{"id":"alj-H208417-2025-10-21","awcc_number":"H208417","decision_date":"2025-10-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"William Cyrus","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock","title":"CYRUS VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# H208417 October 21, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","thoracic","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CYRUS_WILLIAM_H208417_20251021.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CYRUS_WILLIAM_H208417_20251021.pdf","text_length":24034,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H208417 \n \nWILLIAM CYRUS, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK \nEMPLOYER         RESPONDENT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK/RISK \nMANAGEMENT RESOURCES,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA      RESPONDNET \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 21, 2025 \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 26\nth\n day of \nAugust, 2025, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nClaimant is represented by Andy Caldwell, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \nRespondents are represented by Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n A hearing was conducted on the 26\nth\n day of August, 2025, to determine the issue \nof permanent partial disability (PPD) or in the alternative, if the Commission finds that it \ndoes not have sufficient information upon which to assign and assess the Claimant’s \npermanent   impairment, order   an IME   in   accordance   with   A.C.A.   11-9-511,   and \nadditionally that  the  Claimant  is also entitled  to reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment,  along  with attorney  fees,  with all  other  issues  reserved.  A  copy of  the  Pre-\nhearing Order filed June 17, 2025, was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part of \nthe record without objection.  The Order provided that the parties stipulated the Arkansas \nWorkers’  Compensation has jurisdiction  of  the  claim and an employer/employee \nrelationship existed on November 25, 2022, that the claim was accepted as compensable, \nand that certain benefits were paid.  At the time of the hearing, the parties agreed that the \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n2 \n \nRespondent’s figures were correct in regard to wages and that the Claimant’s average \nweekly wage was $474.63, which entitled him to temporary total disability and permanent \npartial disability in the amount of $316.00/$237.00 respectively.  \n The Claimant’s  and Respondent’s  contentions are set  out  in  their  respective \namended responses to the Pre-hearing questionnaire and made part of the record without \nobjection.  The Claimant  contends in  his Amended  Response  to  the  Pre-Hearing \nquestionnaire that he sustained compensable injuries as a result of a gunshot wound on \nor  about  November  25,  2022, while in  the  course  and  scope  of  his  employment.    The \nRespondents  accepted  the  claim  and provided medical  and  indemnity  benefits.    The \nClaimant has a permanent anatomical loss as a result of these wounds.  The Claimant \ncontends  he  is  entitled  to  permanent  partial  disability  benefits  for  his  injuries.    The \nClaimant  sought  an  evaluation  with  the  Functional  Testing  Centers  for  his  permanent \nimpairment and was assigned a 2% impairment rating which has been controverted by \nRespondents.  The Claimant is either entitled to the 2% rating or the Commission should \nassess impairment in accordance with Arkansas Law.  If the Commission finds that it is \nwithout sufficient information upon which to assess the Claimant’s impairment, it should \norder  an  Independent  Medical  Examination  in  accordance  with  A.C.A.  11-9-511.  \nClaimant also contends that the cost of the impairment evaluation with Functional Testing \nCenters  is  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  for  which  Respondents are \nresponsible. Claimant’s  attorney  is  entitled  to  attorney’s  fees  on  all  controverted \nindemnity.  All other issues are reserved    \nThe  Respondent’s  contend in   its Second Response   to   the   Prehearing \nQuestionnaire   that   all   appropriate   benefits were  paid  with  regard  to  Claimant’s \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n3 \n \ncompensable injuries sustained on November 25, 2022.  Claimant’s treating physician, \nDr.  Bumpass,  indicated  that  he  reached  MMI  on  1/23/23  with  a  0%  impairment  rating.  \nClaimant’s rating evaluation performed by Functional Testing Centers is not medical \ntreatment, and Respondents should not be responsible for the same.  Likewise, an IME \nis  not  reasonable  and  necessary,  as  permanency  has  already  been  addressed  by \nClaimant’s treating physician.  \nThe sole witness to testify was the claimant, William Cyrus. The claimant submitted \ntwo exhibits without  objection, with Exhibit One consisting of medical records  with  an \nIndex of fifty-four pages. Claimant’s Exhibit Two consisted of Non-Medical Records with \nan Index that consisted of seven pages. The Respondents submitted one exhibit without \nobjection, consisting of documentary evidence with an Index consisting of fourteen pages.  \nFrom  a  review  of  the  record  as  a  whole, to  include  medical  reports  and  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission and having had an opportunity to observe the testimony \nand demeanor of  the witness,  the  following findings  of fact and  conclusions of  law are \nmade in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n \n2. That an employer/employee relationship existed on November 25, 2022, when \nthe Claimant sustained injuries that were accepted as compensable, as a result \nof a gunshot wound. \n \n3. That at the time of the injury, the claimant was earning an average weekly wage \nof $474.63, sufficient for TTD/PPD rates of $316.00/$237.00 respectively. \n \n4. That Respondents accepted the claim and paid appropriate benefits.  \n \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n4 \n \n5. That  the  Claimant  is  found  to  have  reached  maximum  medical  improvement \n(MMI) on January 23, 2023, with a 0% impairment rating as assigned by his \ntreating physician and that there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the required \nburden  of  proof  to  show  that the claimant is  entitled  to  a  permanent  partial \ndisability rating. \n \n6. That the Claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to prove by \na preponderance of the evidence that the additionally requested independent \nmedical  evaluation satisfies the  requirements  as  set  out  by  the  Arkansas \nWorkers’  Compensation  Act and that  the  evaluation is found  to  not  be a \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment.   \n \n7. That all remaining issues are moot. \n \n8. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents  are  ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The claimant, William Cyrus, testified that on November 25, 2022, he was working \nfor the HMP City Home Neighborhood Project with the city.  At the time of the accident, \n“We had pulled up to an address that we needed to clean, and I jumped out of the truck \nbefore the guy driving did.  And as I jumped out the truck, a black Charger drove up behind \nus and kind of pulled a little bit further to the side of us, and a guy came out and talked \nout the window and sat on the top of the hood and started firing a gun with a silencer on \nit, and that’s why I was shot because I never heard a sound.”  The claimant went on to \nstate that he was cleaning off the lot with a zero-turn mower when the man opened fired \non the city truck and he was ultimately struck, hitting him under his shoulder blades and \ncoming out the left side of his back. He was transported by ambulance to UAMS. He went \nto  Concentra, some  spinal  specialists, and  to  UAMS. He  went  on  to  state  that Dr. \nBumpass released him in January of 2023. He then requested a change of physician and \nstarted seeing Dr. Broussaud but stated he then lost his insurance. Additional treatment \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n5 \n \nwas not authorized by the Respondents, but the Claimant was not requesting additional \ntreatment  at  the time of  the  hearing.  (Tr.  7 – 9) Claimant went  on  to  state  that he  had \nreceived treatment from Pain Treatment Centers and that he had a burning sensation in \nthe  middle,  boney, part  of  his  back.  (Tr.  10) Describing  his  back symptoms,  he  stated \n“Well, just the stiffness of my back on certain days. When  I  lay,  I  have  to  turn  myself \nconstant periodically. Just not a comfortable sleep at night.”  He is still working for the city \nthrough Arkansas Public Works. He stated he had not been back to the doctor because \nthe city did not provide insurance, but that he now had insurance. He went on to state \nthat he now works as a pothole filler. (Tr. 11) \n He  additionally  testified about going  to  the  Functional  Testing  Center where he \nwas assessed an impairment rating, and to his knowledge, they haven’t been paid. He \nwas asking for permanent partial disability. (Tr. 12)  \n Under cross examination, the claimant admitted that he started working for the city \nin April of 2019, and for a number of years had also worked for Black Bear Diner, where \nhe worked as a dishwasher. He thought that had ended in the first part of 2025. He had \nworked that job from the time of his injury until early 2025. He stated he had left that job \nbecause he was only getting about 15 hours a week and “it really wasn’t worth my time, \nthe traffic, getting through the traffic that I had to get there.” (Tr. 13, 14) He admitted as a \nresult of the gunshot, he had sustained a cracked rib, which had healed up on his own.  \nAdditionally,  his  lung  had  been  nicked  and  had  healed  up  on  his  own. He  admitted  to \nbeing taken off work for about two months and during that time he had received workers’ \ncompensation  benefits. He  also  admitted  that  was  about  how  long  his  treatment  had \nlasted, with the exception of the later treatment at Pain Treatment Centers. He received \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n6 \n \na full duty release and then went back to his regular job. He switched to the new job, so \nhe could get 40 hours a week with insurance. (Tr. 15, 16) He also admitted he had stated \nin his deposition that he did not need help in his previous job nor with his current job filling \npotholes and had no restrictions from any doctor. (Tr. 18) \n The following questioning then occurred: \nQ.   And  you  said  at  some  point,  Doctor  Broussand  had  no  treatment  to  offer \n you, is that right? \nA.   Due to my insurance, no insurance. \nQ.  You told me that he indicated there was nothing else he could do. \nA.   Okay. \nQ.   Is that right? \nA.   Right. \nQ.   And I asked you was any other treatment recommended that you haven’t \n had. You told me nothing else has been recommended, is that true? \nA.   Right. \nQ.   You  had  discussed  with  me  in  the  deposition  that  you  sometimes  have \n some breathing difficulty maybe associated with the lung. \nA.  Yes. \nQ.   Okay.  I asked you in the deposition, other than the breathing difficulties that \n you told us about, do you have any other lasting problems because of the \n gunshot. Your response was, “I just have nightmares.” Is that correct? \nA.  Yeah, yeah. \nQ.   All  right.  We  next  discussed  later  in  the  deposition  your  evaluation  at \n Functional Testing Centers. You said that at the evaluation, you were asked \n to bend and turn to the side, is that right? \nA.   No. \nQ.   You said that you guessed that it was to see how your back was doing with \n the wound, is that right? \nA.   Yes. \nQ.   You didn’t lift anything, did you? \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n7 \n \nA.   No. \nQ.   And you told me it took about 30 minutes, is that right? \nA.   Yes. \nQ.   And all you did was bend and turn, is that correct? \nA.   Bend, turn, and twist. \nQ.   We have some medical records dated January 5, 2023, from UAMS. \nA.   Uh-huh. \nQ.   That document shows that you reported doing well overall, and you felt like \n you were able to perform your daily functions without difficulty. Does that \n sound correct? \nA.   Yes. \nQ.   You were released at that point to full duty by the trauma physician, does \n that sound right? \nA.  Yes. (Tr. 18, 19) \n On redirect, the claimant stated that he did not recall any spirometry testing \nand  had  never  received  any  treatment  for  PTSD.  (Tr.  20) On  recross,  the  claimant \nadmitted that he had never actually been diagnosed with PTSD. (Tr. 21) \n Claimant’s Exhibit One provides  that  the  Claimant  was  taken  to  UAMS  on \nNovember  25,  2022,  and  received  an  orthopedic  consult  which  provided  for  no  acute \northopedic  spine  intervention  with  no  spinal  precautions. The  report  provided that  the \nclaimant arrived with two ballistic wounds to his back, with one on the right side and one \non the left side. Injuries included a thoracic spine fracture, with a right sided rib fracture.  \nThe CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, provided for a comminuted fracture of the right \n8\nth\n rib as well as the transverse process and the spinous process of T8 vertebra.  Bilateral \npulmonary contusions were observed that were greater on the right side with a right sided \nhemothorax. An active hemorrhage was seen along the posterolateral 9\nth\n rib superficially, \nlikely  coming  from  the  9\nth\n intercostal  artery. No  acute  findings  were  found  within  the \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n8 \n \nabdomen and pelvis. The reports provided that the Claimant was asked about PTSD type \nsymptoms and the Claimant stated that “he felt ok,” but would call if he wanted to talk to \ntrauma psychology. The report went further and provided under impression for gunshot \nwounds to both the right and the left side of the back, with contusions of both lungs, closed \nfracture of multiple ribs of the right side, and of the eighth thoracic vertebra.  The Claimant \nwas discharged on November 26, 2022.  He was instructed to return to the surgery clinic \nin two weeks. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 1 – 24) \n The Claimant presented to Concentra December 1, 2022, in regard to his gunshot \nwounds. A physical therapy referral was made. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 25 – 30) The Claimant then \npresented to the UAMS Surgery Clinic on December 8, 2022. The report provided that \nthe Claimant was doing well but had persistent pain over his back. Dr. Mathew Roberts \nopined that the Claimant should be monitored monthly and that as of December 8, 2022, \nthe Claimant was only cleared for light desk duty. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 31 – 34) The Claimant \nthen  presented  to  UAMS  Orthopedic  Spine  Clinic  on  December  13,  2022. The  report \nprovided that the Claimant felt he was not walking as fast as he used to and that he should \nfollow up with the Surgery Clinic in about four weeks. Additionally, he could return to light \nduty, not lifting over 20 pounds. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 35 – 44) The Claimant then returned to the \nUAMS Surgery Clinic on January 5, 2023. The report provided that the claimant had a full \nrange of motion in all of his extremities and that he could move them spontaneously. (Cl. \nEx. 1, P. 45 – 46) \n The Claimant presented to the UAMS Neurosurgery Clinic on January 23, 2023.  \nThe report provided that the Claimant had healed T8 fractures secondary to non-operative \ntreatment. Dr.  David  B.  Bumpass provided that  the  Claimant could return  to  work  on \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n9 \n \nJanuary 24, 2023, with no work restrictions and further provided there was no need for \nan impairment rating. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 47 – 51) A report from Functional Testing Centers, \nInc., dated March 7, 2025, provided the Claimant had a 2% impairment rating to the whole \nperson, due to his work-related injury. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 52, 53) \n Claimants Exhibit Two consisted of a Pay Log Report and a bill from Functional \nTesting Centers addressed to the Claimant for the sum of $350.00. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 1 – 6)  \n The  Respondents Exhibit  One  consisted of fourteen  (14)  pages  of documentary \nevidence  plus  an  index. An  X-ray  of  the  thoracic  spine  dated  December  13,  2022, \nprovided  that  the  x-ray  was  unremarkable  and  that  the  known  right  T8  transverse  and \nspinous process fractures were difficult to visualize. (Resp. Ex. 1, P, 1, 2) A release from \nUAMS dated January 5, 2023, provided that the claimant presented for a follow up for an \nevaluation for a return to work with full activity. Claimant was accompanied by his case \nmanager. The  report  provided  there  was  no  need  for  a  follow-up  and  was  signed  by \nBritney M Beumeler, APRN CNP. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 3, 4) An x-ray of the thoracic spine on \nJanuary  23,  2023, which  was ordered  by  Dr.  David  Bumpass, provided  there  was  no \nsignificant interval change since the prior radiograph showed that the lungs were clear, \nand the cardio mediastinal silhouette was within normal limits. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 5, 6) On \nJanuary 23, 2023, Dr. Bumpass issued a MMI report and a full duty release.  The report \nprovided that the claimant could return to work on January 24, 2023, with no restrictions.  \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 7- 13)  \n \n \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n10 \n \n      DISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nThe claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe is entitled to compensation benefits under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law.  \nIn determining whether the Claimant has sustained his burden of proof, the Commission \nshall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party.  \nA.C.A. 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298  Ark.  364,  768 S.W.  2d  521  (1989).  \nFurther,  the  Commission  has  the duty to  translate evidence on all  issues  before  it  into \nfindings  of  fact.   Weldon  v.  Pierce  Brothers  Construction  Co.,  54  Ark.  App.  344,  925 \nS.W.2d 179 (1996). This includes the Commission’s province to reconcile conflicting \nmedical evidence.  Arkansas Health Ctr. v. Burnett, 2018 Ark. App. 427, 558 S.W. 3d 408.   \nThe Claimant contends that he is entitled to permanent partial disability due to his \nwork-related  injury.    Permanent  impairment  is  any  permanent  functional  or  anatomical \nloss remaining after the healing period has been reached. Johnson v. General Dynamics, \n46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  Any determination of the existence or extent \nof physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical findings. \nA.C.A.  11-9-704.  Objective  findings  are  those  findings  which  cannot  come  under the \nvoluntary  control  of  the  patient.  A.C.A.  11-9-102(16)(A)(i).    Although  it  is  true  that  the \nlegislature has required medical evidence to establish a compensable injury, it does not \nfollow   that   such   evidence   is   required   to   establish   each   and   every   element   of \ncompensability. Stephens  Truck  Lines  v.  Millican, 58  Ark.  App.  275,  950  S.W.2d  472 \n(1997).    Medical  opinions  addressing  impairment  must  be  stated  with  a  reasonable \ndegree  of  medical  certainty.  A.C.A.  11-9102(16)(B).    Permanent  benefits  shall  be \nawarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause of \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n11 \n \nthe disability or impairment. A.C.A. 11-9-102(f)(ii)a. “Major cause” means more than fifty \npercent (50%) of the cause. A.C.A. 11-9 -102 (14). \nIn the present matter, the treating physician at UAMS, Dr. David Bumpass, opined \non January 23, 2023, that the Claimant had reached MMI and fully released him, providing \nthat the Claimant could return to work with no restrictions.  A little over two years later, \nthe Claimant elected to present to Functional Testing Centers on March 7, 2025, and they \nissued a report that the Claimant was in fact 2% disabled. The Commission has the duty \nto weigh evidence, and the resolution of conflicting evidence is a question of fact for the \nCommission. It is well settled that the Commission has the authority to accept or reject \nmedical  opinions  and  the  authority  to  determine  its  medical  soundness  and  probative \nforce.  Williams v. Ark. Dept. of Community Correction, 2016 Ark. App. 427, 502 S.W.3d \n530 (2016). Here the treating physician opined that the claimant suffered no restrictions \nand could return to work. Additionally, the Claimant testified that he now works at a job \nfilling potholes, a job that is clearly labor intensive, and that he performs his duties without \nany assistance. Once he had returned to work after the unfortunate shooting incident, he \nalso admitted that he had worked two jobs for a period of time. The report from Functional \nTesting Centers was over two years after the work-related shooting, and clearly multiple \nintervening factors could have come into play during that period. Based upon the available \nevidence, there is no alternative but to find that there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the \nrequirement that the Claimant is entitled to permanent partial disability. \nThe  claimant  requests in  the  alternative that  if  the  Commission  finds  that  it  is \nwithout sufficient information or evidence to find that the Claimant is entitled to permanent \npartial disability, it should order an Independent Medical Examination in accordance with \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n12 \n \nA.C.A. 11-9-511. The plain language of A.C.A. 11-9-511 (a) and A.C.A. 11-9-811 does \nnot authorize the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission to sua sponte, order an \nindependent medical examination after the parties litigated compensability and additional \nbenefits. See Burkett v. Exxon Tiger Mart, Inc., 2009 Ark. App. 93, 304 S.W.3d 2 (2009) \nand Sea Ark Marine, Inc. v. Pippinger, 2010 Ark. App. 13, (2010). Clearly, the parties are \nin the process of litigating benefits, but it is also clear that the law places some limitations \non the Commission to order an independent medical examination. Here, the Claimant has \nasked for an independent medical examination in the alterative, but it is over two years \nfrom the date when the treating physician found the Claimant could return to work with no \nrestrictions and the Claimant admitted he was able to perform a physically intensive job \nwith no assistance. The fact that the Respondent is only responsible for medical services \nwhich  are  causally  related  to  the  compensable  injury,  and the undeniable  fact  that the \nadditional requested independent  medical  examinations is at  least two  years  after  the \nClaimant  was  released  by  his treating  physician at  MMI to  return  to  work  with  no \nlimitations, there is no alternative but to find that the independent medical examination \nrequested in the alternative by the claimant is not reasonable and necessary.   \nAdditionally, since the Claimant’s actual visit  to  Functional  Testing  Centers  was \nover  two  years  after  the  claimant  was found  to  be  at MMI  and Claimant was released \nwithout restrictions to return to work by his treating physician, there is no alternative but \nto find that there is insufficient evidence to require the Respondents to pay for the earlier \nindependent  medical  examination and  the  earlier  independent  medical  examination is \nalso found to not be reasonable and necessary. The Claimant bears the burden of proof \nin  establishing  entitlement  to  benefits  under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act \n\nWilliam Cyrus – H208417 \n13 \n \nand  must  sustain  that  burden  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence. Dalton  v.  Allen \nEngineering Co., 66 Ark. App 260, 635 S.W.2d 543.    \n After reviewing the above evidence and the applicable law, and after weighing the \nevidence impartially, without giving the doubt to either party, there is no alternative but to \nfind  that  the  claimant  has failed  to satisfy the  required burden  of  proof  to  prove by  a \npreponderance of the credible evidence that the that the Claimant is entitled to permanent \npartial  disability. Additionally, there  is  insufficient  evidence  to  satisfy  the  evidentiary \nrequirements  for  the  Commission  to  order  an independent  medical  examination as \nrequested by the claimant. All other issues are moot. If not already paid, the Respondents \nare ordered to pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n         ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY  \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208417 WILLIAM CYRUS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK/RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDNET OPINION FILED OCTOBER 21, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:53.181Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208417-2025-10-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CYRUS_WILLIAM_H208417_20251021.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}