Twanna Carter vs. Arkansas Department Of Community Corrections

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G905176 TWANNA CARTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant is Pro Se. Respondents represented by the HONORABLE ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed as Modified. OPINION AND ORDER The claimant, pro se, appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed January 14, 2025. The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove she was entitled to additional benefits. After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove she was entitled to additional medical treatment or additional temporary total disability benefits. I. HISTORY Twanna Carter, now age 43, agreed that she became employed with the respondents, Arkansas Division of Community Corrections, in

CARTER - G905176 2 approximately 2008. The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed at all pertinent times, including August 1, 2019. An administrative law judge examined the pro se claimant: Q. What happened that day? A. That day we was told that we was gonna have to do activity on one of our instructors, which was taking down the instructor. And we all – it was, probably, approximately, about six – six of us, I think, probably more. And we had to go into a room, where he was in there acting out or whatever and we had to break him down. And each of us had a position on what we supposed to do....And it just went wrong....and when we fell, my leg went one way and my body went another and we just tumbled and they fell on my leg and it just went from there. The parties stipulated that the claimant “suffered an accepted compensable injury to her right lower extremity” on August 1, 2019. The claimant testified, “I tore my ACL and I fractured my MCL and I mean, I never did return back to work.” The parties stipulated that the respondents “provided some benefits associated with the claimant’s accepted injury.” Dr. Carlos Roman noted on March 8, 2021: The patient is a 39-year-old female. She worked for the Arkansas Department of Corrections and suffered injury to her right knee during a take-down exercise. She ultimately underwent anterior cruciate ligament repair by Dr. Handloser in February of 2020. She continues to complain of pain in the right knee. She underwent post-surgical MRI in October that showed good repair of the ligament and an intact graft. Dr. Azar, orthopedic surgeon in Memphis, could find no rationale for further knee pain. A Functional Capacity Exam was done and demonstrated an unreliable effort. She was placed at

CARTER - G905176 3 sedentary duty. She was ultimately let go from that job. She says she couldn’t even do that. She comes in today for follow-up. We have tried her on Voltaren gel. We performed a right knee injection. These have not resolved the issue. She still complains of pain in the knee.... At this point in time, I would put her at maximal medical improvement as it pertains to her knee injury. There are no further injections, procedures, or medications required. She is one year out from the injury. Physical Therapy has been exhausted and has been done appropriately. I would be happy to see her back under regular insurance if needed. As it pertains to the right knee injury, no further treatment is necessary. We will provide one last prescription. No follow up is needed. As far as her work capacity, given the unreliable effort, obviously she could work at a higher level than sedentary given the results of the FCE. The record indicates that the claimant participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation on March 23, 2021: “Ms. Carter completed functional testing on this date with unreliable results. Overall, Ms. Carter demonstrated the ability to perform work in at least the SEDENTARY classification of work[.]” Dr. Frederick M. Azar reported on May 5, 2021: Patient is now 15 months out from allograft ACL reconstruction on the right with partial lateral meniscectomy and chondral debridement.... PLAN: She is at MMI. At this point she wants to talk about some permanent restrictions. She states she has difficulty with prolonged walking, prolonged sitting, and prolonged standing and also kneeling. This is mainly a pain issue for her. I am going to release her from my care at this time. She wants to have these restrictions going forward. I am going to release her from my care at this time and render an impairment based on the AMA guides.

CARTER - G905176 4 On May 18, 2021, Dr. Azar assigned the claimant “a 4% Whole Person, 9% Lower Extremity impairment as a result of this work related injury.” The claimant’s testimony indicated that the respondents paid the permanent anatomical impairment rating assessed by Dr. Azar. A pre-hearing order was filed on July 17, 2024. The pro se claimant contended, “I got declared being permanent disable (sic) from my injury on job. I never got compensated for my future medical & disability benefits.” The respondents contended, “The claimant has requested a hearing seeking additional benefits. The respondents contend that appropriate benefits have been paid to the claimant. The Respondents contend that all appropriate benefits owed to claimant as a result of her compensable injury have been paid to date. The last payment of compensation for this claim appears to have been May 5, 2021 when the claimant was treated at Campbell Clinic, PC. The bill for this medical treatment was paid by respondents on March 29, 2022. There have been no other claim related expenses or treatment rendered for this claim since that time. The respondents closed this file on July 12, 2022 and a Form 4 was filed with the AWCC on March 22, 2023. The respondents contend that this claim for additional benefits was not timely filed as required by Ark. Code Ann. §11- 9-702(b)(1) and is therefore barred by operation of the statute. The

CARTER - G905176 5 Respondents reserve the right to raise additional contentions, or to modify those stated herein, pending completion of discovery.” The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional benefits, including coverage of future medical treatment, reimbursement for past medical treatment, and indemnity benefits. 2. Whether any claims for additional benefits are barred by the statute of limitations. All other issues are reserved. After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on January 14, 2025. The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove she was entitled to additional benefits. The administrative law judge therefore denied and dismissed the claim. The claimant appeals to the Full Commission. II. ADJUDICATION A. Medical Treatment The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012). The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005). Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101

CARTER - G905176 6 S.W.3d 252 (2003). What constitutes reasonably necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for the Commission. Wright Contracting Co. v. Randall, 12 Ark. App. 358, 676 S.W.2d 70 (1984). An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to any additional benefits.” The Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove additional medical treatment was reasonably necessary. As we have discussed, the parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on August 1, 2019. The claimant’s testimony indicated that she injured her right knee while participating in a work-related training exercise. The respondents provided benefits, and the record indicates that the claimant underwent surgery performed by Dr. Azar. Dr. Roman examined the claimant on March 8, 2021. Dr. Roman described the reasonably necessary medical treatment the claimant had undergone, and he opined, “As it pertains to the knee injury, no further treatment is necessary....No follow up is needed." Dr. Azar reported on May 5, 2021, "I am going to release her from my care at this time." It is within the Commission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence and to determine what is most credible. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). In the present matter, there is no medical

CARTER - G905176 7 evidence of record contradicting the expert opinions of Dr. Roman and Dr. Azar that additional medical treatment is not reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injury sustained by the claimant on August 1, 2019. There is no evidence demonstrating that the respondents failed to provide past medical reasonably necessary medical treatment rendered to the claimant. The Full Commission therefore finds that the claimant did not prove additional medical treatment was reasonably necessary. B. Temporary Disability The standard for determining entitlement to temporary total disability benefits differs depending upon whether the injury is a scheduled injury or an unscheduled injury. Lawless v. AT&T Tech. Servs. Co., 2025 Ark. App. 67, CV-24-289 (Ark. App. Feb. 05, 2025), citing City of Fort Smith v. Kaylor, 2019 Ark. App. 517, 588 S.W.3d 803. For scheduled injuries the injured employee is to receive compensation for temporary total disability during the healing period or until she returns to work, whichever occurs first. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-521(a)(Repl. 2012); Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001). An incapacity to earn wages is presumed when a claimant has sustained a compensable scheduled injury. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). The healing period is that period for healing of the injury which continues until

CARTER - G905176 8 the employee is as far restored as the permanent character of the injury will permit. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). Whether an employee’s healing period has ended is a question of fact for the Commission. Ketcher Roofing Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark. App. 63, 901 S.W.2d 25 (1995). In the present matter, the administrative law judge adjudicated temporary total disability in accordance with the well-settled legal standard for unscheduled injuries as held in Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981). Because the claimant plainly sustained a compensable scheduled injury, the administrative law erred as a matter of law. Lawless, supra. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Full Commission to enter findings in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence and not on whether there is substantial evidence to support an administrative law judge’s findings. Roberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184, 649 S.W.2d 402 (1983). The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant did not prove she was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits. The claimant sustained a compensable scheduled injury on August 1, 2019. The claimant testified that she did not return to work following the compensable injury, and it was stipulated that the respondents provided benefits. Dr. Roman opined on March 8, 2021, “I would put her at

CARTER - G905176 9 maximum medical improvement as it pertains to the knee injury.” There were no opinions of record contradicting Dr. Roman’s opinion, and the Full Commission finds that the claimant reached the end of the healing period no later than March 8, 2021. See Nix, supra. Dr. Azar assigned a permanent anatomical impairment rating on May 18, 2021, and the claimant testified that the respondents paid permanent benefits in accordance with the rating. Permanent impairment is any functional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has ended [emphasis supplied]. See Johnson v. General Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994). The evidence in the present matter does not demonstrate that the claimant remained within a healing period or re-entered a healing period at any time after March 8, 2021. The claimant therefore did not prove that she was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits. After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove additional medical treatment was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012). The claimant did not prove that she was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits at any time following Dr. Roman’s assessment of maximum medical improvement on March 8, 2021. The Full Commission therefore affirms as modified the opinion of the administrative law judge, and the present claim is respectfully denied and dismissed. Because the

CARTER - G905176 10 claimant did not prove she was entitled to additional medical treatment or temporary total disability benefits, we need not adjudicate whether the applicable statute of limitations bars the claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman ___________________________________ M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner ___________________________________ MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner