{"id":"alj-H205851-2024-08-28","awcc_number":"H205851","decision_date":"2024-08-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Gerard Brucker","employer_name":"Dredgit Corporation","title":"BRUCKER VS. DREDGIT CORPORATION AWCC# H205851 August 28, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRUCKER_GERARD_H205851_20240828.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BRUCKER_GERARD_H205851_20240828.pdf","text_length":11285,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H205851 \n \nGERALD A. BRUCKER, EMPLOYEE     CLAIMANT \n \nVS. \n \nDREDGIT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER    RESPONDENT \n \n \nCOMMERCE AND INDUSTRY/AIG,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER, TPA      RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 28 , 2024 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 16th day of July, \n2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se. \n \nRespondents are represented by Jarrod Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was conducted on the 16\nth\n day of July, 2024.  At the time of the \nhearing, the parties agreed that the issues were as follows: (1) Was the claimant an \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n2 \n \nemployee of the respondent at the time of the accident; (2) If the claimant is determined \nto be an employee of the respondent, the compensability of the injury to the claimant’s \nfinger and hand;  (3) If the claimant is found to have suffered a compensable injury, the \nclaimant’s entitlement to reasonable and necessary medical benefits. \n After the hearing, the Commission received an email from the attorney \nrepresenting the respondent’s which provided that the respondents had no objection to \nthe preliminary analysis being a determination of whether or not the Claimant \nestablished the existence of a compensable injury by a preponderance of the credible \nevidence and further stating that if the claimant failed to establish the injury, the \nremaining issues were moot.  The claimant also responded by email stating that \neveryone knows that the injury happened at work.  Copies of both emails are blue \nbacked and attached to the opinion. \nThe respondents contend that there are no objective findings to support a work-\nrelated injury and further that the claimant was not an employee of Dredgit Corporation \nat the time of the injury and was an independent contractor.  Additionally, the \nrespondents contend that the claimant was not performing employment related services \nat the time of the injury in the event the claimant is found to be an employee of the \nrespondent.  The claimant contends that he was injured on October 6, 2021, when his \nring was caught between a battery post while attempting to jump start a booster pump.  \nA Prehearing Order dated May 14, 2024, provided that the parties stipulated that \nthe Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim.         \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n3 \n \n The Prehearing Order and the claimant’s and respondent’s contentions are all \nset out in their respective responses to the Pre-hearing Questionnaire and made a part \nof the record without objection.  The sole witness was the claimant, Gerad A. Brucker.   \nFrom a review of the record as a whole, to include matters properly before the \nCommission and having had an opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of \nthe witness, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n2. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show \nthat he sustained a compensable injury to his left ring finger on October 6, \n2021. \n3. That consequently, all other issues are moot. \n4. If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay for the cost of the \ntranscript forthwith. \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The Pre-hearing Order along with the Pre-hearing questionnaires of the parties \nand respondents exhibit were made part of the record without objection.  \n The claimant testified that this all started from an accident at work where he was \nworking on a dredging project down by the hydroelectric plant and was hired as a 1099 \nemployee. “Honestly, we wouldn’t even be here if they had just paid for the finger like \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n4 \n \nhe’s saying Renae said.”  “They contacted me.  I had worked for them down in Texas \nand did a job down there where they hired me as a 1099 employee.”  He also talked \nabout working for them later and not getting paid and ending up in jail due to all of this.  \nThey should pay for fixing my ring finger on the left hand.  He stated that he was injured \non October 6, 2021, and went to a Med First doctor the first morning.  “The next night I \nfelt like somebody was standing on my chest, and my finger was just pounding and - - \nand I was scared.  I ended up going to the emergency room” where they cleaned my \nfinger again.  He said they checked his heart and he figured out he was in the wrong \nhospital and he should have been across the street at the VA. (Tr. 10 – 12)  He had a \ntiny bill at UAMS and then went on to testify about the IRS and that he was a supervisor \non a job telling people what to do, and was hiring people. (Tr. 15)  He also discussed his \ncompany, Vetrun, LLC, a trucking company, which he no longer operates. (Tr. 16) \n Under cross examination, the claimant admitted that the contract that was \nentered into was between Dredgit and his trucking company, Vetrun.  He also admitted \nthat there were no subcontractors, and he was paid for his hours on site.  He was given \nauthority to charge supplies and tools to Dredgit. (Tr. 18, 19)  He admitted that he would \nshow up to the work site and basically manage the project.  The claimant agreed that \nthe contract entered into was between Dredgit and Vetrun, and that he signed the \ncontract as the President of Vetrun. (Tr. 20, 21)  He also admitted that he had received \nthree 1099’s but had never received a W-2.  