WILLIAMS v. PROSTAFF TEMPORARIES, 1997 AWCC 355

CLAIM NO. E602093

MICHELLE WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. PROSTAFF TEMPORARIES, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and EMPLOYERS SELF-INSURED SERVICES, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 1997

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

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE SHANNON MUSE CARROLL, Attorney at Law, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE GAIL O. MATTHEWS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.

[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] On January 22, 1997, the administrative law judge entered an opinion finding that the claimant was not entitled to additional benefits. From that decision, the claimant has appealed. After ade novo review of the evidence contained in this record, we find that the administrative law judge reached the correct result, and his decision is hereby affirmed.

[3] The claimant was an employee of the respondent, a temporary employment agency, when she suffered an alleged injury to her back on October 14, 1995. The claimant testified that while lifting a stack of styrofoam plates, she felt a sudden onset of severe pain in her lower back. The respondent referred the claimant to an emergency room for treatment. Eventually, after seeing several physicians, the claimant was referred to Dr. Edward Saer, a neurosurgeon in Little Rock, Arkansas. At that point, the respondent refused to pay for the claimant to be seen and treated by Dr. Saer, contending that such treatment was unreasonable and unnecessary. However, the respondent did send the claimant to Dr. Anthony Russell, a neurosurgeon in Little Rock, Arkansas.

[4] There appears to be little doubt that the incident described by the claimant on October 14, 1995, did occur. However, since being treated at the emergency room of the Hot Springs County Hospital in Malvern, Arkansas, the claimant has been treated by Dr. Bruce Safman, Dr. Kevin McLeod, and Dr. Vivian Highsmith. Additionally, the claimant was seen by Dr. Anthony Russell for a consultative examination. None of those physicians documented any objective evidence of an injury. Reports from those doctors set out the claimant’s complaints of pain and stiffness and note tenderness over portions of her lower back. However, they do not document any muscle spasms, swelling, bruising, or other objective indications of an injury. In fact, the physical therapy notes taken in October and November of 1996, record numerous complaints of pain from the claimant but specifically state that there are no noticeable muscle spasms. A CT scan performed on the claimant on November 3, 1995, found that the claimant had no evidence of disc herniation or significant degenerative spurring. In the radiologist report, Dr. Richard Fitzrandolph opined that no significant pathology was demonstrated in the CT scan.

[5] On April 10, 1996, the claimant was seen by Dr. Anthony Russell. Dr. Russell noted the claimant’s complaints of pain in her lower back and legs as well as stiffness and loss of range of motion. Dr. Russell recommended a MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine which was performed on April 15, 1996. In a report of that date, Dr. Russell indicated that her MRI scan was normal. He stated that there were some mild degenerative changes but no evidence of a herniated disc, stenosis, or nerve root compression. Dr. Russell went on to state his opinion as follows:

It is my opinion that Ms. Williams has had ample time for medical improvement based upon the proposed diagnosis of the lumbar strain. I see no other lesions that could contribute to her perceived pain. Certainly, nothing on the MRI scan would relate to a work type accident. Short of a work hardening type program, I see no further therapy indicated in the younger Ms. Williams and release her to return to work with no restrictions and no impairment rating.

[6] On appeal, the claimant stresses the significance of the findings of a MRI prepared by Dr. David Harshfield, a radiologist, who conducted a MRI scan on the claimant at the direction of Dr. Russell. In this regard, Dr. Harshfield’s report contained the following statement:

The examination reveals considerable dehydration and loss of disk space height at L5-S1 in this 21 year old female. There is a left para central subligamentous disk protrusion which is moderately encroaching upon the central canal. The central canal AP diameter remains 15 mm. However, a neuroforamine revealed mild narrowing but not marked stenosis in this patient with a history of low back pain and bilateral leg pain. The remainder of the disk spaces are well hydrated, the narrow signal is homogenous throughout the lumbar spine and the para spinal soft tissue structures are unremarkable.

IMPRESSION:

The patient has dehydration of L5-S1 disk with slight left para central subligamentous disk protrusion. The patient also has levo convex scoliosis of the lumbar spine.

[7] However, in assessing the significance of the indicated findings, we note that Dr. Russell, a board certified neurosurgeon, did not believe that the radiologist’s findings were of any particular significance. Also, the CT scan did not detect the condition referred to by Dr. Harshfield. While Dr. Harshfield did mention disc protrusion, he did not state any opinion indicating whether the disc protrusion was some type of preexisting condition, or whether it was the result of the claimant’s lifting incident of October 15, 1995. We believe that greater weight should be given to Dr. Russell’s opinion, the neurological specialist.

[8] In short, we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any abnormalities she may have experienced since March 30, 1996, are causally related to the relatively minor injury sustained on October 14, 1995. We realize that the MRI report prepared by Dr. Harshfield indicates that there was a disc protrusion. However, that interpretation was contradicted by Dr. Russell and by the CT scan of November 3, 1995. Consequently, even if the protrusion did in fact exist, we find that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the protrusion is causally related to her injury on October 14, 1995, or that the protrusion is consistent with her present complaints.

[9] Therefore, after conducting a de novo review of the entire record, and for the reasons set out above, we find that the decision of the administrative law judge must be, and hereby is, affirmed.

[10] IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner

[11] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.