{"id":"alj-H106661-2023-08-16","awcc_number":"H106661","decision_date":"2023-08-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Charlesa Lawless","employer_name":"At&t Technical Services Company Inc","title":"LAWLESS VS. AT&T TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY INC. AWCC# H106661 AUGUST 16, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["neck","cervical","shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//LAWLESS_CHARLESA_H106661_20230816.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"LAWLESS_CHARLESA_H106661_20230816.pdf","text_length":27619,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H106661 \n \nCHARLES A. LAWLESS, Employee                                                                            CLAIMANT \n \nAT&T TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY INC., Employer                           RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Carrier                    RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED AUGUST 16, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by DAVID C. JONES, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On May 23, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Fort Smith, Arkansas.  A \npre-hearing conference was conducted on March 16, 2023, and a pre-hearing order was filed on that \nsame date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made \na 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 employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on May 28, 2021. \n            3.   Claimant sustained a compensable injury on May 28, 2021. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n            1.  Whether claimant is entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits and/or        \n       temporary partial disability benefits, and medical benefits. \n2.   Attorney’s fees. \n\nLawless-H106661 \n2 \n \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe claimant contends that “He has never reached maximum medical improvement regarding \nhis  May  28,  2021, injury, and  that  although  his  then  authorized  treating  physician  opined  that  the \nclaimant could return to work in April 2022, the respondent/employer did not allow the claimant to \nreturn  to  work  and  the  claimant  was  unable  to  find  work  elsewhere.  Accordingly,  the  claimant \ncontends  that  he  is entitled  to  temporary  disability  benefits  from  when they  were  last  paid  in  2022 \nthrough a date yet to be determined. Claimant acknowledges that during the period that he received \nunemployment benefits he would only be entitled to temporary partial disability benefits. The claimant \ncontends that he is entitled to additional medical benefits including a vocal cord evaluation and motion \nx-rays recommended by the now authorized treating physician, Dr. Mangels. The claimant contends \nthat his attorney is entitled to an appropriate attorney’s fee. The claimant contends that at some point \nin the future he will be entitled to permanent disability benefits; however, that issue is not ripe for \nadjudication at this time.” \nThe respondents contend that: \n“1.  The respondents contend that all appropriate benefits have been paid to date in regard to \nthe claimant’s neck injury. In that regard, the respondents accepted the claimant’s neck injury of May \n28, 2021, and initiated temporary total disability benefits when the claimant entered his healing period. \nThe  respondents  contend  that  all  appropriate  temporary  total  disability  benefits  have  been  paid  to \ndate.  In  that  regard,  the  respondents  paid  the  claimant  temporary  total  disability  benefits  while  he \nremained  within  his  healing  period  and  suspended  temporary  total  disability  benefits  when  the \nclaimant was released to return to work in a regular duty capacity as of April 5, 2022. \n2.  The respondents contend that all appropriate medical benefits have been paid to date. It \nappears  that  there  were  some  delays  in  approval  of  the  new cervical  MRI,  which  has  subsequently \n\nLawless-H106661 \n3 \n \ntaken  place  since  the  prior  hearing  request.  It  also appears  that  there  was  a delay  in scheduling  the \nvocal  cord  testing,  which  is  also  being  addressed  with  the  authorized  provider  at  this  point.  Dr. \nMangels previously made the referral, the TPA has approved the testing, but the provider to perform \nthe testing has not scheduled the same as of yet. \n3.    The  respondents  contend  that  as  the  claimant  was  previously  placed  at  maximum \nimprovement on April 5, 2022, this claim should be ripe for litigation on any type of wage loss claim. \nIn that regard, it does not appear that an anatomical impairment rating has been assigned as of yet. \nHowever,  once  the  anatomical  impairment  rating  is  assigned,  it  appears  that  the  parties  should be \nlitigating the wage loss dispute based upon the claimant’s prior release to return to work in a full-duty \ncapacity, he would not be entitled to wage loss benefits. \n4.   The respondents contend that they would be entitled to an offset for any group health \ncarrier, group disability carrier, and/or unemployment benefits paid to or on behalf of the claimant. \nIt appears that the claimant did indeed receive both short-term disability benefits and possibly long-\nterm disability benefits, as well as unemployment benefits, for which the respondents would be entitled \nto  an  offset.  The  claimant  applied  for  unemployment  benefits  on  or  about  May  17,  2022, and  was \nreceiving $406.00 per week. The respondents are seeking updated unemployment records at this point. \n5.  The respondents would reserve the right to amend and supplement their contentions after \nthe supplemental discovery has been completed.”  \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\nLawless-H106661 \n4 \n \n \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 \nMarch 16, 2023, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n 2.   Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \ntemporary total disability and/or temporary partial disability from May 1, 2022, through May 23, \n2023.  \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Prior to taking any testimony, claimant withdrew his claim for medical benefits, as the parties \nhad reached an agreement as to this portion of his claim.  As such, this matter proceeded solely on \nthe question of claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability benefits (TTD) or temporary partial \ndisability benefits (TPD) from May 1, 2022, to the date of the hearing, and to an award of attorney’s \nfees on any such indemnity benefits awarded.  All other issues were reserved. \n Also, before the testimony began, respondents objected to several letters written by claimant’s \nattorney that related solely to claimant’s request for medical treatment prior to the hearing.  As that \nissue was reserved by the claimant, I found certain documents offered by claimant had no relevance \nto this hearing and granted respondents’ objection.  Claimant then proffered his non-medical exhibits \n#7,  #14  and  #15. These  were  included  in  the  record  after Claimant’s  Exhibit  3,  and  before \nrespondents’ exhibits, but were not considered in rendering this opinion.  \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant testified that he was injured on May 28, 2021, when he was trying to hold a door \nopen  with  his  right  arm  and  carry  eight  laptops  into  a  building.  He  said  he  felt  something  like  an \nelectric shock that went down his shoulder into his arm. He finished the task he had been assigned \n\nLawless-H106661 \n5 \n \n \nand then went home trying to fix the problem himself. He eventually saw Dr. Gannon Randolph, an \northopedic doctor, who performed surgery on his neck on January 5, 2022. Amanda Hawes, PA-C, \nwho is in Dr. Randolph’s office, released claimant on February 28, 2022, to return to light duty work \nand then on April 5, 2022, released him to full duty. However, claimant did not see PA-C Hawes in \nDr. Randolph’s office on  either  of  those  days.  He  next  saw  Dr.  Randolph  on  April  25,  2022, and \nfollowing that visit, claimant was scheduled to return to Dr. Randolph in three months. When he was \naware that he was released to return to work, he contacted his employer and was told that he had been \nremoved from the contract. Claimant was instructed to go to the AT&T job search site, but there were \nno jobs listed on that site for which claimant was qualified. Claimant testified he drew unemployment \nfor three months and conceded that there might be a week that he did not check with as many possible \nemployment opportunities as he was supposed to. Claimant believes he is limited in what he can do \nbecause his voice was affected by the surgery. His job with AT&T required him to talk frequently with \ncustomers, other contract companies, and with team members.  \n On July 21, 2022, Dr. Randolph issued a report that claimant would be at maximum medical \nimprovement (MMI) in six months; however, claimant did not return to be examined by Dr. Randolph \nafter six months because he had requested a change of physicians. He first saw Dr. Kyle Mangels on \nNovember 21, 2022. During this visit, Dr. Mangels placed a 40-pound lifting restriction on claimant \nand had not released claimant from treatment as of the date of the hearing. \n Claimant  received  short-term  and  long-term  disability  benefits,  and  he  paid  extra  on  the \ninsurance that the company provided to receive a higher benefit.  \n Claimant stated that as of the date of the hearing, the effects that he is having as a result of \ninjury and/or the surgery included a diminished range of motion in looking up or turning side to side. \nHis voice had changed, and he was experiencing pain and discomfort at night to the point that he was \n\nLawless-H106661 \n6 \n \n \nnot sleeping. He did not believe that he could perform the job that he had at the time of the accident \nin his current physical condition, because it involved watching computer screens, talking, and sitting \nat  a  keyboard, all  of  which  was  either  painful  or  difficult.  Claimant  testified  that  he  had  not  had \nproblems with his neck before the accident happened, although the medical records show that he had \nsome injections in his neck in 2016. Claimant believes those injections were for a headache rather than \nfor a neck injury. He noted that the injections were at the base of the skull, at C1, whereas his current \nproblem is at C5-6.   \n On cross-examination, claimant was unaware that he had a disc protrusion at C6-7 in 2016. \nClaimant  conceded  that  he  received  $736.00 from respondent Sedgwick in  addition  to  receiving \n$506.52 from his disability plan at the same time. Claimant was unaware of what he received by way \nof long-term disability benefits but did not dispute what the records that were introduced showed. \n Claimant  agreed  that  the  numbness  and  radicular  symptoms  in  his  arm  resolved  after  the \nsurgery. During his July 21, 2022, visit with Dr. Randolph, claimant inquired about his restrictions and \nunderstood that he was free to return to work at that time. Claimant disputed an entry in Dr. Mangels’ \nrecords that said he was retired and asserted that he was still looking for a job. \n Claimant clarified that while working for AT&T, it was part of a sub-contract for the federal \ngovernment. The company that had the contract was Inserso. Claimant was not aware that the contract \nwas renewed every five years or so but did understand that his job had moved to a Little Rock location. \nHe assumed he was the only person that had this job in the state of Arkansas. Claimant spoke with \nMr. Carlos Colon about going back to work in August 2021, but he had not been released from care \nat that point. After Dr. Randolph said he could return to work in April 2022, claimant testified that \nhe contacted Mr. Colon after learning that the contract was being sent to Little Rock. Claimant was a \nSystems Engineer II; he ran network security, migrated the entire system onto the cloud, worked for \n\nLawless-H106661 \n7 \n \n \nHomeland Security with a DOD top-secret clearance, worked with computers, printers, and scanners. \nWhile  some  of  that  did  not  require  claimant  to  talk,  he  said  there  were  times  when  he  was  doing \nremote work when he was on someone else’s computer and speaking with them at the same time. He \nsaid he was pretty much on the phone all day. His job did not require heavy lifting except when he \nhad to move a printer or computer to a work bench.  \n While claimant had testified at the hearing that he could not do the job he had with AT&T, in \nhis deposition he said that he could do his job at that point. He had located some jobs out of state \nand thought at the time of his deposition that he had several prospects for jobs. He did not remember \nsaying in his deposition that there were positions available in Cincinnati and Washington D.C., but \nconceded he didn’t want to move to D.C.  \n Claimant  said  that  he  applied  for  unemployment  on  May  17,  2022, and  received  $406.00  a \nweek  of  unemployment.  When  he  filed  for  unemployment,  he  said  that  he  had  been  let  go  from \nAT&T. He conceded that at the time he filed for unemployment that he had VA disabilities but as far \nas his physical abilities to work, he had no disabilities, and could start work immediately. There was \nthen this exchange: \n \nQuestion by Mr. Jones:  So needless to say, you weren’t totally incapacitated \nfrom earning wages since last year; is that correct? \nAnswer by claimant: What was that? \n \nQ: You weren’t totally incapacitated from earning wages; you were—you had \njob prospects,  you were drawing unemployment benefits?  \nA:  Sure. \n \n On redirect-examination, claimant reaffirmed that he was released to go back to work by Dr. \nRandolph but had not been released from care. He said that it was not a routine requirement in his \njob that he did heavy lifting, but there were times that he had to lift servers, uninterruptable power \nsupplies, and printers. \n\nLawless-H106661 \n8 \n \n \n On  recross-examination,  claimant  agreed  that  he  was  not  required  to  lift  heavy  servers  or \nprinters by himself, as help was available. Typically, a laptop was the heaviest item he had to lift.  \n After claimant rested his case, respondents called Mr. Carlos Colon who was claimant’s direct \nsupervisor at AT&T. He explained how AT&T was a sub-contractor with Inserso, as it was Inserso \nthat had a contract with the federal government. He said claimant’s position was moved from Fort \nSmith to Little Rock toward the end of the summer of 2021. While claimant was unable to work due \nto his medical treatment, the position in Little Rock had to be filled. Mr. Colon did not recall having \ncontact with claimant in 2022 about him returning to work. He said that while claimant had to talk on \nthe telephone some of his working day, it was not something he expected claimant to do constantly. \nClaimant was required to travel a lot and was not expected to be talking on the phone while he was \ndriving.  \n On cross-examination, Mr. Colon said that claimant had not been offered employment in a \nparticular position since he was released to return to work. He did not know if anyone had notified \nhim  that  claimant  had  been  released  to  return  to  work.  He  said  during  his  last  conversation  with \nclaimant, it was his impression that claimant was not interested in continuing to work but recognized \nthat  conversation  took  place  in  the  summer  of  2021  when  claimant  was  still  under  active  medical \ntreatment. He agreed that AT&T had not offered claimant any employment opportunities since he \nwas  released  to  return  to  work  in  April  2022.  Mr.  Colon  said  the  lifting  requirements  of  the  job \nclaimant performed was up to fifty pounds and that it was an essential function of the job.  \n On  re-direct  examination  Mr.  Colon  said  that  there  were  thousands  of  job  openings  with \nAT&T but as far as he knew, claimant did not contact him or AT&T about going back to work. Mr. \nColon said that claimant was aware that the contract had moved to Little Rock months before he had \nbeen released to full duty in April 2022.  \n\nLawless-H106661 \n9 \n \n \nFollowing Mr. Colon’s testimony, claimant was called in rebuttal and stated that in July 2022 \nhe  contacted AT&T and indicated  he  had  been  released to  go  back  to work  but was  not  offered a \nposition. \n \nREVIEW OF THE MEDICAL EXHIBITS  \n  \n Most of the pertinent information in the medical records were brought out during claimant’s \ntestimony. Respondents did not controvert that claimant had a compensable injury on or about May \n28, 2021, nor did it dispute the surgery performed by Dr. Randolph on June 5, 2022, was reasonable \nand necessary. As the issue in this case centers on claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability \nor temporary partial disability benefits from May 1, 2022, until the date of the hearing, the records \nfrom April 2022 until April 2023 are the most relevant.  \n On April 21, 2022, claimant returned to see Dr. Randolph, which was three months since he \nhad  undergone  cervical  surgery.  At  that  time,  claimant  reported  that  his  radicular symptoms  had \ncompletely resolved  but  he  was  still  having  some  pain  on  the  left  side  of  his  neck  and  was  having \ndysphagia.  That  report  did  not  mention  any  restrictions on claimant’s physical activity. Although \nclaimant  testified  that  he did  not  see  Dr. Randolph  on  July  21,  2022, the  records  submitted  by  the \nparties showed  there  was  a  visit  in  which  claimant  received a  trigger  point  injection.  Dr.  Randolph \nanticipated that claimant would be at maximum medical improvement in six months and mentioned \nat  that  time  a  functional capacity  evaluation  and  an  impairment  rating  would  be  considered.  Dr. \nRandolph also included this sentence: \n“I did discuss with the patient that with a level one ACDF I would let him go \nback to play in the NFL, so I really do not have any restrictions for him.” \n \n Claimant exercised his right to have a change of physician and next saw Dr. Kyle Mangels on \nNovember 21, 2022. At that time, claimant was reporting that he had pain on the left side of his neck. \n\nLawless-H106661 \n10 \n \n \nDr. Mangels wanted a new cervical MRI and at that time imposed a forty-pound lifting restriction. He \ndid not opine on claimant’s ability to work, perhaps because he was under the impression claimant \nwas not going to be employed: “He is retired now and not working.”  