Bonet, 120817 ARWC, G506984

Case DateDecember 08, 2017
CourtKansas
CHRIS BONET, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT
FIRESTONE BUILDING PRODUCTS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR(TPA)/ INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT
No. G506984
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
December 8, 2017
         A hearing was held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK, in El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.           Claimant represented by Ms. Laura Beth York, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           Respondents represented by Ms. Gail Ponder Gaines, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           CHANDRA L. BLACK, Administrative Law Judge.          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          A hearing was held in the above-styled claim on September 19, 2017, in El Dorado, Arkansas. A Prehearing Order was previously entered in this case on May 10, 2017. The following stipulations were submitted by the parties, either pursuant to the Prehearing Order, or at the start of the hearing. I hereby accept the following stipulations.          1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim.          2. The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed at all relevant times, including September 5, 2015.          3. The claimant sustained compensable injuries of laceration to the forehead, on September 5, 2015.          4. This claim for additional benefits has been controverted in its entirety.          By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing were as follows:
1. Whether the claimant sustained compensable injuries to his neck and lumbar spine, as a result of the September 5, 2015 incident.
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability compensation from November 15, 2015, to a date yet to be determined.
3. Whether the claimant is entitled to reasonable medical treatment for his neck and back conditions.
4. Whether the claimant is entitled to facial scarring pursuant to Arkansas Code Ann. §11-9-524.
5. Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee.
         The claimant’s contends that on September 5, 2015, claimant was hit in the back of the head with a machine. This pushed the claimant’s head into a metal table in front of him. Claimant’s injuries were accepted and medical treatment was initially provided. Respondents subsequently denied claimant’s neck and low back injuries. Eventually, surgery was recommended for claimant’s low back and cervical spine. Dr. Seale performed an IME, and opined that the claimant’s injuries were not caused by the work related accident. Claimant’s primary care physician opined that the claimant’s injuries were caused by the work related accident. Claimant contends that he sustained compensable injuries to his head, neck, and low back in the scope and course of employment and that he is entitled to temporary total disability, medical benefits, and that his attorney is entitled to attorney fees. All other issues are reserved.          The respondents contend claimant’s compensable injury of September 5, 2015 was related to a laceration to his forehead. Respondents contend claimant did not sustain compensable cervical or lumbar injuries. Respondents contend claimant has not shown entitlement to temporary total disability benefits or additional medical treatment including, but not limited to, lumbar surgery.          The documentary evidence in this case consists of the September 19, 2017, hearing transcript and the documents contained therein.          The following witnesses testified at the hearing: the claimant, Keith Williams, and Mike Carter.          DISCUSSION          The claimant, age 52 (01/14/65), is a high school graduate. According to the claimant, he has obtained a trade in building maintenance and the distribution of parts(warehousing), for which he received a certificate of completion. He received this certification in 1984. Since leaving trade school, the claimant has worked at lumber mills doing production work. He has also worked as a forklift driver and done warehouse work.
He began working for Firestone in June of 2015.
Q Okay. And what was your job there when you started?
A I was a wind-up operator in "G" bay.
Q And what does a wind-up operator do?
A A wind-up operator -- we -- they take the rubber, and they run it down the bay, and then they cut it, and the wind-up operators, we take the cut pieces, and we pull it and put it -- insert it between steel wheels, and it winds it up, and we guide just -- we guide it up -- we guide it up in there.
24 Q Okay.
25 A And it winds it up into a roll, and then we just -- we unload it and let -- send it down the line.
Q Okay. And was that what you were doing on September 5th, 2015?
A Yes.
Okay. Tell me what happened on September 5th, 2015.
A Me and my wind-up partner, Michael Sherrill, had just finished a roll -- I think it was, like, a 50 by 100 -- and we was getting ready to do the next roll. I had put the core into the wind-up machine. The core is what the rubber is wrapped around. It's kind of like a roll of paper towels, and so as I was inserting the core into the -- into the machine, it clicked, and I heard a -- the clicking sound like when it -- when you mash the button for the -- the head to come down, and that's when it just hit me and pushed my head to the steel plate.
Q Okay.
A Yeah.
Q So what hit you in the head?
A The top wheel -- the top press wheel.
Q Okay. And did it hit the top of your head? The back of your head? Where did it hit you?
A It hit, like, the back part of my head and pushed it forward --
Q Okay.
A -- into the steel plate.
Q Okay. So this metal plate comes down, and it hits you in the back of the head --
A Yeah.
Q -- and it pushes your face --
A Yes.
Q -- into a steel plate?
A Yes.
         The claimant testified that he was covered in blood, all over his face and clothing. He testified that he was “dazed and just stunned.” The claimant was taken to the supervisor’s office. Ultimately, the claimant was taken to the hospital. He received stitches, pain medicine, and a CAT scan. According to the claimant, the CAT scan showed that he had intracranial hemorrhage, and a fracture in his forehead(the claimant’s attorney later clarified that this was a misreading on her part of the records). The claimant was provided additional treatment under the care of Dr. Fox. On September 8, 2015, the claimant had a series of X-rays of the cervical spine.          According to the claimant he was experiencing problems of headaches, numbness in his neck, hands, and feet. He testified that his eyes and face were swollen. The claimant had a stinging sensation down his neck and shoulder. He testified that he was off work for three weeks. The claimant denied that the respondents paid him while he was off. He verified that Dr. Lemdja is his family doctor. The claimant agreed that he was taken off work by Dr. Lemdja. He sought medical treatment from his family doctor on his own.          The claimant testified that he sought treatment from Dr. Lemdja due to headaches, blurry vision, numbness and stinging in his neck and hands. During this period of time, Dr. Lemdja was giving the claimant pain medicine, seizure medication, and something for nerve damage. According to the claimant, this medication made his condition sustainable. He admitted that he was getting prescriptions from both, Drs. Fox and Lemdja, at the same time. However, they were not the exact same prescriptions.          The claimant admitted that the nurse practitioner removed the stitches from his head. According to the claimant, he had eleven(11) stitches in his head. With respect to his forehead, the claimant testified:
A It's right in the center of my forehead. It starts from like -- going right to left it starts and it goes down and it angles back to the left.
Q Okay. From what I can see, is this -- is this scar the result of your September 5th, 2015, incident at work?
A Yes.
Q And it looks to be about an inch-and-a-half to two-inches long. Would that be accurate?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And you said it is -- it goes down, so it's in a diagonal from right to left --
A Yes.
Q -- downward towards your left eye; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And it looks
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT