FLETCHER v. BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, 2002 AWCC 52

CLAIM NO. F102523

PATSY FLETCHER, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2002

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL HAMBY, Attorney at Law, Greenwood, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE THOMAS PENDOWSKI, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

ORDER
The claimant appeals an opinion and order filed by the Administrative Law Judge finding that the claimant failed to establish a compensable injury with objective medical findings. After conducting a de novo review of the entire record, we remand this claim for additional findings.

The Administrative Law Judge has concluded that there is no question that the claimant experienced pain when she slipped and fell on ice at work in January of 2001. However, as the Administrative Law Judge notes, complaints of pain and tenderness are not objective within the meaning of Act 796 of 1993.

On appeal, the claimant directs this Commission to handwritten comments on a progress sheet dated May 2. These handwritten comments include a notation of muscle spasm. The claimant asserts that this notation is an objective medical finding of an injury that occurred on January 2, 2001. The respondent asserts that the notation at issue is the claimant’s self-report of problems and not an objective finding at all.

We note that the Administrative Law Judge’s analysis makes no reference to the May 2, 2001 progress note or to the notation of “muscle spasm.” We note that the respondent defended this claim on the assertion that the claimant cannot establish her alleged work-related injury by objective medical findings. We are unable to locate any reference in the hearing record indicating that the claimant ever brought the May 2, 2001 progress note to the attention of the Administrative Law Judge.

Under these circumstances, we are unclear whether (1) the Administrative Law Judge was not aware of the “muscle spasm” notation on the May 2, 2001 progress note or (2) the Administrative Law Judge was aware of the notation, but did not consider the notation in the May 2, 2001 progress note to be an objective finding of an injury allegedly sustained on January 2, 2001. We remand this case for clarification as to what effect, if any, the notation of “muscle spasm” in the May 2, 2001 progress note may have on the Administrative Law Judge’s resolution of the issues in this claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner