{"id":"alj-H206746-2023-06-09","awcc_number":"H206746","decision_date":"2023-06-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jeremy Russell","employer_name":"Performance Proppants, LLC","title":"RUSSELL VS. PERFORMANCE PROPPANTS, LLC AWCC# H206746 JUNE 9, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RUSSELL_JEREMY_H206746_20230609.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"RUSSELL_JEREMY_H206746_20230609.pdf","text_length":26019,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: H206746 \nJEREMY C. RUSSELL,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT                                                  \n \nPERFORMANCE PROPPANTS, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nBRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY, INS. CO./ \nSUMMIIT CONSULTING, LLC,                                        \nINSURANCE CARRIER/THIRD PARTY  \nADMINISTRATOR (TPA)                                                                                RESPONDENT  \n \n \n             OPINION FILED JUNE 9, 2023        \n        \nHearing held before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE CHANDRA L. BLACK in Texarkana, \nMiller County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Andy L. Caldwell, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  the  Honorable  Michael  E.  Ryburn,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nStatement of the Case \nOn  March  14,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing in  Texarkana, \nArkansas.  Previously, a pre-hearing telephone conference was conducted in this matter on January \n11, 2023.  That same day, a Pre-hearing Order was filed.  A copy of said order has been marked \nas Commission’s Exhibit 1 and made a part of the record. \nStipulations \nDuring  the  prehearing  telephone  conference,  and/or  hearing  the  parties  agreed  to  the \nfollowing stipulations: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \nclaim. \n \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n2 \n \n2. That  the  employee-employer-insurance  carrier  relationship  existed  at  all  relevant \ntimes,  including  on  or  about  June  9,  2022,  when  the  Claimant  sustained  an \nadmittedly compensable injury to his right knee, while working for the respondent-\nemployer. \n3. The Respondents accepted the right knee injury and paid some benefits. \n4.  The  Respondents  have  paid  the  Claimant  temporary  total  disability  (TTD)  at  the \nrate of $719.00 per week. \n5. All   issues   not   litigated   herein   are reserved  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act.    \nIssues \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing included the following: \n1.  The Claimant’s correct average weekly wage (AWW) on the day of his injury.  \n2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to an underpayment of temporary total disability  \n             due to a miscalculation of his average weekly wage. \n    \n3. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \nClaimant: \nThe Claimant contends that he sustained injuries to his left knee in the course and scope \nof his employment while working for the Respondent-employer on August 6, 2020.  The Claimant \nwas  placed  at  maximum  medical  improvement  (MMI)  on  April  22,  2022,  and  released  by  Dr. \nSmith  for  his  left  knee  injury  with  permanent  restrictions  of  limited  standing  and  limited  stairs \npermanently.  On or about May 13, 2022, Respondents wrote to the Claimant and advised that his \nprior job (earning $23/hour and working 60-84 hours per week) was not available.  Respondents \noffered the Claimant another position earning $20/hour working six twelve-hour days on/two days \noff.  The Claimant started that position on May 23, 2022, and suffered an injury to his right knee \non or about June 9, 2022, while bending over to set a toolbox down that he was carrying.  The \nClaimant contends that the Respondents miscalculated his AWW and TTD benefits. \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n3 \n \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-518 provides, in pertinent part, that the average weekly wage shall \nbe computed on the average weekly wage earned by the employee under the contract of hire at the \ntime of the accident and in no case shall be computed on less than a full-time work week.  Overtime \nis  to  be  added  to  the  regular  weekly  wages  and  shall  be  computed  by  dividing  the  overtime \nearnings  by  the  number  of  weeks  worked  by  the  employee  in  the  same  employment  under  the \ncontract of hire at the time of the accident.  According to the Respondents' evidence, the Claimant's \ncontract of hire at the time of his accident was $20.00 an hour for six days per week working 12 \nhours per day.  Forty (40) hours per week at $20.00 an hour equals $800.00.  The contract of hire \ncalled for the Claimant to work 32 hours of overtime per week at the overtime rate of $30.00 an \nhour, which equals $960.00.  The base rate of $800.00 plus the overtime rate of $960.00 equals an \nAWW of $1,760.00.  Therefore,  $1,760.00 x .6667 = $1,173.00.  The Claimant anticipates that \nthe  testimony  will  actually  reflect  that  even  though  the  employer  offered  the  aforementioned \ncontract of hire, the  employer changed the contract of hire to a seven-day work week,  working \ntwelve (12) hours a day at the same rate of pay of $20 per hour times 40 hours per week with \nthe employee to take the following week off.   If the Commission finds in favor of this evidence, \nthe appropriate AWW should be $1,430.00.  This is calculated by multiplying the base rate of pay \nof $20.00 per hour times 40 hours per week.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-518(a)(1) provides that in no \ncase  shall  the  average  weekly  wage  be  calculated  using  less  than  a  full-time  work  week.    Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-518(b) provides that overtime  earnings  are to be added to the regular weekly \nwages and shall be computed by dividing the overtime earnings by the number of weeks worked \nby the employee in the same employment under the contract of hire at the time of the accident.  If \nthe Claimant worked 42 hours of overtime per week but only worked two weeks under the new \ncontract  of  hire,  then  that  would  be  21  hours  of  overtime  per  week.    Thirty  dollars  ($30.00) \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n4 \n \nmultiplied by 21 hours of overtime equals $630.00.  Eight hundred dollars ($800.00) plus $630.00 \nequals  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $1,430.00.  One  thousand  four  hundred  thirty  ($1,430.00) x \n.6667 = $953.00.  The maximum compensation rate for a 2022 injury is $790.00. \nNo matter how it is calculated, the Claimant is entitled to the maximum compensation rate \nfor 2022.  Respondents have underpaid the Claimant.  The Respondents made two payments on \nSeptember  23,  2022,  and  September  30,  2022,  at  the  maximum  compensation  rate  of  $790.00  \nthen, the Respondents notified the Claimant that they had made an overpayment and they started \npaying the Claimant at the rate of $719.00 per week and they deducted their claimed credit in the \nfirst  check  issued  on  or  about  October  18,  2022,  which  was  for  $1,296.00.  The  remaining \npayments  have  been  paid  in  the  amount  of  $719.00  per  week.    The  Claimant  is  entitled  to  the \nmaximum  compensation  rate  for  2022.    The  Claimant  is  entitled  to  the  underpayment  and \nattorney's fees for the past benefits and additional indemnity going forward.  \nAll other issues are reserved. \n  Respondents: \nThe Respondents contend that the Claimant injured his left knee.  The claim was accepted.  \nBenefits were paid at the correct compensation rate by the Respondents.  The file numbers on \nthe Claimant's prehearing information are incorrect as is the correct carrier. \n1\n \n                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on  my  review  of  the  relevant  evidentiary  record,  to  include  the  documentary \nevidence  listed  below,  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  after  having  had  an \nopportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses and observe their demeanor during the hearing, \n \n1\n The Claimant’s attorney has corrected the aforementioned clerical error.   \n \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n5 \n \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this  \n            claim. \n       \n2. I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n3.         The Claimant evidence preponderates that the Claimant’s average weekly \n            wage on June 9, 2022, was $,1016.66.  His weekly compensation rates are  \n$728.00 and $546.00. \n \n4. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled  \n            to an underpayment and attorney’s fees for past benefits and additional  \n            indemnity benefits due him in the future. \n \n5.         All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ \n            Compensation Act.    \n  \n \nSummary of Evidence \n \nMr. Jeremy C. Russell (referred to hereafter as the “Claimant”) testified on his own behalf. \nAlso, Ms. Cason Wilkinson testified on behalf of the Respondents.   \n            The record consists of the March 14, 2023 hearing transcript and the following exhibits, \nwhich  were  offered  into  evidence  without  objection:  Specifically,  Commission’s  Exhibit  1 \nincludes the January 11, 2023 Pre-hearing Order; Claimant’s Exhibit 1, comprises 13 numbered \npages of Claimant’s Non-Medical Exhibit; Respondents’ Hearing Exhibit consists of four  pages, \nwhich was marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 1; and Respondents’ Exhibit 2 consists of one page of \ncalculations for the Claimant’s average weekly wage.  \nThe Claimant’s and the Respondents’ responses to the Pre-hearing  Questionnaires  have \nbeen blue-backed and made a part of the record.  They were inadvertently omitted from the hearing \ntranscript of March 14, 2023.   Also, the parties filed Post-Hearing Briefs which have been blue-\nbacked and made a part of the record.    \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n6 \n \n                                                           Testimony \nJeremy C. Russell   \n The Claimant has worked for the respondent-employer for five years.  He began working \nfor them in March of 2019.  The Claimant verified that he sustained a prior on-the-job injury to \nhis left knee on August 6, 2020.   While on light duty due to this injury, the Claimant confirmed \nthat he got a raise from $20.00 to $23.00.  During the Claimant’s first injury of August 2020, he \nreceived treatment from Dr. Joel Smith.  On April 22, 2022, Dr. Smith pronounced the Claimant \nto be at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and released him to return to work due to his left \ninjury.  \n At that time, Dr. Smith placed the Claimant on permanent restrictions of limited standing \nand limited climbing of stairs.  He confirmed that he continued to work in the same position that \nhe had worked in for a few weeks.  The Claimant agreed that between April 22 and May 23, he \ncontinued  working  the  other  job  that  he  had  been  doing.  At  that  point,  the  Claimant  was  still \nmaking $23.00 an hour.   \nThe Claimant admitted that included in Respondents’ Exhibit 1 is a letter dated May 13, \n2022.  Per this letter, the employer gave the Claimant the choice of three (3) positions within his \nrestrictions.  The three job choices were that of a dry plant operator, a dredge operator, and a load \nout operator.  He verified that he accepted the new position on May 23, 2022, as a dredge operator.     \nThe Claimant agreed that  as a dredge operator he made $20.00 an hour.   Initially, the Claimant \nwas working 12 hours per shift.  He explained that this meant he was working six days on and six \ndays off.  The Claimant admitted that he worked that schedule for a period of time.   \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n7 \n \n However, the Claimant agreed that the terms of his employment changed to seven days on \nand seven offs, which meant he worked seven 12-hour shifts and then he had seven days off.  The \nClaimant sustained a second injury on June 9, 2022.  His most recent injury was to his right knee.   \nAt  the  time  of  his  injury,  the  Claimant  testified  that  he  had  just  come  back  to  work  the \nseven on shift.  He had been on the seven offs.  However, at that point, the Claimant had come \nback, they were changing to the six (6) and two (2) again, but the seven (7) is what he was working \non June 9, the date of his injury.  The Claimant admitted he worked light duty for a period of time \nafter that, but he has been taken off of work on September 22.  He agreed that he has been off work \nsince  that  time  and  the  Respondents  have  been  paying  him  temporary  total  disability  benefits \nbeginning on September 23, 2022. \nThe Claimant agreed that they initially paid him two weeks of temporary total disability \nbenefits at the maximum rate of $790.00.  However, the Claimant’s next check, which was for the \nperiod of October 7, through October 20, the Respondents paid the Claimant only $1,296.00 and \ntold him it was their position that they had been  overpaying him.  Therefore,  they deducted the \noverpayment and took a credit, and his next check was for $1,438.00.  Since that time, they have \nbeen paying the Claimant at this rate, every two weeks, which amounts to $719.00 per week.     \nHe explained: \nQ And then after that, after your right knee injury on June 9, 2022, you continued to \nwork light duty up until September 22\nnd? \nA Yes, that’s correct. \nQ And you been off since? \nA Yes. \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n8 \n \nQ Okay, when you went to work for Performance, did you get paid the first week that \nyou worked there? \nA Yes.   \nThe Claimant was questioned about the Employer’s Wage Records of evidence.  He agreed \nthese records purportedly show his wages from June 4, 2022, through June 6, 2021.  (Rx.  3)  The \nClaimant confirmed that payments from May 29 through June 4; would have actually been for the \nwork  done  for  the  week  of  May  22  through  May  28.    He  agreed  that  in  these  records  there  is \nnothing showing that he was paid for the week of June 5\nth\n.  Therefore, the Claimant maintained \nthat there are two (2) weeks of wages missing from this document with respect to the wages he \nearned before his injury. \nOn  cross-examination,  the  Claimant  confirmed  that  prior  to  his  current  injury,  he  was \nmaking $23.00 an hour.  The Claimant admitted that upon his release, he was on light duty, which \nrestricted him from climbing stairs, ladders, and things of that nature.  Therefore, they offered him \nthree jobs within his restrictions.  The Respondents’ counsel asked the Claimant why his job was \nchanged  to  $20.00  an  hour.    His  reply  was: “I have no idea.  They offered me ...... When the \ndoctor released me, they said they had three positions open for me, and I could take one of those \nthree or go home and all three were upstairs.” \nThe Claimant admitted that he signed a new contract in May 2022.  He confirmed that his \ncontract of hire was offered into the record by the Respondents.  The Claimant specifically agreed \nthat the contract of hire in force at the time of his injury was for $20.00 an hour.  He confirmed \nthat he is currently on restrictions and is drawing temporary total disability.   \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n9 \n \nRegarding  his  pay,  the  Claimant  admitted  that  he  gets  paid  straight  time  for  40  hours.  \nAnything over 40 hours per week, the Claimant gets paid $30.00 an hour.  The Claimant agreed \nthat per the Respondents’ exhibit, the year prior to his injury, he made $51,000.00.      \nWith respect to his earnings for 2022, the Claimant confirmed that the $6,594.00 is for his \nwife’s earnings, but he did not recall.  He denied having a business.  The Claimant admitted that \nhe knew he was making three dollars less on the new contract.   \nOn  redirect-examination,  the  Claimant  confirmed  that  when  he  went  back  to  work \nfollowing his left knee injury, they offered him the new position in May 2022, as a dredge operator.  \nPer the terms of the contract, based on the Respondents’ exhibit, the Claimant worked 12 hours \nper day, six days a week.  He agreed that when he worked over 40 hours, he got time and a half, \nwhich amounted to $30.00 an hour.   \nHe agreed that he was under a new contract of hire at the rate of $20.00 an hour, with 12 \nhours per shift six days a week, then he was off for a week, and then he started seven on and seven \noff.    The  Claimant  confirmed  that  he  was  off  for  a  week  and  then  he  worked  a  week  and  was \ninjured.       \nOn recross examination, the Claimant agreed that the 52 weeks of wages prior to his injury \nincludes his overtime pay as well as his regular pay.  He agreed the year prior to his injury, he was \nmaking $23.00 an hour.  The Claimant was released from the first injury on April 22, 2022. \nMs. Cason Wilkinson \n Ms.  Wilkinson  confirmed  she  is  employed at  Performance  Proppants.    She  has  worked \nthere for a little over four years.  She is the HR manager and oversees various things pertaining to \npayroll  and  the  assignment  of  jobs  and  things  of that  nature.  Ms.  Wilkinson  confirmed  that  she \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n10 \n \nworked there in 2022 and 2023.  She also confirmed that she is familiar with the Claimant’s two \ninjuries.  She agreed the Claimant’s first injury is not an issue.     \n She verified that when the Claimant came back to work from his first injury, he had some \nrestrictions.    Per  Ms.  Wilkinson,  the  restrictions  placed  on  the  Claimant  after  his  first  injury \ninvolved  limited  climbing  of  stairs  and  ladders.    She  confirmed  that  she  worked  with  the  plant \nmanager to find a position for the Claimant within his restrictions.  Ms. Wilkinson testified that \nthey came up with three positions and the Claimant chose the one he preferred.  \n Ms. Wilkinson confirmed that although employees have a set schedule, it can be changed \nor altered at any time.  She explained: \n Q It appears that none of his checks are the same amount.  Is there a reason for that? \n A Because hours can vary.  They could get called in, they could get called off. \n She confirmed that employees work a lot of overtime hours depending on their position.     \n  Ms. Wilkinson agreed that when Respondents’ counsel asked for the payroll records preceding \nthe date of the Claimant’s second injury, she sent counsel those records retrieved from the records \nshe  keeps  at  the  plant.    She  agreed  those  payroll  records  are  kept  in  their  payroll  system.    Ms. \nWilkinson denied that employees are not paid for the first week of their work with the company.  \nInstead,  employees  get  paid  from  the  day  they  start,  and  for  every  payroll  they  get  paid  for  the \nhours worked in that payroll period.  She testified employees are not paid on a biweekly basis.       \n  Ms. Wilkinson confirmed that she called the company to get information concerning the \nmissing week of June 5 through June 9, 2022.  She calculated the Claimant’s regular hours based \non the rate of $20.00 an hour, and his overtime rate of pay was $30.00 an hour.  Ms. Wilkinson \nagreed  that  she calculated the Claimant’s pay for the  week  of  June  9,  2022,  and  it  came  to \n$1,209.50.   \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n11 \n \n On  cross-examination,  she  confirmed  that  employees  are  paid  on  a  weekly  basis.    She \nconfirmed that the days of pay were for June 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.  Ms. Wilkinson confirmed that what \nthey offered was for the Claimant to be paid at the rate of $20.00 an hour, 12 hours per day, six \ndays per week.  She admitted that from his first injury, he was on light duty for the most part.  Ms. \nWilkinson did not have any reason to dispute the Claimant’s testimony of there being a seven and \nseven.  She agreed that the shifts schedules change from time to time. \n                    Adjudication \nAverage Weekly Wage    \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-518 provides: \n(a)(1)  Compensation  shall  be  computed  on  the  average  weekly  wage  earned  by  the \nemployee under the contract of hire in force at the time of the accident and in no case shall \nbe computed on less than a full-time workweek in the employment. \n(2) Where the injured employee was working on a piece basis, the average weekly wage \nshall  be  determined  by  dividing  the  earnings  of  the  employee  by  the  number  of  hours \nrequired to earn the wages during the period not to exceed fifty-two (52) weeks preceding \nthe week in which the accident occurred and by multiplying this hourly wage by the number \nof hours in a full-time workweek in the employment. \n(b) Overtime earnings are to be added to the regular weekly wages and shall be computed \nby dividing the overtime earnings by the number of weeks worked by the employee in the \nsame employment under the contract of hire in force at the time of the accident, not exceed \na period of fifty-two (52) weeks preceding the accident. \n(c)  If, because of exceptional circumstances, the average weekly wage cannot be fairly \nand justly determined by the above formulas, the commission may determine the average \nweekly wage by a method that is just and fair to all parties concerned. \n \nThe Claimant had an earlier injury to his left knee in August 2020.   He was released from \nmedical care of his left knee with permanent restrictions of limited climbing of stairs and ladders.  \nAs a result, the company offered the Claimant three options of suitable jobs within his restrictions.  \nSaid  job  options  included  that  of  a  dry  plant  operator  ($18/hr.);  loadout  operator  ($17/hr.);  and \ndredge operator ($20/hr.).    \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n12 \n \nUpon the Claimant’s release  to  return  to  work  following  his  August  2020  injury,  the \nClaimant decided to take the position of dredge operator.  The Claimant began working under this \nnew contract of hire as a dredge operator on May 23, 2022.  However, the Claimant sustained an \ninjury to his right knee on June 9, 2022.  At that juncture, the Claimant had been working under \nhis new contract of hire as a dredge operator for only eighteen (18) days.   \nCurrently, at issue is the Claimant’s correct average weekly wage at the time of his June 9, \n2022, accidental right knee injury.   A copy of the Claimant’s contract of hire in force at the time \nof his June 2022 accidental injury has been made a part of the record.  (Rx 1 at 2)    \nThe parties agree that the Claimant’s contract of hire in force at the time of his June 2022 \ninjury was for forty hours per week at the rate of $20.00 an hour.  The Claimant’s regular weekly \nwages  amounted  to  $800.00.  The  contract  of  hire  does  not  specify  that  the  Claimant  was \nguaranteed  a  set  number  of  overtime  hours.    It  simply  states  that  the  Claimant  is  eligible  for \novertime  pay.    I  found  that  Ms.  Wilkinson  was  credible  in  stating  that  the  Claimant  was  not \nguaranteed a specific number of overtime hours each week.  Her testimony is corroborated by the \nClaimant’s pay for the three weeks he worked and the contract of hire, which does not specify a \nset  number  of  overtime  hours  each  week.    Nevertheless,  both  parties  agree  that  the  Claimant \novertime rate of pay was $30.00 an hour.    \nAt  dispute  is  the  proper calculation  of  the  Claimant’s  overtime  pay.   Both  parties’ \ncontentions are discussed above and in their Post-Hearing Briefs.  However, I respectfully disagree \nwith both parties’ calculations.    \nIn that regard, the most relevant law for guidance reads: \n(b) Overtime earnings are to be added to the regular weekly wages and shall be computed \nby dividing the overtime earnings by the number of weeks worked by the employee in the \nsame employment under the contract of hire in force at the time of the accident, not exceed \na period of fifty-two (52) weeks preceding the accident. \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n13 \n \nMy  review  of  the  evidence  of  records  that  the  Claimant  worked  approximately  three \nweeks before his June 2022 injury to his right knee.  The Claimant began his new contract of hire \non  May  23,  2022.    Payroll  records  show  that  from  May  22,  2022  through  May  28,  2022,  the \nClaimant earned $1,016.66 (overtime earnings $216.66).  For the week of May 29, 2022 through \nJune 4, 2022 the Claimant’s wages totaled $1,049.05 (overtime pay $249.05).  Ms. Wilkinson \ntestified that for the week of June 5 through June 9, 2022, the Claimant made $1,209.50 (overtime \npay $409.50).  The Claimant’s total overtime earnings for the three weeks he worked under his \ncontract of hire in force at the time of his accident  equals total overtime earnings of  $875.21, \nwhich  is    divided  by  the  three  weeks  worked  for  a  total  overtime  rate  of  $291.74;  therefore, \n$291,74 plus $800.00 equals an average weekly wage of $1,091.74.  His compensation rates are \n$728.00 and $546.00.  This means the Respondents have been underpaying the Claimant for his \nweekly indemnity benefits since they have been paying him at a rate of $719.00.      \nTherefore, I must find that the Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence he is \nentitled to an award for an underpayment of indemnity benefits.  Hence, the Claimant is entitled \nto the underpayment and attorney’s fees for the past benefits and additional benefits going \nforward.   \nOf note, I realize that the Claimant’s earnings for May 22, 2022 is pursuant to his previous \ncontract of hire.  However, I am persuaded that including this one day in the Claimant’s earnings \nfor that week is just and fair to all parties concerned.  \n                 AWARD \n The Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings set forth  \n \n\nRussell- H206746 \n \n14 \n \nherein.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n          ______________________________ \n          Hon. Chandra L. Black \n                 Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H206746 JEREMY C. RUSSELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PERFORMANCE PROPPANTS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY, INS. CO./ SUMMIIT CONSULTING, LLC, INSURANCE CARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 9, 2023 Hearing held befor...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:06:13.039Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H206746-2023-06-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RUSSELL_JEREMY_H206746_20230609.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}