{"id":"alj-H307648-2025-12-17","awcc_number":"H307648","decision_date":"2025-12-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Joshua Olson","employer_name":"J. Williams Contractor, LLC","title":"OLSON VS. J. WILLIAMS CONTRACTOR, LLC AWCC# H307648 December 17, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["fracture","back","tbi"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/OLSON_JOSHUA_H307648_20251217.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"OLSON_JOSHUA_H307648_20251217.pdf","text_length":25316,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H307648 \n \nJOSHUA OLSON, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nJ. WILLIAMS CONTRACTOR, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nSTONETRUST INSURANCE, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED DECEMBER 17, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE   ERIC   PAUL   WELLS   in   Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by MATTHEW J. KETCHAM, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MICHAEL E. RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On September 23, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on July 28, 2025, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas  filed  on July  30, 2025.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked  Commission's \nExhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The   relationship   of   employee-employer-carrier   existed   between   the   parties on \nOctober 31, 2023. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-2- \n 4.  The  claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  him  to  compensation  at  the \nweekly rates of $427.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $320.00 for permanent partial \ndisability benefits.   \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1.  Whether  Claimant  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his  skull,  brain,  and  jaw  on  or \nabout October 31, 2023. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for his skull, brain, and jaw injuries. \n 3.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  November  1, \n2023, to a date yet to be determined. \n 4. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee. \n 5. Respondents raise Intoxication defense. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“1. The above listed proposed stipulations. \n \n2. The Claimant was injured on October 31, 2023, when he was the \npassenger of a company vehicle which was involved in a single car \naccident causing him to receive multiple head injuries. \n \nThe   Claimant   was   airlifted   to   Washington   Regional   Medical \nCenter for treatment of his injuries. He was treated for six (6) skull \nfractures, five (5) brain hemorrhages, fractured jaw and a traumatic \nbrain injury. The Claimant was hospitalized for approximately two \nweeks. \n \nThe  Claimant  followed  up  with  his  primary  care  physician,  Dr. \nKevn  Richter,  for  continued  headaches  and  traumatic  brain  injury \nresidual  effects.  Dr.  Richter  referred  the  client  for  speech  therapy \nat North Arkansas Regional Medical Center. \n \nThe  Claimant  attended  physical  therapy  for  his  traumatic  brain \ninjury including memory and speech issues. \n \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-3- \n3.  The  Claimant  reserves  the  right  to  amend  and  supplement  his \ncontentions after additional discovery has been completed.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“The claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. He was tested \nfor  illegal  drugs  on  the day  of  the  accident,  and  he  tested  positive \nfor  marijuana  and  amphetamines.  The  use  of  drugs  is  responsible \nfor his injuries.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 36-year-old  male who  alleges  to  have  sustained \ncompensable  injuries  to  his  skull,  brain,  and  jaw  on  or  about  October  31,  2023,  in  a  motor \nvehicle  accident,  while  employed  by  the  respondent.  The  respondent  in  this  matter  has \ncontroverted the claimant’s claim in its entirety.  \n The claimant worked for the respondent as a construction worker helping to run inground \nelectric lines and installing streetlights and transformers. The respondent’s home office is located \nin Berryville, Arkansas,  but on October 31, 2023, the day the claimant alleges his compensable \ninjuries  to  have  occurred,  he  and  his  crew  were  scheduled  to  work  in  Rogers,  Arkansas.  The \nclaimant stated in direct examination testimony that the drive from Berryville to Rogers “took \njust about an hour, maybe a little bit more.” \n The claimant was questioned in direct examination testimony about how he would get to \nand from the job sites as follows: \nQ And how would you get to the job site to and from? \n \nA As far as transportation or the route? \n \nQ No, I mean how did you get there? Did you drive your own \nvehicle? \n \nA I would drive my vehicle to the shop there in Berryville and \nthen  from  there  we  would  like  clock  in,  all  the  guys  would  get  in \nthe work truck, and we would drive in the work truck to Rogers. \n \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-4- \n The  claimant  testified  that  on  or  about  October  31,  2023,  he  entered  into  a  four-door  or \ncrew  cabbed  truck  owned  by  the  respondent  with  three  other  passengers  and  left  from  the \nrespondent’s shop in Berryville, Arkansas, at about 5:30 am. The claimant identified the driver \nof the respondent’s truck as Hayden  Keith, who was a co-worker. The claimant’s foreman, \nTatum Keith, was seated in the front passenger seat of the truck and  a co-worker named Lanny \nwas seated in the rear passenger seat. As for the claimant, he was seated in the rear driver’s side \nseat of the respondent’s truck. \n The claimant gave direct examination testimony about his memory of the drive to Rogers \nthat morning and the motor vehicle accident he was involved in as follows: \nQ How much of that trip do you remember? \n \nA I remember getting in the truck and going to sleep. \n \nQ Were you asleep at the time of the wreck? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ So of your own knowledge, -- I don’t want you to say what \nanybody else said – but of your own knowledge, do you have any \npersonal knowledge of how the wreck occurred? \n \nA No, I do not. \n \nQ You were asleep? \n \nA (Witness nods.) \n \nQ What  was  the  first  conscious  moment  that  you  have  after \nthe accident? \n \nA I  was  in  the  hospital.  I  think  I  was  eating  chicken  and \nnoodles, or chicken and rice, or something. \n \nQ So you don’t remember being on the scene at all? \n \nA No, sir. \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-5- \n \nQ Your first memory is waking up in a hospital? \n \nA Yes. \n \n An  Arkansas  State  Police  Incident  Report  was  introduced  into  evidence  and  found  at \nClaimant’s Exhibit 2, pages 1-11. The report was completed by Trooper Harley Hooper and his \nnarrative is found at page 8 of Claimant’s Exhibit 2 and states: \nV1 was traveling westbound on Highway 62 near Inspiration Point \nFire Station 2. \n \nV1 was negotiating  a curve right. V1  crossed left of center before \nexiting  the  roadway  to  the  left.  V1  traveled  off  an  embankment \nstriking several small trees before coming to a final rest. V1 came \nto final rest at the bottom of the embankment. \n \nV1 sustained disabling damage. \n \nNOTE: Contributing factor in the collision was reckless driving. \n \nPhotographs of the respondent’s truck after the motor vehicle accident are found at Claimant’s \nExhibit  3,  pages  1-13 and show heavy damage to front of the respondent’s truck and the rear \ndriver’s side of the respondent’s truck where the claimant was in a seated position and sleeping. \n The  claimant  was med-flighted to  Washington  Regional  Medical  Center  where  he  was \ntreated for his injuries. On October 31, 2023, the claimant underwent a CT of the head and brain \nwithout contrast. Following are Impressions of that diagnostic test: \nIMPRESSION: \n1.   HEMORRHAGIC   CONTUSIONS   WITHIN   THE   RIGHT \nTEMPORAL   LOBE   LARGEST   2.4   CM.   ADDITIONALLY \nRIGHT  FRONTOTEMPORAL  SUBDURAL  AND  POSSIBLY \nLEFT ANTERIOR TEMPORAL FOSSA SUBDURAL \nHEMATOMA. \nHEMORRHAGIC    CONTUSION    IN    THE    SUBCORTICAL \nWHITE MATTER OF THE RIGHT FRONTAL LOBE NOTED.  \n2.  SKULL FRACTURE  IN  THE  AREA  OF  THE  ANTERIOR \nLEFT    TEMPORAL    FOSSA    AS    WELL    AS    THE    LEFT \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-6- \nZUGOMATIC    ARCH    AND    POSSIBLY LEFT    LATERAL \nORBIT.   BLOOD   PRODUCTS   WITHIN   THE   PARANASAL \nSINUSES. \nLEFT LATERAL SCALP HEMATOMA. \n \n Later that same day, the  claimant underwent a second CT of the head and brain without \ncontrast. Following are the Impressions of that diagnostic test: \nIMPRESSION: \n1.  SLIGHTLY  LARGER  HEMORRHAGIC  CONTUSION   IN \nTHE RIGHT TEMPORAL LOBE MEASURES 3.0 X 1.5 CM.  \n2.  STABLE  SMALL  HEMORRHAGIC  CONTUSIONS  IN  THE \nANTERIOR   RIGHT   TEMPORAL   LOBE   AND   ANTERIOR \nRIGHT. \nFRONTAL LOBE. \n3.    STABLE    SMALL    FRONTOTEMPORAL    SUBDURAL \nHEMATOMA. \n \nThe  claimant  also  had  a  CT  of  the  maxillofacial  without  contrast.  Following  are  the \nImpressions of that diagnostic test: \nIMPRESSION: \n1.   FRACTURE   OF   THE   LEFT   GREATR   WING   OF   THE \nSPHENOID  EXTENDS  ACROSS  THE  ORBITAL  APEX  AND \nINTO \nTHE POSTERIOR LEFT ETHMOID BONE. \n2.  