Nurse’s shoulder injury claim unravels as medical trail points elsewhere

The surgeon operated on her left shoulder in June 2024, finding tendon damage, joint arthropathy, and significant bursitis – though the rotator cuff was intact. Months later, in response to a specific inquiry from the worker’s lawyer in October 2024, he opined the June 2023 workplace incident was more than 50 percent responsible for the injury and the need for surgery. 

An administrative law judge found in the worker’s favour in April 2025, awarding benefits. The full Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed that decision in September 2025, with one commissioner dissenting. The Commission pointed to the unremarkable initial imaging, the return to full duties, the conflicting medical histories, and the way the surgeon’s causation opinion developed only after a pointed question from counsel. It found the worker not credible on the origin of her condition and gave minimal weight to the surgeon’s later opinion. 

The worker appealed, arguing the Commission wrongly demanded a higher standard of proof and unfairly rejected her testimony. In a decision delivered October 28, 2026, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. The court found the Commission had not confused proving an injury exists with proving what caused it – it had simply concluded the worker did not establish the workplace incident caused the shoulder conditions treated a year later. The court also found the credibility call was based on identifiable inconsistencies in the medical record, not an arbitrary dismissal of her account. 

For HR and safety teams handling comp claims in healthcare settings, the case shows that the medical record employees build across multiple providers effectively becomes the evidence file – and when those records point in different directions, the claim may not survive the scrutiny. 

The Commission’s denial of benefits was affirmed on appeal. No further proceedings were indicated in the opinion.