{"id":"alj-H302335-2025-06-10","awcc_number":"H302335","decision_date":"2025-06-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"John Boman","employer_name":"Central Maloney","title":"BOMAN VS. CENTRAL MALONEY AWCC# H302335 June 10, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:2","denied:5"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BOMAN_JOHN_H302335_20250610.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BOMAN_JOHN_H302335_20250610.pdf","text_length":19971,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM No H302335 \n \nJOHN BOMAN, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nCENTRAL MALONEY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER       RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA          RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION & ORDER FILED 10 JUNE 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge \nJayO. Howe on 13 March 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by Mr. Gregory R. Giles. \n \nThe respondents were represented by Mr. Guy A. Wade. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A Prehearing Order was filed on 27 June 2024 and admitted to the hearing record \nwithout objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1. Consistent with that Order, the parties \nagreed to the following: \nSTIPULATIONS \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The self-insured employer/employee/TPA relationship existed at all relevant \ntimes, including on 2 December 2022, when the claimant suffered an injury \nin the workplace. \n \n3. The claimant’s average weekly wage of $516.25 would entitle him to weekly \nbenefits in the amounts of $344 for temporary total disability (TTD) and $258 \nfor permanent partial disability (PPD).\n1\n \n \n4. The respondents deny that the claimant suffered a compensable injury and \nare, thus, not liable for any medical or indemnity benefits. \n \n \n \n \n1\n These amounts were agreed to at the beginning of the hearing. [TR at 15.] \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n2 \n \nISSUES \n \n1. Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury by specific incident to \nhis left index finger. \n \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment associated with a compensable injury. \n \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to TTD benefits from 3 December 2022 to 31 \nMay 2023. \n \n4. Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nAll other issues have been reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nThe Prehearing Order incorporated by reference the following contentions from the \nparties’ prehearing information: \nThe claimant contends that he suffered a compensable injury to his \nleft index finger with partial amputation on 2 December 2022 during the \ncourse and scope of his employment with Central Maloney. He contends that \nthe medical treatment he has received to date has been reasonable and \nnecessary and related such that the respondents should be ordered to pay for \nthose services.  \n \nThe claimant contends that he is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits from 3 December 2022 to on or about 31 May 2023, following \ncompletion of his physical therapy.\n2\n  \n \nThe claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nThe respondents contend that the claimant did not sustain a \ncompensable injury within the course and scope of his employment. They \ncontend that a positive drug test within two hours of the accident shows that \nthe claimant was intoxicated at the time of the injury and that they are not \nresponsible for the payment of any medical or indemnity benefits. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n2\n The claimant withdrew and reserved a contention included in his prehearing filing that he \nwas also entitled to PPD benefits. \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n3 \n \nFINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized below, \nand having heard testimony from the witness, observing his demeanor, I make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are accepted. \n \n3. Because the claimant’s post-accident drug screen returned positive for \nmarijuana metabolites, a presumption exists under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(B)(iv) that his injury was substantially occasioned by the use of illegal \ndrugs. \n \n4. The claimant has failed to rebut the presumption that his injury was \nsubstantially occasioned by the use of illegal drugs and has, therefore, failed \nto prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable \ninjury. \n \n5. Because of the finding above, the claims for medical and indemnity benefits \nassociated with a compensable injury are moot and will not be addressed.  \n \n6. The claim for a controverted attorney’s fee is also moot and will not be \naddressed. \n \nADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). \nA claimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n4 \n \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nThe claimant has failed to prove that he suffered a compensable injury on 2 \nDecember 2022. He was treated at a local emergency department shortly after the \nworkplace accident. A urine drug screen obtained at the time resulted positive for \nmarijuana metabolites. When illegal drugs are found to be present in an employee’s body \nafter a workplace accident, there is a rebuttable presumption that a causal link existed \nbetween the use of drugs and the injury. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that the presence that a causal link did not exist between the drugs found in \nhis system and the injury he sustained. His claim for a finding of a compensable injury and \nassociated benefits must, therefore, fail. \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \nThe claimant was the only witness to testify. The record consists of the hearing \ntranscript and the following exhibits: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 27 June 2024 \nPrehearing Order); Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (one index page and 76 pages of various forms \nand records); Claimant's Exhibit No 2 (a three-page abstract of the records in Claimant’s \nExhibit No 1); Respondents’ Exhibit No 1 (one index page and 65 pages of medical records); \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 2 (two pages of medical records that are also found at pages 60 and \n61 of Respondents' Exhibit No 1; the pages in Respondents’ Exhibit No 2 are more legible \nthan those found in Respondents' Exhibit No 1); and Respondents’ Exhibit No 3 (the \ntranscript of Claimant’s 19 September 2023 deposition). \nHearing Testimony \nThe claimant is fifty-eight years old with a high school diploma and about two years \nof college credits. He testified that he had been working for Respondent-employer Central \nMaloney, Inc., for about six months at the time of his injury. His first three months on the \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n5 \n \njob were through temporary placement agency; but he successfully converted to a full-time \nemployee after working for three months and passing a drug test. The claimant worked as a \nstacker at Central Maloney’s wood plant. He explained that Central Maloney produces \ncomponents for electrical transformers and that he worked on the line that cut down \nlumber for use in shipping pallets. A worker on his line operated a table saw, cutting five-\nfoot boards down into two smaller sections. The claimant and another worker would then \nremove the smaller board sections from the line and stack them off to the side. \nAccording to the claimant, his shift ran from 7:00 AM until 3:30 PM, with a 30-\nminute lunch break usually taking place around noon. He testified that his injury occurred \n“after lunch. Maybe, around 1:30.” [TR at 27.] The claimant stated that his job was to stack \nthe cut board sections; but at the time he hurt himself, he was working at the saw while the \nworker ordinarily responsible for cutting was on a bathroom break.  \nQ:  And describe for us what happened? Tell us what happened on that day \nas you were directing the wood into the saw? \nA:  Well, as I was pushing the wood through, I was keeping my—you know, \nkeeping my eye on my hands and my right hand, you know, as I’m pushing, \nyou know. There was just a little push, and I just lost the step to go—you \nknow, I—I just got caught. \nQ:  So... \nJudge: Your left hand got caught? \nA:  My left—you know, I’m watching my right hand... and my left hand, you \nknow, somehow got caught, you know, and I don’t know how it missed the \nother four fingers.... \n \n[TR at 30.] \n After reporting the injury, the claimant was taken to the emergency department at \nJefferson Regional Medical Center by the company nurse. He testified, “my finger was cut \nto the bone, barely hanging off. I mean on a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a 13.” [TR at 34.] The \nclaimant further testified that a representative from the respondents arrived and requested \na urine sample.  \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n6 \n \nQ:  Did you try to give her a sample there in the room, while she watched or \ndid you go [to] a bathroom to do that? \n A:  I went to the bathroom. \n Q:  And tell us what happened in the bathroom. \n A:  I went to the bathroom with the cup and put water in it. \n Q:  Did you put any urine in the cup? \n A:  I attempted to. \n Q:  Did you get some urine in the cup? \n A:  I might of got a little. \n Q:  And why did you put water in the cup at that time? \nA:  I was in [distress]. I mean, they – she was telling me they were gonna \ndo— \n \n[TR at 36.] He explained that he believed he would be denied all treatment unless and until \nhe provided some sort of sample. So he put water in the cup. The claimant stated that the \nrepresentative, aware of his attempted deception, threw away the water-filled cup. “She \nasked me for another sample, but by then, I gave my hand to the nurse, and she gave that \nshot, and then, she just got upset and walked out.” [TR at 41.] He denied providing another \nurine sample. His finger was sewn up by a nurse and he was discharged from the \nemergency department. \n The claimant testified that his finger required a follow-up procedure a couple of days \nlater. He was restricted to light duty afterwards but testified that he was terminated after \nthe accident. \n He continued to seek treatment, including outpatient therapy, on his own. He denied \nbeing able to work at the time and had not yet worked at the time of his last physician visit \non 20 April 2023. He sought to draw unemployment benefits around that time, but benefits \nwere not awarded. He acknowledged doing some odd jobs for money, but stated that his \ninjury limited his work options. \n The claimant admitted past marijuana use. But he denied using marijuana at the \ntime of his accident. “No, not for at least seven months, because I had a—is – December was \nmy 90 probation, ‘cause I was coming up for a bonus; so I knew I was gonna be tested.” [TR \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n7 \n \nat 46.] He denied any job performance issues or concerns about his sobriety while on the \njob. \n On cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he was not truthful during his \ndeposition when he claimed that he had earned an associate’s degree in criminal justice. He \nalso acknowledged that the documentation showed that the accident occurred at 11:00 AM \nand before lunch, not after lunch and around 1:30 PM as he had earlier testified. He could \nnot account for a discrepancy in his hearing testimony about applying for unemployment \nbenefits versus denying the same while providing answers under oath in discovery. \n Discussing the specimen collection paperwork [Resp. Ex. No 2], the claimant \nacknowledged his correct Social Security Number, that the phone number written on the \nform “might have been [his] old number” and what appeared to be his written name and \nsignature. [TR at 58.] He denied, however, that he willingly or intentionally signed his \nname. “I was—when I was at the hospital, the lady took my hand and was making me write \nto sign some papers there, but I didn’t know what I was signing.” [TR at 59.] The claimant \ntried to explain his differing testimony on whether the sample cup he provided contained \nonly tap water or tap water and some urine. Regardless of the sample’s ultimate \nconstitution, he made it clear that he did not intend to provide a valid sample at the time it \nhad been requested. \n The claimant did not remember seeing the drug screen results at his deposition; nor \ndid he recall his explanation given at the time for the positive result—that he had been \naround others who were smoking marijuana. He also acknowledged that in his deposition \nhe testified that he had not smoked marijuana in a year versus the seven months he had \ntestified about earlier at the hearing. The claimant denied having a medical marijuana \ncard. \n \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n8 \n \nMedical Evidence \n The specimen collection forms include the claimant’s name and Social Security \nNumber. Boxes are checked indicating that his identification was verified and that the \n“Reason for Test” was “Post-Accident.” The claimant’s printed name, signature, and a 2 \nDecember 2022 date appear at the bottom of the form. It also shows “Location: ER” and \n“EMPLOYER: Central Maloney.” The Specimen Identification Number is listed as 2966809. \n[Resp. Ex. No 2.] \n The identifying information on the drug testing report matched that from the \nspecimen collection forms. The relevant portions of that report include: \nUrine Substance Abuse Panel \n. . . \nAmphetamines   Negative \nCocaine Metabolites   Negative \nMarijuana Metabolites  Positive \nOpiates    Negative \nPhencyclidine   Negative \n \nUrine Quantitative Results \n \n MARIJUANA METABOLITE 184 ng/mL \n \nThe detection threshold for marijuana at the Initial Test Level was 50 ng/mL and the \nthreshold for the MS Confirm Test Level was 15 ng/mL. \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 65.] \nDISCUSSION \n The claimant has alleged that he sustained a compensable injury to his left index \nfinger on 2 December 2022. The respondents have denied liability under Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-102(4)(B)(iv), which provides: \n(B) “Compensable injury” does not include: \n \n. . .  \n \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n9 \n \n(a) Injury where the accident was substantially occasioned by the use of \nalcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of \nphysician's orders. \n \n(b) The presence of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in \ncontravention of a physician's orders shall create a rebuttable presumption \nthat the injury or accident was substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, \nillegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician's \norders. \n \n(c) Every employee is deemed by his or her performance of services to have \nimpliedly consented to reasonable and responsible testing by properly trained \nmedical or law enforcement personnel for the presence of any of the \naforementioned substances in the employee's body. \n \n(d) An employee shall not be entitled to compensation unless it is proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that the alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription \ndrugs utilized in contravention of the physician's orders did not substantially \noccasion the injury or accident. \n \n The presence of marijuana metabolites in the claimant’s body after the accident \ncreates the presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his use of that \nsubstance. He must, therefore, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegal \ndrugs did not substantially occasion the injury or accident. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(B)(iv)(d). The phrase \"substantially occasioned\" by the use of illegal drugs requires \nthat there be a direct causal link between the use of the drugs and the injury in order for \nthe injury to be noncompensable. Waldrip v. Graco Corp., 101 Ark. App. 101, 270 S.W.3d \n891 (2008) (citing ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63, 977 S.W.2d 212 \n(1998)). \n The claimant did not put on any evidence showing that the accident was not related \nto the presence of marijuana in his system. He could not explain how or why the accident \nhappened, besides that he was not looking at his left hand when it came into contact with \nthe saw blade. Nor did he make any effort to justify why he was performing another \nemployee’s work duties—running a table saw when his job was, admittedly, to be at the \nother end of the line stacking boards—at the time of the accident. \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n10 \n \n Instead, he argued that the drug testing result that showed marijuana in his system \nmust be fraudulent because he (1) filled the specimen cup with only or mostly tap water \nfrom the hospital restroom and (2) he supposedly witnessed his specimen cup being thrown \ninto the trash by the respondent’s representative responsible for collecting his sample. That \nsame representative, he said, forged or coerced his signature on the specimen collection \nforms. He acknowledged, however, that the identifying information on the specimen \ncollection forms matched the identifying information on the testing report and that his \nsignature did appear on the specimen collection forms. I do not find the claimant to be a \ncredible witness. \n The claimant was not even credible on the most basic of details around his injury—\nthe time that it occurred. Despite numerous records in evidence clearly showing that he \nwas injured around 11:00 in the morning, before his lunch break, he testified on direct \nexamination that the accident occurred around 1:30 in the afternoon, which would have \nbeen after his lunch break for that day. He was asked again on cross-examination about the \ntime of the accident, and his testimony remained out of step with the verifiable facts of the \nmatter. \nThe claimant did not deny past marijuana use, though his stories around how long it \nhad been since his last time using and the accident varied. At his deposition, the claimant \nsuggested that if his sample was positive for marijuana, it must have been from being \naround others who were smoking it. At the hearing, though, he refused to entertain the \nnotion that his sample was even tested. And he denied having any recollection about the \npositive drug result being discussed at his deposition. \n Regarding the urine specimen that was collected and tested, his testimony again \ndiffers from the credible evidence in the record. My review of the medical evidence does not \nsupport his story about treatment being withheld until he provided a urine sample. Nor do \n\nBOMAN- H302335 \n11 \n \nthose records relate anything about a confrontation around an adulterated sample being \ndisposed of and his inability or refusal to provide a valid sample for testing. Instead, the \nevidence shows that his identity was confirmed as the donor of a collected specimen and \nthat the identifying information on the test report (that shows marijuana metabolites in his \nsystem) matches that of the collected specimen.  \n In short, the credible evidence establishes the presumption that the claimant’s \ninjury was substantially occasioned by illegal drugs; and the claimant has failed to rebut \nthat presumption with the necessary preponderance of evidence to the contrary. His injury \nis, therefore, not compensable. His claim must be denied and dismissed, accordingly. \nBecause he has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a \ncompensable injury, his remaining claims need not be addressed. \nCONCLUSION \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a compensable injury. Accordingly, his claim is DENIED and DISMISSED. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ______________________________________ \n       JayO. Howe \n       Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM No H302335 JOHN BOMAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CENTRAL MALONEY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION & ORDER FILED 10 JUNE 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge JayO. H...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:39:36.913Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H302335-2025-06-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BOMAN_JOHN_H302335_20250610.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}