Jackie Johnson vs. Ark. Department Of Transportation

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201515 JACKIE JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARK. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 22, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by the HONORABLE FREDERICK S. “RICK” SPENCER, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas. Respondents represented by the HONORABLE ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted. OPINION AND ORDER The claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed November 13, 2024. The administrative law judge entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on May 8, 2024, and contained in a pre- hearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as fact. 2. Claimant has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment for his compensable injury.

JOHNSON - H201515 2 After reviewing the entire record de novo, it is our opinion that the administrative law judge’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, correctly applies the law, and should be affirmed. The evidence demonstrates that the administrative law judge’s findings are correct and are therefore adopted by the Full Commission. The claimant contends on appeal that his constitutional rights have been violated. The claimant did not raise this argument before the administrative law judge, and the Full Commission may refuse to consider issues not raised below. See Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.25(b). In any event, the claimant has not proven that adjudication of his claim is violative of his due process rights. See Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, 250 S.W.3d 263 (2007). The Full Commission affirms and adopts the November 13, 2024 decision of the administrative law judge, including all the findings of fact and conclusions of law, as the Full Commission’s opinion on appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman ___________________________________ MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner Commissioner Willhite dissents.

JOHNSON - H201515 3 DISSENTING OPINION The ALJ found that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment for his compensable injury. I disagree, I would rule in favor of the Claimant receiving additional medical treatment including physical therapy and pain management as recommended by Dr. Allan Gocio as it is reasonably necessary for Claimant’s work-related low-back injuries. Therefore, I must dissent with the majority. An 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). The claimant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to additional medical treatment. Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a question of fact for the Commission. White Consolidated Indus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held a claimant may be entitled to additional medical treatment even after the healing period has ended, if said treatment is geared toward management of the injury. See Patchell v.

JOHNSON - H201515 4 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004); Artex Hydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983). Such services can include those for the purpose of diagnosing the nature and extent of the compensable injury; reducing or alleviating symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; maintaining the level of healing achieved; or preventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury. Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra. In the present case, the Claimant suffered a compensable injury to his low back on February 10, 2022, when he was turning while holding a 5- gallon bucket of water. The Claimant stated he was unable to move for a short period of time after the incident and he began experiencing problems with his left leg which continued through the date of the hearing. This injury was accepted as compensable by the Respondent, and Claimant received medical treatment from Dr. Allan Gocio. On April 20, 2022, Dr. Gocio stated the following: Patient symptoms and clinical findings reviewed, treatment options discussed. Surgical treatment does not appear likely to benefit the patient. [sic.] Recommended continued symptomatic management with medication, physical therapy, also have recommended referral to pain management for comprehensive care. It appears from the evidence in the record that the Claimant received medical treatment from a pain management facility following his work

JOHNSON - H201515 5 accident, but that these appointments stopped after Claimant was involved in additional accidents. These include an incident on October 9, 2023, where the Claimant fell off a roof and another incident on December 14, 2023, at which time he was lifting a small air conditioner. Regardless of these two additional accidents, the Claimant remains entitled to receive reasonable and necessary medical care as the result of his February 10, 2022, compensable lower back injury. Based upon the evidence in the record it appears that the Respondent has denied these benefits. Due to Claimant’s continuing symptoms related to his admittedly compensable injury, I find the medical treatment originally recommended by Dr. Allan Gocio to be reasonable and necessary medical treatment. Therefore, I would rule that the Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment and should be allowed to return to Dr. Gocio for further treatment, evaluation and referral. ___________________________________ M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner