n \n\nBoyd-H400805    2 \n \n \n3. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his \nback by specific incident.  \n \n4. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his \nback by gradual onset.  \n \n5. Because of Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law Nos. 3 \nand 4, supra, the remaining issues—whether Claimant \nis entitled to temporary total disability benefits and to a \ncontroverted attorney’s fee, and when did he furnish \nnotice of his alleged compensable injury—are moot \nand will not be addressed. \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion the Administrative Law Judge's decision is \nsupported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies \nthe law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from a preponderance \nof the evidence that the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law \nJudge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission.  \n Therefore, we affirm and adopt the October 1, 2024 decision of the \nAdministrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as \nthe decision of the Full Commission on appeal.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n\nBoyd-H400805    3 \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n  The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as \n“ALJ”) found that the Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he sustained a compensable injury to his back by specific \nincident or gradual onset and that Claimant is not entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits nor a controverted attorney’s fee.  The Claimant appeals \nthis decision.  After conducting a thorough review of the record, I would find \nthat the Claimant proved he sustained a compensable injury to his back by \nspecific incident, and that Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits. \n1. The Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe has sustained a compensable injury to his back by specific \nincident.  \nTo establish a compensable injury by a preponderance of the \nevidence the Claimant must prove: (1) an injury arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16), establishing the injury; and (4) that the injury \n\nBoyd-H400805    4 \n \n \nwas caused by a specific and identifiable time and place of occurrence.  A \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability must be \nstated within a degree of medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 \nArk. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002).  \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such \nmedical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the \ninjury received by the employee.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). \nReasonable and necessary medical services may include those necessary \nto accurately diagnose the nature and extent of the compensable injury; to \nreduce or alleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; or to \nmaintain the level of healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of \nthe damage produced by the compensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, \nInc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995).  \n On December 10, 2023, Claimant was working for Respondent and \nwas handed a 10-foot-long piece of pipe weighing approximately 40-60 \npounds and, as he was trying to maneuver it into position, felt a pop in his \nback.  Claimant reported that he had begun to experience back pain to \nrepresentatives of Respondent.  The Respondent’s did not provide medical \ntreatment for the Claimant following his injury until Claimant reported his \n\nBoyd-H400805    5 \n \n \nwork injury again on January 25, 2024.  Following this accident, the \nClaimant continued to work and his condition further deteriorated.  \n Claimant began receiving medical treatment for his back injury on \nJanuary 26, 2024, in the form of chiropractic care as recommended by the \nRespondent.  At this chiropractic visit, the Claimant gave a history of his back \ninjury on December 11, 2023. Although the Claimant’s recollection of the \nactual date he experienced back pain was not exact, I find that his testimony \nas to the manner in which the work accident took place was credible. The \nClaimant was then referred to his primary care physician for evaluation of his \nlower back condition.  On January 31, 2024, Dr. Jonathan Cain wrote a letter \nto Respondent stating that the Claimant may return to work on February 1, \n2024, on light duty pending more diagnostic testing.  On February 12, 2024, \nClaimant is seen by Dr. Christina Carl who diagnosed the Claimant with \nlumbago and observed in his lower back on x-ray.  Claimant is then referred \nfor an MRI for a definitive diagnosis, physical therapy, and given the work \nstatus of “may return to work on 2/22/2025 with light duty restrictions until \nphysical therapy is completed.”  On February 26, 2024, Dr. Christian Carl \nwrites a letter on Claimant’s condition stating “Due to recent testing and \nappointments, Chase Boyd can not do any kind of bending or flexing of his \nback.  Mr. Boyd can also not lift anything over 25 pounds.  He can return to \nwork with these restrictions, until physical therapy is completed.”  On March \n\nBoyd-H400805    6 \n \n \n18, 2024, Claimant is diagnosed with lumbosacral radiculopathy at S1 as the \nMRI of the lumbar spine shows “small disc protrusion at L5-S1 contracting \nthe right S1 nerve root.  No significant spinal canal or foraminal stenosis.” \nClaimant is then referred to neurosurgery and given the work restriction of \n“may return to work on 4/18/2024 or until Neurosurgery clears him for work.”  \nOn April 15, 2024, Claimant is seen by Dr. Carie Wells.  Dr. Wells reviews the \nMRI taken in February 2024 and finds “L3/4 diffuse bulge; L4/5 bilateral LRS \nsecondary to facet and disc disease; L5/S1 interspace narrowing with right \nparacentral disc  bulge  minimal.”    Dr.  Wells diagnoses  the  Claimant  with \nlumbar radiculopathy and states the Claimant is to “remain off work until \ncompleting PT and PM due to increased pain with pressure on lower back.”  \nA doctor is not required to be absolute in an opinion nor are the \nmagic words “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty” even \nrequired to be used by the doctor for an injury to be related to the work \naccident.  Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296 (2001).  \nRather, the medical opinion must simply be more than speculation. Id.  If a \ndoctor renders an opinion about causation of a workers’ compensation \ninjury with language that goes beyond possibilities and establishes that \nwork was the reasonable cause of the injury, this should pass muster. Id.  \nHere, the Claimant was seen by multiple physicians who visualized disc \nbulges at L3/4, and disc protrusions at L5/S1 and treated Claimant for \n\nBoyd-H400805    7 \n \n \nmuscle spasms.  The Claimant relates to these physicians that the pain \nbegan in early December of 2023.  There is no credible evidence in the \nrecord that the Claimant experienced difficulty performing his employment \nduties or that these injuries were present before the Claimant felt a pop in \nhis back on December 10, 2023.   Therefore, I find that the Claimant has \nproven by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable \ninjury to his back on December 10, 2023.  The Claimant is entitled to \nreasonable and necessary medical care as required by Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-508 for his compensable injury, including treatment he has received to \ndiagnose the nature and extent of his compensable injury and any \ntreatment he may need for his compensable injury in the future.  \n2. Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability from January 31, \n2024, until a date yet determined.  \nTemporary total disability benefits are appropriate where the employee \nremains in the healing period and is totally incapacitated from earning wages.  \nArk. State Highway Dep’t v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  \nClaimant was taken off of work on January 31, 2024, and was subsequently \ntaken off work by multiple other physicians after each appointment he had for \nhis compensable back injury.  The last note in the record by a physician states \nClaimant is to “remain off work until completing PT and PM due to increased \npain with pressure on lower back.”  There is no evidence in the record that \n\nBoyd-H400805    8 \n \n \nClaimant has finished physical therapy or pain management thus his work \nrestrictions are still in place.  Therefore, I find that Claimant is entitled to \ntemporary  total  disability  from  January  31,  2024,  until  a  date  yet  to  be \ndetermined. \nBased on these findings, the Claimant’s attorney would be entitled to \na controverted attorney’s fee on the indemnity benefits found here within.  \nLastly, it is mentioned by the Respondent’s that they were not given \nproper notice of the injury.  This argument lacks merit as the Claimant told \nhis co-workers and supervisor on the date of injury and followed up with his \nsupervisor before filing this workers’ compensation claim.  The Claimant then \nfilled out an AR-N on January 29, 2024.  The Respondent was given notice \nof the Claimant’s injury in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-701.  \n  For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H400805 CHASE BOYD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CWC MECHANICAL LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.575Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H400805-2025-02-11","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Boyd_Chase_H400805_20250211.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}