Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 134

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-22-320

GLENN CARTER

APPELLANT

V.

GEA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND 

SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY 

INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered March 8, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION

[NO. H010320]

AFFIRMED

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

Glenn Carter appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Worker’s Compensation 

Commission (Commission) finding that Carter failed to prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to his low back on November 24, 2020, and 

denying his claim for medical treatment and temporary total-disability (TTD) benefits. 

Appellees are Carter’s employer, GEA North America, Inc. (GEA), and Sentry Insurance 

Company Insurance Carrier/TPA. The only issue on appeal is whether the evidence is 

sufficient to support the Commission’s decision. We affirm.

On September 8, 2021, a hearing was held before the administrative law judge (ALJ)

to litigate (1) the compensability of Carter’s lumbar spine condition; (2) whether Carter was

entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment; (3) whether Carter was entitled to 

TTD; and (4) attorney’s fees. The parties had previously stipulated that (1) the Commission 
2

had jurisdiction of the claim; (2) on November 24, 2020, the relationship of employeeemployer-carrier existed among the parties; and (3) the compensation rates were $711 weekly 

for TTD benefits and $533 for permanent partial-disability benefits. 

On November 24, 2020, Carter, a traveling service technician for GEA, was rearended in his company truck. Carter refused medical treatment at the scene, the airbags did 

not deploy, his truck remained operable, and Carter drove it home. 

The next day, Carter worked his regular schedule, which involved driving to 

Fayetteville. While in Fayetteville, Carter sought treatment at an emergency room (ER) for

complaints of left shoulder pain along with some right shoulder pain. He specifically denied 

any lower-back pain. During the exam, his treating physician noted a complete absence of 

tenderness or other symptoms with respect to his back (“negative for arthralgia, back pain, 

or myalgia”), documenting that there were “no other injuries or complaints” beyond Carter’s

shoulder. The ER records also reflected “no spinal tenderness to palpation.” The x-ray results 

indicated “degenerative changes of the left shoulder with no evidence of acute fracture or 

traumatic malalignment.” 

Carter continued working until December 5, 2020, when he testified that he woke 

up and his left leg was numb. Carter was seen in an ER that day, with an admissions diagnosis 

of “dorsalgia, unspecified” and a final principal diagnosis of lumbago with sciatica, 

unspecified site, as well as “other muscle spasm.” His chief complaint was lower-back pain or 

“discomfort” radiating down into both of his legs, with some occasional numbness. His exam 

reflected “positive for back pain and myalgias” and negative for “arthralgias, joint swelling, 
3

neck pain and neck stiffness,” with “normal range of motion,” and generally “no swelling or 

signs of injury.” Carter also exhibited “tenderness and spasm” in his lumbar back. The 

findings of Carter’s lumbar spine x-ray were as follows: 

the lumbar spine demonstrates no acute compression deformity. The T12-L1 

disc is severely narrowed with endplate sclerosis and spurring. The L4-5 disc is 

severely narrowed. There is slight anterolisthesis of L3 on L4. No acute 

compression deformity is seen. There is severe apophyseal joint degenerative 

hypertrophy. There is mild S-shaped curvature of the thoracolumbar spine.

The impression was “severe degenerative disease with no acute osseous abnormality.” Carter 

was diagnosed with arthritis in his lumbar spine and was told to continue taking medications 

and use a heating pad as needed and, if there was no improvement, to consider a follow up 

with an MRI. Carter responded that the pain was “not bad,” and he was “not interested in 

surgery” at that time. 

On December 15, 2020, Carter was treated at Mercy Clinic Ortho and Sports by Dr. 

Dominic Jacobelli. An x-ray reflected “severe degenerative disease with no acute osseous 

abnormality.” Dr. Jacobelli prescribed Carter oral medication and referred him for physical 

therapy (PT), which Carter received on December 21, 23, 28, and 30, 2020, and January 4, 

6, 12, 14, 19, and 21, 2021. At the December 30 PT visit, Carter reported that “he has been 

doing fine. He has not dealt with too much soreness, pain, or stiffness.” Carter was treated 

by Dr. Jacobelli again on January 11, 2021, for complaints of low-back pain. Dr. Jacobelli’s 

records reflect that previous x-rays and a CT scan showed no acute fracture. Those records 

also reflect that Carter reported having pain in his lower back prior to the “injury” and that 

Dr. Jacobelli “explained to Carter in detail that he does not have a [sic] injury.” On February 
4

3, 2021, Carter received an MRI, which reflected a number of degenerative issues, none 

acute. Dr. Jacobelli referred Carter to a pain clinic for lumbar injections. 