NONDISPACED  FRACTURES  OF  THE  LATERAL  LEFT \nORBITAL WALL AND LEFT ZYGOMATIC ARCH. \n3. PARANASAL SINUS HEMORRHAGE. \n \n The claimant was admitted to Washington Regional Medical Center on October 31, 2023, \nand was discharged on November 17, 2023. The claimant’s discharge was given the following \ndiagnosis: \nDischarge    Diagnosis:    1:    MVA,    unrestrained    passenger;    2: \nTraumatic  intracranial  hemorrhage;  3:  Fracture  of  temporal  bone; \n4: Fracture of left zygomatic arch; 5: Pneumothorax, left. \n \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-7- \n The  claimant  was  discharged  to  home  to  convalesce  and  referred  for  cognitive  therapy. \nHowever,  it  appears  that  the  claimant  was  never  provided  with  cognitive  therapy,  only  speech \ntherapy.  \n The  claimant  was  seen  by  Dr.  John  Kevin  Richter  at  Northern  Ark.  Regional  Medical \nCenter  in  Harrison,  Arkansas,  on  May  20,  2024,  for  speech  therapy.  Following  is  a  portion  of \nthat report: \nSpeech Initial Evaluation \nAdult Assessment \nDX: \nTraumatic Brain Injury (S06.9X9S) \nPost traumatic amnesia (R41.3) \nPt  is  a  34  y/o  male  referred  today  following  a  visit  with  PCP \nreporting  difficulty  with  short  term  memory.  Pt  hospitalized  for \napprox. 3 weeks following a MVA on 10/31/23. Pt was in the back \nseat asleep in work truck and involved in a single vehicle MVA. Pt \nwas unconscious with GCS of 3 upon arrival to scene. Pt intubated \non  the  scene  and  air  transport  to  Washington  Regional  Medical \nCenter.  Pt  was  dx  of  traumatic  intracranial  hemorrhage,  skull  fx, \npneumothorax  left  side,  fx  of  temporal  bone,  fx  of  left  zygomatic \narch. Pt d/c WRMC on 11/17/23 to home. Pt arrived today in good \nspirits  with  wife.  Pt  reports  he  has  been  having  difficulty  with \ncognitive functioning following TBI. Pt reports a significant loss of \nindependence secondary to cognitive deficits. Pt goals: To increase \nfunctional  status  for  more  independence  and  improved  memory. \nOral  motor  structure  and  function  was  evaluated.  Pt  exhibits  no \ndeficits with face, jaw, or lingual movement. \nSpeech is fluent and intelligible \nThe  Cognitive  Linguistic  Quick  Test  (CLQT)  was  given  to  assess \nstrengths  and  weaknesses  in  five  cognitive  domains  (attention, \nmemory, executive functions, language and visuospatial skills). \nThe following indicates the severity rating of pt performance: \nAttention: Within functional limits. \nMemory: Severely impaired. \nExecutive Functions; Within functional limits. \nLanguage: Mildly impaired. \nVisuospatial Skills Within functional limits. \nClock Drawing Severity Rating: Within functional limits. \nLinguistic/Aphasia: Mildly impaired. \nComposite Severity Rating: Within functional limits. \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-8- \n \nThe claimant was seen multiple times between May of 2024 and July of 2024 for speech therapy \nby or at the direction of Dr. Richter. \n The claimant has asked the Commission to determine whether he sustained compensable \ninjuries to his skull, brain and jaw on or about October 31, 2023. It is the claimant’s burden to \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that his injuries are compensable.  \nIn  order  to  prove  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a  specific  incident  that  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \nevidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs \nand More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \nA compensable injury is defined, in part, as an accidental injury which arises out of an in \nthe course of employment. A.C.A. §11-9-102(4)(A)(I). However, a compensable injury does not \ninclude an injury “inflicted upon the employee at a time when employment services were not \nbeing  performed.”  A.C.A.  §11-9-102(4)(B)(iii).   An   employee   is   performing   employment \nservices  when  they  are  doing  something  that  is  generally  required  by  his  or  her  employer. \nContinental Construction Co. v. Nabors, 2015 Ark. App. 60, 454 S.W.3d 762; White v. Georgia-\nPacific Corp., 339 Ark. 474, 478, 6 S.W.3d 98, 100 (1999). The same test is used to determine \nwhether  an  employee  is  performing  employment  services  as  is  used  when  determining  whether \nan employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. The test is whether the injury \noccurred  within  the  time  and  space  boundaries  of  the  employment,  when  the  employee  was \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-9- \ncarrying  out  the  employer’s  purpose  or  advancing  the  employer’s  interest  either  directly  or \nindirectly. Pifer v. Single Source Transportation, 347 Ark. 851, 69 S.W.3d 1 (2002). \n The  claimant  clearly  has  objective  medical  findings  of  internal  harm  to  his  skull,  brain, \nand  jaw.  Those  are  evidenced  by  the  Washington  Regional  Medical  Center  medical  records, \nparticularly the CT scans