CLAIM NO. E315923
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED AUGUST 2, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by PHILIP WILSON and CHARLES PEARROW, Attorneys at Law, Bald Knob, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by FRANK J. WILLS, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Intervenor represented by MARK L. PRYOR, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.
[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] Claimant appeals from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed February 22, 1996.
[3] After reviewing the record impartially, and without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, we find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to any permanent impairment rating over and above the 2% rating assigned by Dr. Collins. The claimant has been treated and examined by numerous physicians and chiropractors. These physicians were unable to note any objective findings to substantiate the claimant’s continued complaints of pain. The claimant’s x-rays, MRI’s, bone scans, CAT scans, et cetera, were all normal. In addition, the claimant has undergone conservative means of treatment, including physical therapy all to no avail. Despite all of the treatment, which includes multiple trigger point injections, the claimant continues to complain of pain, yet, the physicians have not been able to locate any basis for her complaints and have labeled her complaints as fibromyalgia. [4] On January 6, 1995, the claimant’s treating physician, Kevin J. Collins wrote:1. The claimant sustained an injury arising out of and during the course of [her] employment with respondent on December 25, 1992.
2. Claimant Cheryl Novak’s contention that she was an employee of respondent at the time of the injury is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. The claimant Cheryl Novak, as a result of her injuries sustained on December 25, 1992, sustained a 2% loss of use of the upper extremity, as rated by Dr. Kevin Collins on January 6, 1995, and her healing period ended on January 6, 1995.
6. The claimant [is] entitled to payment of all reasonably related medical expenses arising out of [her] injury of December 25, 1992.
[5] For her appeal, claimant relies upon the impairment rating assigned by Dr. George Perkins. Dr. Perkins apparently saw the claimant for one visit for the sole purpose of determining an impairment rating. Based upon his one time evaluation of the claimant, Dr. Perkins opined that the claimant has a 23% impairment rating to the body as a whole. After carefully reviewing the medical records, it is our opinion that the rating of Dr. Collins is entitled to greater weight since he actually examined and treated the claimant. Dr. Perkins, on the other hand, simply saw the claimant for the sole purpose of assigning an impairment rating. Moreover, Dr. Collins’ impairment rating is more consistent with the objective findings noted by all physicians who have treated the claimant. [6] From our de novo review of the entire record, we find that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is affirmed. [7] IT IS SO ORDERED.Based on the lack of objective findings per multiple imaging studies, normal sensory exam of her left upper extremity, as well as normal range of motion in her neck, shoulder, elbow and wrist, with exception of decreased extension of the elbow, the claimant’s impairment rating is 2% of the left upper extremity. This percentage was based on the AMA Guidelines, 3rd Edition.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner
[8] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.