{"id":"full_commission-H501091-2026-05-15","awcc_number":"H501091","decision_date":"2026-05-15","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kristi Hill","employer_name":"Incite Rehab, LLC","title":"HILL VS. INCITE REHAB, LLC AWCC# H501091 May 15, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["carpal tunnel","shoulder","sprain","rotator cuff","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Hill_Kristi_H501091_20260515.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Hill_Kristi_H501091_20260515.pdf","text_length":30441,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H501091 \n \nKRISTI HILL, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nINCITE REHAB, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nCCMSI, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED MAY 15, 2026  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., \nAttorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE JARROD S. PARRISH, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nNovember 12, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she sustained a compensable injury.  After reviewing the \nentire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant proved \nby a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable \ninjury.  The claimant proved that she was entitled to reasonably necessary \nmedical treatment, including surgery performed by Dr. Tobey.  The claimant \nproved that she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning \nFebruary 8, 2025 until a date yet to be determined.     \n\nHILL - H501091  2\n  \n \n \nI.  HISTORY \n Kristi Hill, now age 58, testified that she had been employed with the \nrespondents, Incite Rehab, LLC.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \n  Q.  How long had you been employed there? \n  A.  At Ashton Place, for 20 years.  Incite, since 2011. \nQ.  So was Ashton Place and in the year 2025 Incite, was that \nall part of the same employment or was that separate \nemployment or what? \nA.  Just a different rehab company, Incite, in 2011.   \nQ.  So you were doing the same work all that time? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \nQ.  And Incite came in and took over your predecessor \nemployer? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  What were your job duties? \nA.  Transferring patients, standing balance activities, gait \ntraining, and therapeutic exercise.   \n \n The claimant testified that she had suffered from bilateral arm pain \nafter “I jumped a little ditch in a creek and I slipped.  I didn’t fall and hit the \nground, but my hands just kind of hit the bank...And probably a week later \nis when the pain started and it was just aggravating pain.\"   \nDr. Steve-Felix Belinga noted in September 2023 that the claimant \nwas complaining of “burning, stabbing, pain, and weakness on both of her \nhands/arms.”  A Neurography & Electromyography Report indicated, \n\"Unremarkable NCV of the Bilateral Upper & Lower Extremities[.]  \nUnremarkable EMG of the Right Upper & Lower Extremities[.]”   \n\nHILL - H501091  3\n  \n \n \nDr. Belinga reported in October 2023, “Patient most likely has CTS \nand CuTS, made worse after her recent fall.  EMG/NCV was WNL....She \nwas placed on steroids recently and that is the only relief she gets.”   \nDr. Kaleb Brent Smithson reported in November 2023, “Kristi R Hill \nreturns today for follow-up after carpal tunnel injections.  Reports complete \nrelief of numbness and tingling....She is still having some aching pain \nlocalized to the shoulder region.”   \nAn MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder was taken on December 10, \n2024: \n Reason for Exam:  Degenerative joint disease, shoulders.... \n COMPARISON:  Radiographs November 14, 2024.... \nIMPRESSION:  1.  Early, mild acromioclavicular joint \ndegenerative changes.  There is fluid and debris/synovial \nthickening in the subacromial/subdeltoid bursa.  The fluid is \ncompatible with bursitis if there has been no recent injection.   \n2.  Supraspinatus tendinosis with a few small foci of \nsuspected chronic, low-grade partial tearing and scarring.  \nThere are also a few thin, low-grade partial-thickness tears \nalong the medial insertion/articular surface of the infraspinatus \ntendon.   \n3.  Chrondromalacia along the right glenohumeral joint, with \nsmall spurs along the margins of the glenoid.  There is a small \nto moderate right glenohumeral joint effusion.   \n4.  Degeneration of the labrum, with a least degenerative \nfraying.   \n5.  Nonspecific pericapsular edema along the superior aspect \nof the right glenohumeral joint, with edema along the rotator \ninterval.  There is no thickening of the joint capsule. \n6.  Several bulky, right axillary lymph nodes, nonspecific.  \nCorrelate with the patients history (any history of a recent \nillness?  History of malignancy?).   \n \n\nHILL - H501091  4\n  \n \n \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nFebruary 7, 2025.