{"id":"alj-H103080-2023-02-09","awcc_number":"H103080","decision_date":"2023-02-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jimmy Foster","employer_name":"Booneville Human Development Center","title":"FOSTER VS. BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER AWCC# H103080 FEBRUARY 9, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FOSTER_JIMMY_H103080_20230209.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"FOSTER_JIMMY_H103080_20230209.pdf","text_length":26309,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H103080 \n \nJIMMY FOSTER, Employee                                                                                      CLAIMANT \n \nBOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, Employer                  RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, Carrier                                         RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 9, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian  \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by JARID M. KINDER, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by CHARLES H. MCLEMORE, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On December  6,  2022,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  hearing  at Fort  Smith, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on October 6, 2022 and a pre-hearing order was \nfiled on that same date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit \n#1  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without  objection.  Emails  between  the  parties  and  the  Court  \nregarding the issues at the hearing were marked as Commission Exhibit #2 and made a part of the \nrecord without objection.  \n At the hearing, the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.    The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2.   The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on July 31, 2020. \n3.  The compensation rates are $329.00 for temporary total disability and $247.00 for   \n  permanent partial disability. \n4.   Claimant sustained a compensable injury on or about July 31, 2020 when he contracted \n\nFoster-H103080 \n2 \n \n \n COVID-19 in the course of his employment.   \n At the hearing,  the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether claimant is entitled to an impairment rating for an injury or disease of his \nheart as a result of his compensable injury. \n2. Whether claimant is entitled to an impairment rating for an injury which resulted in \nright ulnar nerve neuropathy. \n3.  Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from May 6, 2022 \nuntil September 26, 2022. \n4.  Attorney’s fee. \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe claimant’s contentions as per his Amended Prehearing Questionnaire were: \n“1. The claimant, Jimmy Foster, sustained compensable injuries following a COVID-19 \ninjury  on or  about August  6, 2020, while  working  for  Booneville Human Development  Center  in \nBooneville,  Arkansas.  Said  injuries,  include,  but  are  not  limited  to:  a  respiratory  disorder,  sacral \nwound, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, dyspnea on exertion, essential hypertension, hypertensive heart \ndisease, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, left ventricular dilation, trivial \nnonrheumatic  mitral  insufficiency  trivial  nonrheumatic  tricuspid  insufficiency, a  subarachnoid \nhemorrhage, and hemiparesis. \n2. Sara  L.  Roberson  has  taken  the  claimant  off  work  indefinitely  due  to  his  severe \nCOVID-pneumonia and subsequent deterioration of health.   \n3. The  claimant  was  not  found  to  be  at  MMI  until  September  26,  2022  by  Dr.  Terry \nClark. The claimant remained in his healing period for both scheduled and unscheduled injuries, had \nnot been returned to work, and thus contends he is owed temporary total disability benefits from May \n\nFoster-H103080 \n3 \n \n \n17,  2022  through  September  26,  2022. [Note:  claimant  amended  the  starting  date  for  his  claim  for \nTTD during the hearing to May 6, 2022.]  \n4.         The Claimant also contends that he is owed an impairment rating for his heart condition. \nUtilizing Table 12 (6/195) of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, \nthe claimant contends he has a Class 3 Cardiac Arrhythmia, entitling him to a 49% impairment to the \nwhole person.  \n5.        The claimant also contends that he is owed an impairment rating for his right ulnar \nnerve  neuropathy.    Utilizing  Table  14  (4/148)  of  the  Guides  to  the  Evaluation  of  Permanent \nImpairment, Fourth Edition, the Claimant contends he is owed a 9% impairment to the whole person.   \n6. Due to the controversion of entitled benefits, the respondents are obligated to pay one \nhalf of the claimant’s attorney’s fees. \n The respondents contend that “the claimant reported on August 5, 2020 that he tested positive \nfor  COVID,  with  his  last  day  at  work  being  July  31,  2020.  Respondent  did  accept  this  claim  as \ncompensable pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601 (effective from March 11, 2020 and until May 1, \n2023) and respondent has provided benefits to or on behalf of the claimant for this claim. Respondent \nhas provided reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the claimant, including treatment with \nDr. Terry Clark, Dr. Delilah Easom for wound care, and Dr. Julio Schwarz, a cardiac specialist. The \nclaimant tested unreliably in the Sedentary classification of work at a Functional Capacity Evaluation \non  April  26, 2022, with  13  of  53  consistency  measures.  The  claimant  was  paid  his  salary  by  his \nemployer until January 8, 2021, at which point the claimant was paid temporary total disability benefits \nby the respondent from January 9, 2021 until May 6, 2022 when the claimant was released at maximum \nmedical  improvement  by  his  treating  physician, Dr.  Terry  Clark.  The  claimant  was  assigned a \npermanent  anatomical  impairment  of  10%  to  the  whole  person  which  has  been  accepted  by \n\nFoster-H103080 \n4 \n \n \nrespondent and permanent partial disability benefits are being paid to the claimant for this impairment \nrating. The claimant would not return to work and would not complete his mandatory background \nchecks for his job. The claimant’s employment ended November 30, 2021.”   \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 the \nwitnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on October \n6, 2022 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.   Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his heart disease was \nthe result of his compensable illness from COVID-19.  \n 3.   Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his right ulnar nerve \nneuropathy was the result of his compensable illness from COVID-19.  \n 4.     Claimant  has met  his  burden  of  proving  that he is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits from May 7, 2022 through September 26, 2022.  \n 5.    Respondent has paid permanent partial disability benefits from May 7, 2022 based on the \n10% impairment rating assessed by Dr. Clark.  Respondent is entitled to credit for the payments it has \nmade toward that rating.  \n 6.     Respondent has controverted claimant’s entitlement to the unpaid temporary total \ndisability benefits between May 7, 2022 through September 26, 2022.   \n \n \n\nFoster-H103080 \n5 \n \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Prior to taking testimony, claimant objected to a portion of respondent’s surveillance exhibit \n(R.X. #3), which was a printout of a search on Arkansas Court Connect for information on Jimmy \nFoster.  The objection was based on the record not sufficiently identifying claimant as the “Jimmy \nFoster” named in the document, as well as relevance to the issues before me.   I was unable to rule \non it before hearing the testimony that related to that portion of respondent’s exhibit.  Having heard \nthe witness that prepared the document testify on this issue, I ruled that pages 18-21 of respondent’s \nexhibit #3 would not be received as evidence.  These were proffered by respondent and are included \nin the record, but were not considered as evidence in this case.   \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n Claimant  contracted  COVID-19 on  or  about July 31, 2020.  Claimant  was  hospitalized  on \nAugust 8, 2020, and was either in the hospital or a nursing home for several weeks thereafter. As a \nresult of being in bed for an extended period, claimant developed bed sores and was treated for that \nafter his discharge from the nursing home.  \n Regarding the two conditions that claimant raised as an issue at this hearing, claimant stated \nthat he had great difficulty with his right upper extremity, including loss of strength as well as his range \nof  motion.  Regarding  his  heart  condition,  claimant  testified  that  he  had  never  had  heart  problems \nbefore he developed COVID-19 but had been told that he had an enlarged heart, a-fibrillation, and a \nvalve that wasn’t expanding. Claimant was not taking any medications for his heart at the time of the \nhearing other than an aspirin a day.  \n After  claimant  rested,  respondent  called  Julie  Street,  the  HR  director  at  Booneville  Human \nDevelopment Center, to discuss the circumstances of claimant being terminated as an employee there \nin November, 2021. Respondent also called two private investigators. Tonya Johnson testified about \n\nFoster-H103080 \n6 \n \n \nconducting  both  visual  surveillance  and seeing  claimant  in  several  videos  posted  on  the  Apostolic \nLighthouse Church Facebook page. Ms. Johnson downloaded several of the videos. Travis Williams \ntestified as to his visual surveillance of claimant.  \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n Claimant submitted a series of medical records outlining his course of treatment following his \nCOVID-19 diagnosis, including records from his hospitalization and the care of his stage IV pressure \nulcer. Those conditions are not of issue in this case and those records will not be further considered.  \n Regarding his heart condition, Dr. Sara Roberson was claimant’s primary care physician.  On \nNovember   9,   2020,   her APRN,   Sherilyn   Bennett, discussed   with   claimant   undergoing   an \nechocardiogram. On December 4, 2020, Dr. Roberson noted: “Awaiting cardiology referral and echo.” \nA  year  later,  Dr.  Roberson’s  records  for  December  30,  2021, revealed that  claimant  had  an \nechocardiogram  in  June,  2021,  but  there  was nothing  from  that  test  entered  into  evidence.    On \nFebruary 15, 2022, the first record introduced from Mercy Clinic Cardiology, he was seen by Gayla \nJohnson FNP, who ordered a 72- hour Holter monitor to assess claimant’s cardiac rate and rhythm. \nNurse Johnson recorded “Patient is stable from the cardiology viewpoint in relation to problems. In \naddition, there is no dyspnea.” Claimant returned to Mercy Clinic Cardiology on March 28, 2022, to \nsee Dr. Julio Schwarz and/or April 1, 2022 (the records are unclear if there were two visits within five \ndays).  There  are  references  to  the  results  of  the  echocardiogram  and  the  Holter  monitor  study. \nClaimant’s list of cardiovascular disease problems include:  \n 1.  Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. \n 2.  Dyspnea on exertion. Injection factor 60%. \n 3   Essential hypertension. \n 4.  Hypertension heart disease. \n 5.  Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. \n 6.  Pulmonary hypertension. \n 7.  Left atrial dilatation. \n 8.  Trivial non-hematic mitral insufficiency. \n\nFoster-H103080 \n7 \n \n \n 9.  Trivial non-hematic tricuspid insufficiency. \n 10.  Family history of heart disease. \n \n Claimant was treated for problems with his right upper extremity injury by Dr. Keith Bolyard \non  January 15, 2021. Claimant’s complaints were “a snapping of the right scapula and pain and \nweakness of the shoulder.” Claimant described similar pain but not as severe with his left shoulder. \nUpon physical examination, Dr. Bolyard noted “he does have a palpable snap at the inferior angle of \nthe  scapula  with  certain  range  of motions.” He reviewed the  x-rays  and  his impression  was  that \nclaimant had a “right glenohumeral joint arthritis with stiffness” and a “snapping scapula syndrome \nright.” Dr. Bolyard believed that the scapula was “probably more consistent with a dyskinesis.” \nClaimant was given an injection of lidocaine, Marcaine and betamethasone in the right glenohumeral \njoint. Dr. Bolyard did not believe that the snapping scapula would require surgery but was probably \nmore related to a muscle imbalance.  He did not schedule claimant for a return visit. \n On April 26, 2022, claimant underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) performed by \nthe Functional Testing Centers, Inc. The evaluator noted a self-limiting behavior and a sub-maximal \neffort, finding the results of the evaluation indicated that an unreliable effort was put forth. Claimant \nhad 13 of 53 consistency measures within expected limits. Despite this, claimant was assessed with a \nten percent (10%) whole person impairment based on his respiratory impairments.  \n The results of the FCE were provided to Dr. Terry Clark. On September 26, 2022, Dr. Clark \nopined  that  claimant  had reached  maximum  medical  improvement (MMI) and  agreed  with  the \nimpairment rating of ten percent to the whole person as set forth in the FCE report. \n Respondent’s medical exhibits largely duplicated the relevant records from claimant’s exhibits \nand those records that were not duplicative are not pertinent for my decision in this matter. \n Respondent’s non-medical exhibits included letters sent from respondent Booneville Human \nDevelopment  Center  to  claimant  regarding  his  employment,  including  the  November  30, 2021, \n\nFoster-H103080 \n8 \n \n \ncorrespondence that terminated his job with respondent. These records conclude with the May 17, \n2022  letter  from  Rhonda  Murphy,  the  assistant  claims  determination  manager  with  the  Arkansas \nInsurance Department, Public Employees Claims Division. Ms. Murphy advised claimant that a report \nfrom Rick Byrd at Functional Testing Center indicated that claimant had reached a maximum medical \nbenefit as of April 26, 2022 and therefore claimant’s permanent partial disability benefits would begin \ncovering the dates May 7, 2022 through May 20, 2022 and continue for a total of 45 weeks of benefits. \n Respondent’s third exhibits were reports from the private investigators that surveilled claimant \nand researched social media sites for information about the claimant’s condition.  A thumb  drive \ncontaining  videos  from  the  surveillance and social media sites was included in Respondent’s #3.  \nBefore  writing  this  opinion,  I  requested respondent  to  identify  five  of  the  115  videos downloaded \nfrom the Facebook page of the church claimant attends as representative of the whole.  Respondent \ndesignated those from August 15, 2021, September 14, 2021, September 26, 2021, October 24, 2021, \nand December 14, 2021 in response to my request.  \n \nADJUDICATION \n \nClaimant has three distinct claims.  He maintains he has a permanent injury in the form of a \nheart  condition.    He  also  asserts  he  has  a  permanent  injury  to  his  right  upper  extremity.    Finally, \nclaimant seeks temporary total disability benefits (TTD) for a period of time between May 6, 2022 and \nSeptember 26, 2022.  These will be addressed separately below. \nIt  is  conceded  that  claimant  had  a  compensable  injury  for  contracting  COVID-19  while \nemployed  by  respondent,  and  it  appears  that  his  medical  benefits  for  the  severe  respiratory  illness \nclaimant  developed,  as  well  as  for  the  bed  sores  that  occurred  while  being  treated  for  COVID-19, \nwere paid by respondent.  Although claimant reserved a claim for any TTD that was due outside of \n\nFoster-H103080 \n9 \n \n \nthe stated period above, he testified that he received TTD for much of the time he was unable to work \nbefore  he  was released from doctor’s care at maximum medical improvement for the respiratory \nillness.    While  admitting  the  respiratory  illness  and  subsequent  bed  sores  were  compensable, \nrespondent has controverted claimant’s request for TTD after May 6, 2022, and has denied that the \nheart condition and the neuropathy in claimant’s right upper extremity are compensable.   \nThere are also several statutory provisions that seem applicable to claimant’s heart condition.   \nTo  receive  additional  TTD  benefits  for  the  admittedly  compensable  COVID-19  illness, \nclaimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he remains within his healing period \nand that he suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department \nv. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W. 2d 392 (1981). \nA.  The heart condition. \n A couple of statutes are applicable to this portion of claimant’s request for disability for his \nheart condition.  Arkansas Code Annotated §11-9-102(5)(A)(ii) and (iv) provides, in pertinent part, \nthat a compensable injury is: \n(ii) An injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body and arising out of and \nin the course of employment if it is not caused by a specific incident or is not identifiable \nby time and place of occurrence, if the injury is: \n \n(iv) Heart, cardiovascular injury, accident, or disease as set out in § 11-9-114. \n \nArkansas Code Annotated §11-9-114 states: \n(a)  A  cardiovascular,  coronary,  pulmonary,  respiratory,  or  cerebrovascular  accident  or \nmyocardial  infarction  causing  injury,  illness,  or  death  is  a  compensable  injury  only  if, in \nrelation to other factors contributing to the physical harm, an accident is the major cause \nof the physical harm. \n \n(b)(1) An injury or disease included in subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed \nto be a compensable injury unless it is shown that the exertion of the work necessary to \nprecipitate  the  disability  or  death  was  extraordinary  and  unusual  in  comparison  to  the \nemployee's usual work in the course of the employee's regular employment or, alternately, \n\nFoster-H103080 \n10 \n \n \nthat  some  unusual  and  unpredicted  incident  occurred  which  is  found  to  have  been  the \nmajor cause of the physical harm. \n \nClaimant has a heart condition that was established by objective medical findings and seeks \na permanent disability award for it.  Claimant seems to rely on the sequence of events as proof that \nthe heart condition was caused by COVID-19.  However, the records discussed above are devoid of \nattribution of the heart condition to COVID-19.  A claimant will not receive an award for permanent \nbenefits unless the injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(F)(ii)(a).  \"Major  cause\"  means  more  than  50  percent  of  the  cause,  which  the  claimant  must \nestablish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(14)(A).   As  none  of  his \ntreating physicians determined that the compensable injury—COVID-19—was a major cause of the \nheart ailments, claimant failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained a permanent injury to his \nheart as a result of contracting COVID-19 through his employment.   \nB.  Right upper extremity neuropathy.  \nIn order for claimant to meet his burden of proof to receive benefits for the neuropathy in his \nright upper extremity,  he must show that: (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course \nof his employment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical \nservices or resulted in disability or death; (3) the injury is established by medical evidence supported \nby objective findings, which are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the \npatient; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  If  a  claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the  above \nelements,  compensation  must  be  denied. Mikel  v.  Engineered  Specialty  Plastics,  56  Ark.  App.  126,  938 \nS.W.2d 876 (1997).    \n\nFoster-H103080 \n11 \n \n \nI  believe that  a  respiratory  virus  did  not  cause  claimant  to  have  pain  in  his  right  upper \nextremity.   Claimant believes that it happened when he was being pulled around in his bed while being \ntreated  in  the  hospital  or  nursing  home  for  COVID-19.   If  he  could  show  that  was  indeed  what \nhappened, he could receive benefits for injuries sustained while being treated for a compensable injury, \nsee Air Compressor Equipment v. Sword, 69 Ark. App. 162, 11 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. App. 2000) and Eagle Safe \nCorp. v. Egan, 39 Ark. App. 79, 842 S.W.2d 438 (1992).  However, the only records I have of treatment \nfor  the  right  upper  extremity  was  that  of  Dr.  Bolyard,  who  termed  what  he  was  seeing  as a “right \nglenohumeral joint arthritis with stiffness and a snapping scapula syndrome right.”  Perhaps claimant \ndid not relate to Dr. Bolyard what he believed to be the origin of the pain in his right upper extremity \nand thus give the physician a reason to express an opinion as to causation.  Without such, though, \nclaimant failed to meet his burden of proof on this issue.   \nC. Claimant’s entitlement to TTD benefits from May 7, 2022, until September 26, 2022. \n In  order  to  be  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  for  an unscheduled  injury,  the \nclaimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he remains within his healing period \nand that he suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department \nv. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W. 2d 392 (1981).  While the videos of claimant from the last half of \n2021 preaching for over 30 minutes at a time without losing his breath coupled with his reported lack \nof effort during the FCE might indicate he was malingering, I am not satisfied that this alone is enough \nto  deny  his  claim  for  TTD  before  Dr.  Clark  released  him.    It  appears  Debbie  Blaylock,  the  case \nmanager, had predetermined when claimant would be declared at MMI: “MMI is expected to be \nachieved after completion of cardiology testing and follow-up and the FCE.” (CL. X 90). In the same \ndocument, though, Ms. Blaylock said “the cardiology and FCE results will be provided to Dr. \nRoberson when available for determination of MMI and work status.” Rather than wait for Dr. \n\nFoster-H103080 \n12 \n \n \nRoberson to review those results and make the MMI determination, Ms. Blaylock wrote to claimant \non May 17, 2022, advising him that Rick Byrd had indicated that claimant had reached MMI, so she \nwas ending the TTD payments and starting the payments on the permanent partial disability rating. \nThat was premature on her part.  \n On June 17, 2022, Dr. Roberson saw claimant again, and reviewed the FCE. Unlike what Ms. \nBlaylock anticipated, Dr. Roberson did not find claimant was at MMI for his COVID-19 condition.  \nIn  a  letter  composed  following  that  visit,  Dr.  Roberson  included  the  respiratory  issues  among  the \nhealth factors that she felt would keep claimant from working. It was not until claimant saw Dr. Clark \non September 26, 2022 that a physician said “MMI had been reached as of today’s date.”\n1\n  The records \nfrom  this  visit  are  clear  that  Dr.  Clark  was  referring  only to claimant’s respiratory  failure, the \nsubarachnoid hemorrhage (an issue that was reserved by claimant and not a part of this hearing) and \nthe pressure ulcer (CL. X 138) in declaring that “Jimmy’s recommended work status is regular duty.  \nThe effective date for this work status is 9/26/2022.”  \n Given  Mr.  Byrd  at  Functional  Testing  Center  is  not  a  medical  doctor,  and considering the \nopinions of both Dr. Roberson and Dr. Clark, both of whom saw claimant after Mr. Byrd conducted \nthe FCE, claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the date he was released at \nMMI for the COVID-19 injury was September 26, 2022. He is entitled to TTD benefits from May 7, \n2022 until September 26, 2022.  \n At the hearing, respondent requested that if I find claimant is entitled to TTD benefits that it \nbe given credit for the permanent partial disability payments it made from May 7, 2022. As claimant \nshould have received TTD benefits from May 7, 2022 to September 26, 2022, respondent is credited \n \n1\n In its contentions, respondent maintained that Dr. Clark released claimant at MMI on May 6, 2022.  Dr. Clark did \nnot see claimant on April 26, 2022; that was the date of the FCE.  \n\nFoster-H103080 \n13 \n \n \nwith  the  payments  toward  the 10%  whole  person  impairment  rating that  has  already  been  paid  to \nclaimant. \nORDER \n \nClaimant has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury to his heart or his right upper extremity as a result of his compensable \ninjury from contracting COVID-19 in July, 2020. \nClaimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto temporary disability benefits from May 7, 2022, through September 26, 2022. \nRespondents  are  directed  to  pay  benefits  in  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  set  forth \nherein this Opinion. \nRespondents are entitled to credit for all payments it has made toward the 10% permanent \nimpairment rating beginning May 7, 2022.  \nAll accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest \nat the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809. \nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715, the claimant's attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney's \nfee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein. This fee is to be paid one-half by the carrier and one-\nhalf by the claimant. \nAll issues not addressed herein are expressly reserved under the Act. \nRespondent is responsible for paying the court reporter her charges for preparation of the  \ntranscript in the amount of $1,671.45. \nIT IS SO ORDERED \n                                                                                            \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H103080 JIMMY FOSTER, Employee CLAIMANT BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, Employer RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 9, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebasti...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:10:14.198Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H103080-2023-02-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FOSTER_JIMMY_H103080_20230209.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}