Even so, Dr. Mangels completed \na Physician’s Recommendation Report at that time, stating that claimant had not reached maximum \nmedical improvement but was not temporarily totally disabled.  \nClaimant returned to see Dr. Mangels on March 8, and at that time, Dr. Mangels said:  \n“I think the patient is going to need another neck surgery interiorly, but we \nneed to see what the ear, nose, and throat doctor thinks about a vocal cord \ncheck later next month. This is scheduled for April 25, 2023.”  \n \n Dr. Mangels also recorded:  \n \n“He can lift up to 40 pounds and alternate sitting and standing as required \nby the patient, and these restrictions are temporary, still effective today and \nthese are the same as before.”  \n \n On April 25, 2023, claimant underwent a laryngoscopy, which was performed by Dr. Michael \nGwartney. Dr. Gwartney’s impression was “dysphonia post interior approach for cervical fusion on \nthe right side. The right cord appears to be moving well. He could have some superior laryngeal nerve \nissues which would go along with his history of occasionally choking.” \nREVIEW OF NON-MEDICAL EXHIBITS \n Claimant  submitted  two  letters  from his attorney to respondents’ counsel, both dated July \n2022 asking that claimant either be provided employment or that temporary total disability benefits \nbe reinstated.  \n Respondents’ exhibits included an e-mail from Edwin Anderson of Inserso Corporation dated \nMay  4,  2021, which  stated  that  there  was  going  to  be  a  move  from  Fort  Smith,  Arkansas  to  Little \nRock.  I  note  that claimant  was not  included  on  that email.  There were also  documents  regarding \nclaimant’s job description with AT&T to  fill  the  Inserso position,  a  letter  to  claimant  regarding \n\nLawless-H106661 \n11 \n \n \nclaimant's application for short-term disability benefits, an e-mail regarding short-term disability and \nlong-term disability benefits, records of what was paid to claimant pursuant to his short-term disability \nand  long-term  disability  insurance  and  several  pages  from  the  Arkansas  Division  of  Workforce \nServices regarding claimant’s application for unemployment benefits. Of most interest regarding the \nclaim for temporary total disability benefits is the application for unemployment insurance benefits in \nwhich claimant stated on May 18, 2022, that he could begin work immediately, could work full time, \nand had no disabilities that would limit his ability to perform his normal job duties. Claimant drew 16 \nweeks of unemployment benefits between May 28, 2022, and September 12, 2022.   \nADJUDICATION \n \n As set out above, the only issue that was adjudicated at the hearing was claimant’s entitlement \nto TTD or TPD benefits from  May 1, 2022, until a date to be determined.  Respondents accepted \nclaimant’s cervical spine injury and paid TTD benefits until May 1, 2022.  As a cervical spine injury is \nan unscheduled injury, claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he remains within \nhis healing period and suffers a total incapacity to earn wages in order to receive TTD or TPD benefits, \nAllen Canning Co. v. Woodruff, 92 Ark. App. 237, 212 S.W.3d 25 (2005).  As set out above, claimant’s \ncontention is that he had not reached MMI when he was released to return to full duty, and because \nAT&T did not allow him to return to work, he is entitled to TTD or TPD benefits.\n1\n  After reviewing \nall the documentary evidence and considering the testimony, I agree with claimant that he had not \nreached  MMI  when  he  was  released  to  full  duty,  but I disagree that  he  is  entitled  to TTD  or TPD \nfrom May 1, 2022, through May 23, 2023.  \n Taking the second part of claimant’s argument first, the job claimant had in Fort Smith with \n \n1\n While claimant did not specifically plead that he was entitled to additional TTD/TPD benefits pursuant to \nA.C.A.§11-9-505(a)(1), that is the essence of his argument on this point.  \n\nLawless-H106661 \n12 \n \n \nAT&T no longer exists.  I found Mr. Colon to be a credible witness on this point; claimant did not \ndispute  that  the  position he  held  in  Fort  Smith had  moved  to  Little  Rock.      As  both  witnesses \nexplained, AT&T was a subcontractor with Inserso, who in turn had a contract with the United States \nDepartment  of  Homeland  Security.   On  May  4,  2021, 24 days before claimant’s injury, there  was \nalready a plan in place to shift claimant’s position to Little Rock.  That move was done in August 2021, \nbefore claimant had been released to return to work in any capacity.   Because of the contract with \nInserso, AT&T  hired  another Systems  Engineer while claimant was under doctor’s restrictions.  I \ncannot find that AT&T lacked reasonable cause in refusing to return claimant to his previous position, \nas that position had been filled as per the requirements of its contract with Inserso.    \n As for the failure to reach MMI, from the period of May 1, 2022, until he saw Dr. Mangels on \nNovember 21, 2022, there are no medical records to support claimant’s contention that he was unable \nto work.  On the contrary, Dr. Randolph explained in his July 21, 2022, report that claimant was under \nno  restrictions,  and  tacitly  adopted  the  release forms  completed  by  PA-C  Hawes  for  light  duty  on \nFebruary  28,  2022,  and  full  duty  on  April  5,  2022, as being consistent  with  his normal protocol.  \nClaimant testified on direct examination that he didn’t think he could do the job he had at the time of \nthe  accident and  on cross-examination,  said that  he did  not  believe he  was totally incapacitated. \nAdditionally,  claimant  was  actively  seeking  employment  as  required  by  the  Arkansas  Division  of \nWorkplace Services to draw unemployment benefits, demonstrating that he believed he was able to \nreturn to work in some capacity.  \n At claimant’s first visit with him, Dr.  Mangels  imposed  a  40-pound  lifting  restriction  on \nclaimant on November 21, 2022, and stated in his March 8, 2023, report that claimant would need to \nalternate sitting and standing as required.  Perhaps because claimant wasn’t working or maybe because \nhe  thought  claimant was retired, Dr.  Mangels did not  complete a  recommendation  report after  the \n\nLawless-H106661 \n13 \n \n \nMarch 2023 visit as he did in November 2022; however, he stated that claimant’s restrictions “are the \nsame as before.”  At that time, Dr. Mangels still believed claimant had not yet reached MMI but was \nnot temporarily totally disabled.   \nBecause TTD  benefits  do  not,  in  all  cases,  correspond  to  the  healing  period, Cnty.  Mkt.  v. \nThornton, 27 Ark. App. 235, 770 S.W.2d 156 (1989), claimant cannot solely rely on the statement by \nDr.  Randolph  in  July  2022  that  he  would  be  at  MMI  in  six  months to support  his  TTD  claim.  \n“Temporary-total disability is that period within the healing period in which the employee suffers a \ntotal incapacity to earn wages,” Arkansas State Highway Department v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d \n392 (1981).  I see nothing in the medical records that supports a conclusion that claimant had a total \nincapacity to earn wages after he was released to full duty in April 2022, especially when I consider \nnot only the medical evidence but also “his age, education, experience, and other matters reasonably \nexpected to affect the claimant’s earning power.” Breshears, Id. Further, claimant himself denied he had \na total incapacity to earn wages (TR. 45); he only testified he could not do his position with AT&T \n(TR.21)   \nBecause I do not believe AT&T acted unreasonably in filling claimant’s position and because \nthe evidence does not support claimant’s contention that he was totally incapacitated due  to his \nunscheduled injury from May 1, 2022, until the date of the hearing of this matter, I find that claimant \nhas failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to TTD or TPD during the period from May 1, \n2022, through May 23, 2023. \nORDER \n \nClaimant has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nwas temporarily totally disabled and/or temporarily partially disabled between May 1, 2022, and May \n23, 2023, as a result of his compensable injury. Therefore, his claim for those indemnity benefits is \n\nLawless-H106661 \n14 \n \n \nhereby denied and dismissed. \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \nhearing transcript.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H106661 CHARLES A. LAWLESS, Employee CLAIMANT AT&T TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY INC., Employer RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 16, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:03:57.188Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H106661-2023-08-16","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//LAWLESS_CHARLESA_H106661_20230816.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}