BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G405650 LYNN M. GOLBECK, Employee CLAIMANT DENT A MED, INC., Employer RESPONDENT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier RESPONDENT

OPINION FILED JUNE 15, 2015 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Respondents represented by TOM HARPER, JR., Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 17, 2015, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, Arkansas. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on January 27, 2015, and a pre- hearing order was filed on that same date. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked Commission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. 2. On all relevant dates, the relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties. By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: 1. Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her left hand, wrist, and arm as the result of a specific incident injury on June 26, 2014. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to medical expenses as a result of her alleged injuries. Claimant’s contentions are: Golbeck (G405650) 2

“Claimant suffered a compensable injury to her left arm, wrist and hand when she was struck by a door at work. She contends this accident exacerbated her compensable cervical and thoracic spine injuries incurred on or about February of early March 2014. She contends she is entitled to treatment for these compensable injuries. Claimant reserves all other issues.” Respondents’ contentions are: “Respondents deny that the above injuries [left hand, wrist, and arm] are compensable.” The claimant in this matter is a 62-year-old female who is employed by the respondent as a debt collector. The claimant currently has two cases pending before the Commission. In the current case, Case Number G405650, she alleges to have suffered compensable injuries to her left hand, wrist, and arm as the central issue. These injuries are alleged to have occurred on June 26, 2014. There is also Case Number G408041 where she alleges as the central issue to have suffered a compensable cervical and thoracic spine injuries in a specific incident in early March of 2014. Both Case Number G405650 and Case Number G408041 are somewhat procedurally awkward in that the claimant’s and respondent’s attorney have requested the Commission to consider identical evidence and testimony for both cases before the Commission. I will now consider the issues found in Case Number G405650. Again, the claimant is employed with the respondent as a debt collector. She alleges in the current matter, Case Number G405650, that she suffered compensable injuries to her left hand, wrist, and arm on June 26, 2014. Following is the claimant’s direct examination testimony regarding this specific incident which she alleges: “Q. [BY MS. BROOKS]: What happened to you on June 26th of 2014? A. I was injured at work. Q. What happened? A. I was hit by a door. Golbeck (G405650) 3

Q. And what kind of a door? A. It is a big, heavy bank door with a metal handle and it jammed into my arm. Q. Which arm? A. Left arm. Q. And how were you hit? What was happening? A. I was going forward to open the door and there was chairs on the other side that unbeknownst to me which was stacked up that were being rammed into that door on the other side and it rammed into my arm and pushed into my fingers and hit my wrist and jammed my arm forward up into my shoulder. Q. Okay. And did you have any sort of injury from that impact? A. Yes, I did. Q. What kind of injury did you have? A. I still have a split nail where it hit the door. And then it hit me in my wrist. It jammed into this (indicating), and jammed up into my shoulder and up into my neck. I could feel it jamming into my neck. Q. Could you give us a sense of how hard this impact was. A. It was very impactful because it wasn’t just somebody opening the door. There were stacked chairs that were being rammed from the other side of another door, a stairway full of chairs that were stacked high enough that rammed that door open into me. Q. What do you mean by a stairway full of chairs? A. Because there is a stairwell down there and the stairwell was full of chairs and then there is another door and then when the door opened, it seemed when that rammed into me that there was somebody pushing those chairs hard forward into that door to get that door to open.”

The claimant also alleges to have reported her June 26, 2014 incident. Following is her direct examination testimony regarding the reporting of that incident: Golbeck (G405650) 4

“Q. Now, did you report this accident? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who did you report it to? A. When Perry came back from his meeting or wherever he was, I told him about the injury. Perry Hanner, the supervisor. Q. And did he offer you any Workers’ Compensation paperwork to fill out? A. No. Q. At that point what were your symptoms? A. I was hurting badly from the jam to my neck and arm and shoulder and the whole arm was hurt really bad and I was really feeling very weak and it hurt very much. Q. Did you explain that to Perry? A. Yes. Q. What did he say? A. He didn’t really say much. I don’t know. He just took my report. He listened to what I said. Q. Okay. Did you write anything down at that point? A. I didn’t write anything down. Q. Okay. Have you ever been given any Workers’ Compensation paperwork to fill o ut for any injury you have h ad at Dent a Med? A. Not that I recall.”

