{"id":"alj-H205234-2023-03-17","awcc_number":"H205234","decision_date":"2023-03-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Terry Griffith","employer_name":"Autozone, Inc","title":"GRIFFITH VS. AUTOZONE, INC. AWCC# H205234 MARCH 17, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["neck","back","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GRIFFITH_TERRY_H205234_20230317.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GRIFFITH_TERRY_H205234_20230317.pdf","text_length":9146,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nWCC NO. H205234 \n \nTERRY C. GRIFFITH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nAUTOZONE, INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nXL INSURANCE AMERICA, \n CARRIER  RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  Steven  Porch on March  7,  2023,  in  Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant Terry C. Griffith is representing himself, pro se. \n \nRespondents  are  represented  by  Mr.  Eric  Newkirk,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n On   March   7,   2023,  the  above-captioned  claim   was   heard   in   Little   Rock, \nArkansas.  A prehearing conference took place on  December 12, 2022.  A  Prehearing \nOrder  was  entered  that  same  day  pursuant  to  the  conference.  The  parties  have \nstipulated  to  1.)  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  having  jurisdiction \nover the claim, 2.) that an employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on March 11, \n2013,  when  claimant  sustained a  compensable  injury  in  the form of  a  scalp  contusion, \nand 3.) Respondents accepted that injury as medical-only. There are three issues at the \nheart  of this  case.  First, has  the  Claimant  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his head, \nneck,   back   and   shoulder   by   specific   incident?   Second,   is   Claimant   entitled to \nreasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment?  Third,  has  the  Claimant  filed  his  claim \nwithin the statute of limitations? These issues will be addressed in reverse order.   \n\nGRIFFITH – H205234 \n \n2 \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record,  including  medical  reports,  documents,  and  other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity to  hear  the \ntestimony of the witnesses and to observe their demeanor, I hereby make the following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704 \n(Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over \nthis claim. \n2. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that his \nclaim  was  timely  filed.  Thus,  the  Commission  finds,  and  the  evidence \npreponderates,  that  this  claim  for  additional  benefits  is  barred  by  the \nstatute of  limitations  set  forth  in  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702(b)(1)  (Repl. \n2012). \n3.  Because  of  the  above  findings/conclusions,  the  remaining  issues –  1.) \nwhether  the  Claimant  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his  head,  neck, \nback and shoulder by specific incident and 2.) whether Claimant is entitled \nto reasonable and necessary medical treatment are hereby moot and will \nnot be addressed. \nSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS \n Facts  of  Case.   The  date  of  injury  for  this  claim  occurred  on  March  11,  2013, \nwhere the hood of a motor vehicle collapsed on Claimant, causing injury to his head and \nback.  Respondents  initially  accepted  this  claim  in  March  2013  and  paid  for  Claimant’s \n\nGRIFFITH – H205234 \n \n3 \nmedical  bills  and  physical  therapy.  Claimant  was  released  from  medical  care  on April \n17, 2013. Claimant went to physical therapy during his lunch break and did not miss any \nwork. Claimant’s initial benefits were purely medical. On July 22, 2022, a little over nine \nyears  after his  injury,  Claimant  filed  a  claim  for  compensation  for  his  head,  neck, \nshoulder and back, in the form of an AR-C , with the Commission.  \nThe Respondents have alleged at the outset of this claim that it is barred by the \nstatute  of  limitations.  Claimant  disputes  this.  Both  Claimant  and  Respondents have \nsubmitted  into  evidence  Claimant’s  deposition  as  Joint  Exhibit “1.”  The  Claimant  also \nsubmitted  his  medical  records  as  Claimant’s  Exhibit “1”  while  Respondent  submitted \nClaimant’s Joint  Petition  from  a  2020  injury  as Respondent’s  Exhibit “1.”  I  have \nreviewed and weighed this evidence along with the sworn testimony and argument.   \n Standards.      The   evidence   before   me   reflects,   as   stipulated   above,   that \nRespondents initially accepted this claim as compensable, but later controverted it in its \nentirety.  Under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(b)(1) (Repl. 2012): \nIn  cases  in  which  any  compensation,  including  disability  or  medical,  has \nbeen  paid  on  account  of  injury,  a  claim  for  additional  compensation  shall \nbe  barred  unless  filed  with  the  commission  within  one  (1)  year  from  the \ndate of the last payment of compensation or two (2) years from the date of \nthe injury, whichever is greater. \n \n The burden rests on Claimant to prove that his claim was timely filed.  Stewart v. \nArk.  Glass  Container, 2010  Ark.  198, 366  S.W.3d  358; Kent  v.  Single  Source  Transp., \n103  Ark.  App.  151,  287  S.W.3d  619  (2008).    Under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  § 11-9-705(a)(3) \n(Repl.  2012),  he  must  prove  this  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence. The  standard \n“preponderance   of   the   evidence”   means   the   evidence   having   greater   weight   or \n\nGRIFFITH – H205234 \n \n4 \nconvincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark.  373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet \nCove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n Discussion.  As  stated  above,  the  Respondents  initially accepted  Claimant’s \ninjury as compensable and paid the medical benefits for Claimant’s treatment. The last \npayment  of  medical  benefits  was  not  entered  into  the  record  by  either  side  during  the \nhearing.  The  statute  of  limitations  for  additional  compensation  began  to  run  one  year \nfrom the date of the last benefit payment or two years from the date of injury, whichever \nis  greater.  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702(b)(1)  (Repl.  2012); See  also,  Wynne  v.  Liberty \nTrailer and Death and Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund, 2022 Ark. 65, 641 S.W.3d \n621  (2022)(holding  the  statute  of  limitations  on  a  request  for  additional  benefits \ncommences  when  the  last  payment,  whether  for  disability  or  medical  benefits, was \nmade).  The  evidence  is  clear  the  last  day  of  treatment  for  the  Claimant  was  April  17, \n2013. This Court has requested briefs from both sides on March 8, 2023, on the issue of \nwhen  the  last  payment  of  benefits  was  made  by  the  Respondent  regarding  the  March \n11, 2013, injury. Those briefs have been received, blue-backed and made a part of the \nofficial record for this case.  \nThe  Court  now  finds,  based  on  the  evidence,  that  the  last benefit  payment  was \nmade  on  July  9,  2013.  Since  Claimant  has  one  year  from  the  last  medical  benefit \npayment or two years from the date of injury, whichever is greater, to file for additional \nmedical benefits, the Court finds the Claimant had until March 11, 2015, the later date, \nto file his claim for additional benefits with the Commission. The Court further finds the \nClaimant did not file his claim within the required statute of limitations period.  \n\nGRIFFITH – H205234 \n \n5 \nThough   it   should   be   noted,   the   Claimant   feels   it   was   the   Respondent’s \nresponsibility to report his injury to the Commission under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-529 (a \n& b) (Repl. 2012), this argument is not dispositive of the statute of limitations issue. And \neven  if  it  were,  and  I  find  that  it  does  not  affect  the  statute  of  limitations  issue,  the \nClaimant did not provide any witnesses, such as a fellow employee, supervisor, district \nmanager, or anyone with personal knowledge, to substantiate his claim that he reported \nhis  need  to  management  for  additional  treatment  for  his  injury.  But again,  what  is \ndispositive  of  the  statute  of  limitations  issue,  at  this  point  in  the  analysis,  is  when  the \nClaimant filed his claim with the Commission. \n Only  one  Form  AR-C  has  been  filed  in  connection  with  this  matter.    That  is  the \nmeans for filing a “formal claim.”  See Yearwood v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2003 AR Wrk. \nComp. LEXIS 739, Claim No. F201311 (Full Commission Opinion filed June 17, 2003).  \nSee  also Sinclair  v.  Magnolia  Hospital,  1998  AR Wrk.  Comp.  LEXIS  786,  Claim  No. \nE703502 (Full Commission Opinion filed December 22, 1998)(a claim is “typically” filed \nvia a Form AR-C). I find the formal claim for this matter was filed with the Commission \non July 22, 2022, over nine years from the date of the injury. I further find the Claimant \nfailed  to  file  a  Form  AR-C by  the  March  11,  2015,  the  statute  of  limitations  deadline, \nthus forming my basis for finding this claim for additional benefits barred by the statute \nof limitations. \n \n \n \n\nGRIFFITH – H205234 \n \n6 \nCONCLUSION \n \n In  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  set  forth above, \nthis claim for additional benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n \n       ________________________________ \n       Honorable Steven Porch \n       Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H205234 TERRY C. GRIFFITH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AUTOZONE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT XL INSURANCE AMERICA, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 17, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on March 7, 2023, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkan...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:09:34.311Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205234-2023-03-17","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GRIFFITH_TERRY_H205234_20230317.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}