{"id":"alj-G506822-2023-11-14","awcc_number":"G506822","decision_date":"2023-11-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sayel Mohammed","employer_name":null,"title":"MOHAMMED VS. MAVERICK TRANSPORTATIONAWCC# G506822 NOVEMBER 14, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MOHAMMED_SAYEL_G506822_20231114.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MOHAMMED_SAYEL_G506822_20231114.pdf","text_length":20351,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G506822 \nSAYEL MOHAMMED (DECEASED), EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \nv. \nMAVERICK TRANSPORTATION, LLC, EMPLOYER     RESPONDENT #1 \nCORVEL ENTERPRISES COMPANY, INC., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA      RESPONDENT #1 \n \nDEATH AND PERMANENT DISABILITY \nTRUST FUND        RESPONDENT #2 \n       \nOPINION FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2023 \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  James  D.  Kennedy,  on  the 26\nTH\n  day  of \nSeptember, 2023, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Mr. Gary Davis, Attorney-at-Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nRespondent  #1  is  represented  by  Mr.  David C.  Jones,  Attorney-at-Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \nRespondent  #  2  is  represented  by  Mr.  David L.  Pake,  Attorney-at-Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \nA hearing was conducted on the 26\nth\n day of September, 2023, to determine the \nissues of whether the parents of the decedent, Yaha I Mohammed and Yusra Yameen \nSalama,  are  entitled  to  partial  dependency  death  benefits  pursuant  to  Arkansas  Code \nAnnotated  §11-9-111  and  Arkansas  Code  Annotated  §11-9  527,  and  attorney  fees.  A \ncopy of the Prehearing Order was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part of the \nrecord without objection.  The Order provided that the parties stipulated that the Arkansas \nWorkers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  the  within  claim  and  that  an \nemployer/employee  relationship  existed  on  or  about  September  9,  2015,  when  the \nclaimant sustained a compensable injury resulting in his death.  At the time of the injury, \nthe claimant’s average weekly wage was $1,100.13.  On September 9, 2015, the claimant \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n2 \n \nwas married to Krystle Martish.  On September 24, 2015, the carrier filed an Amended \nAR-4, accepting the compensability of the claim.  On March 28, 2017, Krystle Marsh filed \nan AR-C for widow’s benefits in Arkansas.  The respondent/carrier paid funeral expenses. \nOn  August  4,  2017,  Krystle  Martish  requested  a  voluntary  dismissal  of  her  claim.    On \nAugust 8, 2017, the parents of Sayel Mohammed filed an AR-C claiming rights to parental \nsurvivor  benefits  arising  out  of  the  death  of  their  son  on  September  9,  2015.    On \nNovember  13,  2017,  an  Order  of  Dismissal  on  the  claim  filed  by  Krystle  Martish  was \nentered.  There  was  no  objection  to  these  stipulations  with  the  exception  that  the \ndocument that was named an AR-4 in the Prehearing Order was actually an AR-2 and \nafter this correction, the Prehearing Order was admitted into the record.      \n The claimant’s, respondent’s, and the trust fund’s contentions were are all set out \nin  their  respective  responses  to  the  prehearing  questionnaire  and  made  a  part  of  the \nrecord without objection.  In addition, simultaneous briefs were requested thirty (30) days \nfrom the date of the hearing, with instructions that no brief was to be longer than ten (10) \npages.  The briefs have been blue-backed and attached to this Opinion.  The sole witness \nto testify at the time of the hearing was Yaha Mohammed.  From a review of the record \nas a whole, to include medical reports and other matters properly before the Commission \nand having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of the witness, \nthe  following findings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law are made  in accordance  with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n3 \n \n2.  That  an  employer/employee  relationship  existed  on  or  about  September  9, \n2015, when Sayel Mohammed sustained a compensable injury resulting in his \ndeath. \n \n3.  At the time of the injury, Sayel Mohammed earned an average weekly wage of \n$1,100.13. \n \n4.  On September 9, 2015, Sayel Mohammed was married to Krystle Martish. \n \n5.  On  September  24,  2015,  the  carrier  filed  an  Amended  AR-2,  accepting  the \ncompensability of the claim. \n \n6.  On  March  28,  2017,  Krystle  Martish  filed  an  AR-C  for  widow’s  benefits  in \nArkansas. \n \n7.  The respondent/carrier paid funeral expenses. \n \n8.  On August 4, 2017, Krystle Martish filed a request for voluntary dismissal of her \nclaim. \n \n9.  On August 8, 2017, the parents of Sayel Mohammed filed an AR-C, claiming \nrights  to  parental  survivor  benefits  arising  out  of  the  death  of  their  son on \nSeptember 9, 2015. \n \n10.  On  November  13,  2017,  an  Order  of  Dismissal  of  the  claim  filed  by  Krystle \nMartish was entered. \n \n11. That  the  parents  of  the  decedent,  Yaha  I  Mohammed  and  Yursa Yameen \nSalama, have failed to  satisfy the required burden of proof  to show that they \nare  entitled to partial dependency death benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n§   11-9-111 and Ark. Code Ann. §11-9- 527. \n \n12. The question of attorney fees is moot. \n \n13. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents  are  ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of the \ntranscript forthwith. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The Prehearing Order along with the prehearing questionnaires of the parties were \nadmitted into the record without objection.  The claimant submitted one exhibit consisting \nof thirty-two (32) pages.  Respondents submitted multiple exhibits:  “Exhibit A” consisting \nof ten (10) pages of incoming transactions;  “Exhibit One” consisting of correspondence \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n4 \n \nand a prehearing questionnaire; and “Exhibit Two” consisting of the deceased marriage \nlicense  and  correspondence; “Respondent  Two’s  Exhibit  One”,  consisting  of  fifty  (50) \npages  of  forms  and  correspondence.    The  parties  also  submitted “Joint  Exhibit  One” \nwhich  consisted  of  the  Deposition  of  Yaha  Mohammed;  an  exhibit  called “Claimant’s \nExhibit One” that consisted of forty-one (41) pages of miscellaneous documentation; and \nan exhibit entitled “Respondents Exhibit A”.   \n Yahya Mohammed was the only witness to testify at the time of the hearing.  He \nwas born on January 10, 1954, and was married to Yahay Amin Mohammed Salama in \n1981, and their marriage produced four (4) girls and five (5) boys.  The deceased, their \noldest  son  Sayal,  was  killed  in an  accident  while  driving  for  Maverick  Transport  in \nSeptember  of  2015.    Upon  questioning,  Mr.  Mohammed  responded  that  they  were \ndependent on Sayel’s income and would receive money from him stating, “because we’re \none family.  He would help us and his siblings.”  “In Palestine and the Islamic World in \ngeneral, the father would take care of the kids and they would spend money on them and \nthey  would  help  them  get  married  and  settled,  but  when  he  gets  older  we  don’t  have \npensions and retirements like other places, it’s the kid’s responsibility to take care of their \nparents when they get older.”  He went on to state that he had worked all of his life taking \ncare of his family, “but now that I am much older, I can’t work anymore.”  “My wife never \nworked.”    “She  was  a  housewife.”    When  Sayel  was  working  for  the  respondent,  Mr. \nMohammed testified that he and his wife still had children at home. (Tr. 10-14) \n Under cross-examination by Respondent #1’s attorney, Mr. Mohammed admitted \nthat  he  was  indeed  working  while  Sayel  was  working  for  respondent  #1.    He  admitted \nworking  for  about two  (2)  years  after his  son’s  death but  stated  that this  work  was  not \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n5 \n \navailable every day.  He also admitted he was able to make his car payment and support \nhis family after Sayel’s death. He had used some of the money from Sayel to expand their \nhome from two (2) to four (4) rooms, hoping that Sayel would return and stay with them \nsome day.  He admitted that he had stated in his deposition that Sayel had wanted him \nto rest and that he would support him. (Tr. 16-18)   Mr. Mohammed also admitted receiving \nmoney from his brother, Hassan, or his brother, Ibraham, every once in a while.  (Tr. 20) \n Under cross-examination by Respondent #2’s attorney, Mr. Mohammed admitted \nhe had worked as a blacksmith even before his marriage and that was enough to help \nraise his children when he was young and capable of working hard.  “I had my workshop \nand it was enough to take care of the kids when they were young.”  He also admitted that \none of his children suffered from a hearing disability.  In regard to children at home, he \nstated that his daughters were married but he still had two (2) sons at home, Hanser and \nMohammed,  along  with  his  son,  Issac,  who  suffered  from  the  hearing  issue.    Hanser \nworks and Mr. Mohammed was attempting to get the other son a job.  He went on to say \nthat while he worked as a blacksmith, he also took care of his elderly parents. (Tr. 21-23)  \nHe also admitted that when Sayel left for the United States, he had a thousand dollars on \nhim and that he did not provide any additional money to him because he was able to live \nwith his uncles. (Tr. 25)  In regard to Sayel’s marriage to Krystle Martish on May 3, 2010, \nMr. Mohammed testified he was not aware of the marriage until Sayel’s death.  He also \nadmitted that at some point through his brother Ibraham, he became aware that Krystle \nMartish  and  his  brother  Ibraham  went  to  a  hearing  in  Kentucky  that  was  continued. \n(Tr. 26-27) \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n6 \n \n In  regard  to  the  pertinent  documentary  evidence  by  the  claimant, a  marriage \nlicense between Mr. Mohammed and his wife was made part of the record, along with the \nbirth certificate for the birth of Sayel in 1984.  In addition, Sayel granted a general power \nof attorney to his father. (Cl.Ex. 1, PP. 1, 4, 5, 6)  The death certificate for Sayel was also \nmade part of the record. (Cl.Ex. 1, P. 7)  In addition, documents were admitted into the \nrecord which appeared to show multiple significant wire transactions from sender, Sayel \nMohammed,  to  Yahya  Issacs  Younes  Mohammed  in  Palestine  from  2011 through  the \nmiddle of 2014. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 20-32) \n Respondent #1 submitted  documents  into  the  record  without  objection  which \nconsisted of a Kentucky marriage license between Sayel Yahay Mohammed and Krystle \nAnne Martish dated May 3, 2010, as well as a letter from attorney Greg Giles requesting \na voluntary dismissal of Krystle Martish’s request for survival benefits involving the death \nof Sayel Mohammed, deceased.  The request provided she no longer wanted to pursue \nher claim but, “would prefer to see his parents receive any benefits that would be available \nas a result of Mr. Mohammed’s death.” (Resp. #1, Ex. 2) \n The transcript of  the workers’ compensation claim hearing in Kentucky involving \nIbrahim  Mohammed,  the  administrator  of  the  estate  of  Sayel  Mohammed  and  Krystle \nMartish, the widow of Sayel Mohammed, was also made part of the record and it provided \nthat Sayel’s parents lived on the West Bank of Palestine.  Ibrahim Mohammed admitted \nthat he would receive money from Sayel and send it to his brother, Sayel’s father.  The \nmoney  sent  list  provided  that  Sayel  had  sent  a  total  of  $50,700.00,  with  the  transfers \nstarting on October 28, 2000, and continuing until October 28, 2015.  Ibrahim Mohammed \nadmitted  that  he  would  sometimes  combine  the  money  from  Sayel  with  money he \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n7 \n \npersonally sent. (Resp. #2, Ex.1, PP. 10, 11, & 13)  The hearing in Kentucky was held \nbefore Judge Davis who stated, “that Mr. Ibrahim Mohammed’s first hand knowledge of \nthe situation is sufficient for me to find dependency by the relatives in Palestine.”  (Resp. \n#2, Ex. 1. PP. 16, 17)  Mr. Ibrahim Mohammed also testified that Sayel was living with \nhim in his home during September of 2015, and that Krystle only came by his house one \nnight.  He thought that Krystle and Sayel had been married for about six (6) years. (Resp. \n#2, Ex. 1, P. 26)  Krystle Martish also testified during the Kentucky hearing.  She stated \nthat she was married to Sayel but separated at the time of his death and that the two (2) \nof them had no children. (Resp. #1, Ex. 2, P. 37)  There was no formal notice of separation \nfiled with the Kentucky Court. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 40) \n Krystle  Martish  filed  a  Form  AR-C  on  March  28,  2017,  and  then  filed  a  formal \nrequest for a voluntary dismissal of her application for benefits with the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission, and an Order was entered granting the Order of Dismissal \nConcerning Krystle Martish on November 13, 2017. (Resp. #2, Ex. 1, PP. 46, 47, 49, 50)  \nIt is also noted that Ibrahin Mohammed filed a Form AR-C on August 8, 2017. (Resp. #2, \nEx. 1, P. 48) \n The  deposition  of  Yahya  Mohammed  was  also  admitted  as  a  joint  exhibit.    He \ntestified he was the father of Sayel and his brother Ibrahim Mohammed lived in the United \nStates. (Jt. Ex. 1. P. 7)  He admitted not having a bank account and that he would receive \nthe  money  that  he  was  sent  and  spend  it.    He  would  receive  the  money  from  various \nplaces  and  sometimes  when  Sayel  was  busy,  he  would  send  the  money  through  Mr. \nMohammed’s  brother  or  his  wife,  Sayel’s  wife,  and  sometimes even Mr.  Mohammed’s \nbrother’s son or daughter. (Jt. Ex. 1, PP. 10-12, 15, 17, 18)  Mr. Mohammed testified that \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n8 \n \nwhen he lost Sayel, he had to return to work. (Jt. Ex. 1, P. 22)  Sayel was his oldest son \nand there were two (2) older daughters. (Jt. Ex. 1, P. 38) \n Sayel’s Death Certificate provided that he died in Indiana on September 9, 2015, \nand his birth certificate provided that he was born on March 1, 1984. (Cl. Ex. 1).  \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nThe facts in this matter are basically undisputed.  Sayel Mohammed, the deceased \nemployee, was born in Palestine and came to the United States where he was working \nfor the respondent when sadly, he lost his life.  The death was accepted as work-related \nby the respondents who paid for his funeral expenses.  At the time of his untimely demise, \nhe was married to Krystle Martish, with the couple marrying on May 3, 2010.  However, \nat the time of his death, he and his wife were living separate and apart while Sayel lived \nand stayed  with  his  uncle.    There  were  no  children  born  of  the  marriage.    His  uncle, \nIbrahim  Mohammed,  was  apparently  named  the  administrator  of  the  estate  of  Sayel \nMohammed  and  Krystle  Anne  Martish,  the  widow  of  Sayel  Mohammed,  in  regard  to  a \nclaim filed in Kentucky.  Per the evidence, a hearing was commenced  in regard to this \nmatter in the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Department of Workers’ Claims on July 26, \n2016.  Krystle Martish later filed a Form AR-C in Arkansas on March 28, 2017, and then \nrequested a voluntary dismissal of her claim and an Order was obtained dismissing her \nclaim  on  November  13,  2017.    Ibrahin  Mohammed  (the  uncle)  filed  a  Form  AR–C  on \nAugust 8, 2017, on behalf of his brother and wife.  There also appears to be no doubt that \nSayel sent money home to his parents in significant amounts over a period of time for \ntheir assistance and support, although there appears to be some disagreement on when \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n9 \n \nand how.  In any case, it also appears that Yahya Mohammed, the father of Sayel, worked \nduring this period of time and continued working for two (2) years after Sayel’s death. \nThe primary issue before the Commission in this matter is the dependency death \nbenefits pursuant  to  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act.   Arkansas  Code \nAnnotated  §11-9-527(c) provides that compensation for the death of an employee shall \nbe  paid  to  those  persons  who  are  wholly  and  actually  dependent  upon  the  deceased \nemployee in the following percentage of the average weekly wage of the employee and \nin the following order of preference: (emphasis added) \n(1) (A) (i) To the widow if there is no child, thirty five (35%) and the compensation \nshall  be  paid  until  her  death  or  remarriage.    (ii)  However,  the  widow  shall \nestablish, in fact some dependency upon the deceased employee before she \nwill be entitled to benefits as provided in this section. \n \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-527 goes on to specifically state how compensation is to be made \nif  there  are  one  or  more  children.    