{"id":"alj-H005594-2024-05-07","awcc_number":"H005594","decision_date":"2024-05-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Francisco Bonilla","employer_name":"Juan Carlos Calderon","title":"BONILLA VS. JUAN CARLOS CALDERON AWCC# H005594 May 7, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:5","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["lumbar","shoulder","back","cervical","fracture","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BONILLA_FRANCISCO_H005594_20240507.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BONILLA_FRANCISCO_H005594_20240507.pdf","text_length":48028,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H005594 \n \nFRANCISCO BONILLA, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nJUAN CARLOS CALDERON, Employer RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nLIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, Insurance Carrier/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nPICK-IT CONSTRUCTION, Employer RESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \nEMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY, Insurance Carrier/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \n OPINION FILED MAY 7, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in  Fort  Smith, \nSebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by MATTHEW J. KETCHAM, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by JASON RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 2 represented by DAVID C. JONES, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On February  8,  2024,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Fort  Smith, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on November 13, 2023, and a Pre-hearing \nOrder  was  filed  on November  14,  2023.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked \nCommission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-2- \n 1. Whether Claimant was an employee of Respondent No. 1 or Respondent No. 2 on July \n14, 2020. \n 2.  Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  lumbar  spine  and  right \nshoulder on or about July 14, 2020. \n 3.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  medical  treatment  for  his  compensable  lumbar  spine \nand right shoulder injuries. \n 4. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from July 15, 2020, \nto a date yet to be determined.  \n 5. Compensation rates. \n 6. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee. \n 7. Respondents No. 1 and Respondents No. 2 raise lack of notice as a defense. \n 8. Respondents No. 2 raise statute of limitations defense. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“1. The above listed proposed stipulations. \n \n2.  The  Claimant  was  injured  on  July  14,  2020  while  he  was \nworking  on  a  roof,  which  he  slipped  and  fell  ten  (10)  feet  from, \nlanding  on  concrete  and  fracturing  the  vertebrae  within  his  back \nand  his  rights  scapula.  The  Claimant  continued  working  for  four \n(4)  more  hours  until  his  wife  picked  him  up  and  took  him  to  a \nhospital. \n \nThe  Claimant  was  seen  the  evening  of  July  14,  2020  in  the \nemergency  department  of  the  Baptist  Hospital  Medical  Center. \nDuring his time there, Claimant was examined, given medications, \nordered  an  MRI,  and  given  CT  scans  of  his  head  and  cervical \nspine.  Following  this,  he  was  provided  an  arm  sling  and  told  to \nfollow  up  for  his  scapula  fracture.  The  medications  administered \nincludes   an   infusion   of   sodium   chloride,   morphine   injection, \niopamidol,   ondansetron,   a   contrast   agent   for   his   MRI.   He \nexperienced  substantial  headache,  pain  to  his  right  shoulder,  pain \nin  his  back,  nausea,  and  pain  within  his  ribs.  Claimant  was  found \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-3- \nto  have  been  traumatically  injured  with  fractures  of  his  spine \nvertebras, L1-L4, and a fracture within his shoulder blade. He was \nprescribed   diazepam   and   oxycodone-acetaminophen.   He   was \nadvised to follow-up as soon as possible \n \nOn  July  17,  2020,  the  Claimant  was  seen  by  Dr.  Jeff  Evans  at \nBaptist  Health  Orthopedics  Clinic  in  Fort  Smtih.  During  this \nappointment,  an  x-ray  was  taken  and  further  confirmed  a  scapular \nbody fracture. It was stated for the Claimant to continue wearing a \nsling  and  follow-up  in  one  week.  Dr.  Evans  noted  that  more \ndetailed evaluation of the CT scan taken prior would be conducted. \nHe  additionally  stated  that  the  Claimant  may  need  an  ORIF,  open \nreduction  and  internal  fixation  surgery,  to  his  right  scapula  in  the \nfuture. \n \nOn July 24, 2020, the Claimant returned to Dr. Evans’ office for a \nfollow-up  appointment  regarding  his  right  scapula.  Dr.  Evans’ \nreading  of  the  x-rays of the Claimant’s injury showed no further \ndisplacement,   and   though   Dr.   Evans   recommended   surgery, \nClaimant preferred not to get surgery unless the fracture displaces. \nHe was advised to continue wearing a sling and to follow-up again \nin ten (10) days. \n \nOn August 4, 2020, the Claimant returned to Dr. Evans’ office for \nhis   follow-up   appointment.   X-rays   showed   that   the   fracture \ncontinued  healing  with  no  further  displacement.  Claimant  was  to \ncontinue wearing an arm sling and return again in two (2) weeks. \n \nOn August 6, 2020, the Claimant called to inquire about the status \nof his medication prescription order, which was approved. \n \nOn  August  18,  2020,  the  Claimant  returned  to  Baptist  Health \nOrthopedics. His x-rays were ready by Dr. Evans and he noted the \nfracture that was continuing to heal. Follow-up in two (2) weeks. \n \nOn September 1, 2020, the Claimant was seen again by Dr. Evans, \nwho reviewed his fracture and confirmed it was continuing to heal. \nAdditionally,   PROM   exercises   were   conducted   to   improve \nClaimant’s  range  of motion.  Claimant  was told  to  continue  not \nworking and to come back in four (4) weeks. \n \nOn October 1, 2020, the Claimant was seen by Dr. Evans where he \nstated  that  the  Claimants  fracture  had  healed  and  there  was  no \nfurther  displacement.  They  continued  ROM  exercises,  refilled  his \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-4- \nprescription  for  Lortab  5  #28,  and  advised  him  to  follow-up  if \nsymptoms worsen or discontinue improvement. \n \n3.  The  Claimant  reserves  the  right  to  amend  and  supplement  his \ncontentions after additional discovery has been completed.” \n \n Respondents No. 1 contentions are as follows: \n“The  claimant  was  allegedly  injured  on  7-14-20.  A  claim  was  not \nfiled  until  6-8-21.  Claimant  was  not  an  employee  of  Juan  Carlos \nCalderon.” \n \n Respondents No. 2 contentions are as follows: \n“1.  Respondents  No.  2  contend  that  the  statute  of  limitations \nshould  bar  any  claimant  against  Respondent  No.  2  based  on  the \nCommission’s prior actions in what was tanamount to a dismissal \nof Respondents No. 2 and the joinder of Respondents No. 1. In that \nregard, the Commission previously investigated the \nemployer/employee relationship, determined that the Claimant was \nnot  an  employee  of  Respondent  No.  2  based  on  the  Compliance \nDivision’s  investigation,  and  allowed  Respondent  No.  2  to  be \ndismissed as a party to the claim. Furthermore, the Claimant failed \nto  properly  prosecute  the  claim  for  benefits  and  failed  to  take  any \naction  against  Respondents  No.  2  in  over  three  years  since  the \ninjury  alleged  herein  and  after  the  Claimant  was  well  aware  that \nRespondents  No.  2  had been  dismissed  as  a  party.  Accordingly,  it \nhas been more than two years since the injury date and no benefits \nwhatsoever  have  been  paid  by  Respondents  No.  2,  any  claim \nagainst  Respondents  No.  2  should  be  barred  by  the  statute  of \nlimitations. Otherwise, Respondents No. 2 contend that no benefits \nshould  be  due  from  Respondents  No.  2  until  they  are  joined  as  a \nparty to litigation on or about November 1, 2023. \n \n2.   Respondents   No.   2   contend   that   there   was   no   direct \nemployer/employee     relationship     or     contractor/subcontractor \nrelationship   between   the   Claimant   and   Respondent   No.   2.   It \nappears  that  Respondent  No.  2  had  the  general  contract  at  the \nlocation of the incident and had a subcontract with Respondent No. \n1, Mr. Calderon, to perform the roofing job. \n \n3. Respondents No. 2 contend that Mr. Calderon (Respondent No. \n1  Employer)  was  probably  the  direct  employer  of  the  Claimant, \nand Mr. Calderon had workers’ compensation coverage and would \ntherefore be liable for benefits. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-5- \n \n4.  Respondents  No.  2  contend  they  would  be  entitled  to  an  offset \nfor  any  unemployment  benefits  paid  to  the  Claimant  should  the \nClaimant have applied for and received said benefits. \n \n5.  Respondents  No.  2  would  reserve  the  right  to  amend  and \nsupplement   their   contentions   after   the   discovery   has   been \ncompleted.” \n \n The claimant in this matter is a 61-year-old male who was employed as a roofer on July \n14, 2020. On that day, the claimant was working on the roof of  a home  located at 1915 Cherry \nHills Drive, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Respondent No. 2 in this matter was the prime contractor of \nthe  home  located  at  1915  Cherry  Hills  Drive,  Fayetteville,  Arkansas,  on  July  14,  2020. \nRespondent  No.  2  engaged  Respondent  No.  1  as  a  subcontractor  for  the  roof  work  at  the  1915 \nCherry Hills Drive home on July 14, 2020. \n The claimant alleges that he suffered compensable injuries to his lumbar spine and right \nshoulder  on  July  14,  2020,  when  he  fell  from  the  roof  at  the  1915  Cherry  Hills  Drive  home  he \nwas working on. Following is the claimant’s direct examination testimony about the fall and the \nevents shortly thereafter: \nQ What happened on July 14\nth\n of ’20? \n \nA I fell off the house. \n \nQ Can you describe how that happened? \n \n(Witness responds in Spanish) \n \n THE   INTERPRETER:   Interpreter   requests   for   him   to \nrepeat it one more time. \n \n THE WITNESS: Okay. I picked up a bundle. When I took \na step, the paper ripped. I took a second step, the paper ripped there \nand  then  I  fell  back  on  the  gutter  and  with  the  bundle  and \neverything, I fell off the house. \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-6- \nQ [BY MR. KETCHAM]: and where did you land? \n \nA On the concrete at the entry of the house. \n \nQ Okay. And did you feel pain? \n \nA At the moment I didn’t feel. I felt dead. \n \nQ Okay. Did you ultimately feel pain? \n \nA I  sat  and  I  stayed  seated.  The  ladies  that  do  housekeeping \ngave me ice and they put ice on there where I fell. \n \nQ The lady that does housekeeping at the house that you were \nroofing? \n \nA Yes. Correct. \n \nQ Okay. Did anyone eyewitness your fall? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Okay.  How  soon  was  it  that  someone  else  on  the  site  had \nrealized that you had fallen from the roof? \n \nA Right at that moment because everyone was up above. \n \nQ On the roof? \n \nA On the roof, yes, above. \n \nQ Okay. Was Mauricio Solis on-site that day? \n \nA Of course he was at the place. \n \nQ Okay. Did he speak with you after your fall? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Okay. did you speak with anyone after your fall? \n \nA No. Just with Mauricio. \n \nQ So you did speak with Mauricio? \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-7- \nA Yes, of course, after I fell. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA He asked me if I was okay and I said, “I am not okay. I \nneed to go to the hospital.” \n \nQ Okay. \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination that he called his “ex”, and  she  came  and \ntook him to the hospital. Medical records were introduced at Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 1-7 \nfrom  Baptist  Health  Medical  Center  Emergency  Room  dated  July  14,  2020.  These  records \nindicate  that  the  claimant  was  seen  by  Dr.  James  Russell.  Following  are  portions  of  those \nemergency department provider notes: \nChief Complaint \nPatient presents with fall. \n \nFrancisco Bonilla is a 57 y.o. male complains of injury from a fall \nfrom a 10 foot roof. He states at 11:00 today he was at work on a \nroof  and  fell  off  backwards  onto  concrete  injuring  the  back  of  his \nhead right shoulder and his whole right side. He states initially did \nnot  feel  too  bad  and  his  colleagues  helped  him  get  over  into  the \nshade  of  a  tree.  He  had  no  loss  of  consciousness.  His  wife  was \ncontacted  at  noon  but  he  felt  that  he  would  be  okay.  Then  at  4:00 \nshe  called  back  and  they  advised  that  she  come  get  him  and  she \ndrove an hour to go get him and brought him here. He was able to \ninitially ambulate but since her picking him up he states the pain is \ngetting  worse  and  worse.  He  is  complaining  of  a  substantial \nheadache  with  associated  nausea  but  no  vomiting.  He  does  have \nhead pain, right rib pain and significant lower back pain. He denies \nany  numbness  or  tingling.  His  wife  is  present  with  him  to  assist \nwith translation as he speaks minimal English. The patient does go \non to admit that he has taken some “Panadom” which is an El \nSalvadorian pain medication. \n \n*** \nFinal diagnosis: \nFall from roof, initial encounter \nClosed  fracture  of  transverse  process  of  lumbar  vertebra,  initial \nencounter (HCC). \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-8- \nClosed  nondisplaced  fracture  of  body  of  right  scapula,  initial \nencounter. \nMuscle contusion. \n \n On that same day the claimant underwent an MRI of his lumbar spine at Baptist Health. \nFollowing is a portion of that diagnostic report authored by Dr. Jeffrey Behar: \nSoft tissues: Marked edema and soft tissue hematoma is identified \nin  the  RIGHT  paraspinous  muscle  bodies.  Increased  T2  signal  is \nnoted  in  the  RIGHT  psoas  muscle  consistent  with  psoas  muscle \nstrain or tear. \n \nIMPRESSION: \n1. L3, L4 and L5 RIGHT transverse process fracture. \n2. RIGHT paraspinous muscle body hematoma. \n3. RIGHT psoas muscle hematoma or tear. \n4. Degenerative disc disease at L4-L5 and L5-S1. \n \n On  July  17,  2020,  the  claimant  was  seen  by  Dr.  Jeffrey  Evans  at  Baptist  Health \nOrthopedics Clinic. Following is a portion that medical report: \nChief Complaint \nPatient presents with  \n* Shoulder Pain \nRight Shoulder Pain \n \n57 year old male with right posterior shoulder pain since falling off \na roof and landing on his back 3 days ago. He was noted to have a \ncomminuted  right  scapular  body  fracture,  placed  in  a  sling  and \nreferred. \n \n*** \nAssessment and Plan: \n1. Pain of right scapula (Primary) \n - XR Scapula 2 Vw Bilateral \n2.  Closed  traumatic  minimally  displaced  fracture  of  body  of  right \nscapula, initial encounter \n Assessment & Plan \n Xrays today show comminuted right scapular body fracture \nwhich extends into glenoid. \n Continue Sling. \n Will  get  remainder  of  CT  scan  on  disk  to  fully  evaluate \nfracture. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-9- \n May need ORIF right scapula soon. \n Follow up one week. \n \n On  July  24,  2020,  the  claimant  was  again  seen  by  Dr.  Evans.  Following  is  a  portion  of \nthat medical report: \nChief Complaint \nPatient presents with \n* Follow-up \nF/U Right Scapula FX \n \nFollow  up  right  ND  scapular  body  fracture  with  extension  into \nglenoid  (transverse  fracture  pattern?  Now  10  days  out,  doing \nbetter. \n \n*** \nAssessment & Plan: \nMy  personal  reading  of  X-rays  of  right  scapula  show  no  further \ndisplacement. \nHe does not want surgery unless the fracture displaces. \nContinue sling. \nFollow up in 10 days with True AP right shoulder and Scap Y. \n \n On August 14, 2020, the claimant was again seen by Dr. Evans. Following is a portion of \nthat medical report: \nChief Complaint \nPatient presents with \n* Follow-up \nF/U Right Scapula FX \n \nFollow up right scapular body fracture with glenoid extension now \n3 weeks out doing better. \n \n*** \nAssessment and Plan: \n1. Closed  traumatic  minimally  displaced  fracture  of  body  of  right \nscapula with routine healing (Primary) \n Assessment & Plan \n My  personal  reading  of  X-rays  of  right  scapula  show \nhealing fracture and no further displacement. \n Continue right arm sling. \n Follow up in 2 weeks with right scapula series. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-10- \n \n On October 1, 2020, the claimant was again seen by Dr. Evans. Following is a portion of \nthat medical report: \nChief Complaint \nPatient presents with \n* Follow-up \nF/U Right Scapula FX \n \nFollow up right scapular body fracture now 2 ½ months out doing \nbetter. \n \n*** \nAssessment and Plan: \n1. Closed  traumatic  minimally  displaced  fracture  of  body  of  right \nscapula with routine healing (Primary) \n Assessment & Plan \n My  personal  reading  of  X-rays  of  right  scapula  show \nhealed fracture and no further displacement. \n ROM exercises. \n Refill Lortab 5 #28. \n Follow up prn. \n \n The claimant in this matter speaks limited English and used a Spanish interpreter during \nthe  hearing.  The  claimant  testified  about  how  he  was  hired  to  work  on  the  roof  of  the  home  at \n1915 Cherry Hills Drive and how he was paid as follows: \nQ Okay.  On  July  14\nth\n of  2020,  were  you  roofing  a  house  at \n1915 Cherry Hills Drive in Fayetteville? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ Okay. And how did you get that job? \n \nA Mauricio hired me because Chepe contracted him to. \n \nQ Who is Chepe? \n \nA Chepe Calderon. \n \nQ Is that Juan Calderon? \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-11- \nA Uh-huh. \n \nQ Is that a “yes”? \n \nA Yes. His name is Juan Jose Calderon. \n \nQ What was your payment arrangement for roofing the house \nat 1915 Cherry Hills Drive in Fayetteville? \n \nA Daily salary was 160. \n \nQ Okay. And were you hired directly by Mauricio Solis? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ Okay. Were you paid for that job? \n \nA Yes. They paid me the two days I had done. \n \nQ Okay. And by whom were you paid? \n \nA Solis did it because Calderon would pay Solis. \n \nQ And Solis would pay everybody? \n \nA Of course. Yes. \n \nQ Okay. Were you paid in check or cash? \n \nA Me? Cash? \n \nQ Did Solis pay you himself? \n \nA Yes. Him personally. \n \n The claimant originally filed an AR-C which was received by the Commission on August \n11, 2020. That AR-C named Mauricio Penate Solis as the employer. That document is found at \nRespondent No. 2’s Exhibit 1, page 2. This administrative law judge’s office sent a letter to Mr. \nSolis informing him of the claim against him via certified and regular mail on October 30, 2020. \nThat letter went without answer and is found at Respondent No. 2’s Exhibit 1, page 7. On \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-12- \nDecember 3,  2020,  this  administrative  law  judge’s  office  sent  another  letter  and  prehearing \nconference notice via certified and regular mail to Mr. Solis, which was again unanswered and is \nfound at Respondent No. 2’s Exhibit 1, pages 8-9.  On  March  10,  2021,  this administrative  law \njudge’s office again sent a letter and prehearing conference notice to Mr. Solis by regular mail. \nThat letter and notice is found at Respondent No. 2’s Exhibit 1, pages 10-11.  Again,  that  letter \nand notice went unanswered. \n The  claimant  filed  an  amended  AR-C  in  this  matter  naming  Respondent  No.  2  as  the \nemployer. That AR-C was filed on June 2, 2021, and is found at Respondent No. 2’s Exhibit 1, \npage 13. A final AR-C  was filed by the claimant on June 8, 2021, adding Respondent No. 1 as \nthe employer.  \n The  parties  in  this  matter  made  on-the-record stipulations regarding the Commission’s \ninability to communicate with Mr. Mauricio Solis and that Mauricio Solis did not have workers’ \ncompensation  insurance  coverage  in  the  state  of  Arkansas.  Following  is  that  on-the-record \ndiscussion: \nTHE COURT: In talks prior to going on the record, we had \na discussion. There is an AR-C that is found in Respondent No. 2’s \nExhibit 1 and  that is found at Pages 1 and 2 of Respondent 2’s 1. \nThat  is  an  AR-C  filed  by  the  Claimant  through  his  attorney,  Mr. \nKetcham. Regarding a Mauricio Solis. \n \n I  am  going  to  repeat  a  statement  that  we  discussed  earlier \nand asked all of the parties if they agree to stipulate to this and we \nwill do so just by verbal acknowledgement on the record. \n \n Mr.  Solis  was  noticed  up  originally  by  the  Commission  to \nbegin  the  process  of  going  to  a  hearing  after  the  AR-C  was  filed. \nThe Commission was unsuccessful in ever reaching or having any \ncommunication  with  Mr.  Solis  after  having  attempted  to  do  so \nthrough  my  office  and  also  engaging  the  help  of  one  of  the \nCommission’s investigators to try to find Mr. Solis. \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-13- \n Do  you  agree  with  that,  Mr.  Ryburn,  to  that  stipulation  of \nthose as facts? \n \n MR. RYBURN: Yes, Your Honor. \n \n THE COURT:  Mr. Jones? \n \n MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor. For the record, of course, I \nworked   for   the   Commission   for   years.   That   is   what   the \nCommission  does  as  far  as  the  investigators  go,  they  try  to  find \ncoverage.  I  am  not  testifying  as  an  expert  here,  but  as  far  as  my \nknowledge  internal  with  the  Commission,  that  is  what  they  do. \nApparently Mr. Solis had no coverage no matter what at the end of \nthe day, so we agree. \n \n THE COURT: Well, let’s go ahead and make that – and  I \nmeant to say that a second ago. As far as the Commission’s records \nare concerned, a check was done on Mr. Solis and no workers’ \ncompensation coverage in the state of Arkansas was found. \n \n Do you agree with that, Mr. Ryburn? \n \n MR.  RYBURN:  I  think  for  the  name  Mauricio  Solis.  I \ndon’t know if he has another business or anything else. \n \n THE COURT: Right. For the individual named in the AR-\nC, no insurance coverage was found. \n \n MR. RYBURN: Yes, I can agree to that. \n \n MR. JONES: Respondent 2 can stipulate to that. \n \n THE COURT:  Mr. Ketcham, do you agree with all of those \nstipulations? \n \n MR. KETCHAM: I do agree with those stipulations. \n \n THE   COURT:   I   am   not   going   to   write   that   in   my \nPrehearing  Order,  but  it  is  in  the  beginning  of  our  record  here \ntoday  and  I  will  use  that  as  I  move  through  the  writing  of  the \nopinion process. \n \n Okay. So I am going to admit Commission Exhibit 1 at this \ntime, which is my Prehearing Order, if  I hear no objection.  It will \nbe admitted. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-14- \n \n Both   Respondent   No.   1,   Juan   Carlos   Calderon,   and   Respondent   No.   2, Pick-It \nConstruction,  had workers’ compensation  insurance  coverage  in  place  on  July  14,  2020,  when \nthe  claimant  alleges  to  have  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his  right  shoulder  and  lumbar \nspine. Mr. Juan Calderon, Respondent No. 1, was represented by counsel at the hearing but did \nnot  attend  the  hearing  in  this  matter.  Respondent  No.  2  was  also  represented  by  counsel  and \nNathan Ogden, the president/owner of Pick-It Construction, attended the hearing and was called \nas a witness. \n Mr. Ogden was called as a witness by the claimant’s attorney. Mr. Ogden was asked \nabout the 1915 Cherry Hills Drive home and Pick-It Construction’s relationship with Juan Carlos \nCalderon as follows: \nQ Good afternoon. My name is Matt Ketcham and I represent \nMr. Bonilla. We were introduced right as we came in the door and \nI got Ogden. Can I have your full name. \n \nA Nathan Ogden, O-g-d-e-n. \n \nQ Nathan  Ogden.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Ogden.  And  what  is  your \nposition with Pick-It Construction? \n \nA President and owner of Pick-It Construction. \n \nQ Okay. And I am going to get right to the point, okay? \n \n On July 14\nth\n of 2020, did you all have a contract to roof the \nhouse of 1915 Cherry Hills Drive? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ You  did.  Okay.  And  I  know  from  the  background  of  the \ncase,  Pick-It  Construction  employees  did  not  directly  roof  that \nhouse; is that correct? \n \nA That is correct. \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-15- \nQ Okay.  And  my  understanding  is  Pick-It  subcontracted  the \nroof  at  1915  Cherry  Hills  Drive  in  Fayetteville  out  to  Juan  Carlos \nCalderon? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Okay.  And  is  there  a  company  name  or  trade  name  or  do \nyou simply hire Juan Carlos Calderon? \n \nA We hire Juan Carlos Calderon. \n \nQ Okay. May I assume that is not the first time you had hired \nJuan Carlos Calderon? \n \nA That is correct. \n \nQ Okay.  to  your  knowledge  and  understanding,  does  Juan \nCarlos  Calderon  roof  houses  with  his  own  employees  or  does  he \nsubcontract that out to other crews? \n \nA I do not know. \n \nQ You have no knowledge of that? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ Have you had any discussions with him about who does it? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ Okay. In your experience, is that an uncommon practice for \nthe roofer you hire to have people under them that roof houses? \n \nA I  do  not  know.  We  make  sure  who  we  pay  has  insurance \nand a W-9. \n \nQ Okay. So you made sure that Mr. Calderon had workers’ \ncomp insurance and a W-9? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Who he hires, if anybody, to do that is unknown to you? \n \nA That is correct. \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-16- \n*** \nQ Okay.  But  you  did  have  the  contract  at  1915  Cherry  Hills \nDrive? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And you did subcontract that out to Juan Carlos Calderon? \n \nA Subcontracted and paid. \n \nQ And paid. And can I assume you all paid him by check? \n \nA One hundred percent, yes. \n \nQ Okay.  So  that  job  is  bid,  the  entire  amount  is  paid  to  Juan \nCarlos Calderon? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And it is up to Juan Carlos Calderon to pay his employees \nor employees of others? \n \nA That is correct. \n \nQ Okay.  And  to  your  knowledge,  on  this  job  on  7/14/20  at \n1915 Cherry Hills Drive, did Mr. Calderon have workers’ comp \ncoverage? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nIn  order  to  prove  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a  specific  incident  that  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \nevidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs \nand More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. The claimant in this matter is able to \nprove the  existence of the right shoulder  and lumbar spine injuries he alleges through objective \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-17- \nmedical  findings.  Medical  records  from  Baptist  Health  on  July  14,  2020,  the  day  the  claimant \nalleges to have fallen from the roof, show a “closed nondisplaced fracture of the body of the right \nscapula”, “muscle contusions”, and “L3, L4 and L5 transverse process fractures.”  \nThe claimant gave what I  find to be credible testimony in this matter. The credibility of \nwitnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are matters solely within the province of \nthe Commission.  Ringier America v. Combs, 41 Ark. App. 47, 849 S.W.2d 1 (1993). It was the \nclaimant’s testimony that on July 14, 2020, he was working on the roof at the 1915 Cherry Hills \nDrive  home  when  he  fell  back  on  the  gutter  and  fell  off  the  house,  hitting  concrete.  The \nclaimant’s testimony is consistent with the medical records from his July 14, 2020, emergency \ndepartment visit where he described a fall from the roof of a house onto concrete. The claimant’s \ninjuries  described  in  the  medical  records  also  appear  to  be  consistent  with  his  testimony.  The \nclaimant’s testimony that he was hired to work on the roof that day and did so until he fell off is \nalso credible. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \ncompensable injuries to his right shoulder and lumbar spine on July 14, 2020.  \n The Commission has been asked to determine whether the claimant was an employee of \nRespondent   No.   1   or   Respondent   No.   2   on   July   14,   2020.   I   will   first   consider the \nemployee/employer  relationship  between  the  claimant  and  Respondent  No.  2.  Mr.  Ogden,  the \npresident/owner of Respondent No. 2, testified that Respondent No. 2 did have a contract to roof \nthe 1915 Cherry Hills Drive home on July 14, 2020. However, Respondent No. 2 subcontracted \nthe  roofing  job  to  Respondent  No.  1,  Juan  Carlos  Calderon.  Mr.  Ogden  further  testified  that  a \nroof  was  placed  on  that  house  and  that  Respondent  No.  1  was  paid  via  check  for  that  job.  Mr. \nOgden testified that the claimant was not an employee of Respondent No. 2. The claimant’s own \ntestimony agrees that he was not an employee of Respondent No. 2. I find that the claimant was \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-18- \nnot  an  employee  of  Respondent  No.  2  but  was  engaged  in  employment while  working on  the \nroof  of  the  1915  Cherry  Hills  Drive  home  which  Respondent  No.  2  subcontracted  and  paid \nRespondent No. 1 to complete. \n As to the issue of whether the claimant is employee of Respondent No. 1, I find that the \nissue  is  moot  as  it  relates  to  liability  for  any  benefits  awarded  to  due  to  the  claimant  for  his \ncompensable  right  shoulder  and  lumbar  spine  injuries  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation  Act.  The  claimant  testified  that  he  was  hired  directly  by  Mauricio  Solis  to  work \non the roof at the 1915 Cherry Hills Drive home. He also testified that he was paid by Mr. Solis \n$160.00 per  day  for  the  two  days  that  he  had  worked, in  cash.  Following  is  a  portion  of  the \nclaimant’s direct examination testimony about his hiring and payment: \nQ Okay. And how did you get that job? \n \nA Mauricio hired me because Chepe contracted him to. \n \nQ Who is Chepe? \n \nA Chepe Calderon. \n \nQ Is that Juan Calderon? \n \nA Uh-huh. \n \nQ Is that a “yes”? \n \nA Yes. His name is Juan Jose Calderon. \n \nQ What was your payment arrangement for roofing the house \nat 1915 Cherry Hills Drive in Fayetteville? \n \nA Daily salary was 160. \n \nQ Okay. And were you hired directly by Mauricio Solis? \n \nA Correct. \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-19- \nQ Okay. Were you paid for that job? \n \nA Yes. They paid me the two days I had done. \n \nQ Okay. And by whom were you paid? \n \nA Solis did it because Calderon would pay Solis. \n \nQ And Solis would pay everybody? \n \nA Of course. Yes. \n \nQ Okay. Were you paid in check or cash? \n \nA Me? Cash. \n \nQ Did Solis pay you himself? \n \nA Yes. Him personally. \n \n Mr. Solis has not communicated nor participated with the Commission in this matter. Mr. \nJuan Carlos Calderon, while insured and represented by counsel, did not appear at the hearing in \nthis matter. Given the limited information available, a determination of whether the claimant was \nan employee of Respondent No. 1 or an employee of a subcontractor of Respondent No. 1 is not \npossible.  However,  as  previously  stated,  I  believe  that  the  issue  is  moot  as  it  relates  to  liability \nfor the claimant’s compensable injuries. In that A.C.A. §11-9-402(a) states: \nWhere  a  subcontractor  fails  to  secure  compensation  required  by \nthis  chapter,  the  prime  contractor  shall  be  liable  for  compensation \nto   the   employees   of   the   subcontractor   unless   there   is   an \nintermediate  subcontractor  who  has  workers’  compensation \ncoverage. \n \n In  the  present  case  we  have  a  prime  contractor,  Respondent  No.  2.  We also have  a \nsubcontractor,  Respondent  No.  1.  If  the  claimant  was  an  employee  of  Respondent  No.  1, \nRespondent  No.  1  would  be  liable  for  payment  of  benefits  to  the  claimant  under  the  Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Act. If, however, the claimant was not an employee of Respondent No. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-20- \n1  but,  instead, an  employee  of  Mr.  Solis,  who  was  subcontracted  by  Respondent  No.  1  to \ncomplete  the  roof,  then  Respondent  No.  1  would  still  have  liability  for  any  benefits of  the \nclaimant under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act, in that the parties have stipulated that \nMr.  Solis  did  not  have  workers’  compensation  insurance  coverage  in  Arkansas.  Therefore, \nRespondent No. 1 would be an intermediate subcontractor under A.C.A. §11-9-402(a) and would \nstill have liability for any benefits due to the claimant under the Workers’ Compensation Act in \nthat Respondent No. 1 was insured at that time. \n The issue of the claimant’s employment with either Respondent No. 1 or Mr. Solis is \nrelevant   under   A.C.A. §11-9-402(b)(1).   However,   that   issue   is   not   currently   before   the \nCommission.  It  does  not  have  an  affect  on  benefits  due  to  the  claimant,  instead  it  affects  the \nrights between Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Solis. \n Employers  must  promptly  provide  medical  services  which  are  reasonably  necessary  in \nconnection  with  the  compensable  injuries,  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-508(a).    However,  injured \nemployees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment \nis  reasonably  necessary.   Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.,  86  Ark.  App.  230,  184  S.W.3d  31 \n(2004).    What  constitutes  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  fact  question  for  the \nCommission,  and  the  resolution  of  this  issue  depends  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence.  \nGansky  v.  Hi-Tech  Engineering,  325  Ark.  163,  924  S.W.2d  790  (1996). After  a  review  of  the \nmedical records in this matter, I find that the records submitted into evidence are reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment for the claimant’s compensable injuries and that the claimant is \nentitled to payment for that reasonable and necessary medical treatment including out-of-pocket \nexpenses. \n The claimant has asked the Commission to determine whether he is entitled to temporary \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-21- \ntotal disability benefits from July 15, 2020, to a date yet to be determined.  In  order  to  be  entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits, the claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance \nof the evidence that he remains within his healing period and that he suffers a total incapacity to \nearn  wages  as  a  result  of  his  compensable  injury. Arkansas  State  Highway  &  Transportation \nDepartment  v.  Breshears, 272  Ark.  244,  613  S.W.  2d  392  (1981). The  claimant  sustained \nsignificant  injuries  to  his  lumbar  spine  and  right  shoulder  in  his  July  14,  2020,  fall.  The \nclaimant’s  medical  treatment  and  records  are  somewhat  limited  in  this  matter.  It  was  the \nclaimant’s testimony that he was unable to afford medical treatment. A medical record dated \nSeptember 1, 2020, and found at Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 26-29, states in part: \nAssessment and Plan: \n1. Closed  traumatic  minimally  displaced  fracture  of  body  of  right \nscapula with routine healing (Primary) \n Assessment & Plan: \n My  personal  reading  of  X-rays  of  right  scapula  show \nhealing fracture with no further displacement. \n PROM exercises. \n Follow up 4 weeks. \n Continue off work. \n \nThis is the only reference I find in the medical records regarding the claimant’s work status. That \nrecord references “x-rays of the right scapula showing a healing fracture” and continues the \nclaimant off work. Given that the claimant’s condition was earlier in the healing process prior to \nthis September 1, 2020, medical visit, it is reasonable that the claimant was in his healing period \nsince  his  July  14,  2020,  fall  and  continued  as  of  September  1,  2020,  to  be  incapacitated  from \nwork. On October 1, 2020, the claimant was again seen by Dr. Evans, at which time the record \nstates, “x-rays of right scapula show healed fracture.” The claimant was directed to follow up prn \nat that time. It is on October 1, 2020, that I find the claimant’s healing period to have ended. The \nclaimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-22- \ndisability benefits from July 15, 2020, to October 1, 2020. \n The Commission has been asked to determine the claimant’s compensation rates. A.C.A. \n§11-9-518  controls  the  computation  of  the  average  weekly  wage.  In  this  particular  case  I  find \nthat  exceptional  circumstances exist, and that the claimant’s average weekly wage should be \ncomputed under A.C.A. §11-9-518(c), which states: \nIf, because of exceptional circumstances, the average weekly wage \ncannot  be  fairly  and  justly  determined  by  the  above  formulas,  the \ncommission may determine the average weekly wage by a method \nthat is just and fair to all parties concerned. \n \nThe  claimant  testified  on  direct  examination  that  he  had just  begun  work  and  was  paid  for  two \ndays  at  the  rate  of  $160.00 per  day. Neither Mauricio  Solis nor Respondent  No.  1,  Juan  Carlos \nCalderon appeared at the hearing, nor any of the wage records available for consideration by the \nCommission. The claimant was questioned by Respondent No. 1’s attorney about his pay as \nfollows: \nQ You testified that your rate of pay was 160 per day; is that \ncorrect? \n \nA No. 170. \n \nQ Okay.  Regardless,  was  that  ever  written  down  on  paper  of \nany kind? \n \nA No,  because  they  pay  cash  and  didn’t  give  me  any \napplication. \n \nQ Okay. Isn’t it true that you have no documentation of what \nyou were paid or when? \n \nA Because  they  paid  me  cash,  just  the  documents  from  the \nhospital. \n \nQ So that would be a “no”? \n \nA Paid cash. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-23- \n \nQ Okay. Again, I am asking if you have any documents and is \nthat a “no”? \n \nA No, because they paid cash. \n \nQ Okay. Do you maintain a bank account? \n \nA No. \n \nQ What did you do with this cash when you received it? \n \nA Well what would I do? Help my family. Pay my rent. \n \nQ You would keep it in cash and you pay it out still in cash; is \nthat right? \n \nA Yes.  Of  course.  I  paid  my  rent  and  they  would  give  me  a \nreceipt. And my light bill, my water. \n \nQ Have  you  presented  any  of  those  receipts  today?  Are  they \nin evidence? \n \nA No, because I wasn’t asked for them. \n \nQ Okay.  Do  you  understand  it  is  your  burden  of  proof  as  to \nyour compensation rate? \n \nA I have got receipts that I pay my rent. \n \nQ Okay.  Even  if  you  have  receipts  that  you  paid  your  rent, \nthat would not prove the rate of pay you negotiated with Mr. Solis; \nwould it? \n \nA That doesn’t have anything to do with it. One pays their \nbills. One pays their expenses. \n \nThe claimant was also questioned by Respondent No. 1’s attorney about the duration of his \nemployment as follows: \nQ Okay. Did  you  have  a  discussion  with  Mr.  Solis  as  to  the \nduration of your employment? \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-24- \nA My understanding was that the work was going to be steady \nall  through  the  summer  and  I  started  work  at  the  beginning  of \nsummer. \n \nQ Okay.  This  is  your  first  or  second  day  on  this  particular \nhouse, though; wasn’t it? \n \nA Second day. \n \nQ Okay. Were the houses previous to that also done with Mr. \nSolis? \n \nA That house was done on behalf of Maricio. \n \nQ Okay.  I  know  that  house,  but  what  about  the  other  houses \nyou said that you did at the beginning of summer? \n \nA Oh, the other houses Mauricio kept doing because I was in \nbed. \n \nQ Okay. This injury occurred in July; did it not? \n \nA Of course. Yes. \n \nQ And you are counting that as the beginning of summer? \n \nA Well, July is summer. \n \nQ Okay.  My  question  is  the  duration  of  your  employment  as \nyou  negotiated  with  Mr.  Solis,  which  you  have  said  was  for  the \nsummer; is that right? \n \nA Yes. It was going to last the rest of the summer. \n \nQ Okay.  As  far  as  the  summer  is  concerned,  would  that \ninclude  July,  August?  Is  that  it,  July  and  August,  or  would  you \ninclude September? \n \nA They always do houses, too, in the winter – \n \n THE INTERPRETER: I’m sorry the interpreter misspoke. \n \n THE WITNESS: In the cold \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-25- \nQ [BY MR. RYBURN]: Okay. And that is not my question as \nto  whether  houses  are  roofed  in  the  cold.  My  question  is  your \nspecific agreement with Mr. Solis as to the duration of the alleged \nemployment agreement, how long were you to work for Mr. Solis? \n \nA Oh, we didn’t have that kind of agreement. It was always \njust as long as I was needed. \n \nQ So as far as you know, it might have been just one house? \n \nA It wasn’t a house. \n \nQ How do you know that? \n \nA Because  I  knew  that  Calderon  had  contracted  him  because \nhe had a lot of work. \n \nQ And you never talked to Mr. Calderon, is that correct? \n \nA No. \n \nQ In  fact,  on  July  14,  2020,  you  had  no  idea  whether  Mr. \nCalderon was involved in this specific job that we are talking about \ntoday; is that right? \n \nA He  was  involved  because  he  handed  off  the  house  to \nMauricio. \n \n On  cross  examination  Respondent  No.  1’s  attorney  questioned  Mr.  Ogden,  the \npresident/owner of Respondent No. 2, about the duration of his agreement for Respondent No. 1 \nto do roofing work as a subcontractor for Respondent No. 2 as follows: \nQ Was  the  contract  reflected  in  your  exhibit  for  one  house \nwith Mr. Calderon? \n \nA No, sir. Basically, we get those subcontract agreements and \nrenew  them  every  year  and  update  any  annual  pricing  that  we  do \nwith  them.  Then  they  have  to  give  us  a  new  W-9  and  current \ninsurance  as  it  expires  because  you  cannot  work  with  us  without \ninsurance and a W-9. \n \nQ Per that agreement, was it for a specific house? \n \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-26- \nA It’s for all of them. Any job they do with us for the duration \nof their relationship with us. \n \nQ They would have a separate contract? \n \nA No, sir. That is not how this world works. We would have a \ncontract with the homeowner. \n \nQ I  am  referring  to  Page  21  of  your  documentary  exhibit. \nPick-It Construction, Inc., General Conditions. \n \n THE COURT: I will provide it. \n \nQ [BY MR. RYBURN]: On that page there is a project name, \nproject number, project address, indicating that this is for a specific \naddress. \n \nA There is none, so, no, it is not specific for an address. \n \nQ Because it’s blank? \n \nA Correct. It’s a blanket agreement for the duration of the \nrelationship. \n \nQ Okay. Sitting here do you know the duration? \n \nA For this? \n \nQ For this contract? \n \nA Yes. As long as he is willing to work for us. \n \n The  only  two  witnesses  to  testify  in  this  matter,  the  claimant  and  Mr.  Ogden,  clearly \nbelieved the work available to last for much longer than just the 1915 Cherry Hills Drive job. It \nis also notable that the claimant has since returned to working as a roofer after he recovered from \nhis injuries. Given the direction of A.C.A. §11-9-518(c),  I find the claimant to have an  average \nweekly wage of $800.00. That number is based off of a five-day work week at $160.00 per day. \nAs such, the claimant’s temporary total disability rate is $533.00 and permanent partial disability \nrate is $400.00. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-27- \n The Commission has been asked to consider Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2’s \nlack of notice defense. Respondent No. 2’s notice  defense is  moot  as  the  claimant  was  not  an \nemployee of Respondent No. 2 nor subject to liability for the claimant’s compensable injuries \nunder A.C.A. §11-9-402. Respondent No. 1’s notice defense fails in that if the claimant was an \nemployee  of  Respondent  No.  1,  notice  was  given  to  Mr.  Solis shortly  after  the  fall.  If  the \nclaimant  is  not  an  employee  of  Respondent  No.  1  but,  instead,  an  employee  of  Mr.  Solis,  who \nwas an uninsured contractor of Respondent No. 1, liability will still exist regardless of notice of \nthe injury to Respondent No. 1, as it was given to Mr. Solis. \n Respondent No. 2 has asked the Commission to consider its statute of limitations defense. \nThat defense is moot as Respondent No. 2 has no liability in this matter.  \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of \nlaw are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nNovember  13,  2023,  and  contained  in  a  Pre-hearing  Order  filed on November  14,  2023,  are \nhereby accepted as fact. \n 2. The  claimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  was  an \nemployee  of  Respondent  No.  2  on  July  14,  2020.  The  issue  of  whether  the  claimant  was \nemployee of Respondent No. 1 on July 14, 2020, is moot. \n 3.  The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained \ncompensable injuries to his lumbar spine and right shoulder on or about July 14, 2020. \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-28- \n 4. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nmedical treatment for his compensable lumbar spine and right shoulder injuries. \n 5. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits from July 14, 2020, to October 1, 2020. \n 6. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence under A.C.A. §11-9-\n518(c) that he is entitled to an average weekly wage of $800.00 per week, which computes to a \ntemporary total disability rate of $533.00 and a permanent partial disability rate of $400.00. \n 7.  The  claimant  is  able  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  attorney  is \nentitled to an attorney fee in this matter. \n 8. Respondent No. 1 has failed to prove their lack of notice defense. Respondent No. 2’s \nlack of notice defense is moot. \n 9. Respondent No. 2’s statute of limitations defense is moot. \n 10.  Regardless  of  whether  the  claimant  is  the  employee  of  Respondent  No.  1  or  an \nintermediate  subcontractor  under  A.C.A. §11-9-402(a),  Respondent  No.  1  is  still  liable  for \nbenefits  due  to  the  claimant  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Act  for  his \ncompensable injuries to his right shoulder and lumbar spine he sustained on July 14, 2020, in the \nfall from the roof of the home located at 1915 Cherry Hills Drive, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n ORDER \nRespondent No. 1 shall provide the claimant reasonable and necessary medical treatment \nfor  his  compensable  lumbar  spine  and  right  shoulder  injuries.  Respondent  No.  1  shall  pay  the \nclaimant temporary total disability benefits from July 15, 2020, to October 1, 2020. Respondent \nNo. 1 shall pay the claimant for any out-of-pocket medical expenses. \n Respondent No. 1 shall pay to the claimant’s attorney the maximum statutory attorney’s \n\nBonilla – H005594 \n \n-29- \nfee  on  the  benefits  awarded  herein,  with  one-half  of said  attorney’s  fee  to  be  paid  by  the \nrespondent in addition to such benefits and one-half of said attorney’s fee to be withheld by the \nrespondent from such benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715. \n All sums herein accrued are payable in a lump sum and without discount and shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid. \n Respondent No. 2 is dismissed from this matter. \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H005594 FRANCISCO BONILLA, Employee CLAIMANT JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, Employer RESPONDENT NO. 1 LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, Insurance Carrier/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1 PICK-IT CONSTRUCTION, Employer RESPONDENT NO. 2 EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY, Insurance Carrier/TPA RESPONDE...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:55.665Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H005594-2024-05-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BONILLA_FRANCISCO_H005594_20240507.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}