{"id":"full_commission-H408000-2026-04-30","awcc_number":"H408000","decision_date":"2026-04-30","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Carlos Gomez","employer_name":"C M Construction, LLC","title":"GOMEZ VS. C M CONSTRUCTION, LLC AWCC# H408000 April 30, 2026","outcome":"affirmed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","ankle","cervical","thoracic","lumbar","fracture","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gomez_Carlos_H408000_20260430.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Gomez_Carlos_H408000_20260430.pdf","text_length":15728,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H408000 \n \nCARLOS REINA GOMEZ, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nC M CONSTRUCTION, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nWELLFLEET NEW YORK INS. CO, CARRIER \n \nRESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 30, 2026 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE AARON L. MARTIN, Attorney at \nLaw, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n Respondents appeal an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed October 15, 2025.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing \nconference conducted on August 6, 2025, and contained in a pre-\nhearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n2. Claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to his low \nback and right hip on December 5, 2024. \n3. Respondent is liable for payment of all reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment provided to claimant for his compensable \ninjuries. \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  2\n  \n \n \n4. Claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to payment of one day of \ntemporary total disability benefits. \n5. Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee on all unpaid \nindemnity benefits. \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's October 15, \n2025 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n We therefore affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, \nincluding all findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, and adopt the \nopinion as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal. \n All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and \nwith interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the Administrative \nLaw Judge's decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. \n2012). \n For prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-715(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the Full \nCommission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  3\n  \n \n \nhundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(b)(Repl. \n2012). \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \n     \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding \nthat the claimant suffered a compensable injury on December 5, 2024. \n The claimant contends that he was injured when he tripped and fell \napproximately 12 feet to the ground while employed by CM Construction, \nLLC on December 5, 2024. The claimant was taken to the emergency room \nat Northwest Medical Center Springdale where he was hospitalized from \nDecember 5, 2024, through December 13, 2024. Claimant’s primary \ncomplaints immediately after the accident included severe back pain and \nright ankle pain.  \nWhile hospitalized, the claimant underwent CT scans of the brain, \ncervical spine, chest, abdomen, pelvis and MRIs of the pelvis, cervical \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  4\n  \n \n \nspine, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine. None of these tests revealed any \nacute findings. \n Upon release from Northwest Medical, the claimant began outpatient \nphysical therapy and follow-up care at Community Clinic in Springdale. Due \nto claimant’s continued complaints of pain, Kathy L. Mayhew, D.O. at \nCommunity Clinic recommended that claimant undergo an evaluation by an \northopedic specialist.   \n On March 5, 2025, claimant was evaluated by Dr. Marcus Heim, \nD.O. at the Orthopedic Center of Northwest Arkansas who ordered an MRI \nof the right hip and an EMG/NCV electrodiagnostic study of the right lower \nextremity. Dr. Heim assessed claimant’s condition at that time as right hip \npain and right lumbar radiculopathy. \n Following these tests, claimant returned to Dr. Heim. In his report of \nMay 14, 2025, Dr. Heim stated that the MRI scan of the hip showed early \ndegenerative changes but no evidence of acute osseous pathology or \navascular necrosis. He also noted that the EMG/NCV was essentially \nnormal with the exception of the “lack of recruitment of fibers to the EHL.” \n After a hearing, an ALJ opined the claimant had met his burden of \nproving he sustained a compensable injury, and he was entitled to \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment and one day of temporary \ntotal disability benefits.  \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  5\n  \n \n \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102 (4)(A)(i) provides that a \ncompensable injury includes “[a]n accidental injury causing internal or \nexternal physical harm to the body. . . An injury is ‘accidental’ only if it is \ncaused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.”  \nGenerally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising out \nof the course and scope of employment caused by a specific incident \nidentifiable by time and place of an occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i). This, therefore, requires that a claimant establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course \nof employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external physical harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an \ninjury as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence \nsupported by \"objective findings.\" Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D). \nObjective findings cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16).  \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  6\n  \n \n \nIt is within the Commission's province to weigh all the medical \nevidence, to determine what is most credible, and to determine its medical \nsoundness and probative force. Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark. App. \n459, 637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  \nIn weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily \ndisregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness. Id. The \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any \nother witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those \nportions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief. White v. Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). \nIn the present matter, the claimant fell approximately twelve feet from \na roof. Despite an eight day stay at Northwest Medical Center in \nSpringdale, doctors were unable to find any objective signs of injury. \nBetween the date of claimant’s injury and March 31, 2025, the claimant \nunderwent a multitude of testing, including multiple MRIs, CT scans, \nmultiple X-rays, and electrodiagnostic testing, all of which revealed only \ndegenerative changes or pre-existing conditions. \nA CT scan on the date of claimant’s injury was unremarkable. It \nrevealed “[t]horacic vertebral body heights are preserved. No displaced \nsternal or rib fracture. No chest wall hematoma.” According to the CT scan \nreport, the claimant’s liver, spleen, left kidney, adrenals and pancreas were \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  7\n  \n \n \nnormal. A CT of the cervical spine was negative for acute findings. CT \nscans of the claimant’s legs showed “[n]o acute findings in either leg. Old \nposttraumatic and degenerative changes were present in the right ankle.” A \nhead CT revealed “[n]o acute intracranial abnormality.”  \nAn MRI of the claimant’s pelvis dated December 11, 2024, showed \nno acute findings. An MRI of the cervical spine dated December 9, 2024, \nfound: \nAlignment of the craniocervical junction is \nmaintained. No evidence of craniocervical or \ncervical ligament injury. Straightening of the \nnormal cervical lordosis. No acute cervical \nfracture. Vertebral body heights are \nmaintained. Multilevel dis desiccation and disc \nheight loss. \n \nCervical cord is normal in caliber and signal. \n \nParaspinal soft tissues are normal. Included \nposterior fossa structures are normal. \n \nC2-C3: No canal or neural foraminal stenosis. \n \nC3-C4: No canal or neuroforaminal stenosis. \n \nC4-C5: Disc osteophyte complex asymmetric \nto the right, facet osteoarthritis and \nuncovertebral hypertrophy. Findings results \n(sic) in mild bilateral neural foraminal stenosis. \nDisc bulge effaces the anterior thecal sac and \nresults in mild flattening of the right hemicord. \n \nC5-C6: Disc osteophyte complex, facet \nosteoarthritis and uncovertebral hypertrophy \nresults in moderate left and mild right neural \nforaminal stenosis. Moderate canal stenosis. \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  8\n  \n \n \n \nC6-C7: Disc bulge and uncovertebral \nhypertrophy results in mild bilateral neural \nforaminal stenosis. No canal stenosis. \n \nC7-T1: No canal or neural foraminal stenosis. \n \nIMPRESSION: \n \n1. Multilevel degenerative disc disease of the \ncervical spine most pronounced at C5-C6 \nwhere there is moderate canal, moderate left \nand mild right neural foraminal stenosis. \n2. Level by level findings as above. \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar and thoracic spine taken the same \nday revealed that “alignment is normal of the lumbar vertebral bodies. No \ncompression fractures are seen,” and “alignment of the thoracic spine is \nnormal.” A right hip MRI showed “mild fraying of the anterior superior right \nlabrum” and bilateral degenerative joint disease.  \n Pelvic and chest x-rays revealed “no acute findings,” and an X-ray of \nthe right ankle and foot showed no acute fracture or dislocation but \nrevealed a healed right fibular fracture.  \n The claimant underwent electrodiagnostic testing on March 31, 2025. \nTesting showed “[e]ssentially normal electrodiagnostic study of the right \nlower extremity except for the diffusely decreased interference pattern and \nno active function noted in the right EHL”. These types of findings could be \nseen secondary to pain or lack of effort. There are no findings to support \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  9\n  \n \n \nradiculopathy, plexopathy, generalized peripheral neuropathy or peripheral \nnerve entrapment syndrome or injury. \n The administrative law judge agreed with these facts in his opinion \nstating, “the claimant underwent multiple tests at the emergency room and \nduring his hospitalization that were interpreted as negative.” The sole basis \nfor the ALJ’s findings that the claimant suffered a compensable injury is \n“numerous notations of claimant being given Flexeril for muscle spasms,” \nlumbar radiculopathy, and mild fraying of the anterior superior right labrum.  \nFrom the outset, no practitioner who treated the claimant has related the \nright labral fraying to the claimant’s fall.  \n While Dr. John Marcus Heim assessed the claimant with right lumbar \nradiculopathy at a March 5, 2025 visit, after reviewing the March 31, 2025 \nelectrodiagnostic testing performed by Dr. Miles Johnson, Dr. Heim \nremoved that assessment from the claimant’s records and advised the \nEMG/NCV was essentially normal.  \nDr. Heim’s report agrees with the position of the respondents that the \nMRI of claimant’s hip “reveals some early degenerative changes but no \nevidence of acute osseous pathology or AVN. With respect to his \nEMG/NCV it is essentially normal.” \n The ALJ reasons that the claimant’s prescription for Flexeril for \nmuscle spasms is sufficient to establish an objective finding based upon the \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  10\n  \n \n \nresults of Nucor Yamato Steel Co. v. Shelton, 2025 Ark. App. 249, 713 \nS.W.3d 494 (2025). The Arkansas Court of Appeals declined to overrule its \nprior opinion that a diagnosis of lumbar sprain along with prescribed \ntreatment of medication for “muscle spasms” is sufficient to establish \nobjective findings of a compensable injury.  \n However, a claimant who has received a prescription “as needed for \nmuscle spasms” has not established objective findings of injury. Howell v. \nArkadelphia Human Development Center, 2023 Ark. App. 441, 675 S.W.3d \n925 (2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s findings that \ncomplaints of muscle spasms did not constitute objective findings, stating: \nHowell's treating physician's notes from his \nexamination of Howell specifically state, \"No \nPalpable spasm noted.\" That is, it is clear from \nthese notes that Dr. Larey did not prescribe \nCelebrex, Flexeril, and Ultracet for muscle \nspasms. And if there was any confusion about \nthis, Dr. Larey confirmed it in his response to \nthe carrier's request for information, stating \nthat he \"did not palpate/observe muscle \nspasms\" or diagnose or observe any other \n\"acute objective findings of an injury.\" And \nfinally, Howell's two lumbar MRIs were normal. \nId. \n \nThe court of appeals in Howell deferred to the \nCommission’s findings of the weight and \ncredibility of the medical evidence, stating: \n[t]he Commission interpreted and weighed the \nmedical evidence and concluded that the \nprescription for muscle spasms was not an \nobjective finding of an injury in light of all the \nevidence. The Commission specifically found \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  11\n  \n \n \nHowell's testimony that she suffered from \nmuscle spasms as a result of the July 8 injury \nnot credible and found \"no probative evidence \nof record demonstrating that the claimant was \nsuffering from muscle spasms. Id \n \nRespondents contend that these cases, read together, create a \nrebuttable presumption that a prescription for a muscle relaxer is an \nobjective finding of spasms. In this case, there is no mention of the claimant \ncomplaining of muscle spasms throughout his treatment.  \nA thorough review of the record reveals no instance of a doctor, \nnurse, or physical therapist observing a muscle spasm. In fact, the ALJ \nneglects to mention that Flexeril, as with the majority of the medications \nprescribed while in the hospital, was ordered pro re nata – as needed. A \nreview of the medical records reveals that the order for “Flexeril: 0 mg, Oral, \nTID, PRN: spasm” is simply placed in the event that a spasm occurred, not \nnecessarily because it had occurred.  \nThere is no evidence that any Flexeril was ever administered, that \nthe claimant requested it, or that the claimant made any complaint of \nmuscle spasms. It is clear from the record that no muscle spasm was ever \ndocumented by any medical provider that treated the claimant.  \n Our caselaw does not support a finding that the claimant sustained a \ncompensable injury. Extensive testing over the course of approximately six \nmonths revealed no objective findings, the claimant never complained of \n\nGOMEZ- H408000  12\n  \n \n \nmuscle spasms and no medical provider ever documented a muscle \nspasm.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n                                     ______                                     _______ \n      MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H408000 CARLOS REINA GOMEZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT C M CONSTRUCTION, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT WELLFLEET NEW YORK INS. CO, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 30, 2026","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.615Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H408000-2026-04-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Gomez_Carlos_H408000_20260430.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}