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Did anything unusual happen to you on February 7\nth\n of \n2025 in the course of your employment?  Did you have an \naccident? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  Tell us about the accident.   \nA.  My patient was in a power chair and they have the foot \nplate and I moved his foot plate to put his feet on the floor and \nI took a step to the right and at the same time he had placed \nhis left foot out blocking my step, so I started losing my \nbalance and falling to the right. \nQ.  And where did you fall to? \nA.  The window next to where I was working on the mat, by \nthe mat[.]... \nQ.  So you tried to grab the wall with your left hand because \nyou were falling to the right? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And then you hit something with your right shoulder? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And what is it that you hit? \nA.  The outside of my right shoulder. \nQ.  What part of the building did you hit? \nA.  The sheetrock, the frame of the windowsill.... \nQ.  So after this incident, how long did you work following that \nincident? \nA.  Less than 10 minutes....I tried to continue my job.  I tried \nto shake it off and I was walking that lady and I was trying to \npull her chair and my arm just kept burning and burning.... \nQ.  At some point did your arm get worse or did it just stay the \nsame or what? \nA.  It got worse.  It got worse in the next few minutes.  And \nthen when I was trying to continue my job is when I realized \nthat I can’t do this.   \nQ.  And who sent you to the doctor? \nA.  My human resource lady when I called her.   \n \n According to the record, Dr. Terry Clark examined the claimant at \nOccupational Medicine-Fort Smith on February 7, 2025: \n\nHILL - H501091  5\n  \n \n \nKristi tripped over a patient’s foot hitting the window and wall \nwith right shoulder.... \nKristi’s primary problem is pain located in the right scapula, \nright shoulder.  She describes it as stabbing, aching.  The \nproblem began on 2/7/2025.  Kristi says that it seems to be \nconstant.  She has noticed that it is made worse by letting arm \nhang, moving shoulder.  Her pain level is 5.  She fell into the \nwall, striking the lateral aspect of the right shoulder.... \nRight Shoulder:  Bruising is not present.  A deformity is not \npresent.  TTP laterally and posteriorly, over the lateral edge of \nthe scapula, \nDecreased ROM on abduction, Negative empty can.... \nIMAGING STUDIES \nXRAY – Right Shoulder; No acute findings.   \n \n Dr. Clark diagnosed “1.  Contusion of right shoulder, initial \nencounter” and “2.  Unspecified sprain of right shoulder joint, initial \nencounter[.]”  Dr. Clark stated, “The cause of this problem is related to work \nactivities....Kristi’s recommended work status is Restricted Duty.  The \neffective date for this work status is 2/7/2025.” \n The claimant testified that she did not return to work for the \nrespondents after February 7, 2025.  The record contains an Orthopedic \nSurgery Outpatient Note dated March 31, 2025: \n57-year-old female here for eval bilateral shoulders.  She \nreports pain for about 2 years after she was trying to jump a \ncreek and slipped and landed on her hands.  She did not have \npain for a couple days but then started having pain in both her \nshoulders....She also reports catching and clicking of the \nshoulders....She had MRIs in December but reports she had \nan injury at work in February and [is] seeing workman’s comp \nfor that on her right shoulder.  And [is] supposed to have an \nMRI arthrogram on Thursday regarding that.  Her worker’s \ncomp provider started her in physical therapy but she reports \nthat is only making her pain worse.  She has not had any \n\nHILL - H501091  6\n  \n \n \ninjections and only gone to couple of physical therapy \nappointments. \nX-rays show downsloping acromion[.]... \n \n An APRN assessed “Bilateral shoulder pain,” “Rotator cuff tear on \nthe right, degenerative,” “Degenerative labral tear on the right,” and “Labral \ntear on the left.”  The APRN noted, “she is seeing worker’s comp for her \nright shoulder and getting an MRI arthrogram Thursday.  I discussed she \nwould need to follow up with worker’s comp and proceed with their \nrecommendations.  As we can not take over a worker’s comp issue.  We \nwill see her back PRN.” \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Clark on April 7, 2025: \nKristi tripped over a patient’s foot hitting the window and wall \nwith right shoulder.... \nThe problem began on 2/7/2025....MRI (4/3/2025) shows a \nfull-thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon.... \n \n Dr. Clark’s diagnosis on April 7, 2025 was “1.  Complete rotator cuff \ntear or rupture of right shoulder, (supraspinatus)[.]...The cause of this \nproblem is related to work activities....Kristi’s recommended work status is \nRestricted Duty.  