{"id":"alj-H205774-2024-11-18","awcc_number":"H205774","decision_date":"2024-11-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Tommy Jones","employer_name":"Superior Chevrolet Siloam Springs","title":"JONES VS. SUPERIOR CHEVROLET SILOAM SPRINGS AWCC# H205774 November 18, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","shoulder","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JONES_TOMMY_H205774_20241118.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JONES_TOMMY_H205774_20241118.pdf","text_length":26498,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H205774 \n \nTOMMY JONES, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nSUPERIOR CHEVROLET SILOAM SPRINGS, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2024 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in   Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JARROD S. PARRISH, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On August  20,  2024,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at  Springdale, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on June 24, 2024, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas  filed  on June  25,  2024.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked  Commission's \nExhibit No. 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 this claim. \n 2. The relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties on August \n8, 2022. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n 4.  The  claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  him  to  compensation  at  the \nweekly rates of $790.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $593.00 for permanent partial \ndisability benefits. \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-2- \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his spleen, liver, collar bone, ribs \nand left hand on or about August 8, 2022. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for his spleen, liver, collar bone, ribs \nand left-hand injuries. \n 3.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  August  9, \n2022, to January 16, 2023. \n 4. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee. \n 5.  Respondents  raise  Intoxication Defense;  alternatively,  the  injuries  were  idiopathic  in \nnature. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“Claimant   contends   that   he   sustained   compensable   multiple \ninjuries  as  a  result  of  an  automobile  accident,  08/08/22.  Claimant \ncontends  entitlement  to  payment  of  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits  from  the  date  of  injury  through  December  2022  (precise \ndate to be provided). Claimant has incurred medical expenses of at \nleast  $150,000.00.  This  claim  has  been  entirely  controverted  for \npurposes of attorneys’ fees.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“Respondents contend that Claimant did not suffer a compensable \ninjury  on  8/8/22.  Respondents  contend  the  claimant  had  a  post-\naccident  drug  screen  that  was  positive  for  THC,  benzodiazepine \nand alcohol. According to the police report, Claimant was drinking \nbeer  at  the  time  of  the  accident.  The  claimant  also  told  the \nambulance attendant that he had stopped on his way home to get a \nfew beers and was drinking one. Alternatively, Respondents assert \nthe   cause   of   the   injury   was   idiopathic   in   nature   and,   thus, \nRespondents   are   not   liable   for   it   under   the   Act.   Lastly, \nRespondents  contend  that  Claimant  resigned  from  his  job  on \n10/11/22.  In  the  event  compensability  is  found  and  Claimant  is \nfound  entitled  to  benefits  for  his  off  work  status,  Respondents \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-3- \nassert  that  entitlement  ended  when  he  resigned  his  position  with \nthe employer.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 62-year-old  male who  alleges  to  have  sustained \ncompensable  injuries  to  his  spleen,  liver,  collar  bone,  ribs,  and  left  hand  in  a  motor  vehicle \naccident on or about August 8, 2022.  \n On that day the claimant was travelling by himself from the respondent’s automobile \ndealership  in  Northwest  Arkansas  to  Tulsa,  Oklahoma,  to  meet  with  a  customer  to  have  a \ndocument signed. Following is a portion of the claimant’s direct examination testimony about the \nevents that followed: \nQ And then what happened after that? \n \nA Well, I was probably less than a mile from the convenience \nstore  so  I  went  in  the  convenience  store  because  I  had  to  take  a \nleak, washed my hands. Okay?  I did pick up two beer, paid for it, \nand put them in a sack by the paperwork, started the car and got to \nthe  end  of  the  parking  lot,  and  then  I  shared  my  location  with  my \nwife so she would know about what time I would be home. \n \nQ How did you do that? \n \nA With my cell phone. \n*** \nQ I get it now. So you left from there and what’s the next \nthing that you remember? \n \nA The next thing I remember is bam, bam. \n \nQ The wreck? \n \nA Two loud bam bams. \n \nQ And you don’t remember why the wreck took place or what \nwas going on, just the – just the impact? \n \nA I don’t remember seeing either vehicle. I don’t remember \nseeing anybody at the scene. A lot of things I don’t remember. \nSome things I do, but there’s a lot that I don’t. \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-4- \n \nQ How far were you from the convenience store? \n \nA About eight miles. \n \nQ How  far  were  you  from – how  far  was  the  convenience \nstore from where you had met the couple to get the signatures? \n \nA About half mile. \n \nQ About a half mile. So very close? \n \nA Uh-huh. \n \nQ And then convenience store eight miles –  \n \nA I think the convenience store was on the way to the freeway \nor to the lanes I needed to get onto to go back; 412 East. \n \nQ 412 East back to Rogers? \n \nA Actually,  Siloam  Springs  and  then  on  to  Rogers.  The \ndealership was in Siloam Springs. \n \nQ So now this accident, again, it takes place only eight miles \nfrom the convenience store? \n \nA Uh-huh. \n \nQ Is that right? \n \nA Correct. \n \nQ This young lady is trying to get down what you say. \n \nA Yes.  Yes,  eight  miles.  Could  be  eight  and  a  half,  could  be \nten point nine but eight miles. \n \nQ So  now  you  were  present  in  the  courtroom  a  moment  ago \nwhen  your  wife  testified  that  she  had  called  and  happened  to  get \nyou  right  at  the  time  that  this  accident  or  right  after  this  accident \nhad taken place? \n \nA Yes. \n \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-5- \nQ And  the  ambulance  records  that  we  have  indicate  that  you \nwere found sitting up in the driver’s seat of an SUV. \n  \n Were you driving an SUV? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And that you were “awake, alert, and oriented.” \n \nA Well – \n \nQ You were awake? You were not unconscious? \n \nA Well, I heard the phone ring, and I answered it. \n \nQ But  it  also  says  here  that  you  were  unable  to – were  not \nphysically  or  mentally  capable  of  signing  the  report.  Did  you – \nwere you aware of that? \n \nA No, I wasn’t aware of that. \n \nQ Were  you – do  you  remember  the  conversation  with  your \nwife? \n \nA I  remember  the  conversation  with  my  wife.  I  remember \nthere  was  a  lady  back  here that  said,  “No,  ma’am,  he’s  hurt. \nThere’s  an  ambulance  on  the  way.”  Then  I  don’t  remember \nanything else. I don’t remember them getting me out of the car. I \ndidn’t  remember  the  slide at the   accident.   The   next   think   I \nremember is, you know, they put you on a stretcher and they click \nit,   you   know,   they   click/click   because   they   put   you   in   an \nambulance? \n \nQ Yes, sir. \n \nA They click/click, I remember that. And then I remember – I \nguess  my  eyes  opened  up.  The  doors  were  open  and  there  was  a \nlady  on  the  left,  and  they  slid  me  in  there.  She  was  probably  a \nparamedic, and I remember her asking me a few questions. I don’t \nremember them getting me out of the ambulance. And then I wake \nup three days later. \n \nQ You  had  had  some  pretty  significant  surgery  after  that \nambulance ride; you’re aware of that? \n \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-6- \nA Yeah. \n \n An  Oklahoma  Highway  Patrol  officer  arrived  on  the  scene  of  the  claimant’s  motor \nvehicle accident and subsequently produced an “Official Oklahoma Traffic Collision Report,” \nwhich is found at Respondents’ Exhibit 2. That report, through a diagram, explains the motor \nvehicle  accident  which  in  total  included  three  motor  vehicles.  A  portion  of  that  report  entitled \n“Remarks” follows: \nUNIT 1 WAS TRAVELLING EASTBOUND ON US 412 IN THE \nOUTSIDE  LANE.  UNIT  2  WAS  TRAVELLING  EASTBOUND \nON  US  412  IN  THE  OUTSIDE  LANE  IN  FRONT  OF  UNIT  1. \nUNIT 3 WAS TRAVELLING EASTBOUND ON US 412 IN THE \nINSIDE LANE. UNIT 1 COLLIDED WITH THE REAR END OF \nUNIT 2. AOI #1  IS .9  MILES WEST OF THE  WEST EDGE OF \nCOUNTY  ROAD  (4160  RD)  AND  6  FEET  NORTH  OF  THE \nSOUTH EDGE OF US 412 EASTBOUND. UNIT 2 DEPARTED \nTHE  ROADWAY  TO  THE  RIGHT  IN  A  CLOCKWISE  SKID \nAND  STRUCK  THE  GUARDRAIL.  AOR  FOR  UNIT  2  IS  157 \nFEET EAST OF AOI #1 AND 6 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH \nEDGE OF  US 412, FACING SOUTHWEST. UNIT 1 ENTERED \nTHE    INSIDE    LANE    FACING    NORTHEAST.    UNIT    3 \nCOLLIDED WITH THE DRIVER’S SIDE OF UNIT 1. AOI #2 IS \n177 EAST OF AOI #1 AND 20 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH \nEDGE  OF  US  412.  UNIT  1  WAS  SENT  INTO  A  CLOCKWISE \nSPIN  AND  DEPARTED  THE  ROADWAY  LEFT  LEAVING \nAPPROXIMATELY   140   FEET   OF   YAW   MARKS   IN   THE \nGRASS  MEDIAN  AFTER  THE  COLLISION  WITH  UNIT  3. \nUNIT  1  CONTINUED  EASTBOUND  IN  A  CLOCKWISE  SPIN \nAND   ENTERED   THE   ROADWAY   TRAVELLING   SOUTH \nACROSS     THE     ROADWAY.     UNIT     1     STRUCK     THE \nGUARDRAIL  ON  THE  SOUTH  SIDE  OF  US  412  AND  CAME \nTO  REST.  AOR  FOR  UNIT  1  IS  350  FEET  EAST  OF  AOI  #1 \nAND 6 FEET SOUTH  OF THE SOUTH EDGE OF US 412 E/B. \nAOR  FOR  UNIT  3  IS  198  FEET  EAST  OF  THE  AOI  AND  20 \nFEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH EDGE OF US 412 E/B. \n \n The claimant was attended to and treated by EMS personnel at the motor vehicle accident \nscene. Following is a portion of the patient care report from that interaction: \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-7- \nD - DISPATCHED  TOS  VEHICLE  MVC  ON  HWY  412  AND \nVERDIGRIS  RIVER  BRIDGE,  EB,  UNKNOWN  INJURIES,  FD \nEN ROUTE. \n \nC – SHOULDER/COLLAR BONE PAIN, SWELLING L HAND, \nABRASION    TO    LEFT    FLANK,    TRAUMATIC    INJURY \nSECONDAR TO MVC. \n \nH – PT IS A 50 YOM WHO IS THE RESTRAINED DRIVER OF \nA  CHEVY  EQUINOX  SUV  THAT  WAS  TRAVELING  EAST \nON 12 AND HIT A CAR WHILE CHANGING LANES ON THE \nBRIDGE  AND  SPUN  AND  WAS  T-BONED  IN  THE  DRIVER \nDOOR/DRIVER’S  SIDE  BY  A  PICKUP.  PT  C/O  L. \nSHOULDER/COLLAR  BONE  PAIN  AND  HAS  SWELLING \nCLOSED   DEFORMITY   TO   L.   HAND.   HE   REPORTS   HE \nDOESN’T  THINK  HE  IS  HURT  ANYWHERE  ELSE.  HE \nDENIES  LOC.  HE  REPORTS  HE  REMEMBERS  CHANGING \nLANES AND DID NOT SEE THE OTHER CAR. THERE IS 12” \nINTRUSION  TO  THE  DRIVER  DOOR,  FD  IS  WORKING  ON \nEXTRICATION   WITH   EXTRICATION   TOOLS.   THERE   IS \nSIGNIFICANT   INTRUSION   DAMAGE   TO   BOTH   DRIVER \nSIDE    DOORS    AND    FRONT    DRIVER    FENDER.    SOME \nDAMAGE  TO  REAR  AND  HOOD.  THE  WINDSHIELD  IS \nBROKEN. HE HAD STOPPED AND GOT A FEW BEERS AND \nWAS  DRINKING  ONE  WHEN  THE  ACCIDENT  OCCURRED. \nPMH:  HTN,  A-FIB,  AND  CARDIOVERSION  4  TIMES  TWO \nYEARS  AGO.  NOT  ON  MEDS  FOR  A-FIB,  TAKES  BP  MED \nNKDA. \n \n The  claimant  was  taken  by  ambulance  to  St.  Francis  Health  Emergency  Department  in \nTulsa, Oklahoma, to triage. A triage note, authored by Registered Nurse Tabitha Spataro with a \ngiven date of service of August 8, 2022, 10:03 pm, states: \nPatient  was  in  MVA  going  60mph  and  tried  to  change  lanes,  hit \nanother car, and then got t-boned. Patient had an open alcohol can \nin  room.  Approx  1ft  intrusion  into  front  door.  Air  bags  deployed. \nBroken glass present. Steering wheel intact. \n \nPatient has been in a-fib. Pulse 150-190. Bp stable 133/79 BP, 95% \nRA, Glucose 122. \n \nFracture  to  left  hand,  left  collar  bone.  Unable  to  get  ring  off  left \nhand. Good cap refill but swelling noted. \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-8- \n \nThe  claimant  was  admitted  to  the  hospital  at  that  time  and  was  not  discharged  until  August  19, \n2022.  It  is  without  question  that  the  claimant  sustained  serious  injuries  during  his  August  8, \n2022,  motor  vehicle  accident  including  injuries  to  his  spleen,  liver,  collar  bone,  ribs,  and  left \nhand. Claimant’s Exhibit 1 well documents those injuries and the treatment he received while \nhospitalized. \n The respondent in this matter has raised the Intoxication Defense. I will first address that \ndefense. Ark.  Code  Ann.  11-9-102(4)(B)(iv)(a)-(d)  states  that  compensable  injuries  do  not \ninclude  injuries  where  the  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of  alcohol,  illegal \ndrugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. The presence of alcohol, \nillegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of a physician’s orders shall create a \nrebuttable  presumption  that  the  injury  or  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of \nalcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. An \nemployee is not entitled to compensation unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat the alcohol did not substantially occasion the injury or accident. \nThe Supreme Court analyzed the intoxication statute with regard to alcohol usage, in \nERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63, 977 S.W.2d 212 (1998), and \ndetermined the following: \n(1) Any amount   of   an   intoxicating   or   illegal   substance   invokes   the  \npresumption  that  the  injury  or  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by \nthe use of the intoxicant or illegal substance. \n \n(2) Whether  a  rebuttable  presumption  is  overcome  by  the  evidence  is  a \nquestion of fact for the Commission to determine. \n \n(3) The  phrase,  \"substantially  occasioned  by\"  requires  that  there  be  a  direct \ncausal  link  between  the  use  of  an  intoxicant  or  illegal  substance  and  the \ninjury. \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-9- \n \n During  the  claimant’s  hospitalization,  specifically on  August  9,  2022, at  1:43  pm, \nRegistered Nurse Daniel Russell collected a urine sample  from the claimant. That urine sample \nwas  then  used  in  a  drug  screen  profile  for  drugs  of  abuse.  The  medical  records  regarding  the \nurine collection, testing, and results can be found at Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pages 24 and 25. \nFollowing is a portion of that report: \nAmphetamines: Results <500ng/mL are considered negative. \nBarbituates: Results <200ng/mL are considered negative. \nBenzodiazepines: Results <200ng/mL are considered negative. \nBuprenorphine: Results <5ng/mL are considered negative. \nCannabinoids: Results <50ng/mL are considered negative. \nCocaine: Results <300ng/mL are considered negative. \nMethadone: Results <300ng/mL are considered negative. \nOpiates: Results <300ng/mL are considered negative. \n \nAmphetamines Qual Negative \nBarbituates Qual Negative \nBenzodiazepine Qual Positive \nBuprenorphine Qual Negative \nCannabinoid Qual Positive \nCocaine Qual  Negative \nMethadone Qual Negative \nOpiates Qual  Negative \n The  test  results  from  St.  Francis  Health  System  indicate  the  claimant  was  positive  for \nbenzodiazepine  at  a  level  above  200ng/mL  and  cannabinoid  at  a  level  above  50ng/mL.  After  a \nreview  of  the  medical  records  submitted  into  evidence  I  find  no  indication  of  testing  for  the \npresence of alcohol in the claimant’s system. EMS records and hospital records note at least the \npresence  of  an  open  can  of  beer  during  the  motor  vehicle  accident.  The  claimant  testified  on \ndirect examination that after he completed his time with the respondent’s customer, he went to a \nnearby convenience store and while there “pick up two beer, paid for it, put them in a sack by the \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-10- \npaperwork....” On  cross examination the claimant was asked  about the presence of beer as \nfollows: \nQ Now,  the  beer  as  far  as  what  you  have  admitted,  you  said \nyou bought two tall boy 24 to 25 ounce beers; correct? \n \nA I’m sure that’s what they were. \n \nQ Do those fit in the cup holder of the vehicle? \n \nA I put them in a bag. \n \nQ Do they fit in the cup holder of the vehicle? \n \nA I don’t know. \n \nQ You don’t know. And you told me, even though you paid \nthe  open  container  ticket,  you  don’t  know  how  the  beer  got \nopened? \n \nA That’s correct. \n \nQ Is that your testimony again today? \n \nA Yeah, sure is. \n \nQ And  you  came  to  that  idea  that  the  can  busted  during  the \nwreck? \n \nA Could have. I don’t know. I didn’t open it. \n \nQ Is that – \n \nA And all my clothes, there’s no alcohol on my clothes. \n \nQ Does that sound possible to you that they would  write you \nan open container ticket for a busted can? \n \nA You know, I don’t know. I never had that ticket before. \n \nQ The ambulance report stated that you had stopped and got a \nfew beers, was drinking one when the accident occurred. \n \n You have seen that report; haven’t you? \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-11- \n \nA I haven’t read the report. \n \nQ Personnel at ER said you had an open alcohol can, they say \nin the room but I’m pretty sure the discussion was about it being in \nthe car. \n \n You didn’t have a beer in the room; did you? \n \nA No, and I’m sure – I didn’t have a room. \n \n Given the test results of the claimant’s urine screen analysis at St. Francis Health System \nof positive findings of both benzodiazepine and cannabinoid, along with the presence of beer in \nthe motor vehicle accident and the EMS report indicating the claimant was taking a drink of beer \nat  the  time  of  the  accident,  I  find  that  the  respondent  has  met  its  burden  to  invoke  the  rebuttal \npresumption that the claimant’s motor vehicle accident was substantially occasioned by the use \nof alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. \n The claimant, in order to prove the injuries he alleges compensable, must now overcome \nthe    rebuttable    presumption.    The    claimant    testified    on    cross    examination    regarding \nbenzodiazepine as follows: \nQ What   about   taking   muscle   relaxers,   Benzodiazepine, \nXanax, anything like that? \n \nA Never had one. \n \nQ So if any of that is going on, you wouldn’t be on the clock \nor working; right? \n \nA Yeah, I don’t know anything about them others that you \nmentioned. Never had one. \n \nQ If  any  of  that  was  going  on,  you  wouldn’t  be  on  duty \nworking; would you? \n \nA Like I said, I don’t know anything about them benzo... \n \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-12- \n The claimant was also asked on cross examination about his use of medical marijuana as \nfollows: \nQ Okay.  Now,  you  told  me  you  got  medical  marijuana  for \nanxiety  and  stress  so  you  could  relax  in  the  evening;  is  that \ncorrect? \n \nA I may have told you that. \n \nQ Well, did you or didn’t you? You did, didn’t you? I have \nyour deposition transcript if we want to go page by page. \n \nA There’s a lot of things I don’t remember. I don’t want to sit \nhere and say yeah if I don’t remember it. \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA I’ll tell you the truth right now. \n \nQ You   told   me   in   your   deposition   you   were   prescribed \nmedical marijuana for anxiety and stress so you could relax in the \nevening. You don’t dispute that; do you? \n \nA No. \n*** \nQ (Mr.   Parrish   continuing.)   Eddie,   even   if   you   have   a \nmarijuana card, you’re not supposed to ingest marijuana and drive; \nare you? \n \nA No, I don’t do that. \n \nQ And that’s especially true if you’re combining marijuana \nand alcohol; correct? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And that would be triple true if you’re combing marijuana, \nand  alcohol,  and  any  type  of  Benzodiazepine  or  muscle  relaxer; \nright? \n \nA I don’t take ‘em. \n \nQ Do you have the card with you? \n \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-13- \nA No. I don’t carry the card. \n \nQ  Where’s it at? \n \nA I assume it’s in our safe at home. I hadn’t had the card in a \nlong time. \n \nQ Do  you  remember  telling  me  in  your  deposition  that  you \ncut the card up after the wreck? \n \nA I may have. \n \nQ Where did the picture that we’ve introduced today, where \ndid that come from? \n \nA I had it already. \n \nQ You already had a picture of your card? \n \nA In  case  I  had  to  renew  it  or  something  like  that  or  wanted \nto. \n \nQ Where was this picture? \n \nA In my pictures. \n \nQ On your phone? \n \nA Uh-huh. \n \nQ Can you say “yes” for the record? \n \nA Oh. \n \nQ Say “yes” instead of “uh huh” –  \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ -- so the record’s clear. \n \nA That’s correct. \n \nQ Did you explain to me that you haven’t used the card since \nthe wreck because the wreck was a “eye opener” for you? You \ndon’t deny saying that; do you? \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-14- \n \nA I don’t deny saying that. \n \n The  claimant  does  deny  the  use  of  benzodiazepine  at  any  time  and  denies  the  use  of \nmarijuana/cannabinoid and alcohol while working. The claimant was very clear that he has very \nlittle knowledge of the events surrounding the motor vehicle accident. Following is a portion of \nthe claimant’s cross examination testimony: \nQ At your deposition and then again today, you explained that \nyou don’t remember anything about what happened between when \nyou  dropped  you  location  at  the  gas  station  to  your  wife  and  the \nimpact of the wreck? \n \nA That’s correct. \n \nQ Right? \n \nA That’s correct. \n \nQ You do agree you bought the beer, but you don’t remember \ngetting on the road, driving, any of it? \n \nA No. Next thing is bam bam. \n \nQ You can’t tell me what you did or did not do between the \ngas station and the wreck – \n \nA No. \n \nQ -- in any form or fashion; can you? \n \nA No. \n \nQ You said  it’s  a  mystery.  I  think  you  said  you’d  pay  a \nmillion dollars to find out what happened in that window of time? \n \nA I’ve told that to several buddies of mine. \n \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-15- \n The claimant did admit to receiving a citation from the State of Oklahoma for inattentive \ndriving  and  a  citation  for  open  alcohol  beverage  container.  The  claimant  did  not  receive  a \ncitation for DUI or DWI. \n Here the claimant is unable to rebut the presumption that his motor vehicle accident was \nsubstantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of  benzodiazepine,  cannabinoid,  and  alcohol.  The  only \nevidence presented is his own uncollaborated testimony that essentially says, I did not do or use \nthose substances at all or in the time and space surrounding the motor vehicle accident. I note the \ntime  directly  before  the  accident  the  claimant  says  he  has  no  memory  of  at  all.  In Ester  v. \nNational  Home  Ctrs.,  Inc., 61  Ark  App.  91,  967  S.W.2d  565  (1998),  the  Arkansas  Court  of \nAppeals found that a worker failed to rebut the presumption that his motor vehicle accident was \ncaused  by  the  use  of  illegal  drugs  where  he  tested  positive  for  opiates  and  cocaine  metabolites \nand the only evidence presented to rebut the presumption was his own uncollaborated testimony \nconcerning  the  nature  and  extent  of  his  drug  use  and  his  own  uncollaborated  testimony  his \ninterpretation of the cause of the accident. \n This case is similar to the claimant’s in that the claimant’s only evidence to rebut the \npresumption  is  his  own  uncollaborated  testimony.  I  give  much  more  weight  to  the  urine  screen \ndone   on   the   claimant  in   the   hospital   that   revealed   the   presence   of   benzodiazepine   and \ncannabinoid.  I  also  give  weight  to  the  EMS  and  hospital  records  that  indicate  the  presence  of \nalcohol at the scene of the motor vehicle accident, along with the citation the claimant admits he \nwas given for an open container of alcohol. The claimant has failed to rebut the presumption that \nhis  August  8,  2022,  motor  vehicle  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by  benzodiazepine, \ncannabinoid,  and  alcohol.  As  such,  the  claimant  is  unable  to  prove  that  he  sustained  the \ncompensable injuries he alleges as a result of that August 8, 2022, motor vehicle accident. \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-16- \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of \nlaw are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nJune 24, 2024, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed June 25, 2024, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n 2. The  respondent  has  successfully  raised  the  Intoxication  Defense  and  the  claimant  has \nbeen  unable  to  overcome  the  rebuttable  presumption  that  his  motor  vehicle  accident was \nsubstantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of  alcohol,  illegal  drugs,  or  prescription  drugs  used  in \ncontravention of physician’s orders. \n 3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \ncompensable  injuries  to  his  spleen,  liver,  collar  bone,  ribs,  and  left  hand  on  or  about  August  8, \n2022. \n 4. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto medical treatment in this matter. \n 5. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits in this matter. \n 6. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his attorney is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee in this matter. \n \n \n\nJones – H205774 \n \n-17- \n ORDER \nPursuant  to  the  above  findings  and  conclusions,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  deny  this \nclaim in its entirety. \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H205774 TOMMY JONES, Employee CLAIMANT SUPERIOR CHEVROLET SILOAM SPRINGS, Employer RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:46:30.042Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205774-2024-11-18","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JONES_TOMMY_H205774_20241118.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}