Riddle vs. Friendship Community Care, Inc

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H202952 SONJA RIDDLE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC. EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WC TRUST/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 3, 2024 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by the HONORABLE LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted. OPINION AND ORDER Respondent appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law Judge filed June 19, 2023. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge made 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 18, 2023, and contained in a pre- hearing order filed on May 26, 2023 are hereby accepted as fact. 2. Claimant has met her burden of proof proving by a preponderance of the evidence that her left knee fracture and her left wrist fractures are compensable consequences of her right knee injury of April 2, 2021.

RIDDLE- H202952 2 3. Respondent is liable for payment of all reasonable and necessary medical treatment provided in connection with Claimant’s left knee and left wrist injuries; this includes surgery performed by Dr. Nguyen. 4. Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from October 13, 2021 and continuing through April 20, 2022. 5. Respondent has controverted Claimant’s entitlement to all unpaid indemnity benefits. 6. Claimant’s request for benefits is not barred by the provisions of A.C.A § 11-9-701 regarding notice. We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record herein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's June 19, 2023 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies the law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from a preponderance of the evidence that the findings made by the Administrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission. All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and with interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in accordance with Ark Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).

RIDDLE- H202952 3 For prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(Repl. 2012). For prevailing on appeal to the Full Commission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman ___________________________________ M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner Commissioner Mayton dissents DISSENTING OPINION I respectfully dissent from the majority finding that the claimant’s left knee fracture and left wrist fracture are compensable consequences of her right knee injury of April 2, 2021, that Respondents are liable for payment of all reasonable and necessary medical treatment provided in connection with Claimant’s left knee and left wrist injuries including surgery performed by Dr. Nguyen and that the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from October 13, 2021 and continuing through April 20, 2022.

RIDDLE- H202952 4 The claimant in this matter worked as a teacher’s aide for infants and toddlers for Friendship Community Care (“Friendship”) beginning in 2012. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 9-10). Her job duties included riding the van that transported children. Id. On April 2, 2021, the claimant was riding the van as it arrived at Friendship when one of the children vomited on himself. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 28-29). As the claimant was trying to clean up the sick child and help other students out of the van, she lost her balance on the van’s running board and grabbed the door handle. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 29-30). She did not fall to the ground, but “[i]t was such a twist that my right knee popped.” (Hrng. Tr., P. 30). The claimant’s supervisor, Charity Knight, and other employees helped the claimant into the building where the claimant filled out paperwork. Id. At that time, claimant was suffering from pain in her right knee. Id. The claimant was treated at Chambers Memorial the following Monday. (Hrng. Tr., P. 30). The claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Jeffrey Stambough obtained an MRI of the claimant’s right knee and recommended rest. (Hrng. Tr., P. 31) Dr. Stambough released the claimant from his care in June of 2021. Id. At that visit, the claimant informed Dr. Stambaough that her left knee was becoming bothersome, but that it was “not related to a work-related injury . . . She would like to be seen for this separately outside of the work comp claim.” (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 24). The claimant later began treating for her left knee with Dr. Larry Nguyen in July 2021. (Cl. Ex. 1, Pp. 30-32). Dr. Nguyen conducted a left knee scope with

RIDDLE- H202952 5 debridement, abrasion chandroplasty, subchandroplasty, biomex accufil, and hardware removal on October 25, 2021. (Cl. Ex. 1, Pp. 53-57). The claimant later fell on October 28, 2021, due to using crutches after her left knee surgery and injured her left wrist. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 22-23). She now asserts that her left knee and left wrist injuries are compensable consequences of her April 2, 2021 fall. Generally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising out of the course and scope of employment caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of an occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). This, therefore, requires that a claimant establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an injury; and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9- 102(4)(A)(i). However, a compensable injury may also arise as a compensable, or natural, consequence of a prior specific incident injury. If an injury is compensable, then every natural consequence of that injury is also compensable. Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d 91 (2008). The basic test is whether there is a causal connection between the two

RIDDLE- H202952 6 episodes. Walker v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 322, 436 S.W.3d 164 (2014). From the outset, it is evident that the claimant’s left knee complaints did not arise from her April 2, 2021 accident. At the May 18, 2023 hearing on this matter, the claimant testified that when walking sideways to exit a passenger van, she lost her balance stepping onto the running board and felt a twist and pop in her right knee. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 29-30). The injury “was just a twist” to the right knee. (Hrng. Tr., P. 35). The claimant was released by Dr. Jeffrey Sambough on 75% duty on June 17, 2021. (Cl. Ex. 1, Pp. 24-26). At that visit, the claimant informed Dr. Stambaough that her left knee was becoming bothersome, but that it was “not related to a work related injury . . . She would like to be seen for this separately outside of the work comp claim.” (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 24). Dr. Stambough did not evaluate her knee at that time or as part of this claim. Id. For these reasons, it is clear that the claimant’s left knee complaints cannot be attributed to the specific incident on April 2, 2021. The claimant also fails to prove, however, that her left knee injury is a natural consequence of her right knee injury. The medical evidence here is compelling. Dr. Kirk Reynolds reviewed the claimant’s medical records and deposition testimony to determine causation of the claimant’s left knee complaints and opined that: With regards to her left knee pathology. It is my professional medical opinion that, at most, this represents an acute