The effective date for this work status is 4/7/2025.”   \n Dr. Jonathan Lane Tobey examined the claimant on April 30, 2025: \n57-year-old female presents for initial evaluation of her right \nshoulder.  She works at a physical therapy clinic and had a fall \non 2/7/2025 while trying to hold the patient resulting in her \nhitting the wall.  [She] has had significant right shoulder pain \nsince that time.  This is a Worker’s Comp. injury.  Patient \nstates she is only having 1 or 2 sessions of physical therapy.  \nShe has not had any previous injections in the shoulder.  She \n\nHILL - H501091  7\n  \n \n \nhad an MR arthrogram demonstrating a rotator cuff tear and \nwas referred to the orthopedic clinic.... \nImaging:  Right shoulder radiographs reviewed and \ninterpreted by myself are negative for acute fracture or \nsignificant degenerative change. \nRight shoulder MR arthrogram reviewed and interpreted by \nmyself demonstrates significant fluid extravasation through \nthe rotator interval.  There is significant signal around the \nsuperior labrum consistent with a SLAP tear.  No obvious \nrotator cuff tear.  Of note the radiology report demonstrates \nfull-thickness tear of the supraspinatus.  I disagree with this \nassessment as this appears to be the rotator interval and not \nthe rotator cuff tendon.... \nPatient’s history and exam is consistent with a SLAP tear of \nher right shoulder as well as biceps tendinitis and subacromial \nimpingement.  I do not see an obvious rotator cuff tear nor \ndoes her exam appear consistent with rotator cuff tear.  I \nrecommend patient starting in physical therapy for range of \nmotion and strengthening....Patient was given a work note for \nno lifting greater than 10 pounds or overhead activities on the \nright upper extremity.   \n \n Dr. Tobey diagnosed “Acute pain of right shoulder,” “Superior glenoid \nlabrum lesion of right shoulder, initial encounter,” and “Biceps tendinitis of \nright shoulder.” \n The record contains a Physical Therapy Evaluation dated May 6, \n2025.  The “Objective” portion of the Physical Therapy Evaluation, which \nwas based on Right Shoulder Palpation, indicated “Abnormal:  Muscle.”  \nThe claimant was provided a program of physical therapy visits.             \n Dr. Shane McAlister corresponded with Nichole Sanders on May 15, \n2025 and stated in part: \n\nHILL - H501091  8\n  \n \n \nYou have asked me to review medical records and diagnostic \nimaging on Ms. Kristi Hill (dob 03/16/1968) and provide you \nwith a written report of the findings contained therein.... \nThe first office visit record submitted is dated 2-7-2025 and is \nfrom Occupational Medicine clinic.  Here, Ms. Hill saw Dr. \nTerry Clark for right shoulder pain complaints after reporting a \ntrip and fall incident at work that day.  She reportedly tripped \nover a patient’s foot and hit her right side laterally against a \nwall.  Her pain location was noted to be the lateral aspect of \nher right scapula.  On physical examination she was tender \nalong the lateral edge of the right scapula.  No bruising was \nfound.  Plain films of the right shoulder were obtained and \ninterpreted as no acute traumatic injury.  She was diagnosed \nwith a contusion and sprain and prescribed Tylenol and Advil.  \nSprains/contusions are diagnosed with patient pain \ncomplaints, but no objective finding of tissue damage.... \nAfter reviewing these records and the submitted diagnostic \nimaging, I do not see any evidence of any acute traumatic \ninjury of the right shoulder from the fall of 2-7-2025, but rather \nevidence of old pathology that was well seen on the \nDecember 2024 right shoulder MRI scan.  The findings do \ncorrelate with the physical examination findings of Mr. Tobey \non his office visit of 4-30-2025 (I do not see that he was made \naware of the older injuries, medical care sought or the \ndiagnostic imaging of both shoulders)..  Correlation with the \noffice visits after the fall in the creek two years before should \nhelp clarify her bilateral shoulder symptom that led to the MRI \nscans of both shoulders in December 2024.... \n \n A claims specialist corresponded with the claimant on May 29, 2025: \nCCMSI administers the Workers’ Compensation program for \nIncite Rehab, LLC.   \nWe have investigated the claim and have determined that \nyour claim does not meet the criteria for a compensable work \ninjury under the Act.  Therefore your claim will be respectfully \ndenied.   \nIf you have group insurance, you may file this letter with \nthem to cover the medical charges that are not covered \nunder workers’ comp.   \n \n\nHILL - H501091  9\n  \n \n \n A physical therapist noted on June 6, 2025, “Pt reports that she was \ninformed today that her ortho appt has been cancelled by Workman’s Comp \nand she has been dropped from Workman’s comp but unsure why.  Pt \nreports she is trying to get in contact with Workman’s comp currently.”  \n The respondent-employer’s Director of Human Resources \ncorresponded with the claimant on July 28, 2025: \nI am in receipt of a note from your provider, Jonathan Lane \nTobey, MD, stating that you “may return to work with lifting no \nmore than 10 pounds on the right upper extremity and no \noverhead activities right upper extremity.”  As you know, your \nposition as a Physical Therapist Assistant requires that, as an \nessential function of your position, you move and lift patients \nin an amount exceeding the restriction provided by your \nprovider.  There is not a reasonable accommodation available \nthat would allow you to perform the essential functions of your \nposition with the restriction you currently have.  Accordingly, \nyou are not eligible to return to your position at this time and, \nthus, your position with Incite Rehab is terminated \nimmediately.   \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on August 20, 2025.  The claimant \ncontended that she “sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder \non February 7, 2025 and was provided authorized medical treatment from \nthat date until on or about May 29, 2025.  The Claimant contends that she \nis entitled to temporary total disability benefits from when they stopped until \na date yet to be determined, as well as additional medical treatment.”  The \nclaimant contended that “since Respondent is controverting this claim in its \nentirety, his attorney is entitled to a fee on all indemnity benefits.”     \n\nHILL - H501091  10\n  \n \n \n The respondents contended that “while this claim was initially \naccepted as compensable, based on documentation received, the claimant \ndid not suffer a compensable injury under the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Act.  In light of this, it is Respondents’ position that Claimant \nis not entitled to benefits associated with this claim.  Alternatively, in the \nevent compensability is found, benefits were paid to the claimant through \n9/21/25, and they should be entitled to a credit for benefits paid prior to \ndenial of the claim.  Additionally, the claimant received short-term disability \nbenefits and Respondent may have a credit for those benefits paid in the \nevent compensability is found in this matter.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Compensability of injury to right shoulder on February 7, \n2025. \n  2.  Related medical. \n3.  Temporary total disability benefits from date last paid \nthrough a date yet to be determined.   \n4.  Respondents’ entitlement to a credit for benefits paid prior \nto denial of claim and for short-term disability benefits paid. \n5.  Attorney’s fee.   \n \n Dr. Tobey performed surgery on September 4, 2025:  “Right \nshoulder arthroscopic long head biceps tenodesis[.]  Right shoulder \narthroscopic distal clavicle excision[.]  Right shoulder arthroscopic extensive \ndebridement including superior labral tear, anterior labral tear, extensive \nglenohumeral synovitis, subacromial bursal tissue, anterior inferior edge of \nthe acromion.”  Dr. Tobey reported the following Findings at Surgery: \n\nHILL - H501091  11\n  \n \n \nRight shoulder diagnostic arthroscopy demonstrated \nextensive glenohumeral synovitis.  Large unstable superior \nlabrum tear with extension into the anterior labrum.  No \nsubscapularis tear.  No loose bodies in the axillary recess.  \nPosterior labrum intact.  Glenohumeral cartilage intact.  \nLipstick lesion long of the biceps tendon.  No articular sided \nsupraspinatus or posterior cuff tear.  Subacromial space with \nextensive subacromial bursal tissue.  No bursal sided cuff \ntear.  Small anterior-inferior hooking acromion[.]   \n \n After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nNovember 12, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she sustained a compensable injury.  The administrative law \njudge therefore denied and dismissed the claim.  The claimant appeals to \nthe Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. \n2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n  (A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external physical \nharm to the body ... arising out of and in the course of \nemployment and which requires medical services or results in \ndisability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused \nby a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence[.]   \n \n A compensable injury must also 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 \n\nHILL - H501091  12\n  \n \n \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. \n2012).   \n The 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). \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  \nClaimant has failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that she suffered a compensable injury to her right shoulder \non February 7 2025.”  