{"id":"alj-H305255-2025-10-16","awcc_number":"H305255","decision_date":"2025-10-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Seth Stanley","employer_name":"Novo Building Products LLC","title":"STANLEY VS. NOVO BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC AWCC# H305255 October 16, 2025","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STANLEY_SETH_H305255_20251016.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"STANLEY_SETH_H305255_20251016.pdf","text_length":9730,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n   \n CLAIM NO. H305255 \nSETH A. STANLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nNOVO BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCHARTER OK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED OCTOBER 16, 2025 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Russellville, Pope \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by GARY DAVIS, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MICHAEL E. RYBURN, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On  July 28, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Russellville, Arkansas. \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on May 22, 2025, and a pre-hearing order was filed on that \nsame date. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made \na part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2.  All prior Opinions are res judicata. \n            3.  The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on August 8, 2023. \n            4.  Claimant sustained a compensable injury on August 8, 2023. \n            5. The compensation rate is $564.00 for temporary total disability.  \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \n\nStanley-H305255 \n2 \n \n \nwere limited to the following: \n           1.  Whether claimant is entitled to underpayment of temporary total disability benefits from    \nthe prior award.  \n           2  Whether claimant is entitled to statutory penalties for untimely payment of prior award.  \n           3   Whether claimant is entitled to mileage reimbursement. \n           4  Attorney’s fee on unpaid indemnity benefits. \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n The claimant contends that “He sustained admitted compensable injuries. A hearing was held \nDecember 17, 2024, pursuant to which was issued an Opinion February 6, 2025, awarding claimant \ncertain temporary disability benefits. Respondents did not appeal the decision within 30 days, nor did \nthey pay benefits within 15 days of the finalization of the award. The awarded benefits were not only \nwrongly  paid,  but  they  were  not  timely  paid. Therefore,  statutory  late  payment  penalty  is  sought. \nFurther,  claimant  has  submitted  mileage  reimbursement  expense  requests,  which  respondents  have \nfailed  or  refused  to  pay. These  matters  have  been  controverted. Claimant’s attorney respectfully \nrequests that any attorney’s fee owed by claimant on controverted benefits paid by award or otherwise \nbe deducted from claimant’s benefits and paid directly to claimant’s attorney by separate check, and \nthat any Commission’s Order direct the respondent to make payment of attorney’s fees in this \nmanner.” \n The respondents contend that “They have correctly paid benefits on this claim.” \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the claimant \nand  to  observe his demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  are  made  in \naccordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n\nStanley-H305255 \n3 \n \n \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on May \n22, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.   Claimant  met  his  burden  of  proof  that  he was  underpaid  his  past  due temporary  total \ndisability benefits in the amount of $2,865.73.  \n 3.    Claimant met his burden of proof that respondent did not pay the previous award in this \ncase  within  45  days  of  the  order  and is  entitled  to a  20%  penalty  on  those  unpaid  benefits  in  the \namount of $2,305.60. \n 4.         Claimant  met  his  burden  of  proof  that  he  is  entitled  to reimbursement  for  mileage \nexpenses in the amount of $143.99 \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant  was  the  only  witness  to  testify  at  this  hearing. He  explained  that  following  the \nprevious hearing in this matter, he believed he was owed $10,680.39 after his portion of his attorney’s \nfee was withheld. Claimant testified that he had received only $7,221.27, which was paid on March 26, \n2025. Claimant maintained an underpayment of $3,459.12 and requested a 20% penalty on the entire \namount  of  $12,206.61,  because  the deposit  of  $7,221.27  was  made 47 days  after  the  date  of  the \nFebruary 6, 2025, order awarding him those benefits.  \n Claimant also requested mileage that had not been paid in the amount of $156.42.  \n On cross-examination, claimant conceded that he may have miscalculated one of his mileage \nrequests but was certain that he had not received $3,459.12, which represents the unpaid benefits.    \n \n \n\nStanley-H305255 \n4 \n \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n Claimant  submitted  eighteen  pages  of exhibits,  including  my opinion  of February  6,  2025, \ncorrespondence  with  the carrier  and  submitted  requests  of  mileage  reimbursement. Respondent \nsubmitted two exhibits totaling 10 pages; the first exhibit was a three-page spreadsheet that had to be \ncopied in three pages each for a total of 9 pages; the second was a handwritten calculation of what \nrespondent believed the testimony and records supported.  \nADJUDICATION \n \n There are three components to this claim. First, claimant maintains that based on the previous \nOrder of this court, he was underpaid $3,459.12 (Tr. 7) for past due benefits. Second, because he was \nnot paid the amount awarded in a timely fashion, the 20% penalty as provided by 11-9-802(c) applies. \nThe third portion of the claim involves unpaid mileage.  \nUnderpayment: \n As per my order of February 6, 2025, respondents had underpaid claimant because temporary \ntotal  disability  benefits were paid  at  an  incorrect  rate  and because payments  of  permanent  partial \ndisability benefits were made at a time that claimant should have received temporary total disability. \nAt the time of the last hearing, $40,044.00 should have been paid but only $28,516.00 had been sent \nto claimant. Therefore, claimant should have received a payment of $11,528.00 for his unpaid benefits. \nRespondent owed one-half of the attorney’s fee on that sum, with claimant being responsible for the \nother half, and after deducting $1,441.00 from claimant’s proceeds, he should have received a check \nfor $10,087.00. (Cl. X, page 10). On March 26, 2025, claimant received a payment in the amount of \n$7,221.27 (Tr. 7). There was no explanation as to why $7,221.27 was submitted rather than the full \namount  of  $10,087.00. Claimant therefore  is  owed  $2,865.73 for  unpaid  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits as per my previous order.  \n\nStanley-H305255 \n5 \n \n \nPenalty:   \nMy opinion awarding unpaid benefits was rendered on February 6, 2025. Because it was not \nappealed, the payment of those unpaid indemnity benefits was due 45 days after my order, Johnson v. \nAmerican Pulpwood Co., 38 Ark. App. 6, 826 S.W.2d 827 (1992). It is 47 days between February 6, 2025, \nand March 26, 2025, and as such, the payment was not made in a timely fashion. Claimant is entitled \nthe 20% penalty on the unpaid installment payments of $11,528.00 as provided by Ark. Code. Ann. \n§11-9-802(c), or $2,305.60. \nMileage claim \n Claimant  requested  $156.47  for  unpaid  mileage reimbursements. According  to  claimant, \nrespondent began using a GPS program to recalculate the number of miles it would pay for trips to \nand from his medical treatment, and therefore did not pay his claims as submitted.  Claimant testified \nhe was using the shortest route to get to the medical providers. Respondent did not present anything \nto demonstrate the accuracy of bingmaps.com as recited in its April 18, 2025, letter of explanation to \nclaimant. I accept the figures submitted by claimant\n1\n. However, in reviewing claimant’s mileage log \n(Cl. X, page 13), I believe he made a mistake on his entry of April 11, 2025, because it is not 58 miles \nfrom his home to an address in Russellville, Arkansas; other entries to Russellville are submitted as 34 \nmiles. Claimant admitted that his destination on April 11, 2025, was a short distance from the other \nRussellville location. Therefore, I am reducing that one entry from 58 miles to 34 miles for the round \ntrip; at $.52 per mile, which is a deduction of $12.48 for a total owed for mileage of $143.99. \n The amount of the underpayment, the penalty on unpaid benefit and the unpaid mileage total \n$5,315.32.  \n \n1\n I am familiar with how GPS programs work; rather than showing the route one would take via interstate, these often \nuse state highways and side roads to shave a few miles of off the total miles owed. I do not require a person to drive \na longer time than the most convenient trip would take.  \n\nStanley-H305255 \n6 \n \n \n \nORDER \n \n Respondents  are  directed  to  pay  benefits  in accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  set  forth \nherein  this  Opinion.  All  accrued  sums  shall  be  paid  in  lump  sum  without  discount,  and  this award \nshall earn interest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809. \n Claimant’s attorney announced at the hearing that he was waiving his attorney’s fee for \nbringing this action.  \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H305255 SETH A. STANLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NOVO BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CHARTER OK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 16, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Russellville, Pope ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:35:40.532Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H305255-2025-10-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STANLEY_SETH_H305255_20251016.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}