{"id":"full_commission-H406771-2026-01-13","awcc_number":"H406771","decision_date":"2026-01-13","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Calvin Walton","employer_name":"City Of Stuttgart","title":"WALTON VS. CITY OF STUTTGART AWCC# H406771 & H500714January 13, 2026","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","back","lumbar","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Walton_Calvin_H406771H500714_20260113.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Walton_Calvin_H406771H500714_20260113.pdf","text_length":11269,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NOs. H406771 & H500714 \n \n \nCALVIN WALTON, EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF STUTTGART, SELF-INSURED,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                           RESPONDENT \n \n \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, TPA                              RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 13, 2026 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE STEVEN R. McNEELY, \nAttorney at Law, Jacksonville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MARY K. EDWARDS, \nAttorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed August 29, 2025. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over these claims.  \n \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and \nare hereby accepted.  \n \n\n \nWalton- H406771 & H500714 2  \n \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he suffered a compensable neck injury \non 26 January 2024 (Claim No H406771). \n \n4. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that \nthe claimant earned an average weekly wage of \n$806.12 at the time of his accepted right shoulder  \ninjury on Claim No H406771, which entitled him to a \nweekly TTD benefit of $538.  \n \n5. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he was entitled to additional TTD benefits \nfrom 13 January 2025 to 9 May 2025, or any period \ntherein, on Claim No H406771.  \n \n6. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish \nthat the respondents underpaid the claimant on TTD \nbenefits on Claim No H406771.  \n \n7. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment for his lower back injury on Claim No \nH500714.  \n \n8. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he is entitled to an IME related to his \nstipulated compensable right shoulder injury on Claim \nNo H406771.  \n \n9. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \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 \n\n \nWalton- H406771 & H500714 3  \n \n \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 August 29, 2025 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    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs and dissents. \n \nCONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION      \n The  Claimant  appeals  an  Administrative  Law  Judge  (hereinafter \nreferred  to  as  “ALJ”)  opinion  that  the  Claimant  failed  to  prove  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to  additional  medical \ntreatment for his lower back injury on Claim No. H500714, that the Claimant \nis entitled to temporary total disability from January 13, 2025, through May 9, \n2025, that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Claimant \nearned an average weekly wage of $806.12 at the time of his accepted right \nshoulder injury on Claim No. H406771, which entitled the Claimant to a \n\n \nWalton- H406771 & H500714 4  \n \n \nweekly temporary total disability benefit of $538, and that the Claimant failed \nto  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to  an \nindependent  medical  evaluation  for  his  stipulated  compensable  right \nshoulder injury on Claim No. H406771. After conducting a thorough review of \nthe record, I would concur in part and dissent in part with the majority.  \n1. The Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nis entitled to additional medical treatment for his lower back injury on \nClaim No. H500714.  \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). The claimant \nbears  the  burden  of  proving  that  she  is  entitled  to  additional  medical \ntreatment. Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 \n(1999).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a \nquestion of fact for the Commission.  White Consolidated Indus. v. Galloway, \n74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. \nApp. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001).  \nThe Arkansas Court of Appeals has held a claimant may be entitled to \nadditional medical treatment even after the healing period has ended, if said \ntreatment is geared toward management of the injury.  See Patchell v. Wal-\nMart  Stores,  Inc.,  86  Ark.  App.  230,  184  S.W.3d  31  (2004); Artex \nHydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983).  Such \n\n \nWalton- H406771 & H500714 5  \n \n \nservices can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the nature and \nextent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms resulting \nfrom the compensable injury; maintaining the level of healing achieved; or \npreventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable \ninjury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995); \nArtex, supra. \nIn  the  present  case,  Claimant  sustained  admittedly  compensable \ninjuries to the lumbar region of his spine. On December 13, 2024, Claimant \nwas initially diagnosed with a strain of his lumbar spine, prescribed pain \nmedication, and told to return to clinic in three months. Claimant returned to \nthe clinic on February 14, 2025, and treated by Dr. Seth Kleinbeck who \nperformed an x-ray on Claimant’s lumbar spine. This lumbar x-ray showed:  \n1. There  is  chronic  degenerative  narrowing  of \nthe L2-3 and L4-5 disc spaces.  \n2. There is grade 1 anterolisthesis of L4 on L5 \nwith  associated  disc  space  narrowing  and \nfacet joint arthropathy.  \n \nDr. Kleinbeck diagnoses the Claimant with lumbar radiculopathy and refers \nthe Claimant for an MRI and injections of his lumbar spine. On March 6, 2025, \nClaimant undergoes an MRI with Dr. Kleinbeck. This lumbar MRI showed:  \n1. Multilevel degenerative disc disease and facet \narthrosis   with   canal   and   foraminal \ncompromise as detailed above at each level.  \n\n \nWalton- H406771 & H500714 6  \n \n \n2. Canal narrowing is most significant across the \nL4-5 level with moderate to severe canal and \nrecess narrowing from listhesis/moderate to \nsevere facet arthrosis.  \n3. There is moderate to severe left canal and \nrecess  narrowing  at  the  L5-S1  level  from \nbulging and extrusion as above. There is also \nassociated foraminal narrowing as above. \nDr. Kleinbeck then writes in his medical report:  \nCall  patient  concerning  MRI  lumbar  spine:  He \ndoes have a few areas where it looks like he may \nbe having some nerve compression: Would refer \nhim over to Ortho Arkansas spine clinic, since he \nis already seeing Dr. Hussey at Ortho Arkansas.  \nThe Claimant suffered a compensable injury to the lumbar region of \nhis spine and remains within his healing period and is entitled to additional \nmedical treatment to diagnose whether Claimant has nerve compression in \nhis lumbar spine. Therefore, I dissent with the opinion of the ALJ and would \nrefer  Claimant  to  Ortho Arkansas  to  be  seen  by  Dr.  Hussey  for  further \ntreatment.  \n2. The Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the \nClaimant earned an average weekly wage of $848.62 at the time of \nhis  accepted  right  shoulder  injury  on  Claim  No.  H406771,  which \nentitled him to a weekly temporary total disability benefit of $566. \nArkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-518 states that:  \n(a)(1) Compensation shall be computed on the \naverage weekly wage earned by the employee \nunder the contract of hire in force at the time of \nthe accident and in no case shall be computed on \nless than a full-time workweek in the employment.  \n...  \n\n \nWalton- H406771 & H500714 7  \n \n \n(b)  Overtime  earnings  are  to  be  added  to  the \nregular weekly wages and shall be computed by \ndividing the overtime earnings by the number of \nweeks  worked  by  the  employee  in  the  same \nemployment under the contract of hire in force at \nthe time of the accident, not to exceed a period of \nfifty-two (52) weeks preceding the accident.  \nThe  record  is  absent  of  the  Claimant’s  contract  of  hire  and  the \nClaimant’s wage records are the only evidence provided as to the Claimant’s \nearnings. The wage records show that as of January 12, 2024, Claimant was \nreceiving an hourly wage of $17.50 per hour. On January 26, 2024, Claimant \nsuffered a compensable right shoulder injury, therefore Claimant’s hourly \nwage at the time of the accident was $17.50 per hour. At a forty-hour work \nweek, Claimant would make $700 per week based on a $17.50 hourly wage.  \nWhere an employee had been promoted shortly before her accident, \nthe Workers’ Compensation Commission properly calculated her average \nweekly wage using employee’s hourly wage at the time of the accident plus \novertime for the previous year where, at the time of and after accident, she \nwas working extensive hours at that wage, despite occasionally performing \nother jobs at a lower wage. Cracker Barrel v. Lassiter, 87 Ark. App. 286, 190 \nS.W.3d 911 (2004). Prior to January 12, 2024, Claimant earned an overtime \nwage of $24.00 per hour based on an hourly wage of $16.00 per hour. At the \ntime of the January 26, 2024, work accident, Claimant wage records reflect \nan increase in his hourly wage of $17.50 per hour making Claimant’s new \n\n \nWalton- H406771 & H500714 8  \n \n \novertime wage $26.25. Based on the wage records in evidence, Claimant \nworked a total of 96.25 hours of overtime over a period of 17 weeks. 96.25 \nhours under the wage records at the time of the accident would equate to an \nadditional $2526.56 of wages to be added to the average weekly wage base \npay to be divided by 17 weeks. This equates to an additional $148.62 per \nweek.  \nTherefore, the Claimant’s average weekly wage should be calculated \nas $848.62 for Claimant’s accepted shoulder injury on Claim No. H406771, \nwhich entitles him to a weekly temporary total disability benefit of $566. Thus, \nthe Respondents underpaid the Claimant for his temporary total disability \nbenefits provided after his right shoulder surgery. \n On all other issues properly before this Commission, I concur with \nthe majority. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOs. H406771 & H500714 CALVIN WALTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF STUTTGART, SELF-INSURED, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 13, 2026 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.894Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H406771-2026-01-13","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Walton_Calvin_H406771H500714_20260113.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}