JUDY SHERMAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT
PULASKI COUNTY HEALTH UNIT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT
No. G504888
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
January 18, 2018
Hearing
before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth W. Hogan on October
26, 2017, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by Mr. Philip M. Wilson, Attorney at
Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by Mr. Charles H. McLemore, Attorney
at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ELIZABETH W. HOGAN, Administrative Law Judge.
ISSUES
A
hearing was conducted to determine the claimant’s
entitlement to payment of additional medical treatment.
At
issue is the causal connection of that treatment to the
compensable injury pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102
and the reasonable necessity of the treatment subject to Ark.
Code Ann. §11-9-508.
After
reviewing the evidence impartially, without giving benefit of
the doubt to either party, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704, 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 22, 2015, at which time the claimant
sustained compensable injuries at a compensation rate of
$533.00/$400.00. Medical expenses and temporary total
disability benefits have been accepted. The Medical Cost
Containment Division approved a change of physician from Dr.
Tucker to Dr. Renard in Orders dated September 9, 2016, and
October 13, 2016.
The
claimant contends she injured her groin, buttocks and back in
a fall on April 22, 2015. She has a non-union of her
work-related pelvic fractures and needs additional treatment
with Dr. Renard.
The
respondents contend all appropriate expenses have been paid.
The claimant’s need for treatment is not causally
related to the compensable injuries. The claimant suffers
from osteopenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and pre-existing left
and right pelvic fractures for which she was receiving
treatment prior to the compensable accident. Further
treatment is unreasonable and unnecessary.
The
following were submitted without objection and comprise the
evidence of record: the parties’ prehearing
questionnaires and exhibits contained in the two (2) volume
transcript, along with deposition of Dr. Renard, incorporated
by reference.
The
claimant, who appeared to be credible, was the only witness
to testify at the hearing.
The
claimant, age 58 (date of birth: July 18, 1959), has a high
school education. For the past eight (8) years, she has
worked as a home health aide traveling to patients’
houses to draw blood, set up IV bags, perform wound care, and
enter chart notes. Her job occasionally requires heavy
lifting. She averages seven (7) clients per day.
The
claimant was diagnosed with...
