{"id":"alj-G703512-2025-12-22","awcc_number":"G703512","decision_date":"2025-12-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Gary Jaynes","employer_name":"Tempworks Management Services, Inc","title":"JAYNES VS. TEMPWORKS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. AWCC# G703512 December 22, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","lumbar","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JAYNES_GARY_G703512_20251222.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JAYNES_GARY_G703512_20251222.pdf","text_length":35661,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                           CLAIM NO.: G703512 \n  \nGARY D. JAYNES, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nTEMPWORKS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nWESCO INSURANCE COMPANY/ \nAMTRUST NORTH AMERICA,   \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                                RESPONDENT  \n                                                                                           \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 22, 2025 \n             \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable William C. Frye, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn September  24,  2025, the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for a hearing in Little, \nArkansas.  Previously, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held in this matter on July 23, 2025.  \nA Pre-hearing Order was entered that same day pursuant to the telephone conference.  Said order \nwas  admitted  into  evidence  along  with  the  parties’  pre-hearing  information  filings without \nobjection as Commission’s Exhibit 1. \nStipulations \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the hearing, the parties agreed to \nthe following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n2 \n \n2. That the employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed among the \nparties at all relevant times, including on or about March 8, 2017. \n \n3. That  the  Claimant  earned  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $1,259.37,  which  would \nentitle  him  to  a  weekly temporary total disability  rate  of  $661.00,  and  a  weekly \npermanent partial disability rate of $496.00. \n4.  That the Claimant sustained a compensable back injury on March 8, 2017, as \nfound by the Full Commission. \n5. That this case was the subject of a prior opinion, wherein the Full Commission \nfound the Claimant was entitled to an eleven percent (11%) rating and a ten \npercent (10%) wage loss disability for his compensable hip injury of March 8, \n2017.  \n6. All  issues  not  litigated  herein  are  reserved  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act. \nIssues \n                                              \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing are as follows: \n1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to a 10% impairment rating for his back injury.    \n \n2. Whether  the  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  wage  loss  disability  for  his  back \ninjury. \n \n3. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee.   \nContentions \n \nThe Claimant’s and Respondents’ contentions are set out in their response to the Pre-\nhearing Questionnaire.  Said contentions are as follows: \nClaimant: \n The Claimant contends that he sustained admitted compensable injuries on March 8, 2017. \nHe  was  given  an  11%  body-as-a-whole  impairment  in  connection  with  his  hip/femoral  nerve \ninjury.  A wage loss award was made. Subsequent to the previous hearing, the Claimant continued \nto received medical treatment for his low back, which required surgical intervention.  In a report \ndated May 31, 2023, Dr. Scott Schlesinger indicated the Claimant was entitled to a 10% body-as-\n\nJaynes – G703512 \n3 \n \na-whole impairment with regard to his low back surgical interventions.  The Claimant contends \nentitlement to payment of benefits associated with this 10% impairment rating, and that he would \nbe  entitled  to  a  wage  loss  determination,  therefore.  These  matters  have  been  controverted  for \npurposes of attorney’s fees.  The Claimant’s attorney respectfully requests that any attorney’s fees \nowed by the Claimant on controverted benefits paid by award or otherwise be deducted from the \nClaimant’s benefits and paid directly to the Claimant’s attorney by separate check, and that any \nCommission Order direct the Respondent to make payment of attorney’s fees in this matter. \nRespondents: \nRespondents contend that the rating should stay at 11%, which was awarded and paid. \nOn wage loss, the Claimant’s condition has not changed to warrant retrying wage loss. \n                   FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nAfter  reviewing  the record  as  a  whole, including  the  medical  reports, the documentary \nevidence, and other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity \nto listen to the testimony of the claimant and observe his demeanor, I hereby make the following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.     The proposed stipulations set forth above are reasonable and hereby accepted. \n \n          3.         The Claimant proved his entitlement to a 10 % anatomical impairment rating for  \n    \n                       his compensable back injury of March 8, 2017. \n           \n          4.          The Claimant sustained a 9% wage-loss disability due to his compensable back injury. \n  \n          5.           The parties stipulated that the Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n   \n                      Therefore, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n4 \n \n \n         6.          All issues not litigated herein or addressed in this Opinion are reserved under the Act.    \n                \nSummary of Evidence \nThe only witness was the Claimant, Mr. Gary Douglas Jaynes.  \n            The record consists of the transcript from the Full Hearing held September 24, 2025, and \nthe exhibits held therein.   In  addition  to  the Pre-hearing  Order  discussed above, the  exhibits \nadmitted  into  evidence  in  this  case  were: Claimant’s  Exhibit 1,  which  is  the Claimant’s \nDocumentary   Evidence   Exhibit   consisting   of   eighteen(18)   pages of his medical   records; \nRespondents’  Exhibit  1  is the  Claimant’s June  30,  2025 Deposition  (It  is  retained  in  the \nCommission’s file); Joint Exhibit 1 comprises the  March  27,  2018, Hearing  Transcript (It  is \nretained in the Commission’s file); Joint Exhibit 2 consists  of the   September  5,  2018 Hearing \nTranscript (It is also retained in the Commission’s file); Joint Exhibit 3 consisting of the Hearing \nTranscript of November 18, 2020 (It is retained in the Commission’s file); Joint Exhibit 4 entails \nthe Opinions issued on September 5, 2018, May 13, 2019, and February on 5, 2020 consisting of \nfifty-five (55)  pages; and Joint Exhibit 5 involves the  Opinions issued on  November  18,  2020, \nAugust 16, 2021, and March 15, 2023 encompassing  sixty-six (66) pages. \n                Procedural History        \nPrior Hearings and Decisions        \n The  Claimant “sustained  admittedly  compensable  injuries to  his  back  and left leg,” on \nMarch 8, 2017.  The Respondents accepted the claim, and paid benefits to and on behalf of the \nClaimant.  He was found to have reached maximum medical improvement on October 24, 2017.  \nDr. Luke Knox assessed the Claimant with an 11% to the body as a whole impairment rating.   \n Subsequently a dispute arose between the parties regarding the Claimant’s entitlement to \nadditional benefits for his compensable injuries of March 8, 2017.     \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n5 \n \n On March 27, 2018, a full hearing was held on this claim before Administrative Law Judge \nMike  Pickens.      At  that time, the  issues being litigated included  the following:  1.  Whether  the \nClaimant sustained an 11% permanent anatomical impairment to the body as a whole as a result \nof  his  compensable injuries. 2.  Whether  the  Claimant  was rendered permanently  and totally \ndisabled because of his compensable injuries, or in the alternative entitled to wage-loss disability \nbenefits.  \n No decision was rendered from the March 2018 hearing because an issue arose regarding \nthe  severity  of  the symptoms  displayed  by  the Claimant  while  testifying during  the  hearing. \nInstead, Administrative Law Judge Pickens recessed the hearing and proposed that the Claimant \nundergo an independent medical evaluation/IME in order to evaluate the fairly serious symptoms \nthat the Claimant complained of while on the witness stand during the March 27, 2018, hearing.  \nThe parties agreed to recess the hearing for Dr. Lowry Barnes to conduct the IME, which was done \nin August 2018.      \n   Therefore,  the recessed hearing (from  March  27,  2018) was resumed  by Administrative \nLaw Judge Pickens\n1\n on September 5, 2018.  However, the previously noted issues as outlined for \nthe recessed hearing remained unchanged.   \n Subsequently, Judge Pickens entered an Opinion on October 31, 2018, wherein he found \nthat the Claimant failed to prove his entitlement to a permanent anatomical impairment and any \nwage-loss  disability.    He  further  found  that  the  Claimant did  not prove  he  was  rendered \npermanently and totally disabled by his compensable injuries of March 8, 2017.  \n On May 13, 2019, the Full Commission reversed the above Opinion.  The Full Commission \nfound the following: 1. That the Claimant sustained an eleven percent (11%) to the body as a whole \n \n \n1\n Although the cover sheet of the September 5, 2018, hearing transcript states that Administrative Law Judge \nJames Kennedy conducted the hearing, the hearing was in fact conducted by Judge Pickens.  \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n6 \n \nas a result of his March 8, 2017, compensable leg injury.  2. That the Claimant proved he sustained \nwage-loss disability benefits in the amount of 10%.  Furthermore, the Full Commission noted that \nthe Claimant did not contend he was permanently totally disabled at that time. \n Nevertheless, this decision was appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  On February \n5, 2020, the court of appeals affirmed the Full Commission’s decision.  No further appeals were \ntaken from that decision.  The above issues are now res judicata and constitute the law of the case.     \n  On  November 18, 2020, another  hearing  was conducted  by  Administrative  Law  Judge \nMike Pickens  in this  matter  for  a  determination  of  the  following: 1.  Whether  the  Claimant  is \nentitled to temporary total disability compensation for his lumbar injury from March 7, 2019 to a \ndate yet to be determined.  2.  Whether additional medical treatment is reasonably necessary for \nthe treatment of the Claimant’s compensable back injury.        \n Per an Opinion issued on February 26, 2021, Judge Pickens found among other things, that \ntreatment provided by Dr. Scott Schlesinger was unauthorized and not reasonably necessary; and \nthat the Claimant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits.   \n The Claimant appealed this Opinion to the Full Commission.  On August 16, 2021, the Full \nCommission reversed this decision.  Specifically, the Full Commission found that the Respondents \ndid not provide the Claimant with a notice explaining his rights and responsibilities concerning the \nchange of physician rule.  The Full Commission therefore found that the change of physician rule \nwas not  applicable  and  that  the  treatment  provided  by  Dr. Scott Schlesinger  was  reasonably \nnecessary.    The  Full  Commission  further  found  the  Claimant  was  entitled  to  temporary  total \ndisability benefits from March 7, 2019, through April 30, 2019.   \n The  Respondents  appealed  to  the  Arkansas  Court  of  Appeals.    On  March  15,  2023,  the \ncourt of appeals affirmed the Full Commission’s decision.   \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n7 \n \n No further appeals were taken.         \nMost Recent Hearing \n  The  Claimant  is  now  63  years  old.    He completed  high  school in  1981  and  became  an \nelectrician.    He has been  a  Master  Electrician  since  1997.    The  Claimant  has  performed \nemployment duties as an electrician for various companies.  As an electrician, physically, he had \nto climb ladders, build cable trays, and even dig ditches.  The Claimant has previously performed \nboth residential and commercial electrician work.    He confirmed that he last worked the day he \ngot injured, which was on March 8, 2017.   \n In that regard, the Claimant was involved in a work-related accident while working for the \nrespondent-employer on  March  8,  2017.   The  Claimant gave  the  following  account  of  what \nhappended: \nA. I was in a ditch.  There was six of us there.  We was doing what they call a \nduct bank, meaning puttin’ pipes up underneath the ground goin from transformer \nin one MC room to the other, in muddy area that we asked for anything to stand on.  \nWe  was  told  it  was  dry  enough  and  you  need  to continue  to  work.    I - - we  was \nlaying pipe and I was standing there and my  feet  got  hung  in  the  mud.    I  tried  to \nraise ‘em out, I could not raise em out, and popped something in my back, and here \nI sit. \n \nQ. Okay. The symptoms that you had at the time were in your back, hip area, \nleg area; is that true?  \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. And which leg are we talking about? \n \nA. Left leg. \n \n  The Claimant testified that his symptoms included burning from his knee all the way down \nto his groin area, and into the inside of his thigh.  He confirmed that he has treated with several \ndoctors.  Ultimately, the Claimant came under the care of Dr. Scott Schlesinger.  He agreed that \non March 7, 2019, he underwent low back surgery by Dr. Schlesinger.  The Claimant testified that \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n8 \n \nthat he did not have surgery until he came under the care of Dr. Schlesinger. He admitted that Dr. \nSchlesinger assessed him with a 10% impairment rating on May 31, 2023, for his back injury.  The \nClaimant has not seen him since that time. According to the Claimant, he is hoping and praying \nthat  he  does  not  have  any  follow-up  visits  scheduled  with  Dr.  Schlesinger  for  any  additional \ntreatment.   \n  He  sees  Dr.  Irvin,  his  family  physician,  in  Mountain  View, for  continuing back issues.  \nAccording to the Claimant, he previously had between 14 to 20 injections.  The Claimant testified \nthat his back pain is sharp, and his leg jumps like when you are frying frog legs.  Per the Claimant, \nthis happens periodically during the day, at three times.  He confirmed that he has some days that \nare better and he is not in pain.  However, according to the Claimant, there are times that he hurts \nand does not want to do anything else, and it just depends on how bad he wants to hurt.  When his \npain is severe, the Claimant stays home.  This occurs about three times a week.  He testified that \nthese days randomly occur.  The Claimant gets out of the house and goes for a drive or to the store.  \nHe testified that on a 30-day period, he has about six good days.  The Claimant confirmed that he \nhas to bend, stoop, push, pull, and be on his feet all day as an electrician.  His hourly rate of pay \nwas  $28.00 at  the  time  of  his  compensable  injury.    He confirmed  that  he worked  through  a \ntemporary agency.     \n  On  cross-examination,  the  Claimant  testified  he  takes  over-the-counter  medications  and \nmarijuana gummies.  According to the Claimant he was unable to take the prescription medications \nsuch as Gabapentin.  The Claimant confirmed that his surgery was back in 2019.  Following his \nsurgery, he confirmed that there was a three-year gap between his visits to Dr. Schlesinger.  The \nClaimant essentially agreed that he saw Dr. Schlesinger a couple times in 2023.  He admitted that \nhe has basically gone five years without any actual medical treatment for his back.  Since his back \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n9 \n \nsurgery, the Claimant maintained that he can now walk.  Before he had surgery, per the Claimant,  \nit was very, very difficult for him to walk. \n  The Claimant  agreed that he continues with pain down his left leg.  He admitted that he \ntestified that the FCE evaluator was a joke.  Currently, the Claimant does not continue to use the \nTENS unit.  He is unable to stoop or bend nor is he able to sit for prolonged periods of time.  He \nmaintained  that  he  is  able  to  play  cards  on  a  good  day.  The  Claimant  was  not  aware  that  the \nevaluator  stated  that  he  could fully flex  his  back  and  when  they  gave  him  tasks  to  perform  his \nwalking improved.  He reluctantly admitted that there is no report from any doctor saying that any \nphysical limitations or restrictions have been placed on him.  The Claimant admitted that he has \nnot followed up on any of the job leads.  He claimed that he was not aware the Full Commission \nfound that he had legitimately shown he was not interested in returning to work.  The Claimant \nconfirmed that he stated the surgery performed by Dr. Schlesinger did not provide him with any \nrelief for his symptoms.      \n  On   redirect   examination,   the   Claimant   confirmed   that   he   has   difficulty   sleeping.  \nAccording to the Claimant, he sleeps in a chair for two or three hours depending on the severity of \npain.  He also maintained that he would like to be working if he could rather than sitting at home.  \nThe Claimant admitted that he obtained his marijuana card from Dr. Irvin, and he has continued \nto see him.  He testified that he disagreed with the finding that he does not want to work.  According \nto the Claimant, he loved his job and making money.                    \nMedical Evidence  \n On May  18, 2023, the  Claimant  sought  medical  treatment  from  Legacy  Spine  & \nNeurological Specialists under the care of Dr. Scott Schlesinger.  The Claimant complained of low \nback pain that radiated down his left leg.  This clinical encounter was performed utilizing a real-\n\nJaynes – G703512 \n10 \n \ntime telehealth audio-visual connection.  This particular event occurred during the 2020 COVID-\n19 outbreak.  The Claimant reported that his pain has gotten worse over the last couple of years.  \nHe rated his pain on average as being an 8-9 on a scale of 10. The Claimant reported numbness \nand tingling in his left leg.  However, he denied burning and weakness.  The Claimant reported \nundergoing both physical therapy and chiropractic treatment with no relief of his symptoms.  He \nwas  last  seen  on  January  7, 2020, for  radiating  left  groin  pain  with  numbness that  extended \nmedially to his knee and occasionally his foot.  At that time, Dr. Schlesinger had performed s/p \ntwo  Transforaminal  Epidural  Steroid  Injections  at  L2-3 on  the  left.  The  Claimant  reported  no \nsignificant relief from the transforaminal injections.  Dr. Schlesinger reviewed the MRI of January \n30, 2020, which showed moderate neural foramina stenosis at L2-3 Spinal Nerve Block.  Per this \nclinic note, the EMG nerve conduction study from January 30, 2020, suggested L-2 and L3 left-\nsided  radiculopathy  changes.   At that time, Dr. Schlesinger diagnosed the Claimant with “1. \nRadiculopathy, Lumbar region  (54.16).  2.  Encounter  for  other  specific  surgical  after  care \n(Z48.89).” In  order  to  investigate  the  Claimant’s  neurological  complaints,  Dr. Schlesinger \nproposed  that  the  Claimant  undergo  an  EMG  NCV  of  the  lower  left  extremities.  He also \nrecommended that the Claimant proceed with further diagnostic testing in the form of modalities \nthat included an MRI and x-rays of his lumbar spine.  Dr. Schlesinger planned to proceed with a \nselective nerve root block/SNRB at left L2-3.   \n An MRI was performed of the Claimant’s lumbar spine on May 31, 2023, which was read \nby Dr. Andrew Finkbeiner, with the following CONCLUSION: \n1.  Surgical  intervention  again  seen  at  the  L2-3  level  with  posterior  spinous  process \nhardware and suggestion of a partial left-side facetectomy defect.  There is retrolisthesis, a \nbroad-based  disc  bulge  with  left  foraminal  predominance  and  facet  hypertrophy  at  this \nlevel  contributing  to  abutment  of  bilateral  exiting  L2  nerves.   There  is  enhancing \ngranulation tissue along the surgical tract.  \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n11 \n \n2.  Retrolisthesis,  a  broad-based  disc  bulge  and  facet  hypertrophy  at  the  L3-4  and  L4-5 \nlevels with abutment of bilaterial existing and L3 and L4 nerves and abutment of bilateral \ndescending L4- and L5 nerves. \n \n             Per a Chart note of May 31, 2023, the EMG NCS showed mild active and chronic \ndenervation in left vastus lateralis could be related to radiculopathy in any level L2-L4 but was \nunable to confirm with paraspinals as was confirmed on a previous EMG in 2020. \n Dr. Schlesinger saw  the  Claimant  during  an  office  visit  that  same  day.    The  Claimant \ncomplained that his symptoms have a significant impact on the quality of life and activities of daily \nliving.  He had a chief complaint of continued low back pain that radiated down his left leg.  On \nphysical  examination  of  the  Claimant, Dr.  Schlesinger’s determined  that the Claimant had \nincreased  truncal  girth.   Dr.  Schlesinger  opined  that  the Claimant’s gait  was  very  antalgic,  and \nalthough he used a  cane to ambulate  and was still unable to tandem.  The Claimant’s left leg \nrequired repeated testing due to difficulty, weakness verses decreased effort due to pain.  He was \nnoted to have sensation decreased to palpation in his left leg.  Dr. Schlesinger canceled the SNRB \nthat was scheduled for that same day.  His diagnoses were: “1. Intervertebral disc disorders with \nradiculopathy lumbar region (51.16). 2. Other spondylosis, lumbar region (M47.896).” \nDr. Schlesinger’s Summary: \nThis 60-year-old male gives a long history of persistent back pain and left thigh pain despite \nan attempt of treating his with surgical intervention at L2-3.  The patient does have some \nelectrical abnormalities, but these are improved compared to the last test.  Unfortunately, \nhe  still hurts, and  the  study  suggested  there  is  still  some  evidence  of  neural  foramina \nnarrowing at L2-3 and postoperative changes.   \n \nThe patient declares that he does not want to proceed with a planned left L2-3 SNRB today \nbut instead desires to try to get his workman’s compensation closed.  Therefore, I will \ndeclare from the standpoint of his Workmen’s Comp. case that he has reached maximal \nmedical improvement.  Based on the fact he has had prior surgery in his lumbar spine and \ncontinued  pain  would  merit  a  10%  disability  rating  in  accordance  with  the  AMA \nguidelines. \n \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n12 \n \nIf down the road the patient does desire to have further work-up and treatment and I would \nproceed with a left L2-3 SNRB.  If this does not give significant transient benefit and the \nnext step would be to offer him the evaluation of a spinal cord stimulatory trial. \n \nIf  he  does  get  transient  benefits  from  a  left  L2-3  SNRB  then  there  is  an  opportunity  to \nfurther  decompress  the  neural  foramen  with  an  interbody  fusion  device  added  to  try  to \nfurther enlarge the left L2-3 neuroforamen.  This may or may not do any good since he has \nhad long-standing problems with his left leg even before his surgery for at least a couple \nof years.  The nerve may simply have too much electrical damage to get any improvement \nwithout a possible spinal cord stimulator trial. At this time, we give him his above right \nand release and be happy to see him back again as needed. \n  \n   \n            Adjudication \n A.  Permanent Anatomical Impairment    \n  Permanent  impairment  is  any  functional  or  anatomical  loss  remaining  after  the  healing \nperiod has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  \nThe  Commission  has  adopted  the  American  Medical  Association Guides  to  the  Evaluation  of \nPermanent  Impairment (4\nth\n ed.  1993)  to  be  used  in  assessing  anatomical  impairment.   See \nCommission  Rule 099.34 (now codified  at  11  C.A.R. § 25-129);  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-522(g) \n(Repl. 2012).  It is the Commission’s duty, using the Guides, to determine whether the Claimant \nhas proved he is entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment.  Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. \nApp. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).      \n Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by \nobjective  and  measurable  physical  findings.   Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-704(c)(1)  (Repl.  2012).  \nObjective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  \nArk.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012).    Although  it  is  true  that  the  legislature  has \nrequired medical evidence supported by objective findings to prove a compensable injury, it does \nnot follow that such evidence is required to establish each element of compensability.  Stephens \nTruck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).  All that is needed is that the \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n13 \n \nmedical evidence be supported by objective findings.  Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. \n59, 244 S.W.3d 709 (2006).      \nPermanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a  determination  that  the  compensable \ninjury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a) \n(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of \nmajor cause shall be established according to a preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-102(14) (Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence that has greater \nweight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).    \nThe  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  lower  back  while  working  for  the \nrespondent-employer, on March 8, 2017.  The Respondents paid for both conservative and surgical \nintervention for the Claimant’s back injury.  After  the  Claimant  failed  conservative  treatment \nmodalities, Dr. Schlesinger performed a one-level surgery on his back at L2-3, on March 7, 2019, \nfor his compensable back injury.  Following the surgery, the Claimant continued with severe back \npain and symptoms in his left leg.    He continues under the care of his primary care physician, Dr. \nIrvin, because of his continued with severe chronic back pain and related left leg pain and other \nsymptomology.   Dr.  Irvin  has  prescribed  marijuana  gummies  for  the Claimant’s  resulting \nsymptoms.  On  May  31, 2023,  Dr.  Schlesinger  assessed  the  Claimant  with  a  10%  permanent \nimpairment  to  his lumbar  spine using  the  AMA Guides.    Although Dr. Schlesinger  does  not \nspecifically state that he used the 4\nth\n Edition, it appears that he in fact did so.  There are no expert \nopinions to the contrary, and Dr. Schlesinger’s assessment comports with my review of AMA \nGuides  to  the  Evaluation  of  Permanent  Impairment,  4\nth\n Edition  for  assessing  anatomical \nimpairment to the spine.  Dr. Schlesinger’s expert opinion is logical and comports with my review \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n14 \n \nof Table 75, page 3/113 of the Guides, which assigns “Whole Person Impairment Percents Due to \nSpecific Spine Disorders.  Specifically, Table 75 Section  II. E provides a  10% to the body as  a \nwhole for a surgically treated disk lesion with residual, medically documented pain, and rigidity.                   \nPer  his  medical  note of  May  2023,  Dr. Schlesinger assessed  the Claimant  with  a 10% \npermanent impairment because he underwent surgical treatment with residual symptoms of pain \ndue to electrical abnormalities and some stenosis at L3-4.  Other objective abnormities pertaining \nto the Claimant’s lumbar spine are demonstrated on the above MRI performed on May 31, 2023.  \nThese are all objective findings attributable to the Claimant’s compensable back injury of March \n8, 2017.  There is no evidence whatsoever indicating that the Claimant’s degenerative disc disease \nwas symptomatic.   \nPrior to his compensable injury of March 8, there is no evidence that the Claimant did not \nhave a history of any complaints or issues relating to his back.  I found his testimony to be credible \nin  this  regard.    In  fact,  the Claimant’s credible testimony about him  not  having  any prior  back \nproblems  is  corroborated  by  the  lack  of  any  medical  evidence  indicating  a  prior  history  of  any \nmedical treatment or diagnostic testing having been performed on his back.    \n Hence,  the  evidence  before  me  clearly  proves  that  prior  to  his  work  injury,  the Claimant’s pre-\nexisting degenerative disc disease was asymptomatic.  I am persuaded that Dr. Schelsinger’s expert \nopinion is correct and with my review of the Guides, with there being no probative evidence or \nother recent expert opinions to the contrary.  \nTherefore,  I  have  attached  significant  evidentiary  weight  to  Dr. Schlesigner’s expert \nopinion.    For  these  reasons,  I  am  also  convinced  that  the  major  cause  of  the Claimant’s 10% \npermanent anatomical impairment, resulted from his work-related injury of March 8, 2017.   \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n15 \n \nI  realize  that  Drs.  Cathy  and  Knox  opined  that the Claimant  sustained  no  permanent \nimpairment on his  lumbar  spine.    However,  these  opinions  were given prior to the Claimant’s \nlumbar surgery.  As a result, I have attached minimal weight to these opinions. \nB. Wage-Loss Disability  \n When a Claimant has sustained a permanent impairment rating to the body as a whole, the \nCommission is authorized to increase the disability rating based on wage-loss factors.  The wage-\nloss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has affected the Claimant’s ability to earn \na livelihood.  Grimes v. North Am. Foundry, 316 Ark. 295, 872 S.W.2d 59 (Ark. 1994).  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-522(b) (Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part:  \n(1) In considering claims for permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the \nemployee’s  percentage  of  permanent  physical  impairment,  the  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission may take into account, in addition to the percentage of \npermanent  physical  impairment, such factors as the employee’s age, education, \nwork experience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her future \nearning capacity.  \n Such  other  matters  are  motivation,  post  injury  income,  credibility,  demeanor,  and  a \nmultitude  of  other  factors.   Glass  v.  Edens,  233  Ark.  786,  346  S.W.2d  685  (1961); City  of \nFayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 (1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 \nArk. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990); Cross v. Crawford County Memorial Hosp., supra. It is \nwell established that a Claimant’s prior work history and education are factors to be considered in \ndetermining  eligibility  for  wage-loss  benefits.   See  Cross  v.  Crawford  County  Memorial  Hosp., \nsupra.; Glass v. Edens, supra.; City of Fayetteville v. Guess, supra.; Curry v. Franklin Electric, \nsupra.  \n On  Mach  8,  2017,  the  Claimant  sustained  injuries  to his back  and leg.    The  parties \npreviously  litigated  issues about the  Claimant’s left leg injury,  which is now res  judicata.  \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n16 \n \n At issue now is whether the Claimant is entitled to wage-loss disability benefits relating to \nhis back compensable injury of March 8, 2017.   \n The Claimant is now 63 years of age.  His testimony shows that he began working with his \ndad in 1983 as an electrician.  He became a certified Master Electrician in 1997.  The Claimant’s \nprior work as a commercial and residential electrician required that he be able to perform heavy \nmanual labor.   \n Here, the Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in March 2017, while performing \njob duties as an electrician when his boot got stuck in mud and he tried to dislodge it.  He felt an \nimmediate onset of pain.  The Claimant reported this incident to his employer, and Respondents \nreferred the Claimant for treatment and evaluation of his compensable injuries.  \n After conservative treatment failed, the Claimant underwent surgical intervention at L2-3 \non his lumbar spine by Dr. Schlesinger in 2019.  No doctor has placed any physical limitations on \nthe Claimant.  He previously underwent an FCE with invalid results.  The record shows that the \nClaimant suffers from chronic back pain, for which he takes marijuana gummies.  The Claimant \nmaintains  that  he  is  interested  in  returning  to  work.   However,  his inaction proves otherwise.  \nAlthough  the Claimant  does  not  have  any physical  restrictions  placed  on  him  by  a  doctor,  the \nevidence before me demonstrates that the Claimant is unable to perform majority of the functions \nof an electrician or any type of heavy manual labor.   \n His testimony shows that he has performed some odds job since his back surgery.  He has \nnot applied for any potential job openings since his March 8, 2017, injury.  His testimony shows \nthat he has not held full-time employment since that time.    He is unable to perform heavy manual \nlabor due to his compensable back injury of March 8, 2017.   \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n17 \n \n However,  the  evidence  clearly proves that  the  Claimant  is  legitimately not interested  in \nreturning to gainful employment within his physical limitations.  The Claimant has applied and \nbeen approved for Social Security Disability benefits.   \n Based on the Claimant’s compensable back injury, advanced age, his resulting permanent  \nimpairment of as a result of same, prior work history of heavy manual labor, limited education, \nnon-transferable skills, his  lack  of  interest  and  motivation  in returning  to  other  work within  his \nphysical limitations, and all of the other factors before me, I find that the Claimant proved that he \nsustained a wage-loss disability in the amount of 9%.             \nC.  Attorney’s Fee \n The  parties  stipulated  that  the Respondents  have  controverted  this claim for  additional \nbenefits.    As  such,  the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on all \nindemnity benefits awarded herein to the Claimant, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. \n(2012). \n                                                                    AWARD \n The Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set \nforth herein this Opinion.  All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without a discount, and \nthis award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809 \n(Repl. 2012).  Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the Claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to a 25% attorney’s fee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein. This fee is to be paid \none-half by the insurance carrier and one-half by the Claimant.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                                              \n                                                                                                            ________________________                       \n                               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n              Administrative Law Judge \n\nJaynes – G703512 \n18","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: G703512 GARY D. JAYNES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TEMPWORKS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY/ AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 22, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:59.870Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G703512-2025-12-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JAYNES_GARY_G703512_20251222.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}