The claimant also gave testimony about her activities surrounding the time of her June 26, 2014 compensable injury as follows: Q. Now, was this just a normal day at your workplace? A. It was a workday, but we also have a company picnic that is annual once a year. Q. And was this the picnic day? Golbeck (G405650) 5

A. Yes, it was. Q. And was the picnic still going on? A. At that time I am not sure what really was transpiring. I just know that I was in front of that door and that the chairs were being taken back upstairs evidently because they had all been moved down for the picnic area. Q. Did you attend the picnic? A. Yes, I did. Q. Had you gone back to work after the picnic? A. Yes, I had. Q. And about how long had you been working? A. Approximately about half an hour. Q. Okay. And why were you at this door at this point in time? A. Well, I was going to get the popsicles that were the dessert from the - - they were in the freezer in that little area that is in that little hallway and I was going to go get that because I had them on my desk and I had put them in the freezer and they were melting and I wanted to go get one to eat. Q. Okay. Who provided the popsicles? A. The company. Q. And how did you know about the popsicles? A. Because - - I didn’t know at first. I went in there to thank Dr. Center for my check that he had given us for the shareholders. Q. Who is Dr. Center? A. He is the owner of the company. Q. Okay. A. And I had been in there and, basically, I - - and Shirley said, oh, I forgot to tell everybody. There was still people mingling around and there was a box full of popsicles that were the dessert. So I was over there to Golbeck (G405650) 6

pick up a couple and I took one over and was going to eat one and I took it back to my desk and then I realized it was melting because I was working and then I took it back in there and I was going to go get it after it was frozen again. Q. And so when you were approaching the door, was that after it was frozen again that you went to get it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you said Shirley told people there were popsicles. Shirley who? A. Shirley Hildebrand. Q. And while you were working and then while you went to get the popsicle, what were other people doing? A. I really don’t know because my supervisor wasn’t there at the time. I was working in my cubicle. I can’t say where everybody else was. You know, I know there was people moving the chairs. I saw those. Q. Were there other people working around your cubicle? A. I had a supervisor that was standing behind me because they were from Tulsa. There was a lot of people from Tulsa in the office because they moved them over here for the picnic to come over for that annual picnic, and there were different people behind me that normally wouldn’t be in the halls when I was there, but I don’t know what they were doing, you know, as far as working or not. They wouldn’t have had a desk, I mean, because they were from Tulsa. Q. Okay. A. I don’t know what the other people were doing. Q. Okay. What was your intention after you were going to pick up the popsicle? A. I was going to bring the popsicle back to my desk and continue to work. Q. And during this picnic, was there any work that was going on? Was there a meeting or anything like that? A. There was speeches, a talk by Dr. Center. And then there was a presentation for somebody that was retiring. And there was work that was concerning Golbeck (G405650) 7

employees and shareholders’ checks and then that type of thing.” On June 26, 2014, the claimant was at work for the respondent. However, during that day it appears that there were unusual festivities including a workplace picnic. It was the claimant’s testimony that she had left the picnic portion of the day and had returned to her desk to begin work. The claimant then went and retrieved popsicles from the freezer that the respondent had intended to provide for dessert but had forgotten to offer. The claimant returned to her desk to work; however, the popsicle began to melt so the claimant then returned the popsicle back to the freezer with the intention of returning and eating the popsicle after it had re-frozen. The claimant alleges that her injury to her left hand, wrist, and arm occurred when she was returning to retrieve the re-frozen popsicle. On her way to the freezer she alleges that her left hand was struck by the door. The picnic that was provided by the respondent for the employees as well as the popsicles do appear to be a way for the respondent to raise morale for its employees. The claimant testified that speeches were given and that some form of profit sharing or bonus checks were handed out to employees that day. It appears that the respondent provided food for this event, including the popsicle that was the claimant’s desire at the time she alleges to have injured her left hand, wrist, and arm. However, the claimant had returned to work from this morale building exercise/picnic. The claimant had already once retrieved the popsicles, brought them to her desk to eat, then chose to return those popsicles because they were melting, and then returned to her desk to work while waiting for the popsicles to re-freeze and then upon her final return for the re-frozen popsicles she alleges her injury to have occurred. It does not appear that the claimant was performing work services at the time she alleges her injury to have occurred. The picnic itself and the events undertaken during it would be employment services as they would have at least indirectly benefitted the respondent in an attempt to increase employee morale. However, the claimant’s alleged injury did not Golbeck (G405650) 8 occur until after her time at the picnic had ended. She had returned to work and was on her third trip to the freezer to either pick up or return a popsicle to the freezer when her injury occurred. While the respondent did provide the popsicles for dessert at the picnic, the claimant had clearly ended her time there and chose to retrieve a popsicle, bring the popsicle back to her desk, allow it to melt, then return the popsicle to be re-frozen, return once more to her desk, and then finally return to retrieve the re-frozen popsicle when her injury occurred. I find no direct or indirect benefit for the respondent in the claimant’s actions. As such, the claimant cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was performing employment services at the time she alleges her injury to have occurred. However, even if I found that the claimant was performing employment services, she still is unable to prove compensable injuries to her left hand, wrist, and arm on June 26, 2014 in that she cannot prove objective medical findings that are causally connected to her alleged injury. The claimant was seen on July 30, 2014 at Mercy. At that time the claimant complained of “left arm - wrist. Fingernail, ring finger, split. Right leg bruised on calf.” The claimant indicated the following mechanism of injury: “Doorway (metal door with metal handle) rammed into my wrist when chairs were stacked up on other side of door, as chairs were being pushed against the doorway from the other side by another person - I hit my watch, also my leg and my ring finger.” That medical record also indicates that the claimant had immediate symptoms of “immediate pain, immediate swelling, does not see swelling at this time but not sure.” On Page 3 of Respondent’s Exhibit 1, the following is a portion of that report from a left wrist examination:

“SKIN: normal. SWELLING: none and wrist diameter 140 mm bilaterally. WARMTH: no warmth. TENDERNESS: present at left distal radius and snuffbox. Also less of left ulnar snuffbox and first mc. Dorsal and volar median wrist. ROM: decreased active ROM to flexion and extension of left wrist. STRENGTH: decreased as above. Golbeck (G405650) 9

STABILITY: normal. NEUROLOGIC EXAM: FT sensation reduced in left thumb, long and pinky finger; shoulders equal bilat. Motor-weakness grip left hand, wrist extension and flexion; lat abd at shoulders equal bilat. VASCULAR EXAM: normal. LOCKING: none. MASS/FOCAL SWELLING: none. SPECIAL TESTS: Tinel’s positive left hand to index, long and ring fingers. Phalen positive to index, long, and ring finger. Mild fissure distally of left ring finger noted without local tenderness or edema. Mild tenderness of right proximal medial calf just posterior to medial tibia, no mass or ecchymosis.”

