{"id":"alj-H205569-2023-03-14","awcc_number":"H205569","decision_date":"2023-03-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Juan Sanchez","employer_name":"Creative Wall Systems","title":"SANCHEZ VS. CREATIVE WALL SYSTEMS AWCC# H205569 MARCH 14, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","shoulder","hip","ankle","cervical","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SANCHEZ_JUAN_H205569_20230314.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"SANCHEZ_JUAN_H205569_20230314.pdf","text_length":26169,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: H205569 \nJUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ,                                                                                  EMPLOYEE                                                                          \nCLAIMANT \n \nCREATIVE WALL SYSTEMS, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \nBRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY/ \nSUMMIT COUNSULTING, LLC,  \nCARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINSTRATOR (TPA)                                 RESPONDENT \n \n \n         OPINION FILED MARCH 14, 2023        \n        \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Degan Clow, Attorney at Law and his Rule XV Law Clerk, Mr. Beau \nDuty, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Zachary Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn December 14, 2022, the above-captioned claim came on for a hearing in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing telephone conference was conducted on November 9, 2022, from which \na Pre-hearing Order was filed on that same day.  A copy of said order and the parties’ responsive \nfilings have been marked as Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without \nobjection. \nStipulations \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or during the hearing the parties agreed \nto the following stipulations: \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n2 \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n2. All  issues  not  litigated  herein  are  reserved  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act.  \n3. The Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing included the following: \n1. Whether  or  not  the  employee-employer-insurance  carrier  relationship  existed  on \nMarch 29, 2022,  which the Claimant allegedly sustained injuries to his back and \nneck. \n2. The Claimant’s average weekly wage on the day of his alleged accidental injury of \nMarch 29, 2022.    \n3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability from March 30, 2022 \nuntil a date yet to be determined.  \n4. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n5. The parties agreed to hold issues number 5 and  6 from the prehearing in abeyance.  \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant:  \nThe Claimant contends that he was injured in a fall while working for the employer.   He \nfell on March 29, 2022, from some scaffolding that they were using as their working platform as \nthey added plaster to the side of a custom home.  As a result of this fall from the scaffolding, he \nhas suffered a back and neck injury that has limited his ability to find a new job.  To date, he has \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n3 \n \nbeen unable to find suitable employment and is entitled to receive temporary total disability  (TTD) \nfrom  the  date  of  the  fall  until  the  date  of  maximum  medical  improvement  (MMI).    It  is  the \nClaimant’s contention that he will be unable to resume working in any position suitable for his \nlevel  of  education  and  experience  due  to  the  injuries  sustained  on  March  29,  2022.    However, \ncounsel for the plaintiff has informed Claimant that the determination of whether to seek PTD or \nPPD should be made after the expert evaluation of his treating specialist physician.  Pending the \ndetermination of the Claimant’s specialist physician regarding the Claimant’s healing period and \nMMI,  Claimant  should  be  entitled  to  PTD  or  PPD  going  forward.    Additionally,  Claimant  is \nentitled to receive coverage for all past and future medical expenses related to his fall on March \n29, 2022. \nThe Claimant contends that his average weekly wage was $720.00, based on 40 hours per \nweek at a rate of $18.00. (TR. 14) \nRespondents: \nThe Claimant did not suffer a compensable injury at work. The Claimant has submitted \nno proof of a compensable injury. \n                    FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the aforementioned documentary \nevidence, other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  and  observe  their  demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.      I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n4 \n \n \n3. The Claimant was an employee of Mr. Victor Morales and he failed to obtain workers’ \ncompensation coverage. However, Elisei Conjocaru regularly employed Mr. Morales \nas  a  subcontractor  to  perform  residential  and  commercial  plastering.  As  such,  Mr. \nConjocaru is a liable prime contractor pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-402.   \n4. The Claimant average weekly wage was $720.00 at the time of his injury.   \n \n5. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence he sustained a compensable \nneck injury on March 29, 2022.  However, he failed to establish by objective medical \nfindings an injury to his back.  \n6. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence his entitlement to temporary \ntotal disability from March 30, 2022, to a date yet to be determined. \n7. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the treatment for \nrecord  was  reasonably  necessary  to  treat  his  neck  injury.    He  also  proved  that  he  is \nentitled to additional medical treatment as recommended by Dr. Roberts in the form of \nan orthopedic specialist. \n8. The Claimant attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on the indemnity \nbenefits awarded herein. \n9. All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Act.      \n \nSummary of Evidence \nDuring the hearing, Mr. Juan Carlos Sanchez Garcia/the Claimant and Mr. Martine Reyes \nwere the only two witnesses.  \n            The record consists of the December 14, 2022 hearing transcript and the following exhibits: \nSpecifically, Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 includes the Commission’s Prehearing Order filed on \nNovember  9,  2022 and the parties’ responsive  filings; Claimant’s Exhibit  No.  1  is  A  Medical \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n5 \n \nExhibit, which is made up of forty-one (41) numbered pages; Claimant’s Exhibit No. 2 includes a \nDocumentary  Non-Medical  Exhibit  consisting  of  seven  (7)  pages; Claimant’s Exhibit No. 3 \nconsists of two pages of Color Photographs; Respondents introduced into evidence the Claimant’s \nOral Deposition of November 18, 2021, which was marked  Respondents’ Exhibit  No. 1 and is \nretained in the Commission’s file; and Respondents’ Exhibit 2 is a Video on USB Flash Drive, \nwhich has been marked accordingly and retained in the Commission's file. \n Additionally,  the  parties  filed  Post-Hearing  Briefs.    These  have  been  blue-backed  and \nmarked as Commission’s Exhibit No. 2.     \nMs. Shannon Tanner, A.O.C., a Certified Spanish Interpreter, translated for the Claimant \nduring hearing.  \n                                                  Background  \n  \n The Claimant testified that he worked as a plaster for Victor Morales.  He also testified \nthat Mr. Morales worked for Elisei.  He confirmed that Mr. Morales told him when to show up  \nfor work each day.  According to the Claimant, Mr. Morales even gave him a ride to  work each \nday.  He agreed that he could be fired by Mr. Morales and would have to look for other work.  \nPer the Claimant, he worked between forty-five (45) and fifty (50) hours per week.  He earned \n$18.00 an hour. Mr. Morales paid the Claimant on a weekly basis.  Mr. Morales supplied the \nClaimant with the tools, supplies and materials for work.  The Claimant confirmed that Mr. \nMorales was in the business of doing plaster work for houses and buildings.  According to the \nClaimant, he worked for Mr. Victor Morales for approximately two (2) years.  \n Regarding the Claimant’s alleged accidental injury on March 29, 2022.  He gave a detailed \ndescription of his fall off the top of scaffolding on to the concrete.  At the time of his injury, the \nClaimant  agreed  that  he  was  performing  the  type  of  work  that  he  normally  performed  for  Mr. \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n6 \n \nMorales.  Following his accidental fall, the Claimant was transported by ambulance to UAMS.  He \nwas treated at the emergency room there and discharged home. The Claimant confirmed that he \nhad a follow-up visit to determine his progress following the accident. He confirmed that he was \ngiven a neck brace after his follow-up visit.   \n The Claimant testified that his doctor told him would not be able to return to the same type \nof work he was doing because his job required quite a bit of strength and he could not do it.  He \nconfirmed  that  he  had  an  appointment  with  a  Dr.  Aaron  Don  Roberts  in  Jacksonville.    Per  the \nClaimant, Dr. Roberts also instructed him not to return to work.  The  Claimant testified that he \nwas referred to a specialist.  He denied any prior problems to prevent him from working before his \naccident.   \n On cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that there were there other people on the \nscaffolding  when  his  accident  occurred.    He  admitted  that  he  was  the  only  one  person  that  an \nambulance was called for that day.  The Claimant testified that he injured his head, neck, shoulder, \nback and hip.   \n He  denied  ever  being  injured  before.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  worked  at  Oaks \nBrothers for over ten (10) years before his accident.  He also worked in construction for some time \nprior to going to work for Oaks brothers.  The Claimant admitted that he fought off robbers in rural \nLouisiana.  He denied being injured.   \nUnder further questioning, the Claimant admitted that he underwent several x-rays, and CT \nscans of various parts of body at UAMS after his work-related accident.  He denied being told that \nthe  x-rays  performed  on  March  29,  2022  at  UAMS  were  negative  for  left  swelling,  and  had  no \npalpable changes to the spine.  In fact, x-rays of his ankle was unremarkable.  The Claimant also \ndenied that he was aware of his chest x-rays showing no rib fractures or abnormalities.  He further \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n7 \n \ndenied that the CT scan performed on March 29 of the head demonstrated no acute posttraumatic \nintracranial findings.   The Claimant was not aware that the cervical scan showed disc height loss \nat C3-4 and C5-C6 and a disc bulge at C3-4.  However, the Claimant explained that he had those \nfrom the accident because he fell seventeen (17) feet up in the air onto cement.  The Claimant also \ndenied he was aware of all of his scans to his lungs, liver, spleen, bladder, esophagus, heart and \nkidneys were all normal.  However, the Claimant was noted to have severe degenerative changes \nto his right sternoclavicular joint.  The Claimant denied a prior right shoulder injury. \nThe Claimant admitted that he went to the Jacksonville Medical Center in September 2022.  \nHe  denied  that  all  of  the  findings  on  the  diagnostic  tests  were  chronic  changes.  The  Claimant \ndenied that he had an accident before his work incident.   He testified that he does plastering, a day \nor two for his uncle, Martin Reyes.  The Claimant admitted that his uncle does not pay taxes.  He \ncould not remember the last time he paid taxes. Nor does the Claimant have a bank account.  The \nClaimant denied that he works for Martin Reyes.  However, he admitted that he previously worked \nfor him. He denied that he lives with him.  Instead, the Claimant, his wife and two children live in \na  storage  area  outside  of  his  house.    The  Claimant  testified  that  Reyes  sometimes  gives  him \n$100.00 or $200.00 to help him out since his accident. He admitted that he cleans the yard since \nhis lives there.  The Claimant admitted that he previously worked for Mr. Reyes before he worked \nfor Victor Morales.  He denied going back to work for him since his accident.  \nThe  Claimant  was  shown  video  from  a  screenshot  of  a  Facebook  video  posted  by  Jorge \nAldaco to Mr. Martin Reyes’s Facebook profile.  It is a scene of a pool installation by Mr. Martin \nReyes’s’ company.  The Claimant admitted that he was aware that Mr. Reyes installed and finished \nresidential  pools.    In  this  video  is  a  man  in  a  yellow  shirt  appearing  to  put  on  equipment.  The \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n8 \n \nClaimant denied that he is the man pictured in the video. He testified that the man in the video is \nhis cousin, Juan Razo.                                  \n              He denied work for Mr. Reyes.  The Claimant admitted that he delivered some water hose \nto a construction for him.  He denied he helped to carry the hose to the jobsite. According to the \nClaimant he drove the truck to the jobsite and someone else got the hoses out of the truck.  This \noccurred around June 20, 2020.   He denied working for Mr. Reyes for two weeks. He maintained \nthat Mr. Reyes will give him money to help him out, such as $100.00. \n The Claimant testified on recross examination, he has not seen a specialist because he does \nnot have the resources. \n He    testified  that  he  worked  for  Mr.  Morales  and  three  other  guys.    The  Claimant  also  \ntestified  that  Mr.  Morales  determined  their  course  and  sequence  of  work.    They  did  not  have  a  \nwritten contract.          \n It appears that Eli Conjocaru owns Creative Walls Systems.  However, Mr. Conjocaru does \nuse Mr. Victor Morales as a subcontractor.  (TR 63) \nMartine Reyes              \n Mr.  Reyes  was  called  as  witness  on  behalf  of  the  Claimant.    He  was  shown  screenshots \nfrom the video of record.  These two photos have been marked as Claimant’s Exhibit 3.  Mr. Reyes \ntestified the person depicted in the photo is not the Claimant.  Instead, he testified that the person \nin the photo is the Claimant’s cousin, Juan Razo.   \n On  cross-examination  Mr.  Reyes  testified  that  the  Claimant  and  his  family  lives  in  his \nwarehouse on his property.  He confirmed that the Claimant delivered a water hose to one of his \nworksites for him.  However, Mr. Reyes testified that it was simply a garden hose. \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n9 \n \n Under redirect-examination Mr. Reyes testified that the hose was already in the bed of the \ntruck and asked the Claimant to drive his truck to the jobsite.   \n On inquiry by the Commission, Mr. Reyes testified that he has known the Claimant for ten \n(10)years.  He confirmed that the Claimant is a good hard worker, and he has previously worked \nfor him.  Mr. Reyes testified that  when the Claimant was working he gave him money for bills.  \nHe  denied that prior to the Claimant’s accident  he had been ill and/or unable to work.  Mr. Reyes \ndenied that the Claimant had any prior problems with his neck or back.            \n  \n                                                       Adjudication \nA. Subcontractor/Employee  \nThe evidence shows that the Claimant worked as an employee for Mr. Victor Morales by \nhaving  met a  majority  of  the  requirements  of    20-prong  test  sufficient  for  establishing  the \nemployee-employer  relationship  based  on  the  Claimant  testimony  which  is  uncontroverted.  \nDuring the hearing it was also established that  Mr. Morales did not have workers’ compensation \ncoverage at the time of the hearing.  The Respondents’ attorney confirmed that the Mr. Morales \nworked  as  a  subcontractor  for  the  owner  of  Creative  Wall  System,  who  is  Mr.  Eli  Conjocura.  \nTherefore,  based  on  the  foregoing,  I  find  that  Mr.  Eli  Conjocura  is  a  liable  prime  contractor \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-402.      \nB. Average Weekly Wage \nThe Claimant contends that he is entitled to an average weekly wage of $720.00.  In that \nregard, the only evidence presented concerning the Claimant’s average weekly was provided by \nthe Claimant’s hearing and deposition testimony.  The Claimant testified during the hearing that \nhe worked forty-five (45) to fifty (50) hours per week.  He testified that his hourly rate of pay was \n$18.00  The  Claimant  testified  he  was  paid  in  cash.    No  testimony  or  documentary  evidence \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n10 \n \nwhatsoever to the contrary has been presented concerning the Claimant’s average weekly wage by \nthe Respondents.  With that in mind, I find that the evidence preponderates that the Claimant’s \naverage weekly at the time of his March 2022 injury was $720.00.  Considering that the Claimant \nwas restricted from working due to the weather, a calculation of only 40 hours per week is fair.       \nC. Compensability for Neck and Back Conditions \nThe Claimant contends that he sustained injuries to his neck and back on March 29, 2022, \nwhen he fell from scaffolding of approximately seventeen (17) feet.  \nIn that regard, for the Claimant to establish a compensable injury as a result of a specific \nincident, the following requirements of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), must be \nestablished:  (1)  proof  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  of  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the \ncourse of employment; (2) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury caused internal \nor external physical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102 (4)(D), establishing the injury; and (4) proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by time  and place of occurrence.   Mikel v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).   \nA  compensable  injury  must  be  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012). “Objective findings” are those findings \nthat  cannot  come  under  the  voluntary  control  of  the  patient.   Id.  §  11-9-102(16).  The  element \n“arising out of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the Claimant’s \ninjury and his or her employment.  City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 \n(1987).  An injury arises out of a Claimant’s employment “when a causal connection between \nwork conditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.” Id. \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n11 \n \nIf  the  Claimant  does  not  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the \nrequirements for establishing compensability, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard means the evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; \nSmith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n      Here,  the  Claimant  fell  seventeen  (17)  feet  from  scaffolding  while  working  for  the \nrespondent-employer.  Immediately following his fall, he was transported by ambulance to UAMS.  \nHe underwent multiple diagnostics at the Emergency Department at UAMS.  A CT of the cervical \nspine  demonstrated  in relevant  part,  “Acquired  canal  stenosis  at  C3-4.  Severe  right  neural \nforaminal narrowing at  C4-5 and moderate  foraminal narrowing at C5-6 levels”.  The Claimant \ndenied any prior problems or injuries to his neck.  His testimony is corroborated by the lack of any \ndocumentary  medical  evidence  to  the  contrary  and  Mr.  Reyes  denied  that  the  claimant  had  any \nprior  problems  with  his  neck.    I  find  that  the  abnormalities  demonstrated  on  the  CT  constitute  \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings sufficient to establish a work-related injury to \nthe Claimant’s neck.  Moreover, I find that the Claimant established  by a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence all of the requirements for establishing a compensable neck injury. \nThe Claimant has also alleged an injury to his back.  He has failed to establish an injury to his \nback by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  These finding were identified by Dr. \nRoberts in the form of lumbar paraspinal muscle tenderness and limit flexion.  These findings are \ninsufficient to establish a compensable injury.                      \nD. Temporary Total Disability \nAn  injured  employee  for  an  unscheduled  injury  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability \ncompensation during the time that he is within his healing period and totally incapacitated to earn \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n12 \n \nwages.  Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 \nS.W.2d 392 (1981).  The healing period is that period for healing of the injury which continues \nuntil the employee is as far restored as the permanent character of the injury will permit.  