PATRICIA A. WASHINGTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT
LIPSCOMB OIL COMPANY INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1
DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO. 2
No. G808401
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
March 17, 2021
A
hearing was held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW KATIE ANDERSON in
Jefferson County, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Claimant, Ms. Patricia Washington, pro se, appeared at the
hearing. Ms. Washington resides in Gould, Arkansas.
Respondents No. 1 were represented by Mr. Eric Newkirk,
Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 was represented by Mr. David Pake, Attorney
at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Pake waived appearance at
the hearing.
KATIE
ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
A
hearing was held in the above-styled claim on December 18,
2020, in Jefferson County, Arkansas. A Pre-Hearing Order was
previously entered in this case on November 5, 2020.
The
following stipulations were submitted by the parties. I
hereby accept the following proposed stipulations:
1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has
jurisdiction of this claim.
2. The employee-employer-carrier relationship existed on
October 30, 2018, when Claimant sustained compensable
injuries to her right hand and right lower leg.
3. Claimant was earning sufficient wages to entitle her to a
temporary total disability/permanent partial disability rate
of $329.00/$247.00.
4. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the
Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.
By
agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the
hearing were as follows:
1. Whether Claimant sustained additional compensable injuries
other than the right hand and right lower extremity on
October 30, 2018.1
2. If Claimant sustained additional compensable injures, the
extent to which benefits would be owed beyond those
previously paid to Claimant.
CONTENTIONS
Claimant:
It
appears that Claimant contends that she sustained additional
compensable injuries when she fell at work on October 30,
2018, while she was preparing breakfast for the next morning.
Claimant alleges that when she was walking toward the freezer
shelf where the hash browns were located, she slipped and
fell on ice. Claimant alleges that her hand was bruised and
red and that she had a large knot on her leg that was very
painful. She also sustained bruises on her legs and bottom.
At the hearing, Claimant asserted that in addition to her
compensable surface injuries to her right hand and right
shin, for which Respondents accepted and paid benefits, she
also sustained injuries to her back and legs.
Claimant
appears to also contend that she was not “well
represented” and felt that the “whole truth was
not told.” Claimant further contends that she is
entitled to all past and future medical bills. Lastly,
Claimant contends that she is entitled to compensation for
“negligence for not keeping [her]
safe.”
2
Respondents
#1:
Respondents
contend that Claimant was involved in a work incident on
October 30, 2018, when she fell in a freezer. Although
Respondents initially accepted the claim as compensable and
furnished related medical treatment and indemnity benefits,
there were no objective abnormalities actually observed and
documented by any treating medical provider other than the
Claimant’s contusions/abrasions to her right hand and
right lower extremity. The Claimant’s Form AR-C
suggests Claimant also sustained injuries to her left lower
extremity and back/spine. Respondents contend that there are
no objective medical findings in connection with those body
parts to support compensability.
Furthermore,
to the extent there are any purported objective abnormalities
contained in the medical records pertaining to the left lower
extremity or the Claimant’s back/spine, those were
pre-existing in nature and/or not otherwise causally
connected to the work incident. Similarly, the
Claimant’s initial complaints were only in connection
with her right hand and right lower extremity and no other
body parts.
Alternatively,
in the event other objective medical findings are somehow
deemed to be in existence in connection with the left lower
extremity or back/spine which are traceable to the work
incident/event, the Respondents contend that no indemnity
benefits would be owed. After all, even when the Claimant was
placed on modified duty work restrictions, those restrictions
were accommodated by the Respondent Employer, so no indemnity
benefits would be in play even in the event minimal objective
medical findings are somehow determined to be related to the
incident with regard to other body parts. Likewise,
Respondents contend that there are no findings sufficient to
support a permanent anatomical impairment rating to any body
part and, to the extent any such findings were to exist, the
major cause of any such findings would be non-work related
and thus, not compensable.
By way
of further alternative contentions, the Respondents assert an
offset for any group medical or disability policy which has
paid benefits to or on behalf of the Claimant, to the extent
allowed under Arkansas law, as well as an offset for any
unemployment benefits paid to the Claimant, to the extent
allowed under Arkansas law and in connection with any such
benefits or beyond those which have already been furnished by
the Respondents.
Respondent
#2:
Respondent
#2 offered the following contentions:
1. That the employer-employee-insurance carrier relationship
existed on 10/30/2018;
2. That Claimant sustained compensable contusions/abrasions
to her right hand and lower leg;
3. That Claimant’s average weekly wage was $493.34,
computing to
...