An x-ray of the claimant’s left wrist and hand was performed at that time. The results of that x-ray of the left hand and left wrist are found at Respondent’s Exhibit 1, Page 21. Following are the impressions: “Impression 1. No acute osseous abnormality left hand and wrist. 2. Mild degenerative disease radial aspect of the wrist.” The claimant continued to treat at Mercy and with Dr. Hicks who had previously seen the claimant for cervical and thoracic difficulties. Eventually the claimant underwent an electrodiagnostic evaluation at the referral of Dr. Hicks. That evaluation was performed by Dr. Kathleen Sisler. Following are the impressions from that evaluation: Impression: 1. Mild right median neuropathy at the wrist consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome. Findings are characterized by sensory demyelinating changes. 2. Mild right ulnar neuropathy at the wrist consistent with entrapment at Guyon’s canal. 3. There was no electrodiagnostic evidence of the following: a. Right or left cervical radiculopathy. b. Right or left cubital tunnel syndrome. c. Left ulnar nerve entrapment a [sic] the wrist. d. Left carpal tunnel syndrome. e. Generalized peripheral neuropathy involving the upper extremities.” Golbeck (G405650) 10

Those tests were performed on the claimant on September 12, 2014 at Physician’s Medicine and Rehab in Tulsa, Oklahoma. On September 16, 2014, the claimant returned to see Dr. Hicks. At that time Dr. Hicks discussed the results of her recent bilateral upper extremity EMG testing. Following is the history of present illness portion of that medical report: “History of Present Illness: Lynn returns today for results of a recent bilateral upper extremity EMG test. That test was conducted on 9/12/14. She was injured on the job in February of 2012. Her main complaints were of tingling in bilateral upper extremities as well as some aching. She said she sits at a desk and types for prolonged periods. She had some stiffness and discomfort in the neck from time to time, as well. The neck symptoms were tolerable. She had some tingling and numbness in the bilateral hands, as well. She denied new injury. With respect to her cervical spine, no new treatment was indicated. At her last evaluation on 8/19/14, she stated she never started therapy. She said she had another injury late June when a bank door hit her in the hand. She said her symptoms were worse than they were last time she was here. Regarding her cervical spine, her symptoms were unchanged. She had not worked since the beginning of August.”

Another portion of that medical record states: “I have reviewed the upper extremity EMG/NCS. And the radiologist report. A right carpal tunnel syndrome and irritation of the ulnar nerve at Guyon’s canal on the right side was noted. No cervical radiculopathy or left upper extremity peripheral entrapment syndrome or neuropathy was noted.” The impressions given in that medical record were a cervical strain and cervical degenerative disc disease, C7-T1. The claimant in this matter does have a long history of cervical difficulties including at least two surgical interventions. That cervical history is well documented in Claimant’s Exhibit 1, specifically on Page 1. Golbeck (G405650) 11

As far as objective medical findings regarding the claimant’s allegations of a left hand, wrist, and arm injury, Respondent’s Exhibit 1, Page 3, does indicate “mild fissure distally of the left ring finger noted without local tenderness or edema.” An x-ray performed on July 30, 2014 does indicate “mild degenerative disc radial aspect of the wrist.” While these are objective medical findings, I do not believe the claimant can show a causal connection between these objective medical findings and the incident she alleges. In review of the medical records as a whole, it appears that there is simply no evidence of derangement or difficulty with the claimant’s left hand, wrist, or arm. The claimant had also complained of “experiencing tingling in the bilateral upper extremities as well as some aching.” This is found in a May 30, 2014 medical report issued by Dr. Hicks found at Claimant’s Exhibit5 1, Page 11. These symptoms and complaints pre-date her alleged June 26, 2014 injury date. Here, the claimant has failed to prove that she suffered a compensable injury to her left hand, wrist, and arm. The claimant first fails to prove that she was performing employment services at the time she alleges to have suffered her injuries. However, even if the claimant were able to prove that she was performing employment services she is unable to prove her case compensable due to her inability to prove a causal connection between the objective medical findings demonstrated and the injury she alleges. From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704:

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing conference conducted on January 27, 2015, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date, are hereby accepted as fact. Golbeck (G405650) 12

2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a compensable left hand, wrist, and arm injury as a result of a specific incident injury on June 26, 2014. 3. The claimant has failed to prove that she is entitled to medical treatment for her alleged injuries.

ORDER Pursuant to the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, I have no alternative but to deny this claim in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ERIC PAUL WELLS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE