{"id":"alj-H208333-2025-05-22","awcc_number":"H208333","decision_date":"2025-05-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Joseph Taylor","employer_name":"Dolgencorp., LLC","title":"TAYLOR VS. DOLGENCORP., LLC AWCC# H208333 May 22, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","modified:1","dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:5"],"injury_keywords":["back","thoracic","wrist","hip","shoulder","ankle","knee","carpal tunnel"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TAYLOR_JOSEPH_H208333_20250522.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TAYLOR_JOSEPH_H208333_20250522.pdf","text_length":30538,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H208333 \n \n \nJOSEPH TAYLOR,  \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nDOLGENCORP., LLC d/b/a \nDOLLAR GENERAL STORE, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nDOLGENCORP., LLC/ \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MG’T SERVICES, INC., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 22, 2025 \n \nHearing  conducted  on February  26,  2025, before the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by the Honorable Laura Beth York, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable David C. Jones, Newkirk & Jones, Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \n \nINTRODUCTION \n \n          In  the  prehearing  order  filed  October  22,  2024,  the  parties agreed  to  the following \nstipulations, which they modified and affirmed on the record at the hearing: \n \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed with the claimant at all \nrelevant times including November 15, 2022, the date he was involved in a work-\nrelated assault in which he sustained admittedly compensable injuries to his face \nand upper back/thoracic spine. \n \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n2 \n \n3. The claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) was $202.09 which entitles him to \n            weekly compensation rates of $135 for temporary total disability (TTD) and \n            $135 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.  \n \n4. The respondents controvert only  the  payment  of  any  additional  medical  and/or \nindemnity benefits other than those they have paid to date. \n \n5. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination \nand/or litigation. \n \n(Commission Exhibit 1 at 2; Hearing Transcript at 5-7). At the hearing both parties offered and \nagreed to an additional stipulation as follows: Dr. Wayne Bruffett opined the claimant reached \nmaximum  medical  improvement  (MMI)  on February  22,  2023; assigned  him  a  permanent \nanatomical impairment rating of 19% to the body-as-a-whole (BAW); and released him to return \nto work with no additional physical limitations or restrictions. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 5-6). \nPursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement the issues litigated at the hearing were: \n \n1. Whether the claimant is permanently and totally disabled (PTD) and, if not, the \nextent of the claimant’s wage loss disability, if any. \n \n2. Whether  and  to  what  extent,  if  any,  the  claimant’s  attorney  is  entitled  to  a \ncontroverted fee on these facts. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 5-6).  \n \n           The claimant contends that on or about November 15, 2022, he sustained admittedly \ncompensable injuries to his face and upper back/thoracic spine as the result of a work-related \nassault. On February 22, 2022, Dr. Wayne Bruffett ultimately released the claimant with a 19% \nto the body-as-a-whole (BAW) permanent anatomical impairment rating, which the respondents \nhave accepted  and  paid. The  claimant  contends he  is PTD as  a  result  of his  admittedly \ncompensable  work-related  injuries or,  alternatively, he  is  entitled to  substantial  wage  loss \ndisability as a result of his compensable injuries. He further contends his attorney is entitled to \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n3 \n \nthe maximum statutory attorney’s fee. The claimant reserves any and all other issues for future \ndetermination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2-3; T. 5-6; 57-60, 62). \n           The respondents contend they have accepted the claimant’s face and upper back/thoracic \nspine injuries as compensable and have paid all appropriate benefits to date, including but not \nlimited to Dr. Bruffett’s 19% BAW impairment rating. The respondents contend the claimant is \nnot PTD, nor is he entitled to any wage loss disability related to his compensable injuries. The \nrespondents contend that any wage loss disability the claimant may have sustained is not the \n\"major cause\" of his overall disability, which the respondents contend is the result of preexisting \nconditions. The  respondents further  contend  the  claimant  has  applied  for  and  currently  is \nreceiving Social Security disability (SSD) benefits and, therefore, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \nSection 11-9-411 (Lexis Replacement 2025) they are entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit/offest in \nthe  amount  of any and  all group  health, and/or disability benefits, as  well  as any and  all \nunemployment benefits paid to or on the claimant’s behalf. The respondents reserve the right to \namend and supplement their contentions upon the completion of necessary investigation and \ndiscovery; and they reserve all other issues for future determination and/or litigation. (Comms’n \nEx. 1 at 3; T. 5-6; 60-62). \n           The record consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein and \nattached thereto, as well as the parties’ blue-backed post-hearing briefs. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n            The claimant, Mr. Joseph Taylor (the claimant), is 54 years old and has a high school \neducation. After he graduated from high school he worked as a cook at Oaklawn Race Track in Hot \nSprings, and at various fast food restaurants. Thereafter, he moved to Memphis, Tennessee working \nas a night stocker at Albertson’s, and in retail distribution. He then moved to Oklahoma where he \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n4 \n \nworked as a cook, warehouse forklift operator with Georgia Pacific (GP), and as a stocker in stores. \nThe claimant obtained a certification at GP as a forklift operator, but that certification has since \nexpired. He also tried construction work but testified it “was not for me.” (T. 11; 10-11). The \nclaimant eventually moved back to Little Rock from Oklahoma to care for his grandmother until \nshe passed away. (T. 11-12). The claimant’s last job before he began working with the respondent-\nemployer, Dollar General, was with the City of Little Rock where he worked in waste management \nas a sanitation worker until sometime in 2013 or 2014. (T. 15-16). He testified the City of Little \nRock job “was the last job I dealt with...but then I got disabled.” (T. 55). \n           The claimant testified that while working for the City of Little Rock he fell off a sanitation \ntruck in rainy weather and hurt his back. (T. 15-16). Specifically concerning this fall from the Little \nRock sanitation truck the claimant testified that after he fell, “...I was layin’ flat on my back. I \ncouldn’t move, I couldn’t talk, I couldn’t do anything. So it’s like I was layin’ there and the rain \nwas just fallin’ down on me. I couldn’t even close my eyes, so it’s just like I was there for, like, 20 \nminutes.” (T. 15). The  claimant testified he sustained multiple injuries in this incident: “My \nshoulders, wrist, head, pretty much everything.” (T. 18). He testified he did not file a workers’ \ncompensation claim at that time because he did not know anything about it, that he thought it might \nbe his fault since he slipped and he did not want to lose his job, so he kept working until, “I couldn’t \nfake it anymore.” (T. 18; 15-18).  \n          At some point after this fall the claimant applied for and began drawing SSD benefits of not \n“over $1,000.00” per month. (T. 22; 48). The claimant testified he had drawn SSD benefits for \n“[p]robably like 13 years[.]” before he went to work for Dollar General in late December 2021. (T. \n14) (Bracketed material added). Upon further inquiry the claimant agreed he had been drawing \nSSD benefits “maybe” 11-12 years before he began working for Dollar General. (T. 56). The \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n5 \n \nclaimant testified he was drawing $1,051 per month in SSD benefits at the time of the hearing. (T. \n22). The claimant testified he had been drawing SSD benefits since he was “40-somethin’.” (T. 14). \n         The claimant admitted he has a long history of both physical and mental issues for which he \nhas undergone medical treatment and some 19 surgeries. The claimant apparently attributes these \ninjuries to the fall that occurred when he was working with the City of Little Rock, and to his \nplaying football and other sports. (T. 17-21; 31-46; Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 10-234). He also has \nasthma, so has not mowed a yard in some 18 years. (T. 19; 31).      \n         The claimant testified that Social Security [Social Security Administration rules] allows him \nto work up to 20 hours per week, and that he likes to be around people and to visit so he applied \nfor a job with Dollar General. (T. 21; 23-24; 46) (Bracketed material added). The claimant testified \nhe told Dollar General (DG) about his preexisting physical limitations and restrictions before they \nhired him, and he began work as a DG cashier on or about December 27, 2021. The claimant’s job \nduties at DG included checking customers out and operating the cash register. (T. 23-24). \n         On November 15, 2022, the date of the admittedly compensable incident, the cash register \nwas not working properly so the store was temporarily unable to accept cash payments. Eventually \na customer came into the store who only had cash and did not have a debit or credit card. At some \npoint after the claimant told the customer he was unable to accept cash payments he and the \ncustomer became involved in a verbal altercation. The claimant testified the customer started \ncursing, so he began taking the products the customer had intended to buy back intending to restock \nthem, at which time the verbal altercation evolved into a physical altercation. (T. 24-26). The \nclaimant testified he “got in that stance ‘cause I felt like he was fixin’ to do somethin’ to me, but \nwhen I took the stance, my hip popped, so therefore I lost my balance... .” (T. 25).  As the altercation \nescalated the customer picked-up the claimant and threw him to the floor, resulting primarily in \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n6 \n \nleft-sided transverse process fractures of his L2 through L5-1 vertebrae. (T. 25-26; Claimant’s \nExhibit 1 at 1-31; RX1 at 1-9). \n           The claimant initially was treated at the CHI St. Vincent emergency room (ER). He was \ndischarged the same day as the work incident and allowed to return home. Thereafter, the claimant \ncame under the care of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Wayne Bruffett, then of OrthoArkansas in Little \nRock. (CX1 at 1-9). When Dr. Bruffett saw the claimant on January 23, 2023, he opined the \nclaimant could return to light duty sedentary work at that time; however, the claimant told Dr. \nBruffett, as he also testified at the hearing, that DG terminated him (because of his involvement in \nthe “fight situation” at work). (CX1 at 21-25; T. 28-29; 46-48).  \n          Dr.  Bruffett  treated  the  claimant  conservatively;  opined  he  reached  maximum  medical \nimprovement (MMI) as of February 22, 2023, and assigned him a combined 19% BAW permanent \nanatomical impairment rating for the four (4) left-sided transverse vertebrae fractures. (CX1 at 26-\n30). In his “Return to Work” note dated February 22, 2023, Dr. Bruffett released the claimant to \nreturn to work with no restrictions related to the 11/15/2022 work-related incident. (CX1 at 31; \nRX1 at 216). \n         The claimant testified he is still in a great deal of pain and is unable to do some of the things \nhe was able to do before the date of his compensable injury. Specifically, he testified he had a \nburning and vibrating sensation that made his body feel “like a human pitchfork.” (T. 27-30). \nMedical records reveal Dr. Bruffett was aware of the claimant’s complaints in this regard before he \nreleased him to return to work with no restrictions as of February 22, 2023. (CX1 at 21-25).    \n       The claimant testified he loved his job at DG and would still be working there if DG had not \nterminated  him.  (T.  46-47).  He  admitted  DG  terminated  his  employment because  of  his \ninvolvement in the “fight situation”, but said he was never given the specific reason DG let him go. \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n7 \n \n(T. 47-48). The claimant testified he had made no efforts to seek other employment and had not \nworked anywhere or looked for a job since Dr. Bruffett released him in February 2023.  \n        The claimant further testified he had not sought any additional medical treatment for his \nNovember  15,  2022,  injury(ies) since Dr.  Bruffett released him to  return  to  work  without \nrestrictions on February 22, 2023. Moreover, the claimant acknowledged he had not sought any \nmedical treatment for his back, nor had he requested any further medical treatment related to his \nback for over two (2) years between Dr. Bruffett’s February 2023 no-restrictions release and the \nsubject hearing. (T. 33-34; 51).  \nDISCUSSION \nThe Burden of Proof \n           When deciding any issue, the ALJ and the Commission shall determine, on the basis of the \nrecord  as  a  whole,  whether  the  party  having  the  burden  of  proof  has  established  it  by  a \npreponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2) (2025 Lexis Replacement). The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he is entitled to benefits. \nStone v. Patel, 26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-\n704(c)(3) (2025 Lexis Repl.) states that the ALJ, the Commission, and the courts “shall strictly \nconstrue” the Act, which also requires them to read and construe the Act in its entirety, and to \nharmonize its provisions when necessary. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 \n(Ark.  App.  2002).  In  determining  whether  the  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proof,  the \nCommission is required to weigh the evidence impartially without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(4) (2025 Lexis Repl.); Gencorp Polymer Products \nv. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. \n196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n8 \n \n           All claims for workers’ compensation benefits must be based on proof. Speculation and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Corrections v. Glover, 35 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 595 \nS.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility of \nthe witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardees, 51 Ark. App. 116, 912 \nS.W.2d 14 (Ark. App. 1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any \nother witness’s testimony but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions of the \ntestimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. \nApp. 1989); Farmers Coop. v. Biles, supra.  \n           The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical evidence just as it does any other \nevidence, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. \nWilliams v. Pro Staff Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). It is within the Commission’s \nprovince to weigh the totality of the medical evidence and to determine what evidence is most \ncredible given the totality of the credible evidence of record. Minnesota Mining & Mfg’ing v. Baker, \n337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). \nWage Loss Disability \n \n          The Act specifically sets forth the requirements governing the Commission’s findings related \nto wage loss disability. For unscheduled injuries, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522 (2025 Lexis Repl.) \ncontrols  an  injured  worker’s  entitlement  to  permanent  disability  benefits.  The  payment  of \ncompensation for permanent disability compensation is appropriate where the permanent effects of \na work-related injury incapacitate the worker from earning the wages he was receiving at the time \nof the injury. Id. \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n9 \n \n         The Commission is charged with the duty of determining a claimant’s wage loss disability, if \nany, based upon consideration of the medical evidence and other matters affecting wage loss. Lee \nv.  Alcoa  Extrusion,  89 Ark. App.  228,  201  S.W.2d  449  (Ark. App.  2005).  When  making  a \ndetermination of the degree of disability an injured worker has sustained as the result of an \nunscheduled injury, the Commission must consider evidence demonstrating the degree to which \nthe worker’s physical anatomical impairment adversely affects his earning capacity, as well as other \nfactors  such  as  the  worker’s  age,  education,  work experience,  and  other matters  which  may \nreasonably be expected to affect his future earning ability. Such other matters may include, but are \nnot limited to: motivation, post-injury income, credibility, and demeanor. Ark. Methodist Hospital \nv. Adams, 43 Ark. App. 1, 858 S.W.2d 125 (Ark. App. 1993); Glass v. Edens, 233 Ark. 786, 346 \nS.W.2d 685 (1961); City of Fayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 (Ark. App. \n1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (Ark. App. 1990). \n          The Commission may use its own superior knowledge of industrial demands, limitations, and \nrequirements in conjunction with the relevant evidence to determine whether a claimant is entitled \nto wage loss disability. Henson v. General Electric, 99 Ark. App. 257, 257 S.W.3d 908 (Ark. App. \n2007). A claimant’s lack of interest in pursuing employment with his employer, and negative \nattitude in looking for work are impediments to the Commission’s ability to assess wage loss \ndisability. Logan County v. McDonald, 90 Ark. App. 409, 206 S.W.3d 258 (Ark. App. 2005).  A \nclaimant is not entitled to wage loss disability benefits for a scheduled injury. Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-521 (2025 Lexis Repl.); Moser v. Ark. Lime Co., 40 Ark. App. 113, 846 S.W.2d 188 (Ark. \nApp. 1993). \n         Specifically with respect to PTD benefits, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-519(e) (2024 Lexis Repl.) \n \n states: \n \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n10 \n \n (1) “Permanent total disability” means inability because  \n of compensable injury or occupational disease, to   \n earn any meaningful wages in the same or other   \n employment. \n (2) The burden of proof shall be on the employee to   \n prove inability to earn any meaningful wage in the   \n same or other employment. \nPTD “shall be determined in accordance with the facts.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-5-519(c) (2025 Lexis \nRepl.). “In considering a claim for permanent disability, the commission and the courts shall not \nconsider  the  odd-lot  doctrine.” Ark. Code Ann. §  11-5-519(f)  (2025 Lexis  Repl.);  and see, \nAmerican Eagle Airlines v. Donald Berndt, 2012 Ark. App. App. 220 (Ark. App. 2012), citing \nPatterson v. Ark. Dep’t of Health, 70 Ark. App. 182, 15 S.W.3d 701 (Ark. App. 2000).   \n          As previously cited, supra, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a) (2025 Lexis Repl.) \nrequires further that: \n(a) Permanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a \n determination that the compensable injury was the major \n cause of the disability or impairment.   \n \n(b) If  any  compensable  injury  combines  with  a  preexisting \n disease or condition or the natural process of aging to cause \n or prolong  disability  or a  need  for treatment,  permanent \n benefits shall be payable for the resultant condition only if \n the compensable injury is the major cause of the permanent \n disability or need for treatment. \n \n(Emphasis added). The Act specifically defines the term “major cause” to mean more than fifty \npercent (50%) of the cause, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. \nCode. Ann. § 11-9-102(14)(A) and (B) (2025 Lexis Repl.).  \n          Suffice it to say the facts of this case are rather unique. Indeed, the clear preponderance of \nall the relevant evidence of record conclusively reveals – as the claimant freely admitted at the \nhearing – he was “disabled” as a result of the admittedly serious multiple injuries he sustained as \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n11 \n \na result of falling from the sanitation truck in 2013 or 2014 when he was working for the City of \nLittle Rock. (T. 55; 15-18). In fact, after the City of Little Rock incident/multiple injuries the \nclaimant applied for and began receiving SSD benefits. Again, as he readily admitted at the \nhearing, this was some 11-12 years before he ever even went to work as a cashier at DG. While \nthe simple fact the claimant was drawing SSD benefits is not dispositive in determining whether \nhe is PTD or entitled to wage loss disability as a result of his compensable injury(ies), it is certainly \na factor to be considered along with the others.  \n           And in this case it is a factor that should and must be given great weight on the facts of this \ncase since – as the claimant readily admitted on more than one occasion at the hearing –  he was \n“disabled” as a result of his long-standing, well-documented preexisting, symptomatic, debilitating \nproblems long before he ever went to work at the obviously light duty cashier job at DG. Both the \nmedical evidence and the claimant’s own testimony conclusively demonstrate this fact. There \nsimply exists insufficient medical or other evidence in the record demonstrating the claimant is \nphysically incapable of any gainful employment whatsoever as a result of his subject November \n15, 2022, compensable injury(ies), or that he is entitled to any degree of wage loss disability on \nthe facts of this case. Consequently, I find the claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof in \ndemonstrating either that he is PTD, or that he is entitled to any percentage of wage loss disability \non these facts, for the following reasons. \n          First, the medical evidence as well as his own testimony reveal the claimant has failed to \nmeet his statutory burden of proof in demonstrating the subject November 15, 2022, injury(ies) is \n(are) the  “major  cause”  of  his  “disability.” Indeed,  quite  to  the  contrary,  the  overwhelming \npreponderance of the medical records corroborate the claimant’s own admissions at the hearing: he \nwas “disabled” well before the subject 11/15/2022 work incident.  \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n12 \n \n          On both direct and cross-examination the claimant himself testified concerning the extent of \nhis  significant,  long-standing, preexisting,  symptomatic  physical  and  mental conditions  and \nproblems. He admitted he had 19 surgeries before the subject 11/15/2022 work incident, including \nbut  not  limited  to:  three  (3) shoulder  operations; ankle  fusions,  thumb  fusions,  bilateral  hip \nsurgeries, knee surgeries, shoulder surgeries, carpal tunnel syndrome surgeries, foot surgery, toe \nsurgery, and others as noted in the medical records. (T. 18-20; RX1 at 10-234). Well before the \nsubject work incident the claimant had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and had chronic headache \nproblems, as well as psychological issues such as schizoaffective and bipolar disorder. (T. 31; 36; \n34-44; RX1 at 17; 24; 33; 86; 98; 103).  \n          The medical records reveal the claimant had shoulder problems as far back as 2013 and \neventually had left shoulder surgery on or about January 8, 2015. (RX1 at 17). He underwent right \nankle surgery with hardware placement on May 22, 2015. (RX1 at 24). On September 8, 2015, the \nclaimant began undergoing evaluation of and treatment for psychological problems, which included \nschizoaffective disorder and bipolar issues. The relevant records indicate the claimant was having \nproblems with chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and anger issues, and was “hearing voices.” (RX1 \nat  58). He  was  diagnosed  with  depression,  antisocial  personality  disorder,  anxiety  disorder, \nunspecified anxiety type, and cannabis abuse. (RX1 at 35; 29-38; 58). \n         The  claimant  underwent  right  knee  surgery  in  December  2015  (RX1  at  40),  and  his \npsychological issues remained an ongoing concern. Psychological counseling records reveal that \nat various times the claimant was “hearing voices” which were encouraging him to do negative \nthings, which are noted in the medical records themselves. (RX1 at 58). Some of the claimant’s \nother medical problems that existed some five (5) years before his 11/15/2022 work incident \nincluded a left hip decompression surgery in December 2016. (RX1 at 74). \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n13 \n \n          The hearing record further demonstrates that although in his deposition the claimant denied \nhe had had any prior back problems, relevant medical records reveal he had problems with his back \nas far back as 2015, and that by 2017 he had pain radiating down his left leg. (RX1 at 86). A January \n5,  2017,  medical  report  states  the  claimant told  the  medical  provider  he had recently  fallen \nexperienced severe lower back pain that radiated down his left leg. (RX1 at 86-94). \n       The medical record reveals the claimant continued to undergo medical procedures for these \nlong-standing, preexisting, symptomatic problems, including a right rotator cuff surgical repair on \nJanuary 12, 2017. (RX1 at 88). Furthermore, he underwent left ankle surgery on May 5, 2017. (RX1 \nat 98). On January 11, 2018, the claimant underwent another right shoulder surgery. (RX1 at 103-\n108). In 2018 the claimant not only had the right shoulder surgery but also underwent right thumb \nsurgery in May 2018 and left thumb surgery in September of 2018. (RX1 at 109, 122). In addition, \nthe claimant was treated with Botox injections for headaches for many years, and was still receiving \nthese injections in June 2021 as he reported having up to 20 severe headaches per month. (RX1 at \n125, 153, 207). The claimant underwent another right ankle surgery on November 25, 2020, and \ncontinued to complain about bilateral shoulder problems, bilateral hip problems, and knee problems \nin November 2021, as reflected in the various exhibits. (RX1 at 141, et seq.). \n          Although  the  claimant  argues  the  11/15/2022  work  incident  aggravated  his  various \npreexisting problems thus rendering him PTD or entitling him to significant wage loss disability \nover  and  above  his  19%  BAW  impairment  rating,  the  medical  record  reveals  these various \nconditions were long-standing, preexisting, symptomatic, and debilitating both long before and \ncontinuing after the 11/15/2022 work incident, and Dr. Bruffett’s February 22, 2023, no-restrictions \nwork release. The medical record reveals the claimant continued to treat for his ongoing preexisting \nbilateral hip problems.  \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n14 \n \n          At the hearing the claimant not only admitted he had undergone 19 surgical procedures on \nvarious parts of his body before the 11/15/2022 work incident, at the hearing he admitted he was \nexpecting to undergo bilateral shoulder replacements, bilateral hip replacements, and bilateral knee \nreplacements. (T. 43-44; RX1 at 226).  A May 1, 2023, medical record lists the claimant’s prior \nsurgeries and prior diagnoses stretching back almost a decade from August 2013 through May 1, \n2023. (RX1 at 226). All of the aforementioned evidence conclusively reveals the claimant has failed \nto meet his burden of proof in demonstrating that his 11/15/2022 compensable injury(ies) is the \n“major cause” of his current disability. In fact, all this evidence compels an objective, reasonable \nfact-finder to reach the opposite conclusion.  \n       Second, the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof in demonstrating he is incapable of \nearning the same wages he was earning at the time of his compensable injury. Here the claimant \nalready was drawing $1,000 per month in SSD benefits and was admittedly “disabled” at the time \nof his 11/15/2022 injury. He is now drawing $1,051 per month. At the hearing, although Dr. Bruffett \nreleased the claimant to return to work with no restrictions effective February 22, 2023, the claimant \nreadily admitted he had not looked for any other jobs since DG terminated his employment, \napparently as a result of the “fight situation” at work.  \n        Of course, there exist other employers which have cashier and similar jobs as the one the \nclaimant was performing at DG; and the claimant testified he would still be working at DG if his \nemployment had not been terminated. Consequently, it follows that if the claimant was able to \nphysically and otherwise capable of returning to his cashier job at DG, he is able to perform a \nsimilar job for another employer; however, to date he has failed and/or refused to even seek other \nemployment, or to make any job search whatsoever. This failure to seek other employment reveals \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n15 \n \na lack of interest in seeking employment and, therefore, is an impediment to accurately assessing \nthe amount of the claimant’s wage loss disability, if any.  \n        Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2. The  stipulations  contained  in  the  prehearing  order  filed  October  22,  2024,  as \nmodified and affirmed on the record at the subject hearing, hereby are accepted \nas facts.  \n \n3. The claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof in demonstrating that he is \nPTD as a result of his November 15, 2022, compensable injury(ies).  \n \n4. The claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof in demonstrating he is entitled \nto any percentage of wage loss disability in excess of his 19% BAW permanent \nanatomical impairment  rating as  a  result  of his subject  November  15,  2022, \ncompensable injury(ies). \n \n5. The claimant’s attorney is not entitled to a fee on these facts. \n \n           \n           Therefore, this claim is denied and dismissed without prejudice subject to the parties’ \n \n statutory appeal rights. If they have not already done so, the respondents shall pay the court \n \n reporter’s invoice within ten (10) days of their receipt of this opinion.  \n \n           IT IS SO ORDERED.   \n                                              \n \n       Mike Pickens \n       Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\nJoseph Taylor, AWCC N0. H208333 \n16 \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208333 JOSEPH TAYLOR, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DOLGENCORP., LLC d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL STORE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT DOLGENCORP., LLC/ SEDGWICK CLAIMS MG’T SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 22, 2025 Hearing conducted on February 26, 20...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:13.482Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208333-2025-05-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TAYLOR_JOSEPH_H208333_20250522.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}