{"id":"alj-H303801-2024-10-08","awcc_number":"H303801","decision_date":"2024-10-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"William Clark","employer_name":"Cam Services LLC","title":"CLARK VS. CAM SERVICES LLC AWCC# H303801 October 08, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","cervical","neck","rotator cuff","back","herniated"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Clark_William_H303801_20241008.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Clark_William_H303801_20241008.pdf","text_length":24365,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H303801 \n \nWILLIAM CLARK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCAM SERVICES LLC, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nACCIDENT FUND INS. CO. AMERICA,  \nCARRIER/TPA                       RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 8, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law Judge  Steven  Porch on August  28,  2024, in Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant was represented by Ms. Laura Beth York, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented  by  Ms. Karen  H.  McKinney,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A full hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on August 28,  2024.   A  prehearing  telephone \nconference  took  place  on July 16,  2024.  A  prehearing  order  was  entered  on  that  date  and \nsubsequently  entered  evidence,  with  amendments  by  the  parties,  as  Commission  Exhibit  1.  The \nparties’ stipulations are set forth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n \n2. An employer/employee/carrier relationship existed on June 6, 2023. \n \n3. Respondents accepted the claimant’s injury to the shoulder as compensable \nand certain benefits have been paid. \n \n4. Respondents controvert in its entirety any injury to the Claimant’s cervical \nspine. \n \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n2 \n \n 5.  The Claimant’s average weekly wage is $687.28 which entitles him to $458 \nin  temporary  total  disability benefits  and  $344  in  permanent  partial \ndisability benefits weekly. \n \nISSUES \n The parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether  Claimant sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  cervical  spine  by  specific \nincident. \n \n2. Whether Claimant is  entitled  to  reasonable and  necessary medical treatment  for  his \ncervical spine. \n \n3. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  Temporary  Total  Disability  (TTD) from  August  9, \n2023, to a date to be determined.\n1\n \n \n4.   Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fees.  \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nClaimant’s Contentions: On June 6, 2023, Claimant was loading mulch when a sharp pain \nwent down his left arm. He reported the injury, and the Respondents accepted a left shoulder injury. \nHowever, the Respondents denied the cervical spine injury. An MRI to the left shoulder revealed \na signal abnormality in the glenoid labrum consistent with a possible labral tear. An MRI of the \ncervical spine  revealed  a  disk  extrusion  at  C3-4. Claimant  contends  that  he  sustained a \ncompensable injury in the scope and course of the employment and that he is entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits, medical treatment, and that his attorney is entitled to an attorney fee.  \nRespondents’ Contentions:  Respondents  contend that  Claimant reported  a  left  shoulder \n \n1\n Claimant made clear at the hearing (Trans. p.116, lines 5-16) and in his post hearing \nbrief that is blue-backed and made a part of this record, that the temporary total disability \nbenefits sought were from August 9, 2023, to a date to be determined. I accept this August 9, \n2023, date as the start date. \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n3 \n \ninjury  on  June  6,  2023,  which  has  been  accepted  as  compensable.  An  MRI  revealed  a  possible \nlabral tear. The Claimant has a long history of degenerative disc disease and pain management for \nwhich he obtained a medical marijuana card from the State of Texas. Respondents controvert any \ninjury to the Claimant’s cervical spine in its entirety.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and the \nevidentiary  record,  I  hereby  make  the  following  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted.  \n3.  The  Claimant has  proven  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that he  sustained  a \ncompensable  injury  to  his  cervical spine by  specific  incident during  the  course  and \nscope of employment on June 6, 2023.  \n4.   The Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment, including two \nsurgeries performed by Dr. Lawrence O’Malley, including out of pocket expense, \nmileage and reimbursement for private health insurance. \n5.   Claimant is entitled to TTD from August 9, 2023, to a date to be determined. \n6.  Claimant has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that his attorney is entitled \nto controverted attorney’s fee. \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Claimant’s Exhibit 1, Medical Records, that consists of 191 pages, \nRespondents’ Exhibit 1, medical records, that consist of 66 pages, and Commission Exhibit 1, Pre-\n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n4 \n \nHearing Order, that consists of 5 pages. The post hearing briefs of the parties, Form AR-C, and \nForm AR-1 are blue-backed and made a part of this record. The Claimant was the only witness \ntestifying in the full hearing.  \n Claimant began working for Cam Services (“Respondent/Employer”) in April of 2023, as \na maintenance worker. His job duties involved pressure washing Walmart parking lots, mowing \ngrass,  and  shoveling  mulch. Claimant alleges he  has  suffered  compensable  injuries  to  his  left \nshoulder and neck on June 6, 2023, while shoveling mulch at work. Claimant alleges he felt a sharp \npain running through his left shoulder and arm. Claimant reported the injury to his supervisor on \nthe  same  day but did  not  immediately  seek  medical  treatment. Eventually, on  June  12, 2023, \nClaimant went to the Ozark Health Medical Center with complaints of left shoulder/arm pain. (CL \nEX 1; p 1-22). The Claimant was experiencing some numbness in his left thumb. (RESP. EX 1; p. \n37-38). Following this visit, Claimant was sent by the Respondents to College Park Family Care \nto treat with Dr. Gil Johnson. Claimant was seen by Dr. Gil Johnson on June 15, 2023, again with \nleft  shoulder  and  arm  complaints.  Dr.  Johnson  opined  that the Claimant’s decreased range of \nmotion were suggestive of a rotator cuff tear. (CL EX 1; p 23-24). Dr. Johnson recommended light \nduty. A left shoulder MRI was performed on June 29, 2023, that revealed low grade degenerative \nfraying of the supraspinatus tendon, mild joint osteoarthrosis, and signal abnormality in the glenoid \nlabrum both superiorly and inferiorly and possible labral tearing, particularly inferiorly. (CL. EX \n1; p 39-44). There was no high-grade or full-thickness rotator cuff tear. Id. On June 30, 2023, Dr. \nJohnson  referred  the Claimant  to  an  orthopedic  surgeon  and  continued  to  keep  the Claimant  on \nlight duty. (CL. EX 1; p 45-50).  \nOn  July  18,  2023,  Claimant  underwent  a  cervical  spine  CT  that  revealed  degenerative \nchanges at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7. (CL. EX 1; p 57-60). Claimant returned to OrthoArkansas where \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n5 \n \nan MRI to the cervical spine was again ordered. (CL. EX 1; p 88-91). An MRI on July 24, 2023, \nrevealed  degenerative  disk  disease  most  pronounced  at  C5-6  and  C6-7.  (CL.  EX  1;  p  94-99). \nHowever,  Faith  Gebhart,  PA-C,  reviewed  the  MRI  and  noted  that  the  Claimant  suffered  a  disk \nextrusion at C3-4 and referred Claimant to a spine surgeon. (CL. EX 1; p 94-99).  \nOn July 26, 2023, Claimant was treated by Dr. Stephen Paulus, who noted that the Claimant \nsuffered  from  a  disk  herniation  at  C3-4,  and  further  opined,  “As  he  does  describe  acute \nradiculopathy  in  the  context  of  C3-4  disk  herniation,  I  suspect  the  likelihood of  his  neck  and \nradicular arm pain being at least 51% caused by work related injury.” (CL. EX 1; p 100-102). \nClaimant received epidural steroid injection.  \nOn August 9, 2023, Claimant was seen by surgeon, Dr. Jason Smith, who wrote: “He has \nan  MRI  scan  which  is  here  for  my  review.  This  shows  a  disk  protrusion  at  C3-4  causing  mild \ncontact  with  the  cord.  At  C5-6  and  C6-7  there  are  disk  protrusions,  anterior  and  posterior \nosteophytic  spurring,  severe  bilateral  neuroforaminal  narrowing,  and  moderate  central  canal \nstenosis.” (CL. EX 1; p 106-107). Dr. Smith took the Claimant off work for one month. Id. \nOn September 6, 2023, Dr. Smith noted that the Claimant continued to have severe left arm \npain and weakness and recommended a C5-6 and C6-7 ACDF. Dr. Smith also noted that while the \nClaimant had a central disk protrusion at C3-4, he did not think it was the primary source of his \ncurrent symptoms and discussed that the Claimant may need to have it treated in the future. (CL. \nEX 1; p 110).  On October 5, 2023, Claimant underwent a  cervical diskectomy and  fusion from \nC5-C7.  (CL.  EX  1;  p  111).  Claimant  continued  to  follow  up  with  Dr.  Jason  Smith  for  his  post \noperative treatment, and Dr. Smith noted that he had improvement in the left arm pain radiating \ndown the shoulder, however, he was having increased pain in the left shoulder. (CL. EX 1; p 144). \nDr. Smith again opined that the Claimant was temporarily totally disabled. Id.  \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n6 \n \nDue to continued complaints of ongoing left shoulder pain, Dr. Smith, on January 20, 2024, \nsent Claimant back to Dr. Schock for a shoulder evaluation with the caveat that if his symptoms \nare not better then there will be a consideration of a C3-4 decompression. (CL. EX 1; p 151). An \nMRI  arthrogram  was  performed  on  February  12, 2024,  which  revealed  a  nondisplaced  left \nposterior superior labral tear. (CL. EX 1; p 157-160). Dr. Schock saw Claimant on February 14, \n2024,  and  did  not  recommend  surgery for his shoulder.  (CL.  EX  1;  p  163). However,  an \nEMG/NCV was performed  on  February  20, 2024, that revealed  residual  left  C5-6,  C6-7 \nradiculopathy. (CL. EX 1; p 167-171).  \nOn March 6, 2024, Dr. Smith wrote: “I am ordering a new MRI scan of the cervical spine \nso  that  we  can  evaluate  if  the  disc  herniation  at  C3-4  has  changed.  Finally,  in  my  opinion,  his \ncervical injury was coincident with his shoulder injury, and was work related. A week before his \ninjury  he  was  capable  of  pressure  washing  numerous  Walmart  parking  lots  by  himself.  At  this \npoint he is completely unable to work and is totally temporarily disabled. His pain remains quite \nsevere  to  the  shoulder  and  into  the  arm.  I will  see  him  back  after  the  MRI  scan  of  the  cervical \nspine.” (CL. EX 1; p 172-175).  \nOn  April  17,  2024,  Dr.  Jason  Smith stated  that  Claimant  needed  a  posterior  cervical \nforaminotomy bilateral C6-C7 for ongoing foraminal stenosis and radula symptoms and left at C7-\nT1  needs  PT  for  shoulder,  may  need  future  surgery  on  the  C3-4  disc  if  it  becomes  more \nsymptomatic. (CL. EX 1; p 176-178). Claimant testified that he had not had any pain in his left \nshoulder or cervical spine prior to the date of injury.  \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant sustained compensable injuries to his cervical spine by specific \nincident. \n \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n7 \n \n Arkansas  Code  Annotated  §  11-9-102(4)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012),  which  I  find  applies  to  the \nanalysis of Claimant’s alleged injuries, defines “compensable injury”: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body \n.  .  .  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of employment  and  which  requires \nmedical services or results in disability or death.  An injury is “accidental” \nonly  if  it  is  caused  by  a  specific  incident  and  is  identifiable  by  time  and \nplace of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  \nArk.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings that \ncannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16).  The element “arising \nout of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the claimant’s injury and \nhis or her employment.  City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987).  \nAn  injury  arises  out  of  a  claimant’s  employment  “when  a  causal  connection  between  work \nconditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.”  Id. \n If the claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any of the requirements \nfor  establishing  compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.   Mikel  v.  Engineered  Specialty \nPlastics,  56  Ark.  App.  126,  938  S.W.2d  876  (1997).    This  standard  means  the  evidence  having \ngreater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. \nMagnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A 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 much \nweight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White  v.  Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through \nconflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n8 \n \nto  believe  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness  but  may  accept  and  translate  into \nfindings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \nI find that Claimant has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he has sustained \na compensable cervical spine injury during the course and scope of his employment by specific \nincident. Claimant testified that he was shoveling mulch in the scope and course of employment \non  June  6,  2023,  when  he  felt a  pop  followed  by  a  rubber-band  sensation  going  down  his  arm \ncausing his thumb and index finger to go numb and start burning. Trans. p. 17, lines 20 -23. He \nreported the injury to his supervisor and was eventually sent for medical treatment. The Claimant \nsought medical treatment and was referred to Dr. Schock, who opined that the left arm pain was \ncervical radiculopathy, and he needed treatment for his cervical spine injury.  \nFaith Gebhart, PA-C, reviewed Claimant’s MRI and noted that he suffered a disk extrusion \nat C3-4 and referred him to a spine surgeon. (CL. EX 1; p 94-99). On July 26, 2023, Claimant was \ntreated by Dr. Stephen Paulus, who also noted that the Claimant suffered from a disk herniation at \nC3-4, and further opined, “As he does describe acute radiculopathy in the context of C3-4  disk \nherniation, I suspect the likelihood of his neck and radicular arm pain being at least 51% caused \nby work related injury.” (CL. EX 1; p 100-102). Spine surgeon, Dr. Jason Smith opined: “He has \nan  MRI  scan  which  is  here  for  my  review.  This  shows  a  disk  protrusion  at  C3-4  causing  mild \ncontact  with  the  cord.  At  C5-6  and  C6-7  there  are  disk  protrusions,  anterior  and  posterior \nosteophytic  spurring,  severe  bilateral  neuroforaminal  narrowing,  and  moderate  central canal \nstenosis.” (CL. EX 1; p  103-107). Furthermore,  a EMG/NCV performed  on February 20, 2024, \nrevealed residual left C5-6, C6-7 radiculopathy on electromyography. (CL. EX 1; p 167-171).  \nThough Respondents argue that there are no objective medical findings only degenerative \nfindings, Faith  Gebhart,  PA-C,  Dr.  Stephen  Paulus,  and  Dr.  Jason  Smith have  all identified \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n9 \n \nherniated disks from that very MRI where other healthcare professionals cited only degenerative \nfindings. I credit the medical findings of Faith Gebhart, PA-C, Dr. Stephen Paulus, and Dr. Jason \nSmith.  The  Claimant  has  proven by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  has objective \nfindings.  \nMoreover, Claimant’s doctors have causally related his injuries to the work accident. On \nJuly 26, 2023, Dr. Stephen Paulus opined, “As he does describe acute radiculopathy in the context \nof C3-4 disk herniation, I suspect the likelihood of his neck and radicular arm pain being at least \n51% caused by work related injury.” (CL. EX 1; p 100-102). Additionally, on April 17, 2024, in \nresponse to a question, Dr. Jason Smith, one of Claimant’s treating physicians and spinal surgeon, \nwrote “Yes” to the following question, “Do you believe, within a reasonable degree of medical \ncertainty, that the injuries you treated Mr. William Clark for (after the 06/06/2023 on the job injury) \nwere  caused by the work-related accident?” (CL. EX 1; p 176-178). I  credit Dr. Paulas and Dr. \nSmith’s opinions. Thus, I further find that the Claimant has proven by the preponderance of the \nevidence that his cervical injuries were causally connected to his work-related incident. \nB. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment for his cervical spine. \n \nArkansas Code Annotated Section 11-9-508(a) (Repl. 2012) states that an employer shall \nprovide for an injured employee such medical treatment as may be necessary in connection with \nthe  injury  received  by  the  employee.   Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.  v.  Brown,  82  Ark.  App.  600,  120 \nS.W.3d 153 (2003).  But employers are liable only for such treatment and services as are deemed \nnecessary for the treatment of the claimant’s injuries.  DeBoard v. Colson Co., 20 Ark. App. 166, \n725 S.W.2d 857 (1987).  The claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that medical \ntreatment is reasonable and necessary for the treatment of a compensable injury.  Brown, supra; \nGeo  Specialty  Chem.  v.  Clingan,  69  Ark.  App.  369,  13  S.W.3d  218  (2000).    What  constitutes \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n10 \n \nreasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission.   White \nConsolidated Indus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d 396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. \nJones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). \n As  the  Arkansas  Court  of  Appeals  has  held,  a  claimant  may  be  entitled  to  additional \ntreatment even after the healing period has ended, if said treatment is geared toward management \nof the injury.  See  Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004); \nArtex Hydrophonics, Inc. v. Pippin, 8 Ark. App. 200, 649 S.W.2d 845 (1983).  Such services can \ninclude  those  for  the  purpose  of  diagnosing  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  compensable  injury; \nreducing or alleviating symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; maintaining the level of \nhealing achieved; or preventing further deterioration of the damage produced by the compensable \ninjury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995); Artex, supra. \nI  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant has  proven  he is  entitled to \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment in the form of a cervical anterior fusion for the C5-\nC6-C7. On  April  17,  2024,  Dr.  Jason  Smith stated  that  Claimant  needed  a  posterior  cervical \nforaminotomy bilateral C6-C7 for ongoing foraminal stenosis and radula symptoms and left at C7-\nT1  needs  PT  for  shoulder,  may  need  future  surgery  on  the  C3-4  disc  if  it  becomes  more \nsymptomatic. (CL. EX 1; p 176-178). I credit this recommendation. I further find the Claimant has \nproven by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence that  the treatment provided  for  his  cervical  spine \ninjury, and the treatment recommended for Claimant’s cervical spine, made by Dr. Smith, were all \nreasonable and necessary and the Claimant was entitled to the treatment he received as well as the \ntreatment recommendations.  \nC. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \nClaimant sustained an unscheduled cervical spine injury. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-521. An \nemployee who suffers a compensable unscheduled injury is entitled to temporary total disability \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n11 \n \ncompensation for that period within the healing period in which he suffered a total incapacity to \nearn wages. Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, \n613  S.W.2d  392  (1981). The  healing  period  ends  when  the  underlying  condition  causing  the \ndisability  has  become  stable  and  nothing  further  in  the  way  of  treatment  will  improve  that \ncondition. Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Parker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 (1982). Also, a Claimant \nmust demonstrate that the disability lasted more than seven days. Id. § 11-9-501(a)(1). Claimant \nmust prove entitlement to temporary total disability benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2002). This standard means the evidence having greater \nweight or convincing force. Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark, 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet \nCove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \nAgain,  a Claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix  v.  Wilson  World \nHotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness’ credibility and \nhow much 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).  \nThe Claimant testified that he has not worked for Respondent/Employer since August 6, \n2023. Trans. p. 37, lines 4-22. I credit this testimony. Dr. Jason Smith took the Claimant off \nwork on August 9, 2023, and has continued to keep the Claimant off work. As mentioned \npreviously, Dr. Jason Smith recommended further treatment to improve Claimant’s condition in \nthe form of a posterior cervical foraminotomy bilateral C6-C7 for ongoing foraminal stenosis \nand radula symptoms and left at C7-T1 needs PT for shoulder, and the possibility of a future \nsurgery on the C3-4 disc if it becomes more symptomatic. Dr. Smith has made clear he is not \nprepared to release him to work based on his recommendations concerning Claimant’s medical \nneeds and has, in fact, not released Claimant to work. Since that is the case, I find by the \n\nCLARK H303801 \n \n12 \n \npreponderance of the evidence that the Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits \nfrom August 9, 2023, to a date yet to be determined.  \nATTORNEY FEES \nOne of the purposes of the attorney's fee statute is to put the economic burden of litigation \non the party who makes litigation necessary.  Brass v. Weller, 23 Ark. App. 193, 745 S.W.2d 647 \n(1998).  Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715 (Repl. 2012): \n(B)  Attorney’s  fees  shall  be  twenty-five  percent  (25%)  of  compensation  for \nindemnity  benefits  payable  to  the  injured  employee  or  dependents  of  a  deceased \nemployee  .  .  .  In  all  other  cases  whenever  the  commission  finds that  a  claim  has \nbeen controverted, in whole or in part, the commission shall direct that fees for legal \nservices be paid to the attorney for the claimant as follows:  One-half (½) by the \nemployer or carrier in addition to compensation awarded; and one-half (½) by the \ninjured  employee  or  dependents  of  a  deceased  employee  out  of  compensation \npayable to them. \n \n Discussion.    The  evidence  before  me  clearly  shows  that  Respondents  have  controverted \nClaimant’s entitlement to additional indemnity benefits.  Thus, the evidence preponderates that his \ncounsel, the Hon. Laura Beth York, is entitled to the fee as set out above. \nCONCLUSION AND AWARD \n Respondents are hereby directed to pay/furnish benefits in accordance with the findings of \nfact and conclusions of law set forth above. All accrued sums, minus any lawful offsets, shall be \npaid in a lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid, \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. 2002).  See Couch v. First State Bank of Newport, \n49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995). \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H303801 WILLIAM CLARK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CAM SERVICES LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND INS. CO. AMERICA, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 8, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on August 28, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkans...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:47:30.953Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303801-2024-10-08","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Clark_William_H303801_20241008.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}