STEVEN R. HUGHES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT
PAYTON CHEVROLET BUICK, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT
RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT
No. G704974
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
March 28, 2018
Hearing
before Administrative Law Judge James D. Kennedy on the
27th day of February, 2018 in Batesville,
Arkansas.
Claimant is represented by M. Keith Wren, Attorney at Law,
Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents are represented by Karen H. McKinney, Attorney at
Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
JAMES
D. KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
A
hearing was conducted on the 27th day of February,
2018, to determine the issues of compensability, medical, and
attorney fees. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on the
29th day of November, 2017, and a Pre-Hearing
Order was filed on said date. A copy of the Pre-Hearing Order
was marked “Commission Exhibit 1" and made a part
of the record without objection. It was stipulated that the
Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has
jurisdiction of the within claim and that an
employer/employee relationship existed on June
29th, 2017, the date of injury. The
respondent’s contended that the claimant did not suffer
a compensable injury, and further, if the injury is found to
be compensable, the need for treatment did not arise out of
and in the course of employment.
The
claimant’s and respondent’s contentions are set
out in their responses to the Pre-hearing questionnaire and
made a part of the record without objection. The claimant,
Steven R. Hughes, testified along with Jason Moore and
Christine Hadley. From a review of the record as a whole, to
include medical reports and other matters properly before the
Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the
testimony of the witness and to observe their demeanor, the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in
accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704.
FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The
Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has
jurisdiction over this claim.
2. The
stipulations agreed to by the parties are hereby accepted as
fact.
3. The
claimant has failed to satisfy the burden of proof to prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is
compensable. That all other issues are moot.
REVIEW
OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
The
claimant, Steven R. Hughes, testified that he was employed by
Peyton Chevrolet on June 29, 2017, and that he worked their a
little over two years. He had started in the maintenance and
janitorial department and had moved up to the parts
department, where he was working on June 29, 2017. He
testified that he was doing his daily duties of stocking
parts that had come in over night and he was in the process
of placing a box on the top shelf when he felt his arm pop.
The boxes could weigh as little as a light bulb for a car or
up to 50 or 60 pounds. Claimant stated that the box he was
lifting at the time of injury may have weighed a pound.
Claimant went ahead putting up parts after he felt his
shoulder pop, and he then reported it to his supervisor,
Daniel Richie, approximately ten minutes later. They then
went to the office where they filled out paperwork.
A
question was asked about the claimant working at the Quitman
Catfish Barn, and the claimant admitted that he had worked
there around the time of the injury but that he was not sure
when he was hired. In any case, after filling out the
paperwork, the claimant stated that he was sent for medical
treatment with Doctor Biwins, the company doctor located in
Heber Springs. Doctor Biwins examined the claimant and
ordered an MRI which was provided the next day. After the
MRI, the claimant was sent to Doctor Wallace and later to
Doctor Reynolds in Little Rock and at this time the claim was
denied. Claimant testified that he continued to work at the
Catfish Barn as a host, even after the injury and the job did
not require any lifting.
Claimant
admitted that he had also worked as the service director for
Vista Properties in a job where he answered the phone, showed
properties, and addressed maintenance issues by contacting
whoever needed to take care of the issue. The claimant
testified that he did not sustain any injuries while working
for the catfish restaurant or the property management
company. He also testified that his shoulder had been painful
since the date of the incident.
Under
cross examination, the claimant admitted to an injury to his
left shoulder in 2016, while throwing trash in the dumpster
while employed by the respondent. Claimant also agreed that
there were no witnesses to that incident and that he had
surgery, and was paid while off of work. He also admitted
that he had stated during his deposition that in his property
management job, he did repair some minor problems like fixing
a backed up toilet or changing a light bulb. Claimant also
admitted that on occasion an emergency would come up in his
property management job and he would have to take off of work
from the respondent. Claimant also admitted that he did...
