{"id":"alj-H207643-2023-06-15","awcc_number":"H207643","decision_date":"2023-06-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Daraphone Saegsatheuane","employer_name":"Trane Commercial Systems","title":"SAEGSATHEUANE VS. TRANE COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS AWCC# H207643 JUNE 15, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","neck","back","cervical","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SAEGSATHEUANE_DARAPHONE_H207643_20230615.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"SAEGSATHEUANE_DARAPHONE_H207643_20230615.pdf","text_length":28462,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H207643 \n \nDARAPHONE SAEGSATHEUANE, Employee                                                     CLAIMANT \n \nTRANE COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, Employer                                                 RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier                                             RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 15, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by GUY ALTON WADE, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On March 21, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for hearing at Fort Smith, Arkansas.  \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on January 5, 2023, and a pre-hearing order was filed on that \nsame date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made \na part of the record without objection. \n At the hearing, the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2.   The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on November 3, 2021. \n 3.  Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her left shoulder and neck on or about        \n      November 3, 2021.  \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n 1.  Compensation rate. \n            2.   Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n2 \n \n            3.  Whether claimant is entitled to medical benefits. \n 4.   Attorney’s fee. \n The claimant contends that: \n“a. The claimant contends that on July 3, 2022, she was terminated because of the effects \nof medication that was prescribed because of the effects of her admittedly compensable job-related \ninjury; therefore, she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from July 4, 2022 until a date yet \nto  be  determined  since  she  has  remained  under  active  medical  treatment  during  that  time  and  the \nrespondents have not made suitable work available. \nb. The claimant contends that she is entitled to injections that have been recommended \nby her authorized physician. \nc. The claimant contends that her attorney is entitled to an appropriate attorney’s fee.”  \nThe respondents contend that “the ESI injections are not reasonable, necessary, or related to \nthe work injury. Claimant returned to work following the injury and was subsequently terminated for \nreasons  unrelated  to  the  work  injury  and  as  a  result  is  not  entitled  to  additional  temporary  total \ndisability benefits.”   \n From a review of the entire record, including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the \nwitnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on \nJanuary 5, 2023, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date, as well as those made at \nthe hearing, are hereby accepted as fact. \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. Claimant has met her burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that she is entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits beginning July 13, 2022, to a date yet to be determined. \n3. Claimant has met her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nto additional medical benefits from Dr. Brent Whatcott for her neck and left shoulder injury. \n4.  Claimant’s average weekly wage at the time of her injury was $897.00, making her temporary \ntotal disability rate $598.00 per week.  \n5. Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that her counsel is entitled to a \ncontroverted attorney's fee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-715. \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The  parties  were  unable  to  agree  upon  an  average  weekly  wage  for  calculating  indemnity \nbenefits if such were awarded.   Respondents provided the payment records from the year before the \ndate of injury (see discussion of these records below).  Claimant’s attorney submitted a letter after the \nhearing, both stating his position and calculating the average weekly overtime earnings for claimant.  \nThis letter is blue-backed and made a part of the record.  \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant testified she was injured while she was working because she was in an area where she \ndid not have sufficient room to stand without hitting a roof. She said she injured her neck and went \nto  the  doctor  the  next  day.  Claimant  testified  she  was  placed  on  some  physical  restrictions  but \ncontinued to work. She was referred to physical therapy.   \n Claimant said she was no longer working at Trane because while performing her duties, she \nheard something pop. She became lightheaded so she sat in a chair. Claimant testified that she was \ndizzy and closed her eyes but denied she had fallen asleep. She said that in her fifteen years of working \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n4 \n \n \nat Trane, it was the first time she had been accused of sleeping on the job. Before she was terminated, \nclaimant said she was working fifty-eight hours a week. In reviewing her wage records, claimant stated \nthat she used a lot of sick leave in the fifty-two weeks before her injury because she had a blood clot \nin her feet.  \n Claimant said after the injury, she was placed on some working restrictions and continued to \nwork. Claimant testified that she also did a course of physical therapy. However, the injury hurt her \nto the point where she could not sleep, stating “I have to keep on turning the whole time because it \nis burning. It is like on fire.” Claimant said she was sent to a pain management doctor after she had \nbeen hurting for five or six months, first seeing someone at the pain management clinic on June 27, \n2022. She  received  an  injection  in  her  neck  and  shoulder.  Claimant  was  also  prescribed  pain \nmedication, which doesn’t really help and she is still not sleeping well. However, the medicine does \nmake her sleepy.  \n Claimant testified that her condition was worse now than the day she got fired. She said while \nworking, she took vacation days and personal days when her injury caused her to miss work, but she \ndid not know how many such days that she used.  \n Claimant testified that she is currently seeing the pain management doctor monthly.  No one \nat Trane had told claimant that if she took medication that caused her to go to sleep at work that she \nwould be fired.   Claimant said that after her injury that she worked at the same place for a short time \nand was then put to work at light duty. However, she said that it was the same job and that she still \nhad to lift heavy stuff and had to bend down.  \nOn  cross-examination,  claimant  affirmed  that  she was able  to  communicate  in  English and \nthat she helped train new employees and completed paperwork as part of her duties.  Claimant said \nshe was not working at the time of the hearing and did not know why a doctor’s record from \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n5 \n \n \nSeptember  22,  2022,  said  that  she  was  working  full  time.  Claimant  denied  that  she  had  seen  a \nneurosurgeon but agreed that she had been sent to Fayetteville, “but I don’t know why they send me \nto Fayetteville, but they never say anything about surgery.” She denied that she had told her doctor \non July 25, 2022, that the medication caused no fatigue and no drowsiness. She said that she had never \nbeen asked if the medicine made her drowsy.  \n Claimant said that she had had two injections into her shoulder, and she believed that there \nwas a little improvement, although for the first couple of hours after the injection was painful. When \nasked to specify what her current physical ailments were, she said it was her left shoulder, arm, and \nneck. Claimant testified that she had a modified job two months before she was fired based on some \npaperwork that she received from the first doctor. She said she didn’t provide any other paperwork \nor restrictions or limitations after that.  \n After claimant rested, respondents called Marcus Philips, the Human Resources Specialist at \nTrane. He did not have that position on July 13, 2022, when claimant was terminated, as he took that \nposition in August of 2022. However, as the current HR director, he has access to the files with respect \nto the employees at Trane. He was aware that claimant had a work-related injury for which she was \nreceiving  treatment  before  he  became  HR  director.    Mr.  Philips  said  that  one  task  that  claimant \nperformed while on light duty was observing production times and reporting back to the supervisor \nhow long it took to complete a task. That job involved counting and documentation, as well as moving \npaperwork to different sections. He denied that claimant was doing any kind of rigorous work while \non light duty.  \nMr. Philips testified that claimant’s termination was due to sleeping on the job. Claimant had \nother discipline issues with Trane prior to being terminated regarding her attendance, including failure \nto  report  to  work.  Mr.  Philips  was  unaware  that  claimant  was  on  medication  that  might  affect  her \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n6 \n \n \nability to perform her job, and he had not discussed with claimant whether she was asleep because of \nthe  medication  she  was  taking.  Mr.  Philips  confirmed  what  claimant  had  said  about  training  new \nemployees and that she did so in English. \n On  cross  examination,  Mr.  Philips  affirmed  that  Trane  could  have  continued  to  provide \naccommodations for claimant’s limitations had she not been terminated. When asked about how much \nthe paper weighed that claimant would have to carry, Mr. Philips was unsure. At that point, he was \nshown Respondent’s Exhibit #1, which consisted of one hundred twenty-one pages, and he said that \nit  was  less  paper  than  that.  He  did  concede  that  the  job  involved  reaching  away  from  the  body, \nbending, and moving the head and neck. \n When asked about Trane’s disciplinary policy, Mr. Philips said that it was progressive in that \nthe  steps  were  verbal,  written,  and  final  termination.  He  also  stated  that  suspension  could  be \napplicable, depending on the situation. The cross-examination concluded with this exchange: \nQuestion  (By  Mr.  Walker)  So  do  you  know  whether  the  person  who \nterminated  her  knew  what  level  of  discipline  she  was  at  when  she  got \nterminated? Do you know that from firsthand knowledge? \nAnswer (By Mr. Philips) No, sir. \n \nQ.  Now  you  indicated  you  were  not  aware  of  anything  from  medical \nprovider  talking  about  how  medication  may  have  a  sedative  effect  on \nDaraphone, but you are an HR person now; right? \nA. Yes, sir. \n \nQ. If one of Trane’s employees had a job-related  injury  and  you  receive \nsomething  from  their  medical  provider  saying  they  are  required  to  take \nprescription medication that was medically necessary in order for them to \nbe able to continue working and that the medication might have a sedative \neffect or adjustment period, how would you interpret that? \nA. That would have been the amount of time the sedative effect would be \nreduced. \n \nQ.  Would  you  interpret  that  as  a  medical  provider  indicating  there  were \nsome transition periods that needed to be allowed in order for that person \nto adjust to that medication? \nA. Yes.  \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n7 \n \n \n \nQ. Would you think that would be reasonable? \nA. Yes. \n \n On  redirect-examination  Mr.  Philips  said  he  did  not  receive  anything  regarding  a  transition \nperiod, nor seen anything to that effect in claimant’s file. \n Mr. Philips was then questioned by the Court. He stated that he received some medical records \nfrom the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. There was then this exchange: \nQ  (from  the  Court)  You  mentioned  progressive  discipline.  Are  there \ncircumstances where someone doesn’t get a verbal warning first? \nWitness. No. \n \nQ. OK. \nWitness. Typically, everyone should. \n \nQ.  I  just  wondered  if  an  employee  slugged  another  one  unprovoked \nslugged  another  one,  if  they  would  be  warned  or  would  they  be \nterminated? \nWitness. That would be termination.  \n   \nQ. So there are provisions that you can skip the verbal warning, written \nwarning, suspension if you were going to do a suspension-  \nWitness. Yes. \n  \nREVIEW OF THE MEDICAL EXHIBITS \n  \n The  records  submitted  by  the  parties  were  largely  duplicative  and  will  be  reviewed  in \nchronological  order.  Claimant  first  saw  APRN  Cynthia  Johnson  at  Arkansas  Occupational  Health \nClinic  on  November  4,  2021.  The  treatment  plan  following  the  examination  was  over-the-counter \npain relievers, heat, ice, and an over-the-counter lidocaine patch/topical muscle ointment to the left \nshoulder. The recommended activity restrictions were “no work over chest level, limit lifting, pushing, \npulling with less than ten pounds of force with the left shoulder.” While that visit concluded with a \nrecommendation that claimant return in two weeks, she was back on November 12, 2021, and Ms. \nJohnson made a referral for an MRI to evaluate the lack of progress. An MRI of claimant’s left \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n8 \n \n \nshoulder was performed on December 1, 2021, with no evidence of internal derangement of the left \nshoulder;  a  second  MRI  was  performed  on  December  7,  2021,  examining  the  left  brachial  plexus, \nwhich  revealed  a  small  disc  herniation  at  C5-C6,  but  otherwise  an  unremarkable  non  contrast  MR \nappearance of the left brachial plexus.  \n On December 9, 2021, Ms. Johnson reviewed the MRI and determined that six sessions of \nphysical therapy would be appropriate. The final progress notes from January 5, 2022, recommended \n“Patient to follow up with MD as scheduled, continued daily home exercises. She would benefit from \ncontinued physical therapy, MRI spine maybe indicated, she may also benefit from home TENS unit \nfor home pain management.”  Claimant completed this course of physical therapy on January 5, 2022. \n On January 7, 2022, claimant returned to Arkansas Occupational Medicine Services but did \nnot see an MD; she continued to be followed by APRN Johnson. The treatment plan was to return \nfor  more  physical  therapy  and  continue  with  over-the-counter  Ibuprofen  or Aleve  twice  daily  for \ninflammation,  alternating  with  Acetaminophen  for  pain.  Claimant’s  recommended  work  status \nremained at restricted duty. \n On January 24, 2022, claimant began a second set of six visits with physical therapy.  After the \nlast  visit  on  February  7,  2022,  the  therapist  recorded  in  the  assessment  and  diagnosis  section  that \nclaimant still had pain in her cervical and left shoulder area. Physical Therapist Lesli France said that \nclaimant  presented “with  a  positive  Spurling’s and positive Empty Can  left  shoulder.”  Ms.  France \nbelieved  that  claimant  might “benefit  from  imaging  of  the  cervical  spine  to  rule  out  cervical \nradiculopathy as the cause for her headaches, and neck and periscapular pain complaints.” \n Returning to see Ms. Johnson at Arkansas Occupational Medicine Services on February 10, \n2022,  claimant  was  referred  for  a  CT  scan  but  nothing  other  than  the  previous  over-the-counter \nmedication, ice/heat treatments and a lidocaine patch were offered to relieve her pain.  \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n9 \n \n \n A  cervical  spine  CT  was  performed  on  February  15,  2022,  with  the  following  abnormal \nfindings  at  C5-6 “There is retrolisthesis and disc space narrowing.  Retrolisthesis is  almost  three \nmillimeters.  Mild  bilateral  uncovertebral/foraminal  spurring  at  this  level.  Mild  broad  posterior  disc \nbulge, likely also a small right posterolateral disc protrusion. Mild central canal stenosis suspected at \nthis level.” \n Claimant returned to see Ms. Johnson on February 22, 2022, and a referral to neurosurgery \nwas recommended. Claimant went to NWA Neuroscience Institute in Fayetteville on April 12, 2022, \nand was seen by Candace Harper, P.A. \nIn the discussion summary, Ms. Harper recorded the following: \n “Patient presents for evaluation of neck pain radiating to the lute of the \nC6-7 distributions. She has had brachial plexus MRI and CT cervical spine. \nI  do  not  have  the  radiology  report  on  the  brachial  plexus  MRI.  I  have \nreviewed  the  CT  cervical  spine  showing  kyphosis  at  C5-6  and  slight \nretrolisthesis at C5 on 6. Patient needs MRI for further evaluations as CT \nis not sufficient to evaluate her canal or foramen. We will request this at \nour  facility,  will  call  with  results  and  further  plan.  I  explained  potential \npathology on a spine model with patient today, she agrees with the plan.”   \n \nUnder the section titled \"patient instructions,” Ms. Harper noted: \n \n “I have reviewed patient’s cervical MRI this is negative for any high-grade \ncanal or foraminal stenosis. Thus, we do not have a surgical solution for \nher  pain.  Recommended  conservative  care  which  may  include  physical \ntherapy or pain management.” \n \n \n      The MRI ordered by  Ms. Harper was performed on April 28, 2022, and found \nthe following:  \n “C3-4 posterior disc osteophyte complex causes mild canal stenosis and \npartially flattens the spinal cord. No foraminal stenosis.  \nC4-5  posterior  disc  osteophyte  complex  causes  mild  canal  stenosis  and \npartially  flattens  the  ventral  surface  of  the  spinal  cord.  No  foraminal \nstenosis  \nC5-6  a  posterior  disc  osteophyte  complex  is  present  with  mild  canal \nstenosis and partial flattening of the spinal cord. No foraminal stenosis. \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n10 \n \n \nC6- 7 no canal or foraminal stenosis. There are small bilateral nerve lute \nsleeve cysts. \nC7-T1. no canal or foraminal stenosis. There are small bilateral nerve lute \nsleeve cysts. \n \nThe impression was: \n \n“Posterior disc osteophyte complex with mild canal stenosis and cord \nimpingement at the C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6 level. \n \n On May 13, 2022, claimant returned to see APRN Johnson once again who determined that \nthe treatment plan would be to refer claimant to pain management for this issue. \n On  June  27, 2022,  claimant  had  her  first  visit  with  DNP  Brandon  Faulkner  for  pain \nmanagement,  receiving  an  injection  of  Bupivacaine  and  Kenalog.  DNP  Faulkner  also  prescribed \nTramadol  for  her  pain.  Claimant  received  another  injection  on  July  25,  2022,  of  Bupivacaine  and \nDecadron and the prescription for Tramadol was renewed.  \n When Claimant returned to DNP Faulkner on August 22, 2022, she reported that she was not \nsatisfied with her current treatment. Despite mentioning in his June 27, 2022, notes that he needed to \nsee the recent imaging from Prime Medical, DNP Faulkner had not seen the shoulder imaging  that \nwas done on December 1, 2021, nor did he have it during the September 26, 2022, visit. On the latter \nvisit, claimant also saw Dr. Brett Whatcott for a left suprascapular nerve block. On October 17, 2022, \nclaimant returned to see Dr. Whatcott. While the assessment/plan from that visit contains information \nfrom previous visits, there was this new entry: \n“I do not need to see imaging of left shoulder any longer due to pain \nnot coming from the shoulder. Patient had SSNB done on 9/26 and \nreports  a  0%  pain  relief.  Working  is  not  recommended  to  do  any \nlifting, only light duty at this time. We will re-evaluate at the next visit. \nEpidural recommended from this time for better pain control, will get \nthat  scheduled.  Patient  had  a  C5/6  left  side  herniated  disc  with  left \nradiculopathy.”    \n \n The final submissions were notes from the claims adjuster and a review by Dr. Glenn Babus, \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n11 \n \n \nwhose specialties are anesthesiology and pain medicine.  Dr. Babus reviewed the records submitted \nto him and determined the additional treatment recommended by Dr. Whatcott was not reasonable \nor necessary; he did not personally examine claimant.  \nREVIEW OF NON-MEDICAL EXHIBITS \n Respondent submitted an email from Chris Saunders with an attached printout of the wages \nearned  by  claimant  from  July  10,  2020,  through  November  5,  2021,  along  with  a  calculation  that \nclaimant had earned $42,641.92 over the previous 51 weeks; the week of April 4, 2021, was blank for \nan unexplained reason.  In reviewing the printout, I noted there were also weeks in September through \nDecember 2020 that were not included, again without explanation.  However, the missing weeks are \nnot critical to my determination of claimant’s average weekly wage.  \nADJUDICATION \n \nThere are three distinct issues presented in this case.  First, is claimant entitled to additional \nmedical treatment for her compensable injury?  Second, is she entitled to temporary total disability \npayments (TTD) from the time she was fired from her job while being treated for her injury?  Third, \nif claimant is entitled to TTD, what is the appropriate compensation rate for those benefits?  \n1.  Claimant’s entitlement to additional medical treatment.  \nIt was stipulated that claimant had a compensable injury on November 3, 2021. Once it has \nbeen  established  that  a  claimant  has  sustained  a  compensable  injury,  she  is  not  required  to  offer \nobjective medical evidence to prove entitlement to additional benefits, Ark. Health Ctr. v. Burnett, 2018 \nArk. App. 427, at 9, 558 S.W.3d 408, 414.   \nThe  evidence  on  this  point  boils  down  to  whether  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  and  the \nopinion of her treating physician is more persuasive than the report of a doctor who only reviewed \nrecords  provided  to  him.  I find Dr. Whatcott’s recommendation is more  credible  in  light  of  the \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n12 \n \n \nconservative  care  claimant  has  received  to  this  point  in  her  course  of  treatment,  and  therefore \nclaimant’s  proof  is  sufficient  to  support  her  request  for  continued  medical  treatment  for  her \ncompensable injury.\n1\n \n2.   Claimant’s entitlement of temporary total disability benefits. \n \nTo  be  entitled  to  TTD  benefits  for  an  unscheduled  injury,  a  claimant  must  prove  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that she remains within her healing period and suffers a total incapacity \nto earn wages. Allen Canning Co. v. Woodruff, 92 Ark. App. 237, 212 S.W.3d 25 (2005).   In the previous \nsection, I found claimant was still in her healing period, thus satisfying the first part of the two-part \ntest.  As for the second part of that test, she had returned to work under light duty, which could be \nseen as a capacity to earn some wages.  However, in Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d \n899 (2002), the Arkansas Court of Appeals wrote: \"If, during the period while the body is healing, the \nemployee is unable to perform remunerative labor with reasonable consistency and without pain and \ndiscomfort,  his  temporary  disability  is  deemed  total.\"  Based  on  my  finding  above  that  additional \nmedical treatment is appropriate for claimant’s injury, and that I found her to be a credible witness as \nto the pain she suffers on a near-constant basis, I find she qualifies for total temporary disability from \nJuly 13, 2022 until a date to be determined.\n 2\n  \n Before leaving this issue, I note that respondent raised as a defense to this portion of the claim \nthat claimant was “terminated for reasons unrelated to the work injury and as a result is not entitled \nto additional temporary total disability benefits.”  I find the claimant’s termination was irrelevant to \n \n1\n In reviewing the medical records, it is striking how few licensed physicians claimant has seen as of the day of the hearing.  \nHer course of treatment has been directed by APRN Johnson, who referred her to a physical therapist, then a neurosurgeon \nwhere she was seen by a physician’s assistant, and then to pain management where she was first treated by a DNP before \nfinally seeing Dr. Whatcott.    This observation does  not cast aspersions  on those that  have treated claimant; all may be \nquite competent at what they do.  Still, those assistants are not medical doctors.   \n2\n In her contentions, claimant maintained she was terminated on July 3, 2022.  I find Mr. Philip’s testimony to be \nmore persuasive that it was July 13, 2022.  \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n13 \n \n \nher  entitlement  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits.  Respondent  did  not  prove  claimant  was \nterminated  for  good  cause,  as  its  only  witness  was  not  a  witness  to  the  alleged  sleeping  incident.  \nFurther, even if he had witnessed it, Tyson Poultry,  Inc. v. Narvaiz, 2012 Ark. 118, would dictate that \nclaimant would not be disqualified from receiving TTD benefits.  \n3.  Claimant’s average weekly wage at the time of the injury. \n Arkansas Code Annotated §11-9-518 is the applicable statute for calculating claimant’s average \nweekly wage. This statute reads, in pertinent part: \n(a)(1)  Compensation  shall  be  computed  on  the  average  weekly  wage \nearned by the employee under the contract of hire in force at the time \nof the accident and in no case shall be computed on less than a full-\ntime workweek in the employment. \n \n(2)  Where  the  injured  employee  was  working  on  a  piece  basis,  the \naverage weekly wage shall be determined by dividing the earnings of \nthe  employee  by  the  number  of  hours  required  to  earn  the  wages \nduring  the  period  not  to  exceed  fifty-two  (52)  weeks  preceding  the \nweek  in  which  the  accident  occurred  and  by  multiplying  this  hourly \nwage  by  the  number  of  hours  in  a  full-time  workweek  in  the \nemployment. \n \n(b) Overtime earnings are to be added to the regular weekly wages and \nshall be computed by dividing the overtime earnings by the number of \nweeks  worked  by  the  employee  in  the  same  employment  under  the \ncontract of hire in  force  at the time of  the accident, not to exceed a \nperiod of fifty-two (52) weeks preceding the accident. \n \nRespondent’s non-medical exhibit treated claimant as a piece worker as per §11-9-518 (a)(2), \ndividing  the  total  earnings  by  51  weeks  (as  noted  above,  there  was  a missing week in respondent’s \nrecords).  However, claimant was not a piece worker and therefore there was no reason to calculate \nher wages in such a fashion.     \nRespondent’s records show that claimant received a base pay rate of $809.98 during the weeks \nleading up to the November 3, 2021, injury.  Those same records show that during the 46 weeks prior \n\nSaegsatheuane-H207643 \n \n14 \n \n \nto the accident (again, respondents’ records were missing the entire month of November 2020 and \nhalf of December 2020, so a 52-week calculation was not possible), claimant earned $4,002.77 for an \naverage weekly overtime wage of $87.02.  Claimant’s average weekly wage is therefore $897.00, yielding \na TTD rate of $598.00.  \nORDER \n \n Respondents  are  directed  to  pay  benefits  in  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  set  forth \nherein this Opinion. \nAll accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest \nat the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809. \nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715, the claimant's attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney's \nfee on 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. \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the  court  reporter  her  charges  for  preparation  of  the \ntranscript in the amount of $631.95. \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H207643 DARAPHONE SAEGSATHEUANE, Employee CLAIMANT TRANE COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, Employer RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 15, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian Coun...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:06:29.782Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H207643-2023-06-15","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SAEGSATHEUANE_DARAPHONE_H207643_20230615.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}