RIDDLE- H202952 7 exacerbation of a chronic underlying condition. She has documented evidence of chronic degenerative changes in the knee based upon prior history of recurrent patellar dislocations requiring realignment osteotomy, as well as, the description of her articular cartilage in Dr. Nguyen’s operative report dated October 15, 2021. She has an approximate 4mm x 4 mm area of subchondral edema in the medial femoral condyle underlying an area of articular cartilage wear. It is my professional medical opinion that this is a normal appearance of degenerative joint disease on MRI scan. Furthermore, it is my professional medical opinion that subchondroplasty in this area was not indicated. Subchondroplasty of the femoral condyle has been shown to have inferior results to the tibial plateau. I also see no medical indication for hardware removal from the tibial tuberosity as this was never described as being painful. The documentation is contradictory in that she was described as having pain primarily laterally and subsequently underwent a medial femoral condyle subchondroplasty. Accordingly, it is my professional medical opinion that her left knee pathology and subsequent left knee surgery are less than 51% directly or causally related to the twisting injury to her right knee which occurred on April 21, 2021. (Resp. Ex. 3). There is every indication that the claimant’s left knee condition is chronic. On May 13, 2021, Dr. Stambough stated that the claimant had a history of a “tibial tubercle osteotomy in the left knee for recurrent patellar dislocations.” After x-rays were conducted, Dr. Stambough found “degenerative changes that is worse in the patellofemoral compartments.” In fact, a May 27, 2021 x-ray revealed that, “[t]here is no acute fracture or dislocation. No joint effusion. Single screw is seen within the proximal tibia. IMPRESSION: No acute findings. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 3). Later, on July 21, 2021, the claimant indicated to Dr. Larry Nguyen

RIDDLE- H202952 8 with Bowen Hefley Orthopedics that her “symptoms gradually began over time.” A July 21, 2021 MRI scan ordered by Dr. Nguyen showed “no evidence of acute meniscal tear.” Dr. Kirk Reynolds opined that this MRI showed: [s]ignificant degenerative changes seen throughout the patellofemoral compartment. Deficiency of the lateral retinaculum consistent with lateral retinacular release. Significant metallic artifact seen throughout the tibial plateau secondary to the partially-threaded cannulated screw. (Resp. Ex. 3, P. 7). The ALJ’s findings disregard the weight of this medical evidence and relies entirely on the claimant’s own statements in June 2021 that her left knee began hurting “because she had to change how she walked,” or later, in July 2021 that she hurt her knee while attending physical therapy. Importantly, a claimant's testimony is deemed controverted as a matter of law. Davis v. Remington Arms Co., 2018 Ark. App. 390, 557 S.W.3d 894 (2018). The objective medical evidence contradicts those statements. In May of 2021, there were no objective findings related to the claimant’s left knee, and by July the claimant’s pain was proved to be degenerative and ongoing since the 1980’s. Beyond the claimant’s own self-serving statements, there is no proof that her left knee pain resulted in any way from her April 2021 injury and she is not entitled to benefits for this claim. Similarly, the claimant asserts that she injured her left wrist in a fall in October 2021 while using crutches for her left knee pain. (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 22-23).

RIDDLE- H202952 9 Because the claimant’s left wrist injury was a consequence of her non- compensable left knee injury, it is not compensable. Under our Rules, a claimant is required to provide timely notice of any injury to her employer. Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-701(a)(1) provides that: Unless an injury either renders the employee physically or mentally unable to do so, or is made known to the employer immediately after it occurs, the employee shall report the injury to the employer on a form prescribed or approved by the Workers' Compensation Commission and to a person or at a place specified by the employer, and the employer shall not be responsible for disability, medical, or other benefits prior to receipt of the employee's report of injury. The respondent employer in this matter has a specific process by which employees report an injury. According to the claimant’s supervisor, Charity Knight, the procedure to report a work-related injury: “is to talk to the supervisor if there is an injury and then fill out the workmen’s comp paperwork, call the 1-800 phone number that we get. And we also call our direct supervisor . . . and whoever is over workmen’s comp for Friendship to let them know that a claim has been made. (Hrng, Tr., Pp. 37-38). At the hearing, Ms. Knight testified that she was present on the date of claimant’s accident. Id. When asked if the claimant mentioned anything about her left knee that day, Ms. Knight stated, “Not that I recall, No, not that I recall.” Id. In

RIDDLE- H202952 10 fact, Ms. Knight had no notice that the claimant was alleging left knee pain until a Form AR-C was filed with the Commission on April 15, 2022. Id. The claimant’s failure to provide sufficient notice of her purported left knee injury rendered the respondents unable to exercise their statutory right to direct the claimant’s medical care pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-514(a). The respondents were also unable to provide preauthorization for treatment as provided by Rule 099.30. The claimant was not physically or mentally incapable of providing notice at any point during the period from April of 2021 until the AR-C was filed on April 15, 2022. She simply chose not to do so. Even if the left knee and/or left wrist are found to be compensable, the Respondents are not responsible for any benefits of any kind until April 15, 2022 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. ___________________________________ MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner