CLAIM NO. E501871
DANNY POWELL, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. TYSON FOODS, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED JUNE 18, 1998
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE DAVID LASHFORD, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Texas.
Respondent represented by the HONORABLE J. DAVID WALL, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.
[1]
OPINION AND ORDER [2] The claimant appeals that portion of the administrative law judge’s decision filed on December 31, 1997, which found that the claimant failed to establish that he is entitled to additional compensation for his work-related back injury after June 18, 1995. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the denial of those benefits. [3] The claimant testified that he first sought medical treatment for his back injury from the emergency room at the Howard County Hospital on January 30, 1995. The first documented medical treatment the claimant received for this injury is in the form of a progress note by Dr. Robert N. Dunn of Nashville, Arkansas, the claimant’s family physician. Dr. Dunn’s progress note indicates that the claimant reported that he suffered a back strain at work on January 30, 1995. Dr. Dunn also noted the presence of severe back spasms and that the claimant was reporting back pain. Dr. Dunn also stated that the claimant was complaining of a burning pain in his lower back that radiated into the back of his left leg. Dr. Dunn diagnosed the claimant as suffering from lumbosacral strain. The treatment that was prescribed for this was bed rest and medication. The claimant was directed to remain off work for an unspecified period of time. A CT scan was performed on the claimant’s spine on February 14, 1995. That CT scan indicated that the claimant was suffering from bilateral spondylosis and associated spondylolisthesis at L5. However, the CT scan specifically stated that no disc protrusion was seen. [4] The claimant continued to be seen and treated by Dr. Dunn for the next several weeks. Dr. Dunn’s progress notes indicate that the claimant’s back strain was improving and no radicular symptoms were noted. In a progress note dated April 4, 1995, Dr. Dunn stated that the claimant’s lumbosacral strain had resolved and that he was released to return to work on April 10, 1995. The note also suggested that the claimant return to work vaccinating chickens for two weeks, followed by resumption of full activities. [5] The claimant apparently did not seek any additional medical treatment from Dr. Dunn or any other physician until he was seen in the hospital emergency room on June 19, 1995. The claimant testified that this treatment was received because of pain in his stomach and shoulder that he attributed to an incident which occurred while he was pulling on a trotline. On June 23, 1995, Dr. Dunn again saw the claimant and indicated that the claimant was suffering from pain in his abdominal region and in his left shoulder. Dr. Dunn did not make any mention of any back pain or other lumbar problems in his progress note. Dr. Dunn next saw the claimant on August 10, 1995. In a progress note of that date, Dr. Dunn noted that the claimant was complaining of problems in his left leg, and numbness with pain in his left calf and left thigh. Because of these complaints, Dr. Dunn directed the claimant to undergo another CT scan and later a MRI. While the results of these tests are not in the record, they apparently diagnose the claimant as suffering from some type of bulging or herniated disc at L5-S1. As a result of that diagnosis, the claimant was referred to Dr. Malik who performed a partial hemilaminectomy and discectomy at that level on May 22, 1996. [6] Much of the administrative law judge’s opinion and the briefs of the parties focus on whether or not the trot line incident in June of 1995 was an independent intervening cause resulting in the claimant’s disc injury. Based upon our review of the evidence, we find that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not that particular incident caused the claimant’s disc abnormality at L5-S1. However, the threshold question is not whether the disc abnormality suffered by the claimant resulted from the trot line incident, but whether the abnormality is causally related to his job-related injury on January 30, 1995.See, Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Carter, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (Opinion filed May 27, 1998). We find that the claimant has not established a causal connection between his compensable injury and any subsequent condition that may have developed after April 10, 1995, when he was diagnosed with a resolved lumbar strain injury. [7] In reaching that conclusion, we note that Dr. Dunn stated in several reports that he believed the claimant’s disc condition was related to the claimant’s original work-related injury. However, we also note that Dr. Dunn’s reports are once again focusing on a conclusion regarding whether or not the trotline incident caused the disc injury. Regardless of whether the trotline incident caused the disc injury, we find that the record strongly indicates that the claimant’s compensable injury did not cause his disc injury. Specifically, the claimant was diagnosed with having a work-related lumbar sprain in February 1995 and that diagnosis did not change until the claimant was released to return to work in April of 1995. At that time, Dr. Dunn specifically stated that the claimant’s condition had resolved. Significantly, the CT scan performed in March of 1995 did not denote any disc bulges, herniations, or any other disc abnormalities. While Dr. Dunn later stated that he thought that the claimant’s disc injury was related to his job-related accident, we note that throughout February, March, and April of 1995, Dr. Dunn diagnosed the claimant as suffering from a lumbosacral sprain. Over the course of his treatment of the claimant during those months, on only one occasion did Dr. Dunn ever note any symptom which could be referred to as radicular. On other occasions, Dr. Dunn merely noted that the claimant was suffering localized back pain. This condition quickly resolved and the claimant was released by Dr. Dunn to return to his normal activities. Moreover, we find that Dr. Dunn’s causation opinions are inconsistent with both the nature of the injury that he diagnosed through April of 1995 and inconsistent with the multiple CT scans in the record. On this record, we accord essentially no weight to Dr. Dunn’s causation opinions. [8] Therefore, after conducting a de novo review of the entire record, and for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the administrative law judge’s denial of additional benefits after June 18, 1995, must be and hereby is, affirmed. [9] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[10] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.