BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G CHERITA WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2017

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G CHERITA WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE STAFFMARK, EMPLOYER ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2017 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth W. Hogan on January 27, 2017, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant appeared pro se. Respondents represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. ISSUES A hearing was conducted to determine the claimants entitlement to payment of medical expenses and temporary total disability benefits. At issue is whether or not the claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann After reviewing the evidence impartially, without giving benefit of the doubt to either party, Ark. Code Ann , I find the evidence does not preponderate in favor of the claimant. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The parties stipulated to an employee-employer-carrier relationship on April 19, 2016, at which time the claimant sustained a compensable right hand injury at a compensation rate of $387.00/$ Medical expenses were paid (until October 14, 2016), at which time the case was controverted. The claimant had an infected finger. On April 19, 2016, she was working at Remington and placed her hand in a tape machine. She reported the accident to her supervisor, Greg Lewis. On her own, she went to the Sherwood Clinic for treatment. The claimant was fired from Remington and returned to work elsewhere.

2 -2- Dr. Wirges has recommended additional medical treatment (triple phase bone scan). The claimant seeks payment of temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses. The respondents contend all appropriate benefits have been paid and further medical treatment is unreasonable, unnecessary and unrelated to any compensable injury. There is no medical documentation to support a request for temporary total disability benefits. The claimant did not injure herself with the tape machine and declined medical treatment on April 19, The following were submitted without objection and comprise the evidence of record: the parties prehearing questionnaires and exhibits contained in the transcript. Respondent s objection to documents provided on the day of the hearing was sustained and proffered. The following witnesses testified at the hearing: the claimant and Stacy Grooms, a Staffmark supervisor. The claimant s credibility was a factor in this case. There were discrepancies in her testimony as compared to her deposition and the documentary evidence. The claimant, age 32 (D.O.B. September 4, 1984), has a high school education. She is right hand dominant. Her work experience includes jobs as a waitress, retailer, pharmacy technician and certified nursing assistant. Her licenses have been revoked. Her health history includes psychiatric treatment, an ankle injury, illegal drug abuse, and back pain from a gunshot wound. She has worked for Staffmark off and on since The claimant pays child support of $ monthly for seven (7) of her eight (8) children that were removed from the home. The claimant has a criminal record. The claimant began work for Remington on April 10, She explained that her right pinky finger became painful and swollen due to a staph infection

3 -3- which necessitated medical treatment. She was off work three (3) days. When she returned to work, on April 19, 2016, she jammed her right hand in an industrial-sized tape machine, injuring her knuckles. The claimant notified two (2) co-workers, Kim Hodges and Amanda Fowler, as well as supervisor, Greg Lewis. The claimant had been wearing two (2) sets of gloves to protect her small finger, but neither glove was damaged or pulled off in the incident. She was also able to finish her shift. In her deposition, the claimant said there were no visible changes in her hand after this crush injury, but she also stated her hand was bruised and swollen. However the pictures she took of her hand were deleted. The claimant was fired from Remington, but obtained two (2) other jobs. She quit after an ankle injury at Maybelline (employed October 21, 2016, to December 16, 2016) and was fired from Lonoke Health and Rehabilitation Center (employed September 15, 2016, to September 25, 2016). The claimant resigned from Staffmark in December After the April 2016 injury, the claimant drew unemployment benefits (May to June 2016) until she injured her left foot and was unable to work. The Medical Cost Containment Division issued a Change of Physician Order on August 26, 2016, to Dr. Wirges. The claimant stated she still has pain and difficulty writing or hairdressing with her hand injury, but she is able to perform household chores. She has not seen a physician since October 14, 2016, but would like to return to Dr. Wirges for further diagnostic testing. Stacy Grooms is an on-site supervisor with Staffmark at Remington. She handles orientation and workers compensation issues. Employees were instructed to report injuries not only to the Remington supervisor, but also to the Staffmark supervisor. The claimant did not report any injury to her, even though Ms. Grooms

4 -4- saw her on April 19, Mr. Lewis fired her on the 19th. The claimant told Ms. Grooms that she needed compensation for pain and suffering from her injury at Remington. Ms. Grooms had no knowledge of any injury until that conversation several days after the incident. MEDICAL EVIDENCE The claimant was treated for an infected finger and released to return to work on April 18, The claimant stated this condition was not work related. After the incident with the tape machine, the claimant was examined by Mr. McKisson on April 21, 2016, who prescribed ibuprofen. X-rays of the hand were normal with no evidence of fracture, swelling, or dislocation on April 25, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The claimant contends she sustained a crushing injury to her right hand. However, there was no damage to her gloves and she was able to work afterward. She was released with no permanent impairment. She has a sporadic work record and personal issues that have complicated her situation. There were also discrepancies in her testimony casting doubt on the compensability of this claim. Employers must promptly provide medical services which are reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injuries. Ark. Code Ann (a). However, injured employees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a fact question for the Commission, and the resolution of this issue depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). Reasonably necessary medical services may include that necessary to accurately diagnose the nature and extent of the compensable injury; to maintain the level of

5 -5- healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable injury. Greer v. Phillip Mitchell Construction, Full Commission opinion February 14, 2003 (E906565). In assessing whether a given medical procedure is reasonably necessary for treatment of the compensable injury, it is necessary to analyze both the proposed procedure and the condition it is sought to remedy. Deborah Jones v. Seba, Inc., Full Workers Compensation Commission, December 13, 1989 (Claim No. D511255). I find the claimant has had adequate medical care and further treatment is unreasonable and unnecessary. There is no medical evidence to support an award of temporary total disability benefits. 1. The Workers Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim in which the employee-employer-carrier relationship existed on April 19, 2016, at which time the claimant sustained a compensable right hand injury at a compensation rate of $387.00/$ Medical expenses were paid (until October 14, 2016), at which time the case was controverted. 2. The claimant has failed to prove additional medical treatment is reasonable and necessary pursuant to Ark. Code Ann No physician has excused the claimant from work, therefore she is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits. 3. If they have not already done so, the respondents are directed to pay the court reporter, Celia Jamison s, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the bill. This claim for additional benefits is respectfully denied and dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. ELIZABETH W. HOGAN Administrative Law Judge