{"id":"full_commission-H404478-2025-11-17","awcc_number":"H404478","decision_date":"2025-11-17","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Marilynn Vandever","employer_name":"Homebound Medical","title":"VANDEVER VS. HOMEBOUND MEDICAL AWCC# H404478 November 17, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","dismissed:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","lumbar","fracture","thoracic"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Vandever_Marilynn_H404478_20251117.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Vandever_Marilynn_H404478_20251117.pdf","text_length":16787,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO. H404478 \n \nMARILYNN G. VANDEVER, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nHOMEBOUND MEDICAL,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nSUMMIT CONSULTING LLC, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \n \nRESPONDENT \n       \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2025  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney \nat Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE ZACHARY F. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJune 26, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed \nto prove she sustained a compensable injury.  After reviewing the entire \nrecord de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not \nestablish a compensable injury by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.    \nI.  HISTORY \n Marilynn Gail Vandever, now age 71, testified that she became \nemployed with the respondents, Homebound Medical, in September 2023.  \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  2\n  \n \n \nThe claimant testified that she was hired by the respondents “to take care of \na little girl.  I am a private-duty nurse.”  The parties stipulated that an \nemployment relationship existed on or about June 12, 2024.  The claimant \ntestified on direct examination: \nQ.  And so on June 12\nth\n of 2024, were you working for \nHomebound taking care of this girl? \nA.  Yes.... \nQ.  And how old was she? \nA.  Five. \nQ.  And how much did she weigh? \nA.  She weighed between 50, 55, max.... \nQ.  So what happened on June 12\nth\n of 2024? \nA.  That morning, she was ready to get up, so I went and got \neverything together.  Got her dressed in the bed like I always \ndo and I went to lift her out of bed.  I always lift – I teach lifting \nso people don’t get hurt, but when I turned her – I picked her \nup and then I tried to turn my body around but I couldn’t turn it \naround because something was impairing my feet and I don’t \nknow what it is to this day.  So instead of turning my entire \nbody, taking those steps, I had to twist my upper torso and get \nher on the bed before I dropped her.   \nQ.  And as you were doing that, what did you experience? \nA.  Well, I got a really bad sharp pain in my lower back and \nmy buttocks and I had to lay over the bed until it released or \ngot better.  And then I continued to push her down the bed, \nyou know, scoot her down the bed to get her up and did her \nbreathing treatments and everything, and then we both just \nsat down and rested.   \nQ.  Okay.  And did you report that injury? \nA.  I did that night.  I wrote a note and sent it to them by e-mail \nthat I needed to make a report, but I didn’t really want to make \na workers’ comp report, but I wanted it on record in case I \ndidn’t get better.   \n \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  3\n  \n \n \n According to the record, the claimant sent an e-mail to Brooke \nBuchanan, the respondent-employer’s Care Coordinator, at 10:11 p.m. on \nJune 12, 2024: \n Hello Brooke \nI don’t know who to call or where to find an incident report \nform.  I got hurt at work today and need to at least make a \nrecord of it.  Please call me or email me a form.  Just know I \ndidn’t realize I was hurt, I thought it was a strained muscle, \nafter I got home and sat down to rest I had to have help \ngetting up.  And it’s not getting any easier.   \nRegretfully, \nMarilynn Vandever \n \n The claimant wrote a “To Whom this Concerns” note on June 13, \n2024: \nOn 6/12/2024, I was transferring Avarie from her bed to her \nparents’ bed, so I could get her into her wheelchair.  I \nsomehow got in a bind with my feet and instead of being able \nto turn and sit her on the bed, I had to twist my upper body \nand sit her down.  I (sic) the process, the pain in my lower \nback was excruciating and shooting into my right and left \nbuttocks.  But there was no way I could turn and put her back \ninto her bed, so I endured the pain and put her on her parents’ \nbed.  I rested for a few minutes and went on to put her into her \nwheelchair.  I really thought I had just aggravated a muscle, \nso I continued with my morning care and then rested my back.  \nI felt a twinge in my back and buttock throughout the shift, but \nI really thought it would eventually stop.   \nI finished my shift and went to get into my car, but it was \ndifficult for me to lift my left leg to put it in my car without \nburning pain in my left lower back radiating down my buttocks \nand the back of my thigh.  I came home (a 4-minute drive) and \nsat down with my feet up to rest.  After about an hour and a \nhalf I went to get up and had to have help.  I took some \nibuprofen and went to bed early.  At 0530 this morning I had \nto call my husband to help me up.  At this point, I called on-\n\nVANDEVER - H404478  4\n  \n \n \ncall and advised her that I could not go in today.  I also told \nher that I notified Brooke last night about my injury via e-mail.   \n \n Raychel Miller, an Administrative Assistant with HomeBound Home \nHealth, e-mailed the claimant at 10:24 a.m. on June 13, 2024:  “Please print \nand fill out the attached form.  We will need this returned ASAP.”   \nThe claimant sent an e-mail to an individual named “Gayla” at 11:55 \na.m. on June 13, 2024: \nI sent an injury report this morning and I think it was \nmisunderstood.  I got a message from workers comp and i \nwas surprise (sic), as I didn’t mean I wanted to file a claim.  I \nappreciate the concern, but I am sure I just have a pulled \nmuscle.  I don’t want to file a claim I just needed to let y’all \nknow I couldn’t work today and why.  Please retract the report \nto Summit because I don’t need medical attention.  I am off \nuntil next Friday, so between now and then I am sure I’ll be \nback to normal.  I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. \nThank you for your concern.   \n \n The claimant then e-mailed Raychel Miller at 11:57 a.m. on June 13, \n2024:  “Please talk to Gayla.  I am not, nor do I need to file a workers \ncompensation claim.” \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that she eventually filed a \nworkers’ compensation claim, and that the respondents authorized medical \ntreatment.  An x-ray of the claimant’s pelvis was taken on September 12, \n2024:  “Pain in left hip ... WC twisted back while lifting a patient pain left \nside.”  The impression was “No acute osseous abnormality.”   \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  5\n  \n \n \nAn x-ray of the claimant’s lumbosacral spine was taken on \nNovember 7, 2024 with the following findings: \nTwo-view lumbar spine demonstrates mild degenerative disc \ndisease.  Atherosclerotic calcification of the abdominal aorta.  \nMild facet joint arthropathy of the lower lumbar spine.  No \ncompression fracture. \nIMPRESSION:  MILD DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE AND \nFACET JOINT ARTHROPATHY OF THE LUMBAR SPINE.   \nNO ACUTE FINDINGS.   \n \n The claimant began treating at West Washington County Clinic on \nDecember 19, 2024: \nMs. Vandever is a 70yo F presenting today for low back pain \nwith radiculopathy to the LLE.  She notes pain since 6/12/24 \nwhen she was lifting a patient who weighed approx. 50lbs and \nshe twisted and she felt immediate pain.  The pain radiates to \nthe left buttock and the (sic) down to the posterior thigh....No \nhx of lumbar sx.... \nThoracic Spine examination demonstrates no spine \ntenderness on palpation. \nLumbar/Sacral Spine examination demonstrates \nLumbosacral Spine:  Tenderness:  left sciatic notch, but not \nthe lumbar spine, not the left paraspinal, not the right \nparaspinal and not the right sciatic notch.  +TTP L SI Joint.... \nMotor tone:  the muscle tone was normal.   \nInvoluntary movements:  no involuntary movements were \nseen.   \n \n Dr. Jennifer Cheatham’s impression was “1.  Low back pain radiating \nto left lower extremity,” “2.  Cervicalgia,” “3.  Hyperreflexia,” and “4.  \nSacroiliac joint pain....Will refer to physical therapy for lumbar spine and SI \njoint.  Will order a lumbar MRI to further evaluate this.  She will continue to \nfollow with pain management.”   \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  6\n  \n \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on December 30, \n2024 with the following findings: \nThe vertebral bodies of the lumbar spine maintain normal \nheight and alignment.  No fracture seen.  There is normal \nmarrow signal.  The conus medullaris terminates at L1-2 and \nis normal in signal and morphology.  There is no acute \nparaspinal abnormality seen. \nAt L1-2, no abnormality. \nAt L2-3, mild loss of disc height and disc desiccation is seen.  \nThere is mild annular disc bulging.  There is thickening of the \nligamentum flavum.  No significant neural foraminal narrowing \nor central canal stenosis.   \nAt L3-4, disc desiccation is demonstrated with annular disc \nbulge.  There is left foraminal disc fissuring.  No central canal \nstenosis or neural foraminal narrowing.  Mild bilateral facet \nosteoarthritis.   \nAt L4-5, there is mild posterior disc bulge.  There is mild \nthickening of ligamentum flavum and mild facet hypertrophy \nand osteoarthritis.  There is no significant central canal \nstenosis seen.  There is mild left neural foraminal narrowing. \nAt L5-S1, no disc herniation.  No central canal stenosis or \nsignificant neural foraminal narrowing. \nIMPRESSION:  1.  MILD LUMBAR SPONDYLOSIS \nWITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HIGH-GRADE CENTRAL CANAL \nSTENOSIS OR FORAMINAL NARROWING.   \n \n The claimant began a program of physical therapy visits on January \n2, 2025:  “Patient reports she was lifting and transferring a patient to the \nleft.  She states she has a protective pattern to prevent injury of lifting and \nthen pivoting feet instead of twisting her back.  She reports on day of \nincident her feet some how were caught and she had to turn her trunk to \ntransfer the patient and protect the patient.  However, as she did this she \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  7\n  \n \n \nhad instant pain in the low back and left hip....She reports the pain has \nprogressed since.”   \n The claimant underwent a Sacroiliac Joint injection on February 17, \n2025.     \nA pre-hearing order was filed on February 24, 2025.  According to \nthe text of the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The Claimant \ncontends that she suffered a her (sic) low back while working and is entitled \nto medical treatment and Temporary Total Disability from her date last \nworked to a day yet to be determined.  The Claimant reserves all other \nissues.” \n The respondents contended, “The Respondents contend that this \nclaim is denied.  There are no objective findings to substantiate the alleged \ninjury.  The Claimant was not injured at work.  If compensable, the claimant \nrefused a light duty job offer and is not entitled to TTD beyond the date of \nthe offer.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Compensability of an injury to the low back.   \n2. Medical treatment in regard to the low back injury. \n3. Temporary Total Disability benefits from June 12, 2024, to \na date to be determined. \n4. Attorney Fees. \n5. All other issues are reserved.   \n \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  8\n  \n \n \n   Meanwhile, the claimant was discharged from physical therapy on \nApril 23, 2025.  The claimant testified that she benefitted from physical \ntherapy and an injection.     \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on June \n26, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to \nprove she sustained a compensable injury.  The claimant appeals to the \nFull Commission.     \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n(A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external \nphysical harm to the body ... arising out of and in \nthe course of employment and which requires \nmedical services or results in disability or death.  An \ninjury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific \nincident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence[.]   \n \nA compensable injury must 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).  The requirement that a compensable injury be established by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings applies only to the \nexistence and extent of the injury.  Ford v. Chemipulp Process, Inc., 63 Ark. \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  9\n  \n \n \nApp. 260, 977 S.W.2d 5 (1998), citing Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 \nArk. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).   \nThe employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(E)(i)(Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence means the \nevidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l \nBank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered a compensable low back injury on June 13, 2024.”  The Full \nCommission finds that the claimant did not establish a compensable injury \nby medical evidence supported by objective findings.   \nThe claimant testified that she became employed as a private-duty \nnurse for the respondents in September 2023.  The parties stipulated that \nthe employment relationship existed on or about June 12, 2024.  The \nclaimant testified that she was providing home health care for a five-year-\nold girl that day.  The claimant testified that she felt a “sharp pain” in her \nlower back while lifting the patient out of bed.  The record indicates that the \nclaimant e-mailed the respondent-employer’s Care Coordinator on June 12, \n2024 and notified her that an alleged specific incident had occurred.  After \nshe was asked to complete a form, the claimant informed two \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  10\n  \n \n \nrepresentatives of the respondents in part, “I didn’t mean I wanted to file a \nclaim....I am not, nor do I need to file a workers compensation claim.”  In \nany event, the claimant’s testimony indicated that she eventually filed a \nclaim, and the claimant’s testimony indicated that the respondents \nauthorized medical treatment. \nThe claimant did not establish a compensable injury by medical \nevidence supported by objective findings.  An x-ray of the claimant’s pelvis \non November 7, 2024 showed “No acute osseous abnormality.”  An x-ray of \nthe claimant’s lumbosacral spine on November 7, 2024 showed “MILD \nDEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE AND FACET JOINT ARTHROPATHY \nOF THE LUMBAR SPINE.  NO ACUTE FINDINGS.”  The results of the x-\nrays taken November 7, 2024 cannot be interpreted as objective medical \nfindings establishing a compensable injury.  The claimant treated at West \nWashington County Clinic on December 19, 2024, where a physical \nexamination showed “Tenderness:  left sciatic notch, but not the lumbar \nspine[.]”  “Tenderness” is not an objective medical finding establishing a \ncompensable injury.  Rodriguez v. M. McDaniel Co., Inc., 98 Ark. App. 138, \n252 S.W.2d 146 (2007).   \nIt is well-settled that a report of “muscle spasms” can constitute \nobjective medical findings.  Continental Express, Inc. v. Freeman, 339 Ark. \n142, 4 S.W.3d 124 (1999).  In the present matter, that are no reports or \n\nVANDEVER - H404478  11\n  \n \n \nobservations in the record of “muscle spasm” based on a physical \nexamination of the claimant’s low back or lumbar spine.  We specifically \nnote the report at West Washington County Clinic on December 19, 2024, \n“Motor tone:  the muscle tone was normal.  Involuntary movements:  no \ninvoluntary movements were seen.”  An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine \non December 30, 2024 showed “1.  MILD LUMBAR SPONDYLOSIS \nWITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HIGH-GRADE CENTRAL CANAL STENOSIS \nOR FORAMINAL NARROWING.”  This impression from the MRI of the \nclaimant’s lumbar spine cannot be interpreted as medical evidence \nestablishing a compensable injury.   \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not establish a compensable injury by medical \nevidence supported by objective findings, in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-102(4)(D)(Repl. 2012).  We therefore affirm the administrative \nlaw judge’s finding that the claimant did not prove she sustained a \ncompensable injury.  This claim is respectfully denied and dismissed. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404478 MARILYNN G. VANDEVER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HOMEBOUND MEDICAL, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING LLC, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.955Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H404478-2025-11-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Vandever_Marilynn_H404478_20251117.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}