The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved \nby a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable \ninjury to her right shoulder. \n The claimant testified that she had been employed with the \nrespondent-employer’s predecessor for 20 years and then the respondents \nsince 2011.  The claimant testified that she had previously suffered from \nbilateral arm pain after she “jumped in a little ditch in a creek and I slipped.”  \nSubsequent electrodiagnostic testing was normal.  An MRI of the claimant’s \nright shoulder in December 2024 showed degenerative changes which \nincluded low-grade partial-thickness tears and fraying.   \n\nHILL - H501091  13\n  \n \n \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nFebruary 7, 2025.  The claimant testified that she sustained a work-related \naccidental injury that date.  The claimant testified that she slipped, fell, and \nhit the outside of her right shoulder on the frame of a windowsill.  The \nclaimant, who the Full Commission finds was a credible witness, testified \nthat her condition quickly worsened and that the respondent-employer’s \nHuman Resources manager directed her to seek medical treatment. \n The claimant received authorized medical treatment from an \noccupational physician, Dr. Clark, beginning February 7, 2025.  Dr. Clark \ndiagnosed “1.  Contusion of right shoulder” and “2.  Unspecified sprain of \nright shoulder joint.”  The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held on several \noccasions that a contusion is an objective medical finding.  See Northwest \nArk. Cmty. Coll. v. Migliori, 2018 Ark. App. 286, 549 S.W.3d 399.  See also \nEllis v. J.D. & Billy Hines Trucking, Inc., 104 Ark. App. 118, 289 S.W.3d 497 \n(2008), citing Parson v. Ark. Methodist Hosp., 103 Ark. App. 178, 287 \nS.W.3d 645 (2008).     \n   The Full Commission finds in the present matter that Dr. Clark’s \ndiagnosis of “Contusion of right shoulder” was an objective medical finding \nwhich was not within the claimant’s voluntary control.  There were other \nobjective medical findings in the record which established a compensable \ninjury.  Based on an MRI taken April 3, 2025, Dr. Clark reported “a full-\n\nHILL - H501091  14\n  \n \n \nthickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon.”  Dr. Clark’s diagnosis on April \n7, 2025 was “1.  Complete rotator cuff tear or rupture of right shoulder.”  On \nApril 30, 2025, Dr. Tobey diagnosed the objective finding of “Superior \nglenoid labrum lesion of right shoulder, initial encounter.”  A physical \ntherapist also evaluated the claimant on May 6, 2025, and, based on Right \nShoulder Palpation, reported “Abnormal:  Muscle.”  We find that the \nphysical therapist’s physical notation of an abnormal muscle was an \nobjective medical finding which could not come under the claimant’s \nvoluntary control.  Finally, as we have noted, Dr. Tobey performed surgery \non September 4, 2025.  Dr. Tobey’s Findings at Surgery included a “Large \nunstable superior labrum tear with extension into the anterior labrum.”  The \ntreating surgeon’s report of a large unstable superior labrum tear was \nanother objective medical finding establishing a compensable injury. \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012) et seq.  \nThe claimant proved that she sustained an accidental injury causing \nphysical harm to the right shoulder.  The claimant proved that the injury \narose out of and in the course of employment, required medical services, \nand resulted in disability.  The claimant proved that she injury was caused \nby a specific incident and was identifiable by time and place of occurrence \n\nHILL - H501091  15\n  \n \n \non February 7, 2025.  The claimant also established a compensable injury \nby medical evidence supported by objective medical findings which could \nnot come within the claimant’s voluntary control.  These objective medical \nfindings included contusion of the right shoulder, full-thickness tear of the \nsupraspinatus tendon, rotator cuff tear or rupture of right shoulder, superior \nlabrum glenoid lesion of the right shoulder, abnormal muscle, and large \nunstable superior labrum tear.  The Full Commission finds that these \nobjective medical findings were causally related to the February 7, 2025 \ncompensable injury and were not the result of a prior nonwork-related injury \nor pre-existing condition.   \n Based on our de novo review of the entire record, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved she sustained a compensable \ninjury.  The claimant proved that the medical treatment of record provided \non and after February 7, 2025, including surgery performed by Tobey, was \nreasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant proved that she remained within a \nhealing period and was totally incapacitated from earning wages beginning \nFebruary 8, 2025.  The Full Commission therefore finds that the claimant \nproved she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning \nFebruary 8, 2025 until a date yet to be determined.  