If  there  are  no  children  and  no  widow,  the  statute \nprovides under (4) that twenty-five percent (25%) is to be paid to each parent. \n It is also noted that Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-111 provides that compensation to alien, \nnon-residents of the United States or Canada shall be the same in amount as provided \nfor residents, except that alien, non-resident dependents in any foreign country shall be \nlimited to the surviving wife or children, or if there is no surviving wife or children, to the \nsurviving father or mother who the employee has supported either wholly or in part, for \nthe period of (1) one year prior to the date of the injury. \n In White Oake Construction v. Oliver, 2011 Ark. App. 682, 386 S.W.3d 616 (2011), \nit was determined that Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-527 and Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-11, “must be \nread together to understand the Arkansas legislatures intent.  Even when statutes are to \nbe  strictly  construed,  they  must  be  read  in  their  entirety  harmonizing  each  subsection \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n10 \n \nwhere possible.”  It is clear Arkansas law gives preference to the claim of the widow.  It \nis  also  clear  that  the  surviving  widow  has  the  burden  to  establish  facts  showing \ndependency on her husband before being entitled to benefits. Royal v. Bypass Diesel & \nWrecker,  Inc.,  2014  Ark.  App.  90,  432  S.W.3d  139  (2014)    Here,  the  widow  made  the \ninitial  claim  for  benefits,  but  then  requested  that  her  claim  be  dismissed  and  even \ncontended that the benefits should be paid to Sayel’s parents.  There was absolutely no \nevidence that the widow had any expectations of support from her husband at the time of \nhis death and further, that no child was born of the marriage.  A later claim was made by \nthe parents of Sayel through his uncle.  Mr. Mohammed, Sayer’s father, testified, and it \nis found to be believable, that in the culture that the deceased was raised in, the children \nare responsible for the care of their aging parents, a clearly excellent method for a society \nto meet the health and well being needs of aging parents in the opinion of this weathered \nand worn Administrative Law Judge, who also cannot imagine the pain of losing a loyal \nson.  However, culture and beliefs do not control the payment of workers’ compensation \nbenefits  in  the  state  of  Arkansas.    The  statutes  do.    Here,  the  surviving  widow  was \nreceiving no benefits or support from the deceased, and consequently, based upon the \nworkers’ compensation law of Arkansas, the surviving widow who has priority for benefits \nis  not  entitled  to  receive  benefits  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation Act  and \nconsequently  the  parents  of  the  decedent  are  also  not  entitled  to  partial  dependency \nbenefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-111 and Ark. Code Ann. §11-9- 527, due to \nthe  fact  that  the  widow  has  survived  and  Arkansas  law  does  not  provide  that  family \nmembers can choose who receives the benefits. \n\nMOHAMMED (Dec’d) – G506822 \n \n11 \n \nAfter weighing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to \neither party, it is found that the parents of the decedent, Yaha I. Mohammed and Yusra \nYameen Salama, have failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that they are \nentitled to partial dependency benefits pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-111 \nand Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-527.  Consequently, the question of attorney fees \nis moot.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript \nforthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n  \n       ___________________________ \n        JAMES D. KENNEDY \n         Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G506822 SAYEL MOHAMMED (DECEASED), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT v. MAVERICK TRANSPORTATION, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT #1 CORVEL ENTERPRISES COMPANY, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT #1 DEATH AND PERMANENT DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT #2 OPINION FILED NOVEMBER...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:00:25.400Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G506822-2023-11-14","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MOHAMMED_SAYEL_G506822_20231114.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}