{"id":"alj-H306050-2025-09-10","awcc_number":"H306050","decision_date":"2025-09-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jose Navarro-Maldonado","employer_name":"J C Quality Framing Inc","title":"NAVARRO-MALDONADO VS. J C QUALITY FRAMING INC. AWCC# H306050 September 10, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","fracture","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NAVARRO-MALDONADO_JOSE_H306050_20250910.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"NAVARRO-MALDONADO_JOSE_H306050_20250910.pdf","text_length":18791,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H306050 \n \nJOSE A. NAVARRO-MALDONADO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nJ C QUALITY FRAMING INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nLM INSURANCE CORPORATION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by DANIEL E. WREN, Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by ZACHARY F. RYBURN, Attorney, Litle Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On June 20, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, Arkansas. \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on March 6, 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. The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on September 9, 2023 \n3. The claimant sustained a compensable injury on September 9, 2023.  \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n             1.  Compensation rate. \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n2 \n \n \n             2.  Whether claimant is entitled to wage loss benefits. \n             3.  Attorney’s fee. \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n The claimant contends that “He was given permanent restrictions, which were not sufficient \nto return to his job doing construction work. Since being released, the claimant has not been able to \nobtain full-time work and all the work he has found has paid significantly less than his prior wages.” \nThe respondents contend that “This  claim  has  been  accepted,  and  all  appropriate  benefits \nhave been paid. The claimant is requesting wage loss benefits which can be determined at a hearing.” \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 witness \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 \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on March \n6, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.    The evidence in this case supports a finding that claimant was earning an average weekly \nwage of $800.  \n 3.   Claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he has \nsuffered a loss in wage earning capacity in an amount equal to 5% to the body as a whole.  \n \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant was injured on September 9, 2023, when he fell approximately forty feet from a roof. \nHis employer also fell and died as a result of the fall. Claimant testified that he had three major injuries:  \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n3 \n \n \nto his foot, his knee, and his back. Claimant said he had surgery on each of these body parts and still \nhas pain in his back and foot. Claimant demonstrated that he had a decided limp in his left foot, his \ngait appears to be uneven, and he looked to be unsteady on his feet. His left foot was not straight. \nClaimant testified that walking caused his back to hurt, although he always has pain in his back whether \nhe is walking or not. \n Claimant testified that his work involved building structures from the ground up. He walked \nand climbed ladders and scaffolding during his workday. Since the injury, claimant has worked four \nor five hours during the day picking up trash at job sites. He testified that the pain in his back caused \nhim to shorten his workday. Lifting and twisting at work causes his back to hurt more and he limits \nhis workday to five hours on days that he can work. Claimant testified that he has back pain when he \ngets up in the morning and it gets worse during the day when he works. \n Claimant said he worked for J C Quality Framing for close to two years, although there was a \nperiod of time that he left because he wanted more money. He had returned to respondent J C Quality \nFraming about three months before this accident and testified that he was earning $20.00 an hour on \nthe day of the accident. He testified that he would often work between fifty and sixty hours a week. \nClaimant was aware that an adjuster for LM Insurance reported his average weekly wage (AWW) was \n$925.00, but claimant believed he was making more. However, he believed that figure was fair. \n Claimant said that he now works when his friends tell him about a job. He cannot lift heavy \nobjects while working, limiting himself to fifty pounds or under. He said the most he had made in a \nweek was $450.00 and averaged around $300.00 since the accident. Claimant said that if he could work \nmore that he would.  \n On  cross  examination,  claimant  testified  that  his  condition  has  not  improved  since  he  was \ndeposed in February 2025. He stated that he could not lift more than fifty pounds and could not climb \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n4 \n \n \nladders. Claimant clarified that surgery had not been recommended because of the area of his back \nthat is injured, the doctor was concerned that his condition might get worse.  Claimant was concerned \nthat he could end up not walking following the back surgery.  \nClaimant  had  not applied  for  jobs  other  than cleaning  construction  sites. Claimant  had  not \nworked at any employment other than construction. He had looked into painting jobs, but there was \na requirement that he be on a ladder which he could not do. Claimant said that he made $80.00 to \n$100.00 dollars per day. He was paid by cash for these jobs and does not have a bank account. Claimant \nhad no other form of income and had not applied for government benefits. Claimant admitted that \nhe spoke only Spanish which would limit his employment prospects. Claimant conceded that he did \nnot  have  any  tax  returns  or  pay  stubs  from  J  C  Quality  Framing,  and had  no  proof  other  than  his \ntestimony  that  he  was  averaging  $925.00  per  week. Claimant testified that Respondents’ Exhibit 1 \ncame  from  a  money  exchange  house  where  he  cashed  a  check. He  used  more  than  one  money \nexchange  house, and those  places  did  not  have  a  printer  to  make copies of  what  they  saw  in  their \ncomputer. \n On redirect examination, claimant said his paycheck was the same most weeks but there were \ntimes they were higher and lower. Claimant said he made an effort to get as many copies as possible \nof the checks he cashed.  Claimant said that when he spoke to an adjuster for the insurance company, \nhe answered the questions about how many hours he worked and how much he was paid to the best \nof his ability. \nManuel Aranda testified by deposition. He is a claims adjuster for Liberty Mutual Insurance \nand  has been  since  2005. He  identified  the  AR-2 form that he filed with the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission. He said the $925.00 average weekly wage he used on that form was an \nestimate based on the conversation that he had with the claimant. He had no wage records to work \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n5 \n \n \nwith and he relied on claimant’s representation as to what he earned. He did no investigation as to \nwhat the going rate was for construction workers in Arkansas but would not be shocked that a worker \nmade $925.00 per week. He had no reason at the time to believe that $925.00 per week was incorrect. \nHe also did  no investigation as to claimant’s average weekly wage other than speaking with family \nmembers of the deceased owner to see if there were any financial records that he could obtain, but. \nreceived no cooperation from the family in that regard.  \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \n \nIn  addition  to  the Prehearing Order  discussed above,  the exhibits admitted  into  evidence  in \nthis case were Claimant's Exhibit 1, a compilation of his medical records, consisting of one index page \nand  17 numbered  pages  thereafter;  Claimant's Exhibit 2,  non-medical  records,  consisting  of  one \nindex page and 55 numbered pages thereafter; Respondents' Exhibit 1, consisting of one index page \nand eight numbered pages thereafter; and Respondents' Exhibit 2, non-medical records, consisting of \ntwo index pages and two numbered pages thereafter. \nMEDICAL EXHIBITS REVIEW \nClaimant submitted the discharge summary from Washington Regional Medical Center where \nhe  was  taken  after  the  accident,  after  two  days  he  was  discharged  and  was  then  seen  at  Ozark \nOrthopedics by three different physicians. Claimant provided the final office visit with Dr. Tom Coker \non January 24, 2024, in which he was assessed a 12% rating to his lower left knee. Dr. Mark Miedema \ntreated claimant for his back injury, and on February 8, 2024, he assessed a 5% permanent impairment \nrating  due  to  the  compression fracture in claimant’s lumbar spine. Dr.  Miedema  recommended  a \nfunctional capacity evaluation to determine claimant’s permanent work restrictions. Dr.  Miedema \nnoted that the MRI on claimant’s back did not show any significant retropulsion or canal compromise \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n6 \n \n \nfrom  the  fracture. Claimant also submitted Dr. Jason Pleimann’s discharge summary of March 18, \n2024, in which claimant was given a 21% rating on his left foot. \nNON-MEDICAL REVIEW \n Claimant submitted thirty-six pages of documents that included the employer’s intent to accept \nthe claim that was submitted to the Commission by Mr. Aranda on September 26, 2023, on which the \nsum  of  $925.00 was  listed as claimant’s average weekly wage. The  remaining  document  appears  to \nhave come from the Commission’s file and have no bearing on the issues to be decided in this matter. \n Respondents’ exhibits include copies of three checks dated June 23, 2023, in the amount of \n$990.00,  July  1,  2023, in  the  amount  of  $800.00,  and  August  26,  2023, in  the  amount  of  $960.00. \nRespondents also included as an exhibit claimant’s answers to interrogatories in which claimant stated \nthat he had very little education, that he did not have any tax returns for the previous five years and \ndid not have any paystubs or copies of his checks. Claimant had already been deposed at the time the \nanswers to these interrogatories and request for production of documents was submitted and claimant \nis  the  one  that  provided  the  three checks  referenced  above.  I  therefore  understand his  answer  to \nrequest for production of documents number eight to mean he had no additional copies of paychecks \nor pay stubs.  \n \nADJUDICATION \n \n \nClaimant suffered severe injuries from a three-story fall, injuring his foot, knee, and lower \nback. Respondents did not contest the claim and from the issues presented in the prehearing order, it \nappears that all benefits have been paid to date.   Two separate questions remain: what is claimants \ncompensation rate and what degree of wage loss disability his unscheduled injury has caused?  \n \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n7 \n \n \nWhat is the Claimant’s compensation rate? \nOrdinarily, it is a simple matter to examine wage records and determine what the average \nweekly wage is for a claimant. In this case, the employer died in the accident that caused claimant’s \ninjuries, therefore was not available to provide accurate income information as to his rate of pay, \nnormal hours worked, frequency of employment and other such matters. Manuel Aranda, the adjuster \nhandling the claim for respondent LM Insurance, interviewed claimant shortly after the accident; based \non claimant’s representations to him, Mr. Aranda began paying temporary total disability benefits \nbased on an average weekly wage of $925.00. Claimants position was that since Mr. Aranda initially \naccepted the AWW as reported  by  claimant,  that  should  have  settled  the  matter. However, \nrespondents clearly made it an issue in the prehearing order.  \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-518 provides in pertinent part: \n(a)(1) Compensation shall be computed on the average weekly wage earned by the employee under \nthe contract of hire in force at the time of the accident and in no case shall be computed on less than \na full-time workweek in the employment... \n(c) If, because of exceptional circumstances, the average weekly wage cannot be fairly and justly \ndetermined by the above formulas, the commission may determine the average weekly wage by a \nmethod that is just and fair to all parties concerned. \nAlthough claimant did not assert that this matter involved “exceptional circumstances,” the \nstatute anticipates the Commission will determine if such exist in order to determine a fair and just \nweekly wage. The death of the employer in the same accident is unusual enough to create an \nexceptional circumstance; he would have been able to answer questions about claimant’s earnings. \nHowever, due to the way claimant was paid, the proof on this point is scant. Claimant’s testimony was \nthat he could work more or less than 40 hours per week, which is typical for construction work. \nNeither party provided the bank records of the employer, claimant had no bank records nor tax \nreturns. There was no testimony presented by other employees or persons as to the hours claimant \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n8 \n \n \nworked.\n1\n  I found it curious that the only three checks claimant professed  he could find just happened \nto average $917.00—almost exactly what he had estimated to be his AWW when he talked to Mr. \nAranda.   While claimant’s testimony was problematic in many areas, I do believe he was being paid \n$20 per hour, and I find it would be fair and just to calculate his AWW on the basis of 40 hours per \nweek at $800.00. This would yield a permanent partial disability weekly benefit of $400.00.   \nDid claimant prove entitlement to a wage loss disability award? \n As set forth in the review of the medical records, claimant had three separate compensable \ninjuries. However, two of those—to claimant’s foot and knee—were scheduled injuries, and his \nrecovery for those injuries is limited to the percentage of permanent physical impairment as per A.C.A. \n11-9-519(g).   \n Claimant’s back injury is an unscheduled injury, and is governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n522(b)(1), which states: \nIn considering claims for permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the employee's percentage \nof permanent physical impairment, the Workers' Compensation Commission may take into account, \nin addition to the percentage of permanent physical impairment, such factors as the employee's age, \neducation, work experience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her future earning \ncapacity. \nSuch \"other matters\" include motivation, postinjury income, credibility, demeanor, and a \nmultitude of other factors to be considered in claims for wage-loss-disability benefits in excess of \npermanent-physical impairment. Ark. Highway & Transp. Dep't v. Work, 2018 Ark. App. 600, 565 \n \n1\n Ordinarily, a respondent is not required to present any evidence and can rest on the failure of a claimant to meet his \nburden of proof. This statute, however, is unusual in that the commission is to determine what is just and fair to all \nparties, making no mention of the burden of proof. Based on what was presented, my ruling would be the same if I \nfound claimant had the burden of proof on this issue. \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n9 \n \n \nS.W.3d 138. There is no exact formula for determining wage loss Hixon v. Baptist Health, 2010 Ark. \nApp. 414.  \nClaimant is currently 34 years old, uneducated, unable to communicate in English, motivated \nto work in the construction industry but earning less wages than he was earning before his injury. \nUnfortunately, having seen claimant testify and observed his left foot, I believe it is that injury that is \nthe major cause of claimant being unable to climb ladders and otherwise engage in the same type of \nlabor he was doing when he was injured. Looking solely at the back injury, Dr. Miedema stated \n“Fortunately, this MRI did not show any significant retropulsion or canal compromise from the \nfracture.” There is no objective evidence of neural foraminal narrowing or central canal stenosis which \nwould be causing claimant to have radicular pain into his left lower extremity. Because there were no \nresults from a functional capacity evaluation submitted into evidence, I saw no restrictions on claimant \nthat can be attributed to his back injury. Claimant testified that his doctor discussed a serious back \nsurgery with him, but nothing about that discussion is contained in Dr. Miedema’s discharge summary. \nHowever, in the discharge summary, claimant was given instructions for “back care and preventing \ninjuries.”  As such, I do believe the condition of claimant’s back alone, without regard to his foot \ninjury, would cause him to be unable to work at some of the jobs he had prior to his compensable \nback injury.  \nAfter considering all the factors set forth in this opinion, I am satisfied that claimant has \nproven he has a wage loss disability of 5% above his physical impairment rating on his lumbar spine.  \nORDER \n \n The  proof  in  this  case  supports  using  exceptional  circumstances to find claimant’s average \nweekly wage was $800.00, for a permanent partial impairment weekly benefit of $400.00. \n\nNavarro-Maldonado-H306050 \n10 \n \n \n Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he has suffered a loss in wage \nearning capacity in an amount equal to 5% to the body as a whole. Accordingly, claimant is entitled \nto payment of permanent partial disability benefits in an amount equal to 5% to the body as a whole. \nRespondent  has  controverted  claimant's  entitlement  to  all  unpaid  indemnity  benefits for  wage  loss \ndisability. \nPursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-715(a)(1)(B), claimant's attorney is entitled to an attorney fee in the \namount of 25% of the compensation for indemnity benefits payable to the claimant. Thus, claimant's \nattorney is entitled to a 25% attorney fee based upon the 5% wage-loss benefits awarded. This fee is \nto be paid one half by the carrier and one-half by the claimant. \n Respondent is responsible for the court reporter’s fee of $642.00 \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n                                                                                \nJOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H306050 JOSE A. NAVARRO-MALDONADO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT J C QUALITY FRAMING INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washin...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:12.018Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H306050-2025-09-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NAVARRO-MALDONADO_JOSE_H306050_20250910.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}