Bruns, 050719 ARWC, G800751

Docket Nº:G800751
Case Date:May 07, 2019
Court:Kansas
 
FREE EXCERPT
LARRY A. BRUNS, Employee CLAIMANT
PROPAK LOGISTICS INC., Employer RESPONDENT
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, Insurance Carrier RESPONDENT
No. G800751
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
May 7, 2019
         Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AMY GRIMES, in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas.           Claimant represented by MATTHEW J. KETCHAM, Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas.           Respondents represented by JASON M. RYBURN, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas.          STATEMENT OF THE CASE           AMY GRIMES, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.          On February 19, 2019, the above captioned claim came before the Workers’ Compensation Commission in Fort Smith, Arkansas, for a hearing. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on December 4, 2018, and a pre-hearing order filed that same date. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 and with modification and no objection is made part of the record.          The parties agreed to the following stipulations:
1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this case.
2. The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on January 18, 2018.
3. The compensation rates are the maximum compensation rates for 2018.
         The issues to be litigated are limited to the following:
1. Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury to his back and left elbow on January 18, 2018.
2. Whether claimant is entitled to medical benefits.
3. Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits.
4. Attorney fees.
         The claimant contends that:
“. . .1. The claimant was injured on January 18, 2018 while climbing out of his trailer. He hit ice on the bumper and fell the remainder of the distance to the ground.
2. The claimant reserves the right to amend and supplement his contentions after additional discovery has been completed. The claimant reserves all other issues including permanency.”
         The respondents contend that “The claimant did not suffer a compensable injury and no benefits are owed.”          The above stipulations are hereby accepted as fact. From a review of the record as a whole to include medical reports, documents, and having heard testimony and observed demeanor of all witnesses, the following decision is rendered. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered compensable injuries to his low back or elbow.          FACTUAL BACKGROUND          The claimant is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP