Willis, 092619 ARWC, G507447

Case DateSeptember 26, 2019
CourtKansas
MARY WILLIS (PATTERSON), Employee CLAIMANT
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Employer RESPONDENT NO. 1
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, Carrier/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1
ARKANSAS DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO. 2
No. G507447
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
September 26, 2019
         Hearing conducted before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TERRY DON LUCY, in Pulaski County, Arkansas.           Counsel for the Claimant: HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas           Counsel for Respondents No. 1: HONORABLE CHARLES H. MCLEMORE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           Counsel for Respondent No. 2: HONORABLE DAVID L. PAKE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.           TERRY DON LUCY, Administrative Law Judge.          Statement of the Case          The above-captioned matter came on for a hearing on August 6, 2019, before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge. A pre-hearing Order was entered in this matter on June 12, 2019, which reflected the following stipulations:
(1) The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim;
(2) The Claimant’s average weekly wage as of September 28, 2015, was sufficient to entitle her to compensation rates of $507.00 and $380.00 for temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits, respectively;
(3) The employee/employer/carrier/TPA relationship existed at all relevant times, including September 28, 2015, on which date the Claimant sustained a compensable lumbar injury and alleges that she sustained a compensable cervical injury;
(4) The Claimant’s healing period for her compensable lumbar injury of September 28, 2015, ended on November 9, 2015, and Respondent No. 1 has paid appropriate medical and temporary indemnity benefits through the latter date;
(5) Respondent No. 1 has controverted the Claimant’s alleged cervical injury of September 28, 2015, in its entirety, and has controverted the Claimant’s entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits in relation to her compensable lumbar injury of September 28, 2015;
         The pre-hearing Order also reflected the issues to be adjudicated, as set forth below:
(1) Compensability of the Claimant’s alleged cervical injury of September 28, 2015, and her entitlement to appropriate benefits associated therewith, inclusive of reasonably necessary medical care and related expenses, and temporary total disability benefits from September 29, 2015, through a date yet to be determined, subject to a credit for temporary total disability benefits paid by Respondent No. 1 for the Claimant’s compensable lumbar injury of September 28, 2015, through November 9, 2015;
(2) Whether the Claimant is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits in relation to her compensable lumbar injury of September 28, 2015; and,
(3) Attorney’s fees associated with controverted indemnity benefits.
         All other issues were reserved, including that of additional reasonably necessary medical care associated with the Claimant's compensable lumbar injury of September 28, 2015, as noted during preliminary discussions. (TR 5) During further preliminary discussions, it was noted that the Claimant would modify her claim for temporary total disability benefits (associated with her alleged cervical injury of September 28, 2015) to encompass the period of November 10, 2015, through a date yet to be determined, and that Respondents No. 1 would formally assert a notice defense with the pertinent date of such being October 5, 2015. (TR 4; 7-9) Following additional discussion of the stipulations, issues to be litigated, and the parties' respective contentions (which were incorporated by reference into the pre-hearing Order of June 12, 2019), the pre-hearing Order of June 12, 2019, was accepted without objection as Commission's Exhibit One as amended on the record. (TR 4-9) It was further noted during preliminary discussions that Respondent No. 2, as reflected in Commission's Exhibit One, had waived its appearance at the hearing and would defer to the outcome of litigation. (TR 3; Comm. Ex. 1 at 2)          With respect to further exhibits, the Claimant and Respondents No. 1 offered both medical and non-medical exhibits during additional...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT