{"id":"alj-H201972-2023-01-17","awcc_number":"H201972","decision_date":"2023-01-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Beauchamp","employer_name":"Conagra Foods Packaged Foods LLC","title":"BEAUCHAMP VS. CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS LLC AWCC# H201972 JANUARY 17, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["hip","knee","back","fracture","lumbar","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//BEAUCHAMP_JAMES_H201972_20230117.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BEAUCHAMP_JAMES_H201972_20230117.pdf","text_length":28250,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H201972 \n \nJAMES BEAUCHAMP, Employee                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nCONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS LLC, Employer                              RESPONDENT \n \nBROADSPIRE SERVICES INC., Carrier                                                              RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED JANUARY 17, 2023 \n \n \nCase submitted on the record  before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in \nSpringdale, Washington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JARROD S. PARRISH, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n \n On  November  10,  2022,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  hearing  at  Springdale, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on September 15, 2022, and a pre-hearing order \nwas filed on that same date.  A copy of the prehearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit \nNo.1 and is made part of the record without objection. \n At the prehearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n2.         The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on January 4, 2022. \n3.         The respondents have controverted the claim regarding claimant’s right hip and pelvis. \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n           1.  Whether  claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  on  January  4,  2022,  regarding  his \n\nBeauchamp-H201972 \n \n2 \n \nright hip and pelvis. \n           2. If compensable, whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits, and \nmedical benefits. \n            3. Compensation rate. \n            4.   Attorney fees. \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n  The claimant contends that “he is entitled to medical treatment for his right hip and \npelvic fractures in addition to treatment respondents are providing for his left hip. Claimant contends \nhe  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  the  date  last  worked  to  a  date  yet  to  be \ndetermined. The claimant reserves all other issues.” \n The respondents contend that “claimant did not suffer a right hip injury on or about January \n4, 2022. Respondents further contend that in the event compensability is found, the medical records \ndo not support entitlement to medical treatment or indemnity benefits for the right hip.” \n From  a  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  including  medical  reports,  documents,  and  other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the \nclaimant and to observe his demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made \nin accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.      The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  a  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nFebruary 15, 2022 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as \nfact.  \n 2.  Claimant has met his burden of proving that he suffered a compensable injury to his right \nhip and pelvis on January 5, 2022. \n\nBeauchamp-H01972 \n3 \n \n \n 3.      Respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment \nprovided in connection with claimant's compensable injuries. \n 4.   Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning  January 4, 2022, the \ndate of his injury, less any payments he received for working light duty before February 17, 2022. \n5. Respondent has controverted claimant's entitlement to all unpaid indemnity benefits. \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n At the hearing, the parties advised they would attempt to reach an agreement on claimant’s \naverage  weekly  wage  and  advise  me  if  they  did  so.    After  the  hearing,  the  parties  stipulated  to  an \naverage weekly wage of $925.36, making the temporary total disability rate $617.00 per week.   \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant had been employed with Con-Agra for twenty-five years when on January 4, 2022, \nhe  tripped  and  fell  on  his  left  hip  and  knee.  He  was  immediately  taken  to  Arkansas  Occupational \nMedicine Services where he was examined by physician assistant, Daniel Nicholas. Claimant said he \nwas bruised from his left knee up to his hip. As the bruising went away, claimant stated he was going \nto therapy and his right side was hurting more than his left, then the pain went completely across his \nlower back. \n Claimant saw a couple of orthopedic physicians, Dr. Mark Allard and Dr. Matthew Coker, but \ndid not receive relief from them. He also saw his family doctor, Joseph O’Connell. Dr. O’Connell \nprescribed Oxycodone for claimant and ordered an MRI. He later saw Dr. Christopher Dougherty \nwho ordered aqua therapy. \n Claimant testified that following his fall, he has had difficulties both walking or sitting for any \nextended length of time. He first used crutches, but those did not help and now uses a walker. Claimant \nsaid he could not work at Con-Agra because he walked about twelve miles a day there during a ten-\n\nBeauchamp-H201972 \n \n4 \n \nto-twelve-hour  shift  and  he  could  not  do  that.  He  did  some  light  duty  but  eventually  his  doctor \nremoved him from work entirely. \n Claimant  said  when  he  went  shopping  with  his  wife  on  the  weekend,  he  used  a  buggy  but \nthought that was embarrassing. He now uses his walker but must take frequent rest breaks. Claimant \nsaid he tries to help around the house but is limited to five to fifteen minutes at a time. Claimant stated \nthat he needs help putting his shoes and socks on and getting in and out of the bathtub. \n Claimant  disputed  what  nurse  practitioner  Daniel  Nicholas  had  in  his  medical  records  that \nupon his examination of claimant’s right hip, there was no bruising, swelling, and a normal range of \nmotion.  \n On  cross-examination,  respondent  asked  claimant  about  his  various  statements  about  the \nonset of his pain in his right hip.  Claimant was shown the Employee’s Notice of Injury that he filled \nout on January 6, 2022, which mentioned an injury only to his left hip and left knee, and he verified \nthat is what he reported at the time of the fall.  During his deposition, claimant said he first experienced \nright hip pain in therapy at Arkansas Occupational Health. Claimant was asked about the therapist’s \nrecord on February 1, 2022 that recorded he was sore on a Sunday and the right hip had started hurting \nthat day. Claimant conceded that he had not been at physical therapy on Sunday. Claimant was shown \nhis deposition testimony where he stated that the right hip discomfort started before therapy. Claimant \nwas then asked about his deposition testimony where he said the right hip pain started while doing \nlight  duty  at  Con-Agra,  but  he  did  not  report  it  to  anyone  at  Con-Agra.  He  also  thought  that  the \ncrutches he was using may have caused his right hip pain. Although his medical records said that he \nhad gone shopping with his wife and three-year-old grandson, claimant denied that his grandson had \nbeen shopping with him since he was hurt. Claimant responded that he had seen his grandson but had \nnot  gone  shopping  with  him.  He  did  not  know  how  the  entry  was  placed  in  his  records  that  said \n\nBeauchamp-H01972 \n5 \n \n \notherwise.  \n Claimant  was  asked  about  a  notation  in  his  therapy  records  that  on  January  27,  2022  and \nFebruary 1, 2022 it was noted that he had a contusion on his right hip. Claimant stated that he had \nnever had a bruise on his right hip and that entry in his records was not true. Claimant was also asked \nabout his testimony in his deposition where he quoted Dr. Allard as saying “Your left hip is fine. You \nare fine to go back to work.” Claimant said he did not remember being released to go back to work. \nClaimant said the pain in his right hip began after the bruising had gone away from his left hip, and \nhe started feeling pain all the way across; claimant believed that was approximately three weeks after \nthe injury to his left hip. Claimant had no explanation as to why the physical therapist made this entry \non February 1, 2022, which stated that the diagnosis was “contusion of right hip”. \n On redirect examination, claimant said that he had not had an incident after his fall at Con-\nAgra where he had injured any part of his body. He believed the pain in the right hip was a gradual \nthing.  \n Claimant was then shown testimony from his deposition where he was asked:  \nQ: (BY MR. PARRISH): Correct me if I am saying this wrong. It is my \nunderstanding that you were saying the right hip pain started in therapy? \nA:  Yeah. Well no. It was before the therapy because I couldn’t get up on \nthe bed. I could get up on my left side, but I couldn’t get there on my right \nside. I had to go to the other side of the bed to get on top of it because I \ncouldn’t get up on the right side at all... \n \nQ: OK. So, let’s circle back. When I asked you earlier what you were doing \nwhen the right hip pain stated, you told me you were in therapy, but now \nyou say it was before therapy even started, right? \nA: I don’t remember. I am not trying to lie to you. I just don’t really \nremember when it started. All I know is it was very painful. \n \n Claimant recalled telling the physical therapist at some point his left hip was feeling better and \nit was the right hip that was bothering him. [This is reflected in the February 1, 2022, record from the \nphysical therapist, reviewed below.] Claimant was then shown this portion of his deposition testimony: \n\nBeauchamp-H201972 \n \n6 \n \nQ:  (BY  MR.  PARRISH):  Have  you  told  any  of  your  doctors  anything \nabout shopping with your wife and having onset of right sided problems?  \nA: I went shopping with my wife. I used my walker and I get in one of \nthem little buggies and every little bump I hit it hurts. \n \nQ: My question was did you make any statement to your doctors about \nshopping with your wife at the time your right sided problems started? \nA: I don’t think so. And from shopping with my wife, I don’t carry the \ngroceries in. She won’t let me do nothing. \n \nQ: So how do you maintain that your right hip pain that you were telling \nme about is related to falling on your left side. \nA. Because I broke my pelvis. \n \nQ. You maintain that the pelvis break was related to the fall? \nA. I know it is because I haven’t fallen since. \n \n On recross examination, the following exchange took place: \nQ: (BY MR. PARRISH) Sir you were asked about your testimony at one \npoint  in  the  deposition  where  you  said  your  right  hip  problems  started \nbefore therapy. That is what your attorney just directed you to. Do you \nremember that? \nA: Okay yes. \n \nQ: Okay you agree with me that I am not making this up that you said \nyour problems started in therapy at one point in the depo? \nA: “I probably did” \n \nQ:  And at one point you said it started at home while doing therapy? \nA: That could be too. I have said it happened in therapy and I meant at \nhome, but I don’t know where it started, or when it started, okay? I don’t \nknow how it started. \n \nQ:  You  agree  you  have  given  five  if  not  six  different  explanations  for \nwhen the right hip problems started? \nA: “I have given you five or six answers to what I think might have caused \nit. \n \nQ: Okay? \nA: I don’t know.  \n \n           Claimant again said he had no explanation of the documentation of the right hip contusion in \nhis medical records at the end of January. \n\nBeauchamp-H01972 \n7 \n \n \n On redirect examination claimant said he had no problems with his right hip before he fell at \nCon-Agra nor with his left hip. He first reported the pain in his right hip to the therapist because he \ndidn’t see the doctors after he first noticed it.  \n On recross examination, claimant did not deny that there was an examination of his right hip, \nbut he was disputing what was written regarding that examination. He said he didn’t know if there was \nan examination as documented in the records from the Arkansas Occupational Health. \n On redirect examination, claimant said he didn’t think that the nurse practitioner examining \nhim tried to  move his right  leg, but he didn’t remember. He was concerned with his left leg at the \ntime. He eventually said that P.A. Nicholas probably moved his leg around on the first visit, but he \ndidn’t really remember; on the second visit, he recalled his left leg was moved but he did not remember \nif his right leg had been moved around. \n REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS EXHIBITS \n             When Claimant fell on January 4, 2022, he was taken to the Arkansas Occupational Medicines \nServices and examined by Daniel Nicholas, P.A. P.A. Nicholas continued to follow claimant for the \nnext couple of weeks and there was no mention of any pain in claimant’s right hip. On January 27, \n2022 claimant began a course of physical therapy at NWA Physical Ability Testing Center (NWA). \nThe first record relates the history claimant gave: “His feet became caught in some pallet strapping \ncausing him to fall, hitting his left knee and left hip on the floor. The chief complaint was pain in the \nleft hip, difficulty walking.” The physical therapy examination on that date showed claimant had good \nactive range of motion as well as passive range of motion on his right hip, but markedly less range of \nmotion on his left hip.\n1\n On February 1, 2022, the subjective portion of the report states “James states \n \n1\n As discussed below, I have concluded that the diagnosis portion of the January 27, 2022, record was a coding error \nwhich resulted in an entry of a contusion of the right hip when no such contusion existed. \n\nBeauchamp-H201972 \n \n8 \n \nhe was really sore on Sunday and it’s the right hip hurting today, along with the middle low back. He \ntells me that his left  hip is doing fine. He mentioned the pain management and asked if he needed \nthat.” Brandon Peyton, the physical therapist, recorded under the assessment portion of the report \n“He says his pain is more on the right side today and the low back. He tells me hip ER and IR caused \na little pain in the mid low back. He may have overdone the HEP this weekend so we talked about \nnot doing more than he can handle.” From there, claimant’s complaints are largely with his right hip \nand right lower back. In summary, the physical therapy records from January 27, 2022, showed no \nproblem on claimant’s right hip, but on February 1, 2022, the right hip became the primary complaint.  \n Claimant returned to Arkansas Occupational Medicine Services on February 8, 2022, and again \nsaw physician assistant Nicholas. Consistent with what he said at physical therapy, claimant said his \nleft hip was getting better but his right hip was getting worse. PA Nicholas recorded in the comments \non the history of the present illness “James has significant improvement in his left hip. He has \ndeveloped severe right hip pain with no specific injury.”   \n Claimant testified he went to see his family physician when he felt he was not getting better \nand saw Dr. Joseph O’Connell on February 9, 2022. Dr. O’Connell believed that claimant needed a \npelvic x-ray and administered therapeutic injections of Toradol and Betamethasone. \n Dr. Mark Allard at Northwest Physicians was the next doctor to examine claimant. Dr. Allard \nordered  x-rays of claimant’s right hip and found “radiographic findings: evidence of osteoarticular \nabnormality; he has got some early osteoarthritis of the right hip with some joint space narrowing and \nosteophyte formation. None on the left side. No evidence of fracture.” Dr. Allard assessed claimant \nwith a lumbar back strain and recommended that an MRI be performed. After reviewing only the x-\nray, Dr. Allard opined “it is my medical opinion this is likely due to overuse two weeks ago and is not \ndirectly related to his work-related injury from six weeks ago.” Dr. Allard did not schedule another \n\nBeauchamp-H01972 \n9 \n \n \nappointment for claimant but said he could return as needed.  \n When claimant failed to make much progress, on February 23, 2022, he returned to see Dr. \nO’Connell. Dr. O’Connell saw claimant again on both March 8, 2022 and April 5, 2022.  He ordered \nan MRI, which was performed on April 13. The impression from the MRI was: \n“acute or subacute, mildly displaced fractures of the left superior and \nleft inferior pubic rami. Nondisplaced acute or subacute fracture of the \nright  sacral  ala.  No  fracture  of  either  proximal  femora.  Findings  of \nfemoroacetabular impingement of each hip, a chronic finding. On this \nMRI of the right hip, abnormal signal in the superior aspect of the right \nacetabular labrum is consistent with chronic degeneration of the labrum \nrelated to the femoroacetabular impingement.”  \n \n  Claimant  saw  Dr.  Matthew  Coker  on  April  28,  2022.  Dr.  Coker  recited  the  history  to  that \npoint and reviewed the findings from the MRI.  He recorded claimant “was also subsequently found \nto have a right sacral alae fracture. He did develop some right hip pain, but this was not associated \nwith the fall on the left side. It started to bother him a few weeks later. The left side is a work-related \ninjury, but the right side is not considered a work-related injury.”  \n Claimant  was  admitted  to  Encompass  Health  Rehabilitation  Hospital  on  June  15,  2022  for \ninpatient physical therapy. It is unclear who the referring physician was for this course of rehabilitation, \nand nothing about it provided useful information regarding the issues in this case.  \n Following his discharge from Encompass, claimant began seeing Dr. Christopher Dougherty \non June 22, 2022. In the assessment and plan following the August 3, 2022 visit, Dr. Dougherty stated \nthat a CT scan showed “a left superior/inferior pubic ramus fracture and a right fracture of the aspect \nsacrum.” Dr. Dougherty directly attributed the fractures to claimant’s fall at work and stated the \nclaimant was not able to do even sedentary work due to the factures. He referred claimant to aqua \ntherapy at Trinity Rehabilitation, where claimant completed all physical therapy sessions which were \nallowed by his insurance company. The physical therapist, Thomas Curtner, said “his injuries are a \n\nBeauchamp-H201972 \n \n10 \n \nresult  of  a  work-related  incident,  and  he  will  be  transitioning  his  plan  of  care  to  be  covered  by  his \nemployer’s workers’ compensation insurance.” Claimant’s therapy included treatment for both his left \nand right side.  \n The final record introduced was a letter from Dr. O’Connell dated November 2, 2022.  Dr. \nO’Connell stated that he has been claimant’s primary care physician for over ten years and said \nclaimant “has never had issues with his hips or pelvis.” \nADJUDICATION \n \nThe issue in this case is if claimant’s right hip injury is related to his admittedly compensable \ninjury  to  his  left  hip  which  occurred  in  a  fall  on  January  4,  2022.  While claimant’s testimony was \nsomewhat confusing on the onset of his right hip pain, in reviewing the entire record, I find that he \nhas shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his right hip injury was incurred during that fall.  \nRespondent pointed out the various answers claimant gave in his deposition testimony and in \nthe  medical  records  as  to  when  the  pain  in  his  right  hip  began.  Claimant  conceded  that  at  various \ntimes, he placed the onset of the issues with his right hip before he started therapy, due to the use of \ncrutches, while working light duty, as the result of a therapy session and on a Sunday when he didn’t \nhave therapy. He denied an entry in a doctor’s report that he had gone shopping with his wife and \ngrandson and couldn’t walk the next day.  When pressed on the different answers as to when and how \nhis right hip started hurting, claimant said he had given those answers as possible causes, because he \ndidn’t know what the cause was or just when the pain in  his right hip started. His efforts to give a \ncause for how and when the right hip pain started caused more confusion than clarity, but I do not \nfind those answers were given in an effort to deceive respondent or this court.  \nA review of the physical therapy records gives the likely answer as to when the right hip began \nto cause claimant a problem. Respondent asked claimant about the entries on the February 1, 2022. \n\nBeauchamp-H01972 \n11 \n \n \nreport  from  NWA, which is the first record regarding an issue  with claimant’s right hip.  The \nquestioning  focused  on  why  claimant  disputed  having  a  contusion  on  his  right  hip  on  that  day.  \nHowever, claimant was not asked about the NWA record of January 27, 2022, in which claimant was \nnot  complaining  of  any  issues  with  his  right  hip,  but  rather  was  treated  for  left  hip  discomfort.   I \nbelieve it would be unusual for a person doing physical therapy to be asked to disrobe for an inspection \nof a hip that had already been examined by the referring physician’s assistant.  It was also odd that \nevery  diagnosis—even  the  fifth  one—continued  to  refer  to  the  visit  as  an  initial  encounter.   I  am \nconvinced the entry for the right hip on the first visit was a coding error and was not corrected during \nclaimant’s course of treatment with NWA.  Each  visit  was  coded  with  S70.01XA,  the  code  for  a \n“contusion of the right hip, initial encounter,” but claimant did not complain of any issues with his \nright    hip    on    his    first    visit    to    NWA.    (See \nhttps://icdlist.com/icd-10/S70.01XA    and \nhttps://icdlist.com/icd-10/S70.02XA for the medical codes for contusions to the right and left hip, \ninitial encounter, respectively.) \nAs  such,  I  find claimant’s testimony that he did not have bruising on his right hip  to  be \ncredible, and the physical therapy entries that reflected the presence of a contusion on his right hip \nwas  a  mistake  made  by  someone  at  NWA  in  coding  the  first  visit.  That  mistake  led  respondent  to \nbelieve claimant had a contusion on his right hip when none existed.  \nI also noted that there were no radiograph tests other than X-rays made of claimant’s right hip \nbefore April 13, 2022.  X-rays alone frequently do not show the type of sacral fracture that can be \nseen by an MRI.\n2\n As that was all Dr. Allard ordered, I give no weight to his opinion that the condition \n \n2\n See SACRAL FRACTURES: CURRENT STRATEGIES IN DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT \nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19824583/:  “While displaced fractures can be easily diagnosed on high quality \nplain radiographs, nondisplaced or transverse fracture patterns may be difficult to diagnose without a computed \ntomography scan. Once identified, correct classification of a sacral fracture can facilitate ideal treatment strategies.”  \n\nBeauchamp-H201972 \n \n12 \n \nhe saw on February 17, 2022, was “not directly related to his work-related injury from 6 weeks ago.”   \n Dr. Coker had the benefit of the MRI results and recognized the right sacral fracture.   The \nwording of his opinion is a bit vague as it relates to the connection between claimant’s fall on his left \nhip and the pain in his right hip: “The left side is a work-related  injury  but  the  right  side  is  not \nconsidered  a  work-related injury.” (Emphasis  added)  It  is  unclear  if  the  right  hip  issues  were  not \nconsidered a  work-related  injury  by  Dr.  Coker,  or  not  considered  to  be  such by  the workers’ \ncompensation carrier.  It is evident Dr. Coker’s staff had been contacted by the adjuster for the carrier \nprior to examining claimant on April 28, 2022,  because the contact information for that adjuster is \nprovided under the heading “Patient’s Care Team.”  From  this  wording,  I cannot  tell  if  Dr.  Coker \nmade an independent evaluation on whether the right hip injury was related to the fall, or recited what \nhe had been told by the carrier about a right hip claim.    \n I am most persuaded by Dr. Dougherty’s unequivocal statement in his August 8, 2022 record.  \nAfter noting fractures on claimant’s left and right side, he stated “All of these fractures are directly \nrelated to his fall at work.” The Arkansas Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 \nArk. 443, 447, 990 S.W.2d 522, 524 (1999) stated \"The plethora of possible causes for work-related \ninjuries includes many that can be established by common-sense observation and deduction.”  Relating \na fracture on the right side of claimant’s hip from a violent fall on his left  side  does  not  require \nspeculation or guesswork; that claimant was initially focused on the damage to his bruised left side is \nnot hard to understand.  Any of the various possibilities claimant put forward—or a combination of \nthem—could have caused the fractures on the right side to become symptomatic.  Dr. Dougherty’s \nattribution of the right sacral ala fracture to the January 4, 2022, fall is consistent with the testimony \nand  with  the  radiographic  evidence  from  April  13,  2022  through  August  8,  2022.    As  such,  I  find \n\nBeauchamp-H01972 \n13 \n \n \nclaimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence his right hip and pelvis injury is compensable.\n3\n   \n Having decided in claimant’s favor on the issue of compensability, I turn now to the medical \nand  indemnity benefits award. I am convinced that all of claimant’s medical treatment  has  been \nreasonable and necessary.  It is evident that he did not receive appropriate care early in the  process \nand  was  reasonable  in  going  to  his  own  doctor to  seek  the  treatment  he  was  not  provided  by \nrespondent.  He is entitled to reimbursement for any out-of-pocket medical expenses he incurred. \n I further find that claimant has not been able to work since he last performed light duty work \nfor Con-Agra.  Dr. Allard removed him from work on February 17, 2022, and I did not find that any \nphysician  returned  him  to  work  at  even  light  duty  after  that  time.    I  find  claimant  is  entitled  to \ntemporary  total  disability  benefits  from  the  last  day  he  worked  for  Con-Agra  until  the  date  of  the \nhearing.\n4\n \nORDER \n \n Respondents  are  directed  to  pay  benefits  in  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  set  forth \nherein this Opinion. \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. \n \n3\n  While  I  was  asked  to  decide  the  compensability  of  the  right  hip  injury,  it  should be  noted  that  claimant  received \ntreatment from Encompass, Dr. Dougherty, and Trinity Rehabilitation for the injury to his left hip during 2022.  So \nthere is no confusion, my finding is that the pelvic injuries—both sides-- are compensable and presently disabling.  \n4\n The precise day claimant ceased working light duty was not provided during the hearing.  Further, while \nrespondent put on evidence of payments to claimant through a short-term disability policy provided entirely by the \nrespondent employer, a request for a credit or offset pursuant to §11-9-411 was not made an issue in this matter. I \ncannot address it sua sponte, so I consider such to be a reserved issue as per the Prehearing Order.  \n\nBeauchamp-H201972 \n \n14 \n \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 $ 795.95 \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n      _____________________________ \n        JOSEPH C. SELF \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201972 JAMES BEAUCHAMP, Employee CLAIMANT CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS LLC, Employer RESPONDENT BROADSPIRE SERVICES INC., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 17, 2023 Case submitted on the record before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Sprin...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:11:29.606Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H201972-2023-01-17","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//BEAUCHAMP_JAMES_H201972_20230117.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}