See Ark. State Hwy. \nDept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  The \n\nHILL - H501091  16\n  \n \n \nrespondents are entitled to a credit for temporary total disability benefits \nalready paid.  The respondents are also entitled to an appropriate credit in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-411(Repl. 2012).  The claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal, the claimant's \nattorney is entitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012).   \n IT IS SO ORDERED.      \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a \ncompensable injury on February 8, 2025. \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 \n\nHILL - H501091  17\n  \n \n \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 \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external \nphysical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in \ndisability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings \nestablishing an injury as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) \nthat the injury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and \nplace of occurrence.  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).  \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. \nApp. 459, 637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  In weighing the evidence, the \n\nHILL - H501091  18\n  \n \n \nCommission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony \nof any witness.  Id.  The Commission is not required to believe the \ntestimony of the claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate \ninto findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy \nof belief.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 \n(2001). \n In the present case, the claimant has failed to meet her burden of \nproving that she suffered a compensable injury, due to her extensive history \nof degenerative shoulder findings.  After her 2023 fall while jumping across \na creek, the claimant sought treatment with Dr. Steve-Felix Belinga, who \nnoted in September 2023 that the claimant was complaining of “burning, \nstabbing, pain, and weakness on both of her hands/arms.”  The claimant \nreported “aching pain localized to the shoulder region” to Dr. Kaleb \nSmithson in November 2023.  On December 10, 2024, the claimant \nunderwent an MRI of her right shoulder, which revealed, among other \nthings, degenerative joint disease of the shoulders, “fluid and \ndebris/synovial thickening in the subacromial/subdeltoid bursa,” low-grade \npartial thickness tears of the infraspinatus tendon, degeneration of the \nlabrum with degenerative fraying.  \n\nHILL - H501091  19\n  \n \n \n Further, the respondent sought the opinion of Dr. Shane McAlister, a \nradiologist, regarding the claimant’s medical records, including both MRIs. \nDr. McAlister opined as follows: \nAfter reviewing these records and \nthe submitted diagnostic imaging, I \ndo not see any evidence of any \nacute traumatic injury of the right \nshoulder from the fall of 2-7-2025, \nbut rather evidence of old \npathology that was well seen on \nthe December 2024 right shoulder \nMRI scan. The findings do \ncorrelate with the physical \nexamination findings of Dr. Tobey \non his office visit of 4-30-2025. \n \nThere is no evidence in the record beyond the claimant’s own self-\nserving testimony that her treating physicians for her 2025 injury, Dr. Terry \nClark or Dr. Jonathan Tobey were aware of this medical history, which \ninherently renders their findings incomplete.  In fact, Dr. McAlister opines \nthat he believes Drs. Clark and Tobey were not provided with the claimant’s \nearlier imaging, which could potentially alter the claimant’s future care.  Dr. \nMcAlister’s report contains the only evidence of a practitioner reviewing the \nclaimant’s entire history prior to issuing an opinion.  For this reason, Dr. \nMcAlister’s report is entitled to greater weight than those of Dr. Clark and \nDr. Tobey who lacked key information regarding the claimant’s prior injury. \nIt is clear from the record that there was no difference between the \n\nHILL - H501091  20\n  \n \n \nclaimant’s December 10, 2024 and April 3, 2025 MRIs and the claimant’s \nalleged right shoulder injury and subsequent surgery are not supported by \nthe weight of the credible evidence. \nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H501091 KRISTI HILL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT INCITE REHAB, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CCMSI, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 15, 2026","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.532Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H501091-2026-05-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Hill_Kristi_H501091_20260515.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}