Moore v. Arkansaw, LLC, 100119 ARWC, G307302

• Case Date: October 01, 2019
• Court: Kansas

GREGORY MOORE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT v. ARKANSAW, LLC, EMPLOYER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INSURANCE CARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT Claim No. G307302 Arkansas Workers Compensation Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission October 1, 2019           A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock Pulaski County, Arkansas.           The claimant was represented by Ms. Tasha Tidwell, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas.           The respondents were represented by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           OPINION           CHANDRA BLACK, Administrative Law Judge.          STATEMENT OF THE CASE          A hearing was held in the above-styled claim on September 25, 2019, in Little Rock, Arkansas. A Pre-hearing Telephone Conference was conducted in this case on April 2, 2019. A Pre-hearing Order was entered in this claim on that same date. This Pre-hearing Order set forth the stipulations offered by the parties, the issues to be litigated, and their respective contentions.          The following stipulations were submitted by the parties, either pursuant to the Pre-hearing Order, or at the start of the hearing. I hereby accept the following stipulations:

1. The parties agree that the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim.

2. The employee-employer-carrier relationship existed at all relevant times, including September 1, 2013. At that time, the claimant sustained an admittedly compensable left knee injury while performing employment duties for the respondent-employer/Arkansaw, LLC.

3. The claimant earned sufficient wages to entitle him to compensation rates $500.00 and $375.00.

4. This claim was accepted as compensable with medical and indemnity benefits paid.

5. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act.

6. This claim for additional benefits has been controverted by the respondents.

         By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing were as follows:

1. Whether this claim is barred by the statute of limitations, with respect to the date of last payment of benefits.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the additional medical treatment, including surgery.

         CONTENTIONS          Claimant:          (i) Claimant...