The claimant also admitted that he had \nsigned the contract under his authority as the president of Vetrun, and that per the \ncontract, he was signing on as a consultant and an independent contractor, and that \nVetrun received payment per the contract. (Tr. 22 - 24) \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n5 \n \n He further stated that he had accidently gone to UAMS instead of the VA for \ntreatment of his finger, and if he had gone to the VA as he had intended, he would not \nhave pursued this claim and that Vetrun had received tax-free payments. (Tr. 25, 26) \nClaimant stated there was no agreement by an employee or Vetrun to waive his right to \ncompensation. \n The claimant went on to testify that Dredgit had hired a number of people as \n1099 employees in Texas and that the company had habitually done this. (Tr. 30)  He \nalso stated that the same 20 things that apply to the IRS also apply to the state of \nArkansas. (Tr. 38) \n The claimant did not submit any medical documents.  The respondent submitted \nan independent contractor agreement between Dredgit Corporation and Consultant \nVetrun LLC, signed by Gerard Brucker, Owner.  (Rep. 1, P. 12)  Numerous Vetrun LLC \ninvoices were also made part of the record.  Some of the invoices stated that they were \nfor Garry Brucker for Sub-Contractor Services.  The AR – C Form filed by the claimant \nstated that the employer of Garrad Brucker was Dredgit Corp., and the accident \noccurred on October 8, 2021.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 30)  The records also provided that the \nclaimant had talked to the Legal Advisor Division on multiple occasions. Resp. Ex. 1, P. \n31 – 37) \n \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn the present matter, the claimant testified that he had injured his ring finger on \nhis left hand while in the process of jump starting some equipment.  He further testified \nthat he initially went and got the injury cleaned and then later developed pain and went \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n6 \n \nto UAMS, although he intended to go to the VA.  He was not from Little Rock and \nmistakenly went to the wrong hospital.  It was noted that the two hospitals are very \nclose to one another.  No medical records were submitted for the record by the \nclaimant. \nIn regard to the issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of proving \nby a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to compensation benefits for the \ninjury to his left ring finger.  In determining whether the claimant has sustained his \nburden of proof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the \nbenefit of the doubt to either party.  Ark. Code Ann 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. \nCavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 (1989).  Further, the Commission has \nthe duty to translate evidence on all issues before it into findings of fact.  Weldon v. \nPierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nUnder Arkansas Workers’ Compensation law, a compensable injury must be \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings and medical opinions \naddressing compensability and must be stated within a degree of medical certainty. \nSmith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002).  Speculation and \nconjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence.  Liaromatis v. Baxter County \nRegional Hospital, 95 Ark. App. 296, 236 S.W.3d 524 (2006).  More specifically, to \nprove a compensable injury, the claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \nevidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) that the injury \ncaused internal or external harm to the body which required medical services or \nresulted in disability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as \ndefined in A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16) establishing the injury and (4) that the injury was \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n7 \n \ncaused by a specific incident and identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  If the \nclaimant fails to establish any of the requirements for establishing the compensability of \nthe claim, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 \nArk. App. 126, 938 s.W.2d 876 (1997). \nThe injury for which the claimant seeks benefits must be established by medical \nevidence supported by objective findings which are those findings that cannot come \nunder the voluntary control of the patient. A.C.A. 11-9-102 (16).  It is also important to \nnote that the claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Lambert v. \nGerber Products Co.  14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985).  \nHere the only evidence and testimony in regard to the claimant’s injuries comes \nfrom the claimant.  Absolutely no medical evidence was introduced into the record.  The \nclaimant was unable to obtain representation, probably due to multiple reasons.  He \ntestified that he inadvertently had gone to the wrong hospital and if he had gone to the \nVA, he probably would not have filed the claim.  It is clear the claimant strongly feels he \nwas treated unfairly, but there is no alternative but to apply Arkansas law, in regard to \nhis workers’ compensation claim.  Consequently, without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party, there is no alternative but to find the claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable work - related injury \nunder the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.  Consequently, all other issues are \nmoot. If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay the cost of the transcript \nforthwith. \n \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n8 \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED.   \n  \n       ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205851 GERALD A. BRUCKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT VS. DREDGIT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY/AIG, INSURANCE CARRIER, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 28 , 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 16th day ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:50:34.190Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205851-2024-08-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRUCKER_GERARD_H205851_20240828.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}