On February 11, 2021, Carter was seen by Dr. David Benson at Mercy Pain Clinic in 

Rogers. On February 19, Carter treated with a chiropractor. On February 22, Carter received 

epidural injections for pain management. On April 14, Carter was seen by Dr. Christopher 

Carter, his primary care physician, for a follow-up visit regarding “chronic low back pain.” 

Carter received TTD benefits and medical benefits from GEA through March 22, 

2021. GEA then denied further benefits, and Carter filed a claim with his group health 

insurance, CIGNA. 

On June 15, 2021, Dr. Charles Jones, a neurosurgeon, performed an L3-L4-L5 

posterolateral spinal fusion, an L3-4 bilateral decompressive laminectomy with partial medial 

facetectomies, an L4-5 bilateral decompressive laminectomy with partial medial 

facetectomies, and removal of benign intracanal extradural mass (facet joint synovial cyst) on 

Carter. Dr. Jones noted postoperatively that Carter had “severe degeneration at L3-5,” and 

he “did not see any acute trauma,” but “severe degeneration . . . causing stenosis in 

conjunction with the spondylolisthesis at L4-5.”

That surgery was paid for by CIGNA. CIGNA had initially declined to pay for the 

surgery due to its position that the surgery should be covered by GEA’s workers’-

compensation provider. However, after consulting with Dr. Jones, CIGNA changed its 

position and covered the surgery. 
5

Carter testified that he has a history of low-back pain; he began receiving chiropractic 

treatment at Hines Chiropractic Clinic in Rogers in 1983; he was continually treated by a 

chiropractor every three to four months; and he was fairly certain that he was treated for lowback pain sometime in 2020. Carter described the previous pain as more of a muscle spasm, 

an aching kind of pain; whereas after the accident, it has been more of a specific grinding, 

burning pain that occurred over his right hip bone and that he was experiencing low-back 

pain that radiated into his right leg, all of which was new. However, Carter’s testimony 

confirmed that he had radiculopathy in both legs, spasms, and sharp low-back pain before 

the accident, and his previous pain levels were higher on the pain scale. 

On September 29, 2021, the ALJ issued an opinion determining that Carter had not 

proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained a compensable injury to 

his lumbar spine due to a work-related injury sustained on November 24, 2020, or an 

exacerbation of a preexisting condition. Therefore, he was not entitled to additional TTD or 

medical benefits. As a result, all other issues and associated benefits with his claim were

rendered moot and were not discussed in the opinion. On October 5, 2021, Carter appealed 

to the Full Commission, and on January 25, 2022, the Full Commission filed an opinion 

affirming and adopting the ALJ’s decision. This timely appeal followed.

When the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s opinion, thereby making the 

findings and conclusions of the ALJ the Commission’s findings and conclusions, we consider 

both the ALJ’s opinion and the Commission’s opinion in our review. Watson v. Highland

Pellets, LLC, 2022 Ark. App. 132, at 5, 643 S.W.3d 267, 270. When the Commission denies 
6

benefits because the claimant has failed to meet his or her burden of proof, the substantialevidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission’s decision displays a 

substantial basis for the denial of relief. Id. The issue is not whether the appellate court might 

have reached a different result from the Commission but whether reasonable minds could 

reach the result found by the Commission; if so, the appellate court must affirm. Id. 

Credibility questions and the weight to be given to witness testimony are within the 

Commission’s exclusive province. Id. It is also within the Commission’s province to weigh 

all the medical evidence and to determine what is most credible. Id. We have long held that 

the Commission’s decision to accept or reject medical opinions and how it resolves 

conflicting medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Id.

An employer takes the employee as the employer finds him, and employment 

circumstances that aggravate preexisting conditions are compensable. Vaughn v. Midland Sch. 

Dist., 2012 Ark. App. 344, at 2. A preexisting disease or infirmity does not disqualify a claim 

if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to 

produce the disability for which workers’-compensation benefits are sought. Id. An 

aggravation of a preexisting noncompensable condition by a compensable injury itself is 

compensable. Webb v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 2018 Ark. App. 627, at 5, 567 S.W.3d 86, 90.

An aggravation is a new injury resulting from an independent incident, so it must meet the

definition of a compensable injury to establish compensability for the aggravation. Liaromatis 

v. Baxter Cty. Reg’l Hosp., 95 Ark. App. 296, 299, 236 S.W.3d 524, 527 (2006). A compensable

injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings, which are 
7

findings that cannot come under the control of the patient, such as complaints of pain or 

tenderness. Ozark Nat. Food v. Pierson, 2012 Ark. App. 133, at 9, 389 S.W.3d 105, 110. As 

interpreted by our appellate courts, this means that an aggravation, being a new injury, must 

be evidenced by objective medical findings of a new injury to the preexisting condition.

Vaughn, 2012 Ark. App. 344, at 2. It is the injury for which appellant seeks benefits that 

must be supported by objective medical findings. Liaromatis, 95 Ark. App. at 299, 236 

S.W.3d at 527.

In order to prove a compensable injury as a result of a specific incident that is 

identifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish the following by a 

preponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course of employment; 

(2) that the injury caused internal or external harm to the body which required medical 

services or resulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective 

findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16) (Repl. 2012), establishing the injury; 

and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of 

occurrence. Odd Jobs & More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, at 4–5, 384 S.W.3d 630, 632 

(citing Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2009)).

On appeal, Carter contends that the ALJ erred in finding that he failed to prove by 

preponderance of the evidence that he suffered either a compensable injury or an 

exacerbation of a preexisting injury to his low back on November 24, 2020. He argues that

the objective medical evidence more than supported his burden of proof because, while it 

was “no secret” that he received chiropractic care for low-back pain “for decades,” he had 
8

not been to the chiropractor since 2018. Carter further argues that his claim should not have 

been denied because prior to the accident, he had never required treatment from a 

neurosurgeon or surgery, and the low-back pain he experienced prior to the accident was 

different from the low-back pain he experienced after it. GEA responds that Carter lacked 

credibility as a witness, his low-back problems predated the accident, and he failed to provide 

evidence of new objective findings of an acute injury.

We now turn to the Commission’s decision. The ALJ, after reviewing all the evidence 

in the case, specifically determined that Carter had an extensive history of low-back pain, 

and Carter’s testimony that his pre-accident pain was different than his post-accident pain 

was contradicted by his medical records. The ALJ further relied on the fact that, while 

Carter’s last visit to Hines Chiropractic Clinic was in August 2018, Carter admitted that he 

received chiropractic care for his lower back from Dr. Josh Jones in 2020. The ALJ further 

found that Carter’s testimony that immediately after the accident he felt like he had “been 

hit in the back with a sledgehammer” was belied by the incontrovertible evidence that he 

had been treated the day after the accident in an ER only for complaints of shoulder pain, 

he made no complaints about back pain, and his examination was negative for back pain. 

The ALJ also found relevant that Carter did not seek any further medical treatment until 

December 5, after having been off work for several days due to the Thanksgiving holiday and 

after having driven to Broken Bow, Oklahoma, to inspect thirteen compressors for GEA. 

Carter bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he 

suffered a compensable injury to his lower back on November 24, 2020. Here, the 
9

Commission credited Carter’s medical records, including statements contained within his 

medical records by him, rather than his testimony. It is undisputed that Carter’s low-back 

complaints predated the accident, and he presented no evidence of new objective findings 

of an acute injury. His medical records reflected that he suffered from degenerative issues—

not an acute injury. Carter did not establish by medical evidence supported by objective 

findings that he had sustained a new injury or an aggravation of a preexisting injury. See 

Liaromatis, supra; Ozark Nat. Food, supra. Carter essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence 

and credibility findings made by the Commission; however, once the Commission has made 

its decision on issues of credibility, we are bound by that decision. Watson, supra. The 

Commission’s denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence, and reasonable 

minds could have reached the result found by the Commission. As such, we affirm. 

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and BARRETT, JJ., agree. 

Caddell Reynolds, by: Matthew J. Ketcham, for appellant.

Worley, Wood Parrish, P.A., by: Jarrod S. Parrish, for appellees.