PATRICIA G. KIZZIRE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT
PETRUS STUTTGART, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT #1
CENTRAL ARKANSAS AUTO DEALERS SIF/ RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT #1
DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT #2
No. G605091
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
October 9, 2019
Hearing
before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth W. Hogan on July
25, 2019, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by Mr. Gary Davis, Attorney at Law,
Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent #1 represented by Ms. Karen McKinney, Attorney at
Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent #2 represented by Ms. Christy King, Attorney at
Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ELIZABETH W. HOGAN, Administrative Law Judge.
ISSUES
A
hearing was conducted to determine the claimant’s
entitlement to medical treatment and attorney’s fees.
At
issue is the compensability of the left knee injury
according to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 and the anatomical
impairment rating to the right knee based on Rule
34.
After
reviewing the evidence impartially, without giving benefit of
the doubt to either party, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704, I find
the evidence preponderates in favor of the claimant.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
The
parties stipulated to an employee-employer-carrier
relationship on December 21, 2015, at which time the claimant
sustained a compensable scheduled injury to the right knee at
a compensation rate of $598.00/$449.00. Medical expenses,
temporary total disability benefits (until February 25,
2018), and anatomical impairment of thirty-seven percent
(37%) have been accepted. The claimant began receiving Social
Security Retirement at age 65. The Fund was joined as a party
after the prehearing conference. Therefore, the Fund is not
bound by the parties’ stipulations.
The
claimant injured her right leg resulting in a total
knee replacement. Dr. Gordon Newbern assessed a fifty percent
(50%) impairment rating, but the respondents only paid
thirty-seven percent (37%). The claimant seeks the remaining
thirteen percent (13%) which has been controverted. The
claimant also seeks medical treatment for her left
leg and knee as a compensable consequence.
The
respondents contend all appropriate benefits have been paid.
The fifty percent (50%) rating is based on pain which
contravenes Commission Rule 34. The claimant did not sustain
a work-related left knee injury.
The
following were submitted without objection and comprise the
evidence of record: the parties’ prehearing
questionnaires and a Joint Exhibit, prepared by the
respondents. Neither party offered a copy of the AR-C into
evidence to show if the claimant reported that she injured
both knees at the time of the fall. Respondents offered no
witnesses to dispute the claimant’s testimony that she
injured both knees in the fall.
The
claimant, who appeared to be credible, was the only witness
to testify at the hearing. She walked with a limp.
The
claimant, age 74 (date of birth: April 29, 1945), has a high
school education and some college courses. Her health history
includes A-fib (treated with medicine), hearing loss, and a
1981 left knee arthroscopy following a motor vehicle
accident (MVA). The claimant was very active prior to her
accident, performing yard work, zip-lining, and enjoying her
grandchildren’s...
