Hensley v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA08-1354
Opinion Delivered MAY
PAUL HENSLEY
6, 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION,
[NO. F003545]
V.
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Paul Hensley appeals the decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation
Commission denying his request for additional benefits for treatment that he argued was
related to a compensable back injury he incurred in February 2000. The Commission,
affirming and adopting the decision of the administrative law judge, found that the treatment
was not reasonable and necessary in connection with his compensable injury. Mr. Hensley
contends on appeal that the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence
and should be reversed. Specifically, he argues that he has consistently received treatment
for the injury, that the nature of his back pain has not changed, and that the additional
treatment was reasonable and necessary. Because the Commission has failed to make
sufficient findings of fact to enable us to conduct an informed review, we remand for
additional findings.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-508(a) requires an employer to pay for medical
treatment that is “reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the
employee.” The claimant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to additional medical
treatment. Dalton v. Allen Eng’g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 206, 989 S.W.2d 543, 546 (1999).
Where, as here, a claim has been denied because of the claimant’s failure to meet his burden
of proof, the substantial evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the
Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Neal v. Sparks Reg’l
Med. Center, 104 Ark. App. 97, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008). We view the evidence and all
reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commission’s
findings and affirm if they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that a
reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Singleton v. City of Pine
Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244 S.W.3d 709 (2006).
On February 21, 2000, while working for appellee, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Mr.
Hensley suffered injuries to his neck and back when he attempted to place an approximately
150-pound roller on a conveyer. The claim was accepted as compensable and appellee paid
Mr. Hensley benefits for treatment of his injuries. Mr. Hensley had surgery on his neck.
Treatment for his back has consisted of physical therapy, steroid shots, muscle relaxants, and
some pain medication. Mr. Hensley went back to work for appellee full time in December
2003.
Dr. Ronald Williams, a neurosurgeon who performed surgery on Mr. Hensley’s neck,
last saw Mr. Hensley on May 24, 2005. Mr. Hensley made the appointment because he was
suffering from muscle spasms; Dr. Williams prescribed Flexeril. Dr. Williams wrote a letter
-2-
CA08-1354
to family doctor Kevin Beavers explaining that Mr. Hensley would like Dr. Beavers to
become his family physician, which would save Mr. Hensley from “driving all the way to
Little Rock to get occasional medicine such as the Flexeril.”
Dr. Beavers treated Mr. Hensley on December 16, 2005, for back pain, continuing
muscle-relaxant therapy and prescribing a limited quantity of Hydrocodone for pain relief.
In February 2006, Dr. Beavers ordered physical therapy for Mr. Hensley’s back pain, which
Mr. Hensley continued through March 8, 2006. Dr. Beavers prescribed a back brace for Mr.
Hensley to use during work hours and ordered an MRI, which was performed on Mr.
Hensley’s back on April 12, 2006, which resulted in the following impression: “Normal MRI
of the lumbar spine.” Dr. Beavers treated Mr. Hensley on April 25, 2006, again for back
pain. Dr. Beavers noted that the MRI was reported as normal, but he stated that “in the text
of the MRI report it is noted that [Mr. Hensley] has some L4-5 and L5-S1 degenerative disc
problems which obviously would not make it normal.”
At the request of appellee, Dr. Darin Wilbourn performed an independent medical
evaluation on Mr. Hensley on May 9, 2006, due to complaints of neck and low-back pain.
In response to specific questions, Dr. Wilbourn provided the following opinions:
1. Diagnosis?
1. Chronic cervical spine pain status post anterior cervical fusion
October 9, 2003.
2. Chronic low back pain.
2. Prognosis for recovery?
Good
3. Please obtain history of injury(ies) sustained and subsequent medical
treatment received.
As stated above.
4. Please include in history any prior injuries and/or preexisting conditions.
-3-
CA08-1354
As stated above.
5. Please establish causal relationship, if any, of claimant’s current
symptomatology to incident of February 17, 2000.
Mr. Hensley’s current symptoms of chronic cervical spine pain and low back pain, in
my opinion, are related to the incident of February 17, 2000.
6. To what degree is claimant currently disabled, if at all, relative to incident of
February 17, 2000?
Mr. Hensley is currently not disabled.
7. Is further treatment needed for injuries sustained in incident of February 17,
2000? If so, what type and for what duration.
No.
8. In your medical opinion, is this claimant’s current regime of medical care
reasonable and necessary for injuries sustained on February 17, 2000?
Yes.
9. In your medical opinion, has claimant sustained any loss of function due to
incident of February 2000?
No.
10. Please evaluate status of scarring.
Scarring evident from previous anterior cervical fusion.
11. Should we anticipate any permanency on this claim?
9% w hole person im pairm ent for his cervical spine as already
documented by Dr. Ron Williams on December 19, 2003. There is no
permanent impairment as related to his chronic low back pain.
12. In your opinion, has an end result been achieved?
Yes.
13. Has this claimant reached maximum medical improvement?
Yes.
Thereafter, in a letter dated February 9, 2007, appellee told Mr. Hensley that Dr.
Wilbourn had placed him at “Maximum Medical Improvement” and that his workers’
compensation claim had been closed as of June 28, 2006. Mr. Hensley returned to Dr.
Beavers in April 2007 for back pain; Dr. Beavers prescribed Flexeril. It is this treatment by
Dr. Beavers in April 2007 that is at issue in this case.
The Commission found that the treatment rendered by Dr. Beavers in April 2007 was
not reasonable and necessary in connection with Mr. Hensley’s compensable injury.
-4-
CA08-1354
Specifically, the Commission relied upon Dr. Wilbourn’s opinion that Mr. Hensley had
reached maximum medical improvement as of his evaluation in May 2006 and the fact that
Mr. Hensley did not seek additional treatment for his back until a year later in April 2007.
However, it is well settled that a claimant may be entitled to ongoing medical treatment after
the healing period has ended if the medical treatment is geared toward management of the
claimant’s injury. Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 236, 184 S.W.3d 31,
35 (2004).
The evidence was undisputed that Mr. Hensley has continued to suffer from back pain
related to the incident of February 17, 2000. Dr. Wilbourn stated that Mr. Hensley’s current
symptoms of chronic cervical spine pain and low back pain were related to the incident of
February 17, 2000, and that his current regime of medical care was “reasonable and necessary
for injuries sustained on February 17, 2000.” The Commission failed to address this evidence
and whether Dr. Beavers’s treatment was “geared toward management” of Mr. Hensley’s
injury. Accordingly, we reverse the Commission’s decision and remand for additional
findings.
Reversed and remanded for additional findings.
P ITTMAN and R OBBINS, JJ., agree.
-5-
CA08-1354
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
