Was Officer who Hit Head, Saw ‘Stars,’ Entitled to Compensation for Brain Injury?

In Arkansas, an injury arising from a specific incident at work is only compensable if there are objective medical findings to back it up. A case involving a police officer who hit his head during a training exercise can help employers and carriers understand when it may be prudent to challenge a finding of compensability.

The officer was engaged in a police exercise in which he was chasing a fake suspect. He fell and hit his head on a curb. He didn’t think he lost consciousness, but his vision was off. He explained: "it seemed like stars or TV static." It took him 10 or 15 seconds to get up off the ground.

For state info from Arkansas or the rest of the U.S., head to Simply Research.

At the hospital, he was nauseous and vomiting. That stopped after he left, but he thereafter suffered effects that are normally associated with a traumatic brain injury, including difficulty concentrating. He felt lethargic, groggy, and confused, and he "knew something was off." 

A doctor conducted several tests. They did not result in any objective findings of a TBI. But the doctor believed the officer suffered a TBI. He pointed out that the officer was continuing to suffer headaches, vision problems, and difficulty remembering things.

The workers’ compensation commission found the injury compensable as a specific-incident injury. The city appealed.

To prove that a specific-incident injury is compensable, a claimant must establish: 

1. An injury occurred arising out of and in the scope of employment;
2. The injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services or resulted in disability or death
3. The injury is established by medical evidence supported by objective findings; and 
4. The injury was caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.

Did the officer establish a compensable TBI?

A. No. There was only subjective evidence that he had a brain injury.

B. Yes. The symptoms he described are all classic symptoms of a brain injury.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in City of Conway v. Ellis, No. CV-24-636 (Ark. Ct. App. 05/28/25), which reversed the workers’ compensation commission's ruling.

The officer didn’t prove he suffered a specific-incident injury because there were no objective medical findings to support his claim. It was true that the doctor thought the officer sustained a closed head injury from the fall. 

However, “his opinion was based on a multitude of subjective factors, such as headaches, blurred vision, and memory loss, the reporting of which can come under the voluntary control of the patient,” the court said.

Because the officer didn’t have objective medical evidence to show he suffered a closed head injury, the commission erred when it found his injury was compensable.

Share This Article: