{"id":"alj-H207378-2024-09-09","awcc_number":"H207378","decision_date":"2024-09-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Wynnefort Bell","employer_name":"Domtar Corporation","title":"BELL VS. DOMTAR CORPORATION AWCC# H207378 September 9, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:6"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","neck","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BELL_WYNNEFORT_H207378_20240909.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BELL_WYNNEFORT_H207378_20240909.pdf","text_length":45447,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC NO.: H207378 \n \n \nWYNNEFORT BELL, EMPLOYEE                                                                     CLAIMANT \nDOMTAR CORPORATION, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT                             \n   \nFARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY,  \nTRAVELERS INDEMINTY CO.,  \nCARRIER/TPA                RESPONDENT                                                                                        \n                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 \n \nA  hearing  was  held  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  Chandra  L.  Black, in Texarkana, Miller \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Gregory R. Giles, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Arkansas.       \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Guy Wade Alton, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nA hearing was held in the above-styled claim on June 11, 2024, in Texarkana, Arkansas.  \nOn April 17, 2024, a prehearing telephone conference was held on this claim.  A prehearing order \nwas entered into this matter on that same day.  Said order set forth the stipulations offered by the \nparties, their respective contentions, along with the issues to be litigated.  \nStipulations \nThe parties submitted the following stipulations, either pursuant to the prehearing order, or \nat the beginning and/or during the hearing.  I hereby  accept the jointly proposed stipulations as \nfact: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within  \nclaim. \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n2 \n \n2. That the employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed on October 1,  \n2022,  when  the  Claimant sustained  an  admittedly compensable  right-hand  injury  for  which the \nRespondents have paid to and on behalf of the Claimant some medical benefits and temporary total \ndisability/TTD compensation.  Of note, the Claimant primarily suffered injuries to her right pinky \nand ring fingers. \n3. The parties agreed that the Claimant’s average weekly wage on the day of her work-     \nrelated injury was $1,347.00, which entitles her to the maximum compensations rates for a 2022 \ninjury.   \n4. The Respondents have controverted the 22% impairment rating assessed for the  \nClaimant’s right-hand injury of October 1, 2022.    \n5. In addition, all issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’   \nCompensation Act.  Specifically, during the hearing, the Claimant reserved issues, including but \nnot limited to her assertion of a further claim for her entitlement to benefits pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-505.      \nIssues \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated at the hearing were as follows:  \n1. Whether the 22% anatomical impairment rating assessed by Dr. G. Thomas Frazier  \nfor the Claimant’s compensable right-hand injury of October 1, 2022, is accurate, or is the 10% \nimpairment rating appropriate.   \n2. Whether a penalty should be assessed against the Respondents for their failure to pay  \nbenefits on the impairment rating for the Claimant’s hand injury, under the provision of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-802.  Said rating was made known to the parties on January 19, 2024.   \n3. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \nContentions \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n3 \n \n The parties’ respective contentions are outlined below: \nClaimant: \nThe  Claimant contends  that  the permanent impairment rating  assessed  by  Dr.  Thomas \nFrazier has been controverted and is still unpaid in the amount of 22% to the right hand. \nAlso, the Claimant further contends that Respondents should be ordered to pay attorney’s \nfees associated with this matter as provided by law.   \nRespondents:  \n The Respondents contend that they accepted the Claimant’s injury as compensable and  \npaid  the  applicable  medical  and  indemnity  benefits.   The Respondents contend the Claimant’s \npermanent partial disability/PPD rating assessed by the physician is not appropriate and should be \na 10% PPD rating to the right hand.   \n             FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on my review of the record as a whole, to include the documentary evidence, other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity to hear the testimony \nof  the Claimant and  observe her demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1.    The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.     I hereby accept the above-mentioned proposed stipulations as fact. \n \n   3.    The Claimant  proved by  a  preponderance  of  credible evidence  that she  sustained  a \n22% permanent anatomical  impairment to her right  pinky and  index fingers, as  a  result  of  her \nadmittedly compensable injury of October 2022. \n4.    The Claimant proved her entitlement to an 18% penalty for the Respondents’ failure \nto initiate payment of the 10% impairment rating for her hand injury, in a timely manner pursuant  \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n4 \n \nto  the  relevant  statutory  provisions considering  there  was  no  dispute  surrounding  this  rating.  \nHowever, the evidence does not preponderate that the Respondents acted willfully in their failure \nto  initiate payments  on the rating since  the  parties  were  actively  negotiating  settlement  of  this \nclaim.  \n           5.   The Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on the indemnity \nbenefits awarded in this opinion. \n          6.    All issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation  \nAct.          \nSummary of Evidence \nMs. Wynnefort Bell (referred to herein as the “Claimant”), was the only witness to testify \nduring the hearing.  \n            The  record  consists  of  the June  11, 2024  hearing  transcript  and  the  following  exhibits: \nSpecifically, the  documentary evidence includes Commission’s Exhibit 1,  which comprises  the  \nprehearing order  filed  on April 17,  2024, along  with the parties’ responsive filings; and  Joint \nExhibit 1, which is entitled Respondents’ Exhibit Index consisting of sixteen (16) pages. \n DISCUSSION \nWynnefort Monae Bell/the Claimant  \nAt the time of the hearing, the Claimant, age 43, was born on May 11, 1973.  She has a \nhigh  school  diploma  and  some additional education.    After  the  Claimant  graduated  from  high \nschool, she completed an online two-year college program.  According to the Claimant, the union \nobtained  payment for  her college courses  through  her  employer,  Domtar.    She  took human \nresources  and business administration  classes.   The  Claimant completed  her online classroom \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n5 \n \ncourses in  October  of  2023,  and  she  graduated magna  cum  laude, having  achieved a  3.8  grade \npoint average. \nRegarding  her  employer,  the  Claimant  testified  that  the  main  production  at  Domtar \ninvolves the manufacture of paper. She worked in the packaging department.  According to the \nClaimant, she was responsible for packaging reams of paper.  She began working for Domtar on \nApril 2, 2001.  The Claimant was initially hired to perform employment duties as a utility worker.  \nThis position entailed emptying the trash with a forklift.   After about nine (9) or ten (10) months \nof  performing utility type-work,  the  Claimant  was  promoted  to  a  different position.    She began \nworking as an assistant sealer operator.  According to the Claimant, she essentially performed that \njob for five (5) years before becoming a sealer operator.  She basically testified that she worked in \nthat position for nearly seven (7) years.  \nThe Claimant testified: \nQ All right.  So just briefly kind of explain for us, as a Sealer Operator, what were \nyour duties?  What would you generally be doing as a Sealer Operator.  \n \nA I would load the cartons and lids in that made the finished cartons of paper.  I would, \nalso, load in the packaging to wrap the individual reams of paper.  I would, also, load in \nthe packaging to wrap the individual reams of paper.  Make sure that the pallets were, you \nknow, stacked correctly on the front end of the machine, as well, but I kept the material in \nand organized to get the packaged paper. \n \nQ So if I’m understanding, and you kind of explained it to us in the deposition, this is \nboxes already ready-to-go-out paper and it’s already in its packaging and it’s in a larger \nbox that your machine in your area is going to, in effect, seal it up, put the lid on and move \nit down the line? \n  \nA Yes.  It’s flat cartons and flat lids and then they fold.  The equipment actually folds \nthe cartons and folds the lids and inserts the wrapped reams of paper into it.  \n \nAccording  to  the  Claimant,  she sat  at a  desk  and  was  able  to  view and  monitor a  large \nportion of the machine stationed in her area.  However, there were lights and alerts on the machine, \nwhich were not visible, so she had to walk around for this reason, and to make sure the machine \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n6 \n \nwas properly stocked for full operation.  The Claimant confirmed that she worked rotating shifts \nwhile employed at Domtar.  She sustained a compensable injury to her right hand, while working \nat  Domtar on  October  1,  2022.   At  the  time  of the Claimant’s work-related  accident, she  was \nworking the night shift.  Her working hours were from 5:30 p.m. until 5:30 a.m.  The Claimant \ntestified that her work-related accident occurred around 9:00 p.m.  Per the Claimant’s testimony, \nan alert light came on one of the machines, and she went to investigate the source of the problem.  \nShe essentially testified that seven (7) boxes  had  accumulated in  the  machine,  and  jammed it, \ncausing it to shut down.  The boxes weighed between fifty (50) and seventy (70) pounds, and they \ncontained ten (10) reams of eight and one-half (8½) by eleven (11) copy machine paper.   \nSpecifically, the Claimant explained that she immediately hit the emergency button to stop \nthe machine.  According to the Claimant, roughly six (6) cartons of paper had lids on them, as a \nresult she started to take each box out, one at a time and manually pushed them forward down the \nconveyor  belt.  The Claimant  testified  that  when  she pushed  the  last  box  out  of  the  machine,  it \ncaused the machine to engage, and it caught her hand underneath her thumb.  She denied having \nany knowledge of  what  caused the machine to start on its own.  The Claimant testified that her \nhand got caught  between  the  box  and one  of the  metal  fingers\n1\n attached  to the inside  of  the \nmachine.  According to the Claimant, her hand was stuck between the box and the metal finger for \nseveral seconds.  The Claimant specifically testified that the machine caught underneath her thumb \nand there was a puncture that went all the way across her hand.  She confirmed that she injured \nher right hand.  The Claimant essentially testified that the metal finger cut through the material of \nher  leather work gloves.   Her  testimony  demonstrated how the  metal  finger  held  her hand  and \n \n1\n The Claimant testified that there are four metal fingers on the inside of the machine.  She confirmed that \nthe purpose of the fingers is to help push the box down the machine.  There are two fingers on each side of the \nfront of the box and two on the back of the box that holds each box steady.  She described the fingers as being \nthick and held by a chain.  The Claimant testified that the fingers are six (6) inches long and three (3) inches wide.    \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n7 \n \nmoved it through the machine on the top of the box because the carton of paper continued moving.  \nAccording to the Claimant, when it caught her ring finger, she heard it “snap” and when it reached \nher pinky finger, the box released and freed her hand.  The machine caught the Claimant’s ring \nand pinky fingers.  The Claimant sustained punctures across the webbing between her thumb and \nindex finger.  She confirmed that her ring finger and pinky both got caught in the machine in some \nform or fashion because she heard and felt them both “pop.”   \nUnder  further  questioning,  the  Claimant  admitted  that  she  was  taken  to  the company’s \nsafety office for immediate medical attention.  The security guard transported the Claimant to the \nTexarkana  Emergency  Center for further  evaluation  and  treatment.   However,  the  orthopedic \ndoctor was not able to see her  at that moment because he was performing a surgical procedure.   \nThey gave the Claimant a shot to deaden her fingers and put a splint on her hand.  The Claimant \nwas sent home until the orthopedic doctor became available, which was not until Monday.  \nDr. Smolarz performed surgery by putting a metal pin in her right ring finger.  He did not \ndo anything to her pinky finger at that time.  The Claimant testified that at the end of four weeks, \nDr.  Smolarz  removed  the  pin  from  her ring finger.   Two  weeks  after  her  surgery,  Dr.  Smolarz \nordered physical therapy.  However, Dr. Smolarz recommended that the Claimant see a specialist, \nsomeone who specializes in hand injuries.  The Claimant denied that during this time frame she \nwas  back working  at  Domtar.  She testified that she began receiving workers’ compensation \nbenefits after being off work for about two weeks.  \nTherefore, the Claimant was  scheduled  for  an appointment  to be  evaluated  by Dr. G. \nThomas Frazier, in Little Rock.   She underwent initial evaluation by Dr. Frazier on December 10, \n2022.  Dr. Frazier diagnosed the Claimant as having a chipped bone on the side of her right pinky \nfinger.   He performed surgery on her right hand/ring finger on December 14, 2022.  The Claimant \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n8 \n \ntestified that this first surgery done by Dr. Frazier was performed to let her have more movement \nand range of motion in her ring finger.  During that procedure, Dr. Frazier put a metal plate and \nnine (9) screws in her ring finger.   In April of 2023, the Claimant went for a routine visit with Dr. \nFrazier after he performed surgery on her ring finger.  At that point, Dr. Frazier decided that the \nClaimant needed surgery on both her ring and pinky fingers.  The goal of her final surgery was \nagain, to attempt and free up the tendons in her ring and pinky fingers in order to give her more \nmovement and mobility in her fingers.  The Claimant specifically testified that Dr. Frazier made \nan incision on the side of her pinky finger to try and free up the tendons in it as well.   According \nto  the  Claimant,  this last  surgical procedure dealt solely with  the  tendons in  her ring  and  pinky \nfingers.   \nShe confirmed that the metal plate and nine (9) screws are still in her ring finger.  However, \nthe Claimant does not have a metal plate in her pinky finger.  The Claimant confirmed that she \nunderwent physical therapy following her final surgery by Dr. Frazier.   She stated that she attended \nsessions of physical therapy from October 2022 until November 2023.   \nCurrently, the Claimant explained that the use of her right hand is still extremely limited.  \nThe Claimant specifically testified that her pinky and ring fingers will not bend or straighten out.  \nShe confirmed that she does not have the ability to actively close her fingers or wrap them around \na softball or tennis ball.  The Claimant admitted that the small puncture wound between her thumb \nand index finger resolved without any lingering issues or problems in that particular area on her \nhand.   However,  the  Claimant  testified  that  she still  has a  scar in  that area  of  her  hand,  but  no \nfunctional issues with her thumb or index finger.  The Claimant agreed that she can use her left \nhand to physically move her right ring and pinky fingers.  \nUpon further questioning, the Claimant explained: \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n9 \n \nQ Once you close your fingers around the ball and take your other hand away, what \nhappens?  \n \nA They’ll come back up into the position that they are in now. \n \nQ You can’t keep them down there? \n \nA No.  Not without using my other hand to keep them down. \n \nQ All right.  Now, as far as strength in those fingers, how would you describe them in \nterms of how you can use those with your hand? \n \nA  I can’t use them.  I isolate them like if I want to write something, I isolate the \nfingers.  It’s like this, because they won’t close. \n \nThe Claimant confirmed that she was demonstrating that she uses her left hand to put her  \nright  pinky and  ring  fingers  out  to  the  side  and use  her other  three  fingers/right hand  regularly.    \nThe Claimant agreed that in addition to going to physical therapy sessions regularly, there were \nexercises that she was doing at home to improve the condition of her right hand.  She further agreed \nthat the therapist sent her home with “putty,” and she had a splint that she put on at night to sleep \nin that kept her fingers straight.  The Claimant testified that she had pages of home exercises that \nshe would do, but her fingers still continue in the bent position.   \n She  confirmed  that  she  was  referred  by  Dr.  Frazier  for  work  hardening  for  four  to  six \nweeks.  The intent was to transition her to return back to work.  However, the Claimant admitted \nthat she does not have any effective use of her pinky and ring fingers.  After she completed the \nwork hardening, the Claimant was referred for a functional capacity evaluation/FCE, which was \ndone on November 15, 2023.  She confirmed that Dr. Frazier performed the FCE.  The Claimant \ntestified  that  they took measurements  of  her  hand.    She  performed  different  exercises,  and  they \nassessed her ability to move her fingers and use her hand.  Following the FCE, the Claimant did \nnot return to see Dr. Frazier.   \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n10 \n \nAccording to the Claimant, Travelers Insurance paid her workers’ compensation benefits \nuntil Dr. Frazier declared her to be at maximum medical improvement.   The Claimant confirmed \nthat she continued receiving workers’ compensation benefits until she received the maximum \nmedical  improvement report from  Dr.  Frazier.   She  specifically  stated  that the  carrier paid her \nbenefits until January 19, 2024.   \nHowever, to date, the Claimant has not returned to work for Domtar, although she emailed \na  copy  of  her final  medical  report  (which  addressed  her  impairment  rating,  and  MMI  date) to \nWendy Harmon, the human resource assistant.  The Claimant confirmed that the letter from Dr. \nFrazier describes her physical limitations, resulting from  her  compensable  injury. Her physical \nabilities  based  on  the  functional  capacity  evaluation shows that the  Claimant can lift  ten  (10) \npounds  occasionally,  twenty-five  (25)  pounds  on  a  constant  basis, and  fifty  (50)  pounds \noccasionally.        \nThe Claimant testified that she was told that the workers’ compensation carrier would not \ninsure her if she returned to work at Domtar.  She confirmed that she has not received any payments \nfor the impairment rating that was assessed in March 2024.  The Claimant testified that she had \ndiscussions with Trevelyan Hodge, Jennifer Beard, the union president, and Charles Swilley, the \nunion representative, that she was not receiving any compensation.  She testified that she was told \nby Mr. Hodge that the workers’ compensation carrier would not insure her with a 22% rating, and \nthat her rating needed to be changed to a 10%.  According to the Claimant, she was told that she \ncould  go  to  the  company  doctor  and  have  him  change  her  rating  to  10%  so  she  could  return  to \nwork.  However, the Claimant did not specify who told her to go to the company doctor and have \nhim change her rating a 10% so that she could return to work.  The Claimant denied anybody ever \nset her up with an appointment to see a company doctor to have her rating changed.  \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n11 \n \nThe Claimant denied that anybody indicated to her, other than during her conversation with \nMr.  Hodge,  that  there  was  a  dispute  about  the  impairment  rating.    However,  the  Claimant \nconfirmed that there is a later report in February 2024, which expresses an opinion regarding her \nimpairment  rating.    According  to  this doctor’s opinion,  the  Claimant  sustained only a  10% \nimpairment rating.  However, the Claimant denied having seen this doctor.  Although the report \nwas rendered on February 1, 2024, the Claimant confirmed that she has not received any payments \nassociated with that rating.  The Claimant testified that she has survived financially by using her \nincome tax refund that she received in February to pay some of her bills.  She also had to rely on \nhelp from other people and a lot of her bills have gone unpaid.  The Claimant testified that she \nfiled for unemployment benefits, and she started receiving those benefits in April.  According to \nthe  Claimant,  she  received  $200.00  weekly unemployment  benefits  for  twelve  (12)  weeks.  \nHowever,  the  Claimant  denied  that  these  benefits  were  not  enough  to  take  care  of  her  financial \nneeds.  As a result, she filed for bankruptcy in April.   \nShe admitted that she checked the Domtar website for the availability of other jobs within \nDomtar that she could perform.  The Claimant testified that she has applied for a couple of clerical \njobs at Domtar since Dr. Frazier released her from his care, but management did not select her for \neither position.  In April, a human resource position became available at Domtar, and the Claimant \napplied for that position.  However, the Claimant received a denied for that position a couple of \nweeks ago.   \nThe Claimant admitted she started applying for jobs outside of Domtar in April.  She began \nworking for Bi-State on April 29, 2024, as a municipal court clerk, processing traffic tickets, fines, \nand various other related tasks.  In that position, the Claimant confirmed that she is managing with \nher right hand.   According  to  the  Claimant,  when doing  the  entries  for tickets  received  and \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n12 \n \nchecking on the status of tickets, she types at a slower rate because she uses only two fingers on \nher  right  hand to  type.  The  Claimant  testified  that  she also has  trouble  writing  out  the  actual \ncitation forms directing individuals to appear for court because she must isolate her pinky and ring \nfingers when she writes.  Per the Claimant, her hand “cramps up” and her fingers “stack” together \neven when she isolates them.  During the hearing, the Claimant demonstrated how she isolates her \nfingers when writing.  (Tr. 48) \nThe  Claimant  denied  that  she takes  any  prescription  medications  or  over-the-counter \nmedication for her hand injury.   She denied using a brace or any type of assistive device for her \nhand.  The Claimant admitted that she filed for Social Security Disability benefits in September of \n2023.  However, she has other medical issues outside of her work-related injury.  The Claimant \ntestified  that  she has  been  diagnosed  with  Sjogren  syndrome  which  is  an  autoimmune  disorder.  \nShe confirmed that she had this condition while working at Domtar.  However, the Claimant denied \nthat any of her Sjogren symptoms have changed or worsened.  She confirmed that she has other \nconditions for which she filed for Social Security Disability.  According to the Claimant, she also \nsuffers from lumbar degenerative disc disease, secondary to her Sjogren syndrome condition.  She \ntakes a muscle relaxer and an anti-inflammatory for her back symptoms. \nUnder  further  questioning,  the  Claimant  denied  having  received  a  payment  on  the \nimpairment rating as of the date of the hearing.  She testified that in her current position, she has \nthe flexibility to stand, walk, and move around in her current position.  The Claimant denied she \nhas received any information from Domtar, nor have they contacted her about her job status.  Her \nhourly rate of pay  while  working for  Domtar was $33.58.  She currently  makes only $14.00 an \nhour, in her current position as a court clerk.                              \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n13 \n \nThe  Claimant  explicitly  confirmed  again  that  she  has  not  received  any  permanent \nimpairment benefits since the doctors provided the impairment ratings on January 19, 2024, and \nFebruary 1, 2024.  She agreed that based on her conversations with the HR people at Domtar, she \nbelieves  that  they  have  not  treated  her  fairly.    The  Claimant  testified  that  she  has  worked  there \ntwenty-one  and  a  half (21½)  years without  any  type  of  disciplinary  action or  safety  incidents.  \nAccording to the Claimant, she has never had so much as a paper cut.   The Claimant stated that it \nseems as though they are doing everything within their power to keep her from returning back to \nwork at Domtar.   \nOn cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that she began working at Domtar in 2001.  \nShe  finished  high  school  in  1989.   The  Claimant  later obtained an online associate’s degree in \nbusiness management while working at Domtar as part of an incentive program through the union.          \nAbout her work at Domtar, the Claimant confirmed that she worked  as a  sealer, and the \nmachine she ran is a called a sheeter.  In other words, a sealer operator runs the sheeter machine.  \nShe admitted to having worked 12-hour rotating shifts while employed by Domtar.  \nThe Claimant confirmed that while working on October 1, 2022, she sustained an injury to \nher right hand.  She  confirmed she got her hand  caught in the machine until it released it.  The \nClaimant  agreed  that  the  primary injuries  were  to her ring  and  pinky fingers.  According  to  the \nClaimant, doctors addressed treatment  to  those  specific  fingers.    She  confirmed  again  that  Dr. \nSmolarz performed her first surgery in the form of inserting a pin in her ring finger.  The Claimant \nunderwent physical therapy and then, Dr.  Smolarz referred  her  to  Dr.  Frazier  for  continuing \ntreatment.  During the Claimant’s first surgery under Dr.  Frazier’s care, he put a plate and screws \nin  her  ring  finger.  The Claimant  confirmed  that  she underwent physical therapy  after  that \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n14 \n \nprocedure.  Next, in April of 2023, Dr. Frazier operated on both fingers to release the tendons via \na procedure described as a tenolysis.   \nUnder further questioning, the Claimant admitted that she has not had surgery on any other \npart of her hand or body.  She confirmed that in January of 2024 she received the letter from Dr. \nFrazier where he determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement for her hand \ninjury.  The Claimant admitted that she has not seen Dr.  Frazier since October or November of \n2023.  She admitted that she does not have any other visits scheduled with either Drs. Smolarz or \nFrazier, or any other medical provider about her hand and/or fingers.   \nShe agreed that the functional capacity evaluation indicated that she could medium duty \nwork.  The Claimant confirmed that as a municipal clerk, she takes payments, does filing, shred \ndocuments, and  computer  entry.    She  confirmed  that  she  filed  for  Social  Security  Disability \nbenefits  in  September  of  2023.    The  Claimant  agreed  that  in  addition  to  her  other  conditions \npreviously named, she has arthritis in her neck.   \nThe Claimant admitted that there is a dispute regarding the extent of the impairment rating \nin her claim.  She admitted that she did not have any visits scheduled with any medical provider \nwho treated her fingers or hand.  The Claimant admitted that Dr. Frazier’s letter was dated January \n19, 2024, and that she had not received any indication there was an impairment rating before that \ndate.   \nUnder further questioning, the Claimant admitted that she did not ever personally contact \nTravelers or the insurance company for Domtar and ask them to start making PPD payments.  The \nClaimant acknowledged that she was aware there were negotiations going on about her claim and \nthe extent of the impairment rating.  The Claimant testified that there are other positions at Domtar \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n15 \n \nthat would fit in the scheme of what Dr. Fraizer said she could do.  However, she admitted that \nthis was her own opinion.        \n                                                    Medical Records  \n A  review  of  the  medical  evidence  records  shows a  Work  Hardening  Plan  of  Care  dated \nAugust 29, 2023, which was authored by Occupation Therapist, Brian M. Murphy, OTR/L.  The \nexaminer diagnosed the Claimant with: “1.  Closed displaced fracture of proximal phalanx of right \nring  finger  with  routine  healing.   2.  Muscle  weakness  of  right  upper  extremity.”  Therapy \ndiagnosis:  Finger  Stiffness; and Muscle Weakness.  The examiner’s  assessment: “Pt  displays \ndecreased tolerance with lifting/carrying tasks and limited finger ROM with RUE, limited grasp \nstrength  RUE  which  limits  her  ability  to  return  to  work  at  her  previous  position  (Machine \nOperator).”       \nOn  November  15,  2023,  the  Claimant  underwent  a  Functional  Capacity  Evaluation  at \nChristus St. Micheal Outpatient Rehab, in Texas by Brian M. Murphy, OTR/L.  At that time, the \nexaminer found that   per   the   U.S.   Department   of   Labor   standard   for Physical Demand \nClassification (PDC), the   Claimant   qualified   to   work   at   a   MEDIUM   physical   demand \nclassification. Per  this  classification,  the  Claimant  can  occasionally  lift  fifty  (50) pounds, \nfrequently lift twenty (20) pounds, and constantly lift ten (10) pounds.     \n On  January  19,  2024,  Dr.  G.  Thomas  Frazier,  the  Assistant  Professor,  Department  of \nOrthopedic  Surgery,  Section  of Hand, and  Upper  Extremity  Surgery  for  UAMS faxed  the \nfollowing letter to the adjuster and case manager: \n First of all, I want to apologize for the delay in getting back to you in regard to the FCE  \nwhich was performed on your Claimant and my patient, Ms. Bell.  I have had a chance to \nreview the results of the FCE. \n \nBased  on  my  interpretation  of  the  FCE,  it  is  my  opinion  that  Ms.  Bell  performed  at  a \nsatisfactory level during the FCE and that the results of the FCE are valid.  It is also my \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n16 \n \nopinion that Ms. Bell may return to work that is classified as medium in severity based on \nthe  Department  of  Labor  Standards  for  Physical  Demand  Classification  System.    This \nincludes lifting up to 50 lbs. on occasion, up to 25 lbs. on a frequent basis, and up to 10 \nlbs. on a constant basis.   \n \nAlso,  based  on  Ms.  Bell’s  most  recent  examination,  and  based  on  the  guides  to  the \nevaluation of permanent impairment, 4\nth\n edition, as published by the AMA, it is my opinion \nthat she has sustained a 22% permanent impairment to her right hand, which corresponds \nto  a  20%  permanent  impairment  to  the  right  upper  extremity.    In  determining  this \nimpairment, I have referenced figure 19 on page 3/32, figure 21 on page 3/33, figure 23 on \npage 3/34, and table 34 on page 3/65. \n \nThese opinions are submitted within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  \n \nIf  I  can  be  of  further  assistance,  or  provide  you  with  further  information,  please  do  not \nhesitate to contact me.  \n  \nOn February 1, 2024, Dr. Sean Lager, a Board-Certified Orthopedic Surgeon of Sports  \nMedicine, opined particularly in reference to the Claimant’s hand injury. \nMy review refutes the 22% hand impairment concerning a 20% upper extremity based on \nrange  of  motion  and  possibly  grip  strength.   Peer  review  recommends  a 10%  hand \nimpairment converting to 9% upper extremity converting to a 5% whole person impairment \nto the right hand based on range of motion deficits of the ring and small finger.  (Figure \n19, Page 32, Finger 21, Page 33, and Figure 23, Page 34. \n \nTo summarize the injured worker would have a 5% whole person impairment based on the \ndata that has been provided: \n \nRight hand 10% based IR = 9% UEI = 5% WPI (Figure 19, Page 32, Figure 21, Page 33, \nand  Figure  23,  Page  34)  AMA  Guides  the  Evaluation  of  Permanent  Impairment  Fourth \nEdition. \n \n                    ADJUDICATION \nA. Anatomical Impairment \nThe  crucial  issue  for  determination  is  whether  the  Claimant  sustained  a 10%  permanent \nphysical impairment to her right hand/pinky and ring fingers; or if she sustained a 22% permanent \nanatomical  impairment  rating  to her  hand/fingers resulting  from her  compensable  injury  of \nOctober 1, 2022.   \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n17 \n \nThe Respondents contend that the Claimant is entitled to a 10% impairment rating for her \nright hand.  However, the Claimant contends that she is entitled to a 22% impairment rating for \nher right hand/pinky and ring fingers due to her compensable hand injury of October 2022.       \nAn injured worker must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to an \naward for a permanent physical impairment.  Any determination of the existence or extent of  \nphysical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable findings.  Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-704(c)(1).  Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(g) and our Rule 099.34, the Commission \nhas  adopted  the American  Medical  Association  (AMA)  Guides  to  the  Evaluation  of  Permanent \nImpairment (4th ed. 1993) to be used to assess anatomical impairment.   \nPermanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a  determination  that  the  compensable \ninjury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a).   \n“Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of major cause \nshall   be   established   according   to   the   preponderance   of   the   evidence.    Ark.   Code   Ann. \n§11-9-102(14)(A).   Preponderance  of  the  evidence  means  evidence  having  greater  weight  or \nconvincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W. 3d \n252 (2003). \n  Based on the record as a whole, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, I \nfind that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Claimant’s right  hand work-\nrelated injury  was  significant  and was  the  major  cause  of  her 22%  permanent  anatomical \nimpairment, as assigned by Dr. Thomas Frazier.  The basis for my conclusion is outlined below.  \nIn the claim at bar, the Claimant had worked at Domtar for over twenty-one (21) years as \nof  October  1,  2022.    At  that  time,  the  Claimant  worked  as  a  machine  operator.    The  Claimant \nsustained an admittedly compensable injury while working when her right hand was caught in a \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n18 \n \nmachine.  She sustained injuries primarily to her right pinky and ring fingers.  The Claimant was \ndiagnosed with a closed displaced fracture to the proximal phalanx of the fourth digit, and stiffness \nand weakness of the upper right upper extremity.              \nThe Respondents accepted this claim and paid benefits to and on behalf of the Claimant \nfor  her  admittedly  compensable  injury  of  October  2022.    They  have  paid  for  three  surgical \nprocedures to the Claimant’s right hand/ pinky and rings fingers under the care of Drs. Smolarz \nand Thomas.  \nSpecifically, Dr. Smolarz performed the first surgery to the Claimant’s ring finger, which \nresulted  from  her compensable  injury in October  2022.   During this  surgical  procedure,  Dr. \nSmolarz put a pin in the Claimant’s ring finger.   Thereafter,  the Claimant  underwent  physical \ntherapy to her right hand with no improvement.  Ultimately, Dr. Smolarz decided that the Claimant \nneeded to seek medical care for her fingers from a hand specialist.  At that point, the Claimant was \nscheduled for an appointment to be evaluated by Dr. Frazier.  On December 10, 2023, Dr. Frazier \nfound that the Claimant needed a second surgery to her ring finger.  Therefore, on December 14, \nDr.  Frazier  performed  a  second  surgery  to  the  Claimant’s  ring  finger,  which  included  the \npermanent placement of a metal plate and nine (9) screws.  Hence, as of the date of the hearing, \nthis hardware remained in the Claimant’s ring finger.  Dr. Frazier performed a third surgical \nprocedure, tenolysis, to the Claimant’s right ring and pinky fingers to try to release the tendons in \nher fingers to give her more useful mobility and movement in these fingers.  Although the Claimant \nunderwent these surgical  treatment  modalities and multiple  sessions  of physical  therapy, which \nalso included work hardening and home exercises, her fingers have not responded well to any of \nthese treatment modalities.   \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n19 \n \nNevertheless,  on  January  19,  2024,  the  Claimant  treating  physician/a  hand  specialist, \nopined that the Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement with respect to her right-\nhand injury.  At that time, Dr. Frazier also assessed the Claimant with a 22% permanent anatomical \nimpairment due to the compensable injuries she sustained to her right hand, namely to her pinky \nand ring fingers.  Dr. Frazier assessed this rating utilizing the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of \nPermanent  Impairment (4\nth \ned.  1993).    To  the  contrary,  on  February  1,  2024,  Dr.  Sean  Lager, \nassigned  the  Claimant  a  10%  impairment  rating  for  her  right-hand  injury by  means  of the \nappropriate edition of the Guides.  However, Dr. Lager did not conduct a physical examination of \nthe Claimant’s right hand. Instead, Dr. Lager’s assessment of a 10% impairment to the Claimant’s \nright hand was derived solely from the Claimant’s medical records.   \nConsidering all the foregoing, I find that Dr. Frazier’s expert medical opinion is very \nthorough and rigorously well-reasoned.  Most notably, Dr. Frazier’s expert opinion bears with the \nGuides, documentary  medical  evidence  of  record,  and my own visual  observations  of  the \nClaimant’s demonstrations of her complete lack  of movement in her affected fingers during the \nhearing.  The Claimant’s fingers are severely constricted.  She demonstrated a total inability  to \nstraighten the affected fingers. In fact, the Claimant’s fingers have been reduced to a permanently \nbent position due to her compensable job-related injury October 1, 2022.  These contractures of \nthe Claimant’s affected fingers interfere with most of her daily tasks and functionality of her right \nhand, which include simple tasks such as writing and data entry.  During the hearing, the Claimant \nhad to take her left hand to straighten her affected fingers.  Still, at that point, the Claimant was \nunable to completely straighten her fingers.  Once the Claimant let go of her fingers with her left \nhand,  they  went  back  to  their  original bent position.  In  fact,  the  Claimant  lacked any  type  of \nfunctional use or range of motion in her right pinky and ring fingers.    \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n20 \n \nAs such, I have attached significant weight to the Claimant’s treating hand specialist, Dr. \nFrazier’s expert opinion due to all the above and following reasons. Accordingly, I have afforded \nonly  minimal  weight  to  Dr. Lager’s expert  opinion.   Specifically,  Dr.  Lager  conducted  a  peer \nreview and his rationale for the impairment rating was based solely on the Claimant’s clinical \nhistory and medical records.  Dr. Lager did not have the opportunity to physically see or observe \nthe Claimant’s fingers.   It is  noteworthy that  even  Dr.  Lager  confirmed  in  his  report  that  the \nClaimant has range of motion deficits of the ring and small fingers.   My own observation of the \nClaimant’s fingers revealed that she has significant deficits of range of motion in her fingers that \neven a layperson would be able to easily notice when engaged in routine face-to-face interaction \nwith  the  Claimant.   The  Claimant credibly  testified  during  the  hearing  that  she  is  right  hand \ndominate and is unable to write normally with her right hand due to the range of motion deficits \nin  her  fingers.   Moreover,  I found  the  Claimant  to  be  a  credible  and  forthcoming  witness \nconcerning the abnormalities, deficits, and deformities in her fingers even when trying to perform \neven menial tasks, such  as simply signing her name.  Her testimony comports with the medical \nrecords, particularly, Dr. Frazier’s expert opinion and the FCE report.   \nHere, the Claimant’s 22% physical impairment to her right pinky and  ring  fingers  are \nsupported by objective and measurable findings.  Specifically, the medical records of evidence are \nreplete  with  objective  medical  findings,  including  but  not  limited  to  significant  contractures, \nstiffness, lack of any functional and muscle weakness of both fingers.  Hence, of course, all the \nexistence of  all  of  these objective  and  measurable  findings resulted  from  the  Claimant’s \ncompensable hand injury of October 1, 2022.   \nMoreover, the Claimant confirmed that she did not suffer any prior problems with her right \nhand/fingers or any related symptomology that predated her compensable injury of October 2022.  \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n21 \n \nIn fact, the evidence shows that the Claimant was able to perform her job duties which required \nthe ability use of her hands and perform hand intensive employment duties.  However, since her \naccident, the Claimant has not been able to return to work at Domtar due to her physical restrictions \nand  limitations  that  have  resulted from  her work-related right-hand injury.   As  such,  I am \npersuaded to find that the evidence preponderates that the Claimant’s October 1, 2022, accidental \nwork-related injury was the major cause of the Claimant’s 22% permanent impairment to her right \nhand/pinky and ring fingers. \nB. Installment Penalty \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-802 (b) states: \nIf any installment of compensation payable without an award is payable without an award \nis not paid without fifteen (15) days after it becomes due, as provided in subsection (a) of \nthis  section,  there  shall  be  added  to  the  unpaid  installment  an  amount  equal  to  eighteen \npercent  (18%)  thereof  which  shall  be  paid  at  the  same  time  as,  but  in  additional  to,  the \ninstallment unless notice of controversion is filed or an extension is granted the employer \nunder §11-9-803 or unless such nonpayment is excused by the commission after a showing \nby  the  employer  that,  owing  to  conditions  over  which  he  or  she  had  no  control,  the \ninstallment could not be paid within the period prescribed.  \n \nAdditionally, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-802 (e) provides:  \nIn  the  event  that  the  Commission  finds  the  failure to  pay  any  benefit  is  willful  and \nintentional the penalty shall be up to thirty-six percent (36%) payable to the Claimant. \n \nIn the present matter, the Respondents contend that the Claimant sustained a 10%  \npermanent impairment rating to her hand for her compensable injury.  However, to date they have \nfailed to pay  any benefits to the Claimant  for this rating.   Therefore,  I find that the Claimant is \nentitled to a 18% penalty for Respondents’ failure to make installment payment to the Claimant \non the 10% rating since there was no dispute concerning the accuracy of this rating.  \n   \n\n \nBELL – H207378 \n22 \n \n Here, the evidence does not preponderate that the Respondents’ failure to pay any benefit \non  this  installment or  the  22%  rating was willful  and  intentional  concerning  the  parties  were  in \nactively involved in negotiation discussions of a possible settlement of this claim up until the night \nbefore the hearing. (Tr. 9)         \n C.       Attorney’s Fee \nThe Respondents have stipulated that they controverted this claim for additional benefits  \nin its entirety.  Therefore, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on all \nindemnity benefits awarded to the Claimant, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715. \n \n                          AWARD \n \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. \n  Per Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney’s fee \non the indemnity benefits awarded herein.  This fee is to be paid one-half by the carrier and one-\nhalf by the Claimant.  \nAll issues not addressed herein are expressly reserved under the Act. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       __________________________ \n       CHANDRA L. BLACK \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC NO.: H207378 WYNNEFORT BELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DOMTAR CORPORATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FARMINGTON CASUALTY COMPANY, TRAVELERS INDEMINTY CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Blac...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:48:34.014Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207378-2024-09-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BELL_WYNNEFORT_H207378_20240909.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}