Calvin Walton vs. City Of Stuttgart

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOs. H406771 & H500714 CALVIN WALTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF STUTTGART, SELF-INSURED, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 13, 2026 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by the HONORABLE STEVEN R. McNEELY, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Arkansas. Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MARY K. EDWARDS, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted. OPINION AND ORDER Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law Judge filed August 29, 2025. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over these claims. 2. The stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted.

Walton- H406771 & H500714 2 3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable neck injury on 26 January 2024 (Claim No H406771). 4. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the claimant earned an average weekly wage of $806.12 at the time of his accepted right shoulder injury on Claim No H406771, which entitled him to a weekly TTD benefit of $538. 5. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to additional TTD benefits from 13 January 2025 to 9 May 2025, or any period therein, on Claim No H406771. 6. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the respondents underpaid the claimant on TTD benefits on Claim No H406771. 7. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment for his lower back injury on Claim No H500714. 8. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to an IME related to his stipulated compensable right shoulder injury on Claim No H406771. 9. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to an attorney’s fee. We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record herein, and it is our opinion the Administrative Law Judge's decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies the law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from a preponderance

Walton- H406771 & H500714 3 of the evidence that the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission. Therefore, we affirm and adopt the August 29, 2025 decision of the Administrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman ___________________________________ MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner Commissioner Willhite concurs and dissents. CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION The Claimant appeals an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”) opinion that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment for his lower back injury on Claim No. H500714, that the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability from January 13, 2025, through May 9, 2025, that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Claimant earned an average weekly wage of $806.12 at the time of his accepted right shoulder injury on Claim No. H406771, which entitled the Claimant to a

Walton- H406771 & H500714 4 weekly temporary total disability benefit of $538, and that the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to an independent medical evaluation for his stipulated compensable right shoulder injury on Claim No. H406771. After conducting a thorough review of the record, I would concur in part and dissent in part with the majority. 1. The Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to additional medical treatment for his lower back injury on Claim No. H500714. 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 she 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. 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

Walton- H406771 & H500714 5 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, Claimant sustained admittedly compensable injuries to the lumbar region of his spine. On December 13, 2024, Claimant was initially diagnosed with a strain of his lumbar spine, prescribed pain medication, and told to return to clinic in three months. Claimant returned to the clinic on February 14, 2025, and treated by Dr. Seth Kleinbeck who performed an x-ray on Claimant’s lumbar spine. This lumbar x-ray showed: 1. There is chronic degenerative narrowing of the L2-3 and L4-5 disc spaces. 2. There is grade 1 anterolisthesis of L4 on L5 with associated disc space narrowing and facet joint arthropathy. Dr. Kleinbeck diagnoses the Claimant with lumbar radiculopathy and refers the Claimant for an MRI and injections of his lumbar spine. On March 6, 2025, Claimant undergoes an MRI with Dr. Kleinbeck. This lumbar MRI showed: 1. Multilevel degenerative disc disease and facet arthrosis with canal and foraminal compromise as detailed above at each level.

Walton- H406771 & H500714 6 2. Canal narrowing is most significant across the L4-5 level with moderate to severe canal and recess narrowing from listhesis/moderate to severe facet arthrosis. 3. There is moderate to severe left canal and recess narrowing at the L5-S1 level from bulging and extrusion as above. There is also associated foraminal narrowing as above. Dr. Kleinbeck then writes in his medical report: Call patient concerning MRI lumbar spine: He does have a few areas where it looks like he may be having some nerve compression: Would refer him over to Ortho Arkansas spine clinic, since he is already seeing Dr. Hussey at Ortho Arkansas. The Claimant suffered a compensable injury to the lumbar region of his spine and remains within his healing period and is entitled to additional medical treatment to diagnose whether Claimant has nerve compression in his lumbar spine. Therefore, I dissent with the opinion of the ALJ and would refer Claimant to Ortho Arkansas to be seen by Dr. Hussey for further treatment. 2. The Claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Claimant earned an average weekly wage of $848.62 at the time of his accepted right shoulder injury on Claim No. H406771, which entitled him to a weekly temporary total disability benefit of $566. Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-518 states that: (a)(1) Compensation shall be computed on the average weekly wage earned by the employee under the contract of hire in force at the time of the accident and in no case shall be computed on less than a full-time workweek in the employment. ...

Walton- H406771 & H500714 7 (b) Overtime earnings are to be added to the regular weekly wages and shall be computed by dividing the overtime earnings by the number of weeks worked by the employee in the same employment under the contract of hire in force at the time of the accident, not to exceed a period of fifty-two (52) weeks preceding the accident. The record is absent of the Claimant’s contract of hire and the Claimant’s wage records are the only evidence provided as to the Claimant’s earnings. The wage records show that as of January 12, 2024, Claimant was receiving an hourly wage of $17.50 per hour. On January 26, 2024, Claimant suffered a compensable right shoulder injury, therefore Claimant’s hourly wage at the time of the accident was $17.50 per hour. At a forty-hour work week, Claimant would make $700 per week based on a $17.50 hourly wage. Where an employee had been promoted shortly before her accident, the Workers’ Compensation Commission properly calculated her average weekly wage using employee’s hourly wage at the time of the accident plus overtime for the previous year where, at the time of and after accident, she was working extensive hours at that wage, despite occasionally performing other jobs at a lower wage. Cracker Barrel v. Lassiter, 87 Ark. App. 286, 190 S.W.3d 911 (2004). Prior to January 12, 2024, Claimant earned an overtime wage of $24.00 per hour based on an hourly wage of $16.00 per hour. At the time of the January 26, 2024, work accident, Claimant wage records reflect an increase in his hourly wage of $17.50 per hour making Claimant’s new

Walton- H406771 & H500714 8 overtime wage $26.25. Based on the wage records in evidence, Claimant worked a total of 96.25 hours of overtime over a period of 17 weeks. 96.25 hours under the wage records at the time of the accident would equate to an additional $2526.56 of wages to be added to the average weekly wage base pay to be divided by 17 weeks. This equates to an additional $148.62 per week. Therefore, the Claimant’s average weekly wage should be calculated as $848.62 for Claimant’s accepted shoulder injury on Claim No. H406771, which entitles him to a weekly temporary total disability benefit of $566. Thus, the Respondents underpaid the Claimant for his temporary total disability benefits provided after his right shoulder surgery. On all other issues properly before this Commission, I concur with the majority. ___________________________________ M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner