Boykin, 042417 ARWC, G501125

• Case Date: April 24, 2017
• Court: Kansas

ANGELA BOYKIN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT WCC No. G501125 Arkansas Workers Compensation Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission April 24, 2017          Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on January 25, 2017, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.           Claimant represented by Mr. C. Michael White, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas.           Respondents represented by Mr. Terry Don Lucy, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           Hon. O. Milton Fine, II Administrative Law Judge.          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          On January 25, 2017, the above-captioned claim was heard in Little Rock, Arkansas. A prehearing conference took place on January 11, 2016. An order entered on that date pursuant to the conference was admitted without objection as Commission Exhibit 1. At the hearing, the parties confirmed that the stipulations, issues, and respective contentions, as amended, were properly set forth in the order.          Stipulations          At the hearing, the parties discussed the stipulations set forth in Commission Exhibit 1. With an amendment to the third, they are the following, which I accept:

1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim.

2. The employee/self-insured employer/third-party administrator relationship existed on February 11, 2015, and at all relevant times.

3. Claimant’s average weekly wage entitles her to compensation rates of $518.00/$389.00.

4. Respondents have controverted this claim. Issues

         The parties discussed the issues set forth in Commission Exhibit 1. After an amendment of the first at the hearing and the addition of a fifth, the following were litigated:

1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her back by specific incident.

2. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment.

3. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits.

4. Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee.

5. Whether Respondents are entitled to an offset under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-411 (Repl. 2012).

         All other issues have been reserved.          Contentions          The respective contentions of the parties, following amendments at the hearing, read:          Claimant:          1. Claimant contends that she is entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits for a period beginning on the date benefits were last paid and extending through a date to be determined, as well as additional reasonably necessary medical treatment.          2. Claimant also contends that her attorney is entitled to a controverted fee.          3. All issues not raised are specifically reserved.          Respondents:          1. Respondents contend that the claimant cannot prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained a compensable lumbar injury on February 11, 2015.          2. In the event that compensability is find, Respondents contend in the alternative that the incident on February 11, 2015 represented a temporary aggravation of a pre-existing condition that returned to baseline no later than May 12, 2015.          3. In the event that temporary total disability benefits are awarded, Respondents would be entitled to an offset under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-411 (Repl. 2012) with respect to teacher disability retirement benefits received by her.          FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW          After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, deposition testimony, documents, and other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of Claimant and to observe her demeanor, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):          1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim.          2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted.          3. Claimant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury to her back.          4. Because of the above finding, the remaining issues–whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment, temporary total disability benefits and a controverted attorney’s fee, and whether Respondents are entitled to an offset–are moot and will not be addressed.          CASE IN CHIEF          Summary of Evidence          Claimant was the sole witness.          In addition to the prehearing order discussed above, the...