{"id":"alj-H202952-2023-06-19","awcc_number":"H202952","decision_date":"2023-06-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sonja Riddle","employer_name":"Friendship Community Care, Inc","title":"RIDDLE VS. FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC. AWCC# H202952 JUNE 19, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:6"],"injury_keywords":["knee","ankle","fracture","wrist","back","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RIDDLE_SONJA_H202952_20230619.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"RIDDLE_SONJA_H202952_20230619.pdf","text_length":26839,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO.  H202952 \n \nSONJA RIDDLE, Employee                                                                             CLAIMANT \n \nFRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC., Employer                                RESPONDENT                        \n \nATA WC TRUST/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, Carrier               \nRESPONDENT                                                                                     \n \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2023 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   GREGORY   K.   STEWART   in \nRussellville, Pope County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On May 18, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Russellville, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on  February 15, 2023 and a pre-\nhearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date.    A  copy  of  the  pre-hearing  order  has  been \nmarked as Commission’s Exhibit #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 the \nwithin claim. \n 2.   The claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right knee on April 2, 2021. \n 3.   The claimant was earning an average weekly wage of $393.95 which would \nentitle her to compensation at the weekly rates of $263.00 for total disability benefits and \n$197.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n2 \n \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.    Compensability of injury to claimant’s left knee on April 2, 2021. \n2.    Compensability of injury to claimant’s left arm on October 28, 2021. \n3.    Related medical. \n4.    Temporary total disability benefits. \n5.    Attorney fee. \n6.    Notice. \nAt the time of the hearing claimant clarified that she is requesting temporary total  \ndisability benefits from October 13, 2021 through a date yet to be determined. \n The claimant contends  that on April 2, 2021, she was in the scope and course of \nher  employment  when  she  was  unloading  a  sick  child  from  a  van  transport  when she \nslipped  and  fell,  fracturing  her  right  leg.    The  respondents  accepted the  claim  as \ncompensable and paid for her benefits.  Claimant felt pain in her left knee at the time of \nthe fall, but during the claimant’s authorized physical therapy treatments for her right \nknee, her left knee and ankle began to really bother her.  She complained of left knee \npain, but the left knee injury was denied in its entirety.  Claimant treated on her own with \nDr. Nguyen who diagnosed her with osteoarthritis of the left knee and post patellofemoral \nrealignment.  An MRI revealed a left knee tibial plateau subchondral fracture.  On October \n28, 2021, claimant lost the balance of her crutches and fell.  Claimant reinjured her knee \nand injured her left arm.  On October 29, 2021, Dr. Nguyen performed another surgery. \nDr. Nguyen causally related her left injury to her workers’ compensation claim.  Claimant \ncontends  she  sustained  compensable  injuries,  that  she  sustained  a  compensable \nconsequence and that  she  is  entitled  to medical  benefits,  ttd, and an  attorney  fee.    All \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n3 \n \nother issues are reserved. \nThe  respondents  contend  that  claimant  did  not  suffer  a  compensable  left  knee \ninjury or left wrist injury on or about April 2, 2021.  Respondents contend that claimant did \nnot  suffer  a  compensable  consequence,  either.    Lastly,  respondents  contend that \nclaimant did not provide notice of any left knee or left wrist injury until her Form AR-C was \nfiled on April 15, 2022 and in light of that, respondents should not be liable for benefits in \nthe event compensability is found until they received actual notice of a claimed injury. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear \nthe testimony of the witnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of \nfact and conclusions of law are made 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 \non  February  15,  2023  and  contained  in  a  pre-hearing  order  filed  that  same  date  are \nhereby accepted as fact. \n 2.   Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat her left knee fracture and her left wrist fractures are compensable consequences of \nher right knee injury of April 2, 2021. \n 3.      Respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment provided in connection with claimant’s left knee and left wrist injuries; this \nincludes surgery performed by Dr. Nguyen.   \n 4.   Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n4 \n \nto temporary total disability benefits from October 13, 2021 and continuing through April \n20, 2022. \n 5.   Respondent has controverted claimant’s entitlement to all unpaid indemnity \nbenefits. \n 6.   Claimant’s request for benefits is not barred by the provisions of A.C.A. §11-9-\n701 regarding notice. \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant is a 58-year-old woman who graduated from high school and attended \ntwo  semesters  of  college  at  Arkansas  Tech  University.    She  also  obtained  a  clerical \ndegree from Petit Jean Vo-Tech and is a licensed massage therapist. \n Claimant has a history of pre-existing problems with her knees.  She testified that \nin 1985 or 1986 she was walking across her living floor when her left kneecap popped out \nof  place  resulting  in  a  patella  dislocation  and  surgery.    After  two  years,  a  second \nprocedure  was  performed  with  her  patella  being  moved  into  place  and secured  with  a \nscrew.    She  testified  that  she  received  a  full  release  and  has  not  had  any  additional \ntreatment on her left knee in more than 20 years.   Claimant also testified that she had a \nwork-related  injury  to her  right  knee  in  2004  which  resulted  in  surgery  by  Dr.  Brown  in \nRussellville. \n Claimant began working for respondent in March 2012 and performed two primary \nduties.  First, she helped in the classroom as a teacher’s aide.  Her duties included feeding \nchildren; changing diapers; keeping refrigerator logs and safety inspections; and playing \nwith the children.  She also had a second duty of “van rider”, riding in the van when taking \nthe children somewhere.   \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n5 \n \n On  April  2,  2021  claimant  had  been  performing  the  van  rider  job  when the  van \npulled up to the school.  She opened the side door of the van for the children to exit when \none of them got sick and vomited on himself.  She described her accident as follows: \n  There wasn’t very much space between the front seat and \n  him and I didn’t want to lean in, you know, lean across and \n  get junk all over me.  So I kind of leaned over and told the \n  bus driver I need some gloves and some wipes to clean  \n  him up. \n \n  And while she was digging around and getting all of that, \n  I was going to go back and get some more children off the \n  bus and when I did, somehow or another I lost my balance \n  on that step.  And I was able to grab the handle that was \n  right by the door and the momentum twisted me around to \n  where I was still on that step and I didn’t fall to the ground, \n  but that momentum twisted me and I was holding on, \n  basically, through my shoulders and my knees and leg \n  and my feet.  And it was just so that I felt a pop in my \n  right leg and that’s when I kind of - - I kind of yelped or \n  hollered. \n \n \n Following  her  injury,  claimant  received medical  treatment  from  Kathryn  Pledger, \nAPRN, who diagnosed claimant with acute pain of the right knee.  Her treatment included \nphysical therapy and an MRI scan on May 13, 2021, which revealed a comminuted, non-\ndisplaced fracture of the right lateral tibial plateau.  After the MRI scan, claimant began \ntreating with Dr. Stambough, an orthopedic surgeon, who opined that the fracture would \nheal on its own.  He prescribed the use of crutches, seated work duty, discontinuation of \nphysical therapy, and an injection in the right knee.   \n In  his  report  of  June  17,  2021,  Dr.  Stambough  indicated  that  the  injection  had \nhelped tremendously and that claimant could put full weight on her knee.  He indicated \nthat claimant could perform 75% of her work activities for two weeks and then she could \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n6 \n \nreturn to full duty. Since that time claimant has not had any additional issues or medical \ntreatment for her right knee.  Respondent accepted the right knee injury as compensable \nand paid compensation benefits. \n Before the visit with Dr. Stambough on June 17, 2021, claimant had been seen by \nShannon Golden, APRN, on May 27, 2021 and indicated that she was having complaints \ninvolving her left knee as well:  \n  c/o pain in left knee, having to use crutches due to \n  fracture in right knee. \n \n \n Claimant also mentioned the left knee problems to Dr. Stambough at the time of \nher visit on June 17, 2021: \n  She actually says now her left side on the knee is \n  becoming more bothersome because she had to \n  change how she walked.  She said this was aggra- \n  vated not related to work related injury, but it is the \n  only thing really holding her back now.  She would \n  like to be seen for this separately outside of work \n  comp claim.   \n \n \n Claimant denies having informed Dr. Stambough that the left knee was not work \nrelated  but  testified  that  she  did  not  tell  him  that  it  was  or  was  not  work  related.  \nRespondent did not accept liability for the left knee and claimant sought medical treatment \non her own from Dr. Larry Nguyen, orthopedic surgeon.  Dr. Nguyen ordered an MRI scan \nwhich revealed a left lateral tibial plateau subchondral fracture.   \n Dr. Nguyen initially treated claimant conservatively with a brace and crutches.  He \nalso  allowed  claimant  to  continue  working  for  respondent  at  a  sit  down  job.    Claimant \ntestified that she had returned to work for respondent and that on October 12, 2021, she \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n7 \n \nwas  sitting on  a  little shelf instead of sitting on the floor and “when I stood up, it really \ndidn’t buckle, but it felt like somebody had stabbed me in the back of the knee with an \nicepick.”   \n It should be noted that claimant did not file a new claim for this incident because \nshe believed it was a continuation of the left knee problems she was already experiencing.  \nClaimant returned to Dr. Nguyen on October 15, 2021, and he noted that claimant’s knee \nhad buckled when she got up at work.  At that time he recommended surgery on the left \nknee which he performed on October 25, 2021.   \n After her surgery, claimant was on crutches and was in her kitchen on October 28, \n2021, when the crutches caused her to fall.  As a result of the fall, claimant was diagnosed \nwith  a  left  wrist  fracture  and  underwent  surgery  for  that  condition  by  Dr.  Nguyen  on \nOctober 31, 2021.   \n Since her left knee and left wrist surgeries, claimant has continued to treat with Dr. \nNguyen.    This  treatment  has  included  the  use  of  a  wrist  brace  and  a  cane  as  well as \nphysical therapy.  In his final report dated May 20, 2022, Dr. Nguyen noted that claimant \nwas requesting a full release in order to return to work.   \n Claimant has filed this claim contending that she suffered compensable injuries to \nboth her left knee and left wrist as a result of the right knee injury.  She requests payment \nof medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits, and an attorney fee.  It should be \nnoted  that  in  addition  to  the  left  knee  and  left  wrist  there  are  complaints  noted  in the \nmedical records of problems with the left ankle and hip.  These were not listed as issues \nfor the hearing.  At the hearing, the following discussion occurred: \n \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n8 \n \n   THE COURT:  Okay.  You had some discussion \n  there about the left ankle, but I don’t have that down as \n  an issue; right? \n \n   MS. WOOD:  The hip as well, Judge.  We are not  \n  litigating the hip or the ankle; are we? \n \n   MS. YORK:  It was predominantly the knee.  I  \n  think we talked about it being left extremity in the pre- \n  hearing telephone conference, but it was really the \n  knee from the onset and that that caused other \n  problems. \n \n Based on this discussion and the fact that the left ankle and left were not listed as \nissues, they will not be discussed in the adjudication portion of this opinion. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant contends that in addition to her compensable right knee injury, she also \nhas compensable injuries to her left knee and left wrist.  Initially, I do not find that claimant \nsuffered a compensable injury to her left knee on April 2, 2021.  Claimant testified that \nthe only place she had pain that day was in her right knee.  She also admitted on cross \nexamination  that  she  did  not  feel  a  pop  in  her  left  knee  on  April  2,  2021.    Claimant \ncompleted various forms as a result of the April 2 injury and in none of those forms did \nshe mention any complaints or injury to her left knee.  Complaints involving her left knee \ndo not appear in the medical records until her visit with APRN Golden on May 27, 2021, \nmore than a month after the accident.   \n Accordingly, I do not find that she suffered a compensable injury to her left knee \non April 2, 2021.  However, I do find that claimant’s left knee complaints are compensable \nas a compensable consequence of her right knee injury.   \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n9 \n \n If  an  injury  is  compensable, every  natural  consequence of  that  injury  is  likewise \ncompensable.  Air Compressor Equipment Company v. Sword, 69 Ark. App. 162, 11 S.W. \n3d 1 (2000).  The test is whether a causal connection between the two episodes exists.  \nSword, supra; Jeter v. McGinty Mech., 62 Ark. App. 53, 968 S.W. 2d 645 (1998).  The \nexistence  of  a  causal  connection  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission.  Koster  v. \nCustom  Pak  &  Trissel,  2009  Ark.  App.  780.    It  is  generally  a  matter  of  inference,  and \npossibilities  may  play  a  proper  and  important  role  in  establishing  that  relationship.  \nOsmose Wood Preserving v. Jones, 40 Ark. App. 190, 843 S.W. 2d 875 (1992).  A finding \nof causation need not be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty \nwhere supplemental evidence supports the causal connection.  Koster, supra; Heptinseall \nv. Asplundh Tree Expert Company, 84 Ark. App. 215, 137 S.W. 3d 421 (2003).   \n I find based upon the evidence presented that claimant’s left knee complaints and \nmore specifically her left knee fracture are causally related to her right knee injury.  In the \nreport from APRN Golden dated May 27, 2021, it is noted: \n  c/o pain in left knee, having to  use crutches due to \n  fracture in right knee.  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n Likewise, in Dr. Stambough’s note dated June 17, 2021, he stated: \n  She actually says now her left side on the knee is \n  becoming more bothersome because she had to \n  change how she walked.  She said this was aggra- \n  vated not related to a work related injury... \n  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n While Dr. Stambough’s report went on to indicate that claimant wanted to be seen \nseparately with this condition outside her workers’ compensation claim, an assertion \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n10 \n \nwhich she denies, the significance of Dr. Stambough’s report is that the left knee problems \nwere attributed to claimant’s change in the way she walked due to her right knee injury. \n This causal connection is further reflected in the initial therapist’s note for physical \ntherapy relating to claimant’s left knee on July 9, 2021, which states: \n  Pt presents with L knee pain since May 2021.  Pt. \n  reports having her R knee operated on, and when \n  attending pt for this, her L knee began to hurt. \n  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n Just  six  days  later  on  July  15,  2021,  claimant  was  evaluated  by  Cynthia  Day, \nAPRN,  whose  report  of  that  date  indicated  that  claimant  was  complaining  of left  knee \npain: \n  .... not sure what is causing, started at the end of April \n  when she hurt the right knee and started PT.   \n   \n     *** \n  Patient complaining of pain in left knee began two weeks \n  after starting physical therapy for right knee injury at \n  work; states pain since end of April.... \n \n \n Thereafter, claimant was evaluated by Dr. Nguyen on July 21, 2021.  Notably, Dr. \nNguyen’s report indicates that claimant twisted both her right and left knee on April 2, \n2021.  As previously noted, this history is not supported by claimant’s testimony or the \nmedical records up through that date.  Nevertheless, Dr. Nguyen ordered an MRI scan of \nclaimant’s left knee and in his report of April 11, 2021 stated that claimant’s MRI scan \nrevealed a left lateral tibial plateau subchondral fracture and that: \n  Her bones are thin, she had a work-related injury \n  where she injured her right knee.  She developed \n  stress fractures of the left knee and potentially left \n  ankle.  I believe this is a direct result of her work- \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n11 \n \n  related injury.  Either from direct trauma from the \n  fall or compensatory gait.  (Emphasis added.) \n \n In  a  letter  from  Dr.  Nguyen to claimant’s attorney dated February 13, 2022, Dr. \nNguyen addressed the cause of claimant’s left knee fracture. \n  I believe within a reasonable degree of medical  \n  certainty, that she did have some pre-existing \n  left knee arthrosis and osteopenia.  Her left knee \n  pain was aggravated/exacerbated by the work- \n  related injury 4/2/2021 as demonstrated by the \n  stress fracture/subchondral edema changes noted \n  on her MRI scans.  I believe her left knee lateral \n  tibial plateau subchondral fracture and left distal \n  tibial stress fracture are directed related to the work \n  injury 4/2/2021.   (Emphasis added)  \n \n \n In response to Dr. Nguyen’s opinion respondent had claimant’s medical records \nand her deposition reviewed by Dr. Kirk Reynolds, an orthopedic surgeon.  Dr. Reynolds \nauthored a report dated May 30, 2023.  In his report of that date with respect to claimant’s \nleft knee he stated: \n  With regards to her left knee pathology.  It is my \n  professional medical opinion that, at most, this \n  represents an acute exacerbation of a chronic \n  underlying condition.  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n Dr.  Reynolds  then  goes  on  to  indicate  that  he  does  not believe  that  the  surgery \nperformed  by  Dr.  Nguyen  was  indicated.    Based  upon  that,  it  was  his  opinion  that \nclaimant’s left knee pathology and the left knee surgery were less than 51% directly or \ncausally related to the twisting injury to her right knee on April 2, 2021.  However, claimant \ndoes not have to prove that her left knee pathology and the left knee surgery were 100% \nrelated to her right knee injury of April 2, 2021.  Instead, claimant must simply prove that \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n12 \n \nthere  is  a  causal  connection  between  the  two  episodes  and  the  existence  of  a  causal \nconnection  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission.    Here,  based  upon  the  evidence \npresented, I find that claimant has met her burden of proof.  The medical records from \nnumerous providers indicate that claimant began complaining of pain in her left knee due \nto the use of crutches and to an altered gait.  This is reflected in the medical reports of \nAPRN  Golden,  APRN  Day,  the  physical  therapist  report,  the  medical  record  of  Dr. \nStambough, and finally the medical records of Dr. Nguyen.  Furthermore, Dr. Nguyen has \nspecifically opined that claimant’s left knee complaints were aggravated or exacerbated \nby  the  work  related  injury  of  April  2.    Finally,  even  Dr.  Reynolds  acknowledges  that \nclaimant’s left knee condition was aggravated by the right knee injury.   \n Accordingly, based upon the foregoing evidence, I find that claimant has met her \nburden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  her  left knee  fracture  is  a \ncompensable consequence of her right knee injury. \n Obviously,  claimant  did  not  injure  her  left  wrist  on  April  2,  2021,  but  instead \nfractured it when she fell in her kitchen while using crutches as a result of the left knee \ninjury.    Having  found  that  claimant’s  left  knee  fracture  and  subsequent  surgery  was  a \ncompensable  consequence  of  her  original  compensable  injury,  I  likewise  find  that  the \ninjury  to  her  left  wrist  which  resulted  from  the  use  of  crutches  following  her  left knee \nsurgery is also a compensable consequence. \n In short, I find that claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that her left knee and left wrist fractures were compensable consequences \nof her right knee injury.  Therefore, respondent is liable for payment of all reasonable and \nnecessary   medical   treatment   provided   in   connection   with   those   compensable \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n13 \n \nconsequences. \n The  next  issue  for  consideration  involves  claimant’s  request  for  temporary  total \ndisability benefits beginning October 13, 2021, and continuing through a date yet to be \ndetermined.  The injury to claimant’s left knee and her left wrist are scheduled injuries.  \nAn employee who has suffered a scheduled injury is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits during their healing period or until they return to work regardless of whether they \nare  totally  incapacitated  from  earning  wages.   Wheeler  Construction  Company  v. \nArmstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W. 3d 822 (2001).  The claimant’s “failure to return to \nwork must be causally related to the injury.”  Foster v. Tyson Poultry, 2013 Ark. App. 172, \n426 S.W. 3d 536 citing Fendley v. Pea Ridge School District, 97 Ark. App. 214, 216-17, \n245 S.W. 3d 676, 677-78 (2006). \n Here, the claimant did return to work for respondent performing lighter duty work \nfollowing her visit with Dr. Stambough on June 17, 2021.  Claimant continued to work for \nthe respondent until the incident on October 12, 2021, when she was getting up from the \nstool  and  felt  additional  pain  in  her  left  knee.    Thereafter,  claimant  sought  additional \nmedical  treatment  from  Dr.  Nguyen  at  which  time  he  recommended  and  performed \nsurgery  on  claimant’s  left  knee  and  ultimately  on  her  left  wrist  as  a  result  of  the  fall.  \nClaimant  did  not  return  to  work  following  the  incident  on  October  12,  2021,  and  was \nsubsequently terminated in November 2021.  Accordingly, I find that claimant remained \nwithin her healing period and that she had not returned to work as of October 13, 2021.  \nI find that this status continued until May 20, 2022.  On that date, claimant was seen by \nDr. Nguyen and he indicated that claimant wanted a full release in order to return to work.  \nClaimant has not been seen by Dr. Nguyen since that date.  Dr. Nguyen allowed claimant \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n14 \n \nto return to work and claimant did in fact begin looking for work and eventually became \nemployed as a substitute teacher. \n Accordingly, I find that claimant’s failure to return to work subsequent to May 20, \n2022 was no longer causally related to an injury.  In fact, claimant did return to work for \nanother employer subsequent to that date.  Therefore, claimant is entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits beginning October 13, 2021 through May 20, 2022. \n The final issue for consideration involves respondent’s contention that claimant did \nnot provide notice of a left knee or left wrist injury until she filed the AR-C on April 15, \n2022; therefore, respondent is not liable for any compensation benefits prior to that date \npursuant  to  A.C.A.  §11-9-701.    I  find  no  merit  to  this  contention.    First,  A.C.A.  §11-9-\n701(a)(1) requires that the employee report the injury to the employer.  Claimant did report \nthe injury to her employer on the day it occurred.  While a left  knee injury or left ankle \ninjury  were  not  reported  that  is  because  they  arose  as  a  result  of  a  compensable \nconsequence  of  the  reported  right  knee  injury.  As  previously  discussed,  the  medical \nrecords  clearly  indicate  that  claimant’s  left  knee  complaints  arose  from  having  to  use \ncrutches as a result of the right knee fracture and an altered gait.  Likewise, the left ankle \ninjury was a compensable consequence of the left knee injury. \n Accordingly, I find that the claimant did report her injury which led to the left knee \ninjury and left wrist injury when she reported the injury on the date it occurred.  Therefore, \nA.C.A. §11-9-701 does not operate to bar claimant’s claim for benefits. \n \nAWARD \n Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \n\nRiddle – H202952 \n \n15 \n \nher  left  knee  fracture  and  left  wrist  fracture  are  compensable  consequences of  her \ncompensable right knee injury of April 2, 2021.  Respondent is liable for payment of all \nreasonable   and   necessary   medical   treatment   provided   in   connection   with   these \ncompensable consequences.  This includes the surgeries which have been performed by \nDr. Nguyen.  In addition, claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits beginning \nOctober 13, 2021, and continuing through May 20, 2022.   \n Pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(1)(B), claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney \nfee  in  the  amount  of  25%  of  the  compensation  for  indemnity  benefits  payable to  the \nclaimant.   Thus, claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney  fee  based  upon  the \nindemnity benefits awarded.   This fee is to be paid one-half by the carrier and one-half \nby  the  claimant.      Also  pursuant  to  A.C.A.  §11-9-715(a)(1)(B),  an  attorney  fee  is  not \nawarded on medical benefits. \n Respondent  is  responsible  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $625.00. \n All sums herein accrued are payable in a lump sum and without discount. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      ____________________________________ \n       GREGORY K. STEWART \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H202952 SONJA RIDDLE, Employee CLAIMANT FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE, INC., Employer RESPONDENT ATA WC TRUST/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 19, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Russellville, P...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:06:31.851Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H202952-2023-06-19","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RIDDLE_SONJA_H202952_20230619.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}