Nix v. \nWilson  World  Hotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).    If  the  underlying  condition \ncausing the disability has become stable and nothing further in the way of treatment will improve \nthat  condition,  the  healing  period  has  ended. Id.    Temporary  total  disability  cannot  be  awarded \nafter the Claimant’s healing period has ended.  Trader v. Single Source Transportation, Workers’ \nCompensation Commission E507484 (February 12, 1999). \n Here, the Claimant suffered a compensable injury to his neck when he fell from scaffolding \nto the ground, which was cemented.   The Claimant was transported to a local hospital, namely \nUAMS, following his fall.  He was treated in the  Emergency Department  and discharged home \nwith instructions to receive follow-up care.  The Claimant testified he was instructed not to return \nto work.  No testimony to the contrary has been presented.    \nAfter having observed the Claimant’s demeanor during the hearing and when comparing \nhis  testimony  with  the  medical  evidence  and  other  documentary  evidence,  I  found  him  to  be  a \ncredible witness, particularly regarding his inability to work since his compensable fall of March \n29,  2020.    The  Claimant  also  testified  that  Dr.  Roberts  took  him  off  work.  His  testimony  is \ncorroborated by Dr. Roberts’ clinic note dated September 8, 2022.  Since this time, the Claimant \nhas not been released by a doctor to return to work.  Moreover, Dr. Robert recommended that the \nClaimant see an orthopedic specialist.   \n     Under these circumstances, I find that the Claimant proved he remained  within a healing \nperiod and was totally incapacitated to earn wages beginning March 29, 2022 and continuing until \nhe is directed to work to by  a doctor or treating medical professional.   As such, I further find that  \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n13 \n \nbased  on  all  of  the  foregoing  evidence,  the  Claimant  proved  his  entitled  to  temporary  total \ndisability from March 29, 2022, until a date yet to be determined.    \nE. Medical Benefits \nThe employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as \nmay be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.  Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012).   The Claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance \nof  the  evidence  that  medical  treatment  is  reasonably  necessary  in  connection  with  the  injury \nreceived by the employee.  Stone v. Dollar General Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 \n(2002).    Our  courts  have  quantified  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  to  mean  the  evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. \nApp. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003).   \nIn  the  present  claim,  the  treatment  of  record  was  done  for  the  purpose  of  treating, \nevaluating, and diagnosing the Claimant’s injuries following his compensable work-related fall \nof  March  2022.    The  Claimant  was  evaluated  by  Dr.  Roberts  on  September  8,  2022,  due  to \nongoing problems and pain related to his neck injury. He also recommended that the Claimant \nsee an orthopedic specialist.   \nTherefore, I find that the Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that all of \nthe treatment of record was reasonable and necessary to treat the neck injury that he sustained \nduring his work-related fall.  He also proved his entitled to additional medical treatment based \non the recommendation of Dr. Roberts that he see an orthopedic specialist. \n \n \n\nSanchez- H205569 \n \n14 \n \n    \nF. Controverted Attorney’s Fee   \nIt is undisputed that the Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety as stipulated \nto by the parties.  Therefore, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the Claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on all indemnity benefits awarded herein. \nAWARD \nThe Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set \nforth herein this Opinion.  \nAll accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).   See \nCouch v. First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W. 2d 57 (1995).  \nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the Claimant's attorney is entitled to \na 25% attorney's fee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein.  This fee is to be paid one-half by \nthe carrier and one-half by the Claimant.  \nAll  issues  not  addressed  herein  are  expressly  reserved  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act. \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n        ______________________________ \n        CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H205569 JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CREATIVE WALL SYSTEMS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY/ SUMMIT COUNSULTING, LLC, CARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINSTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 14, 2023 Hearing held before AD...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:09:25.884Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205569-2023-03-14","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SANCHEZ_JUAN_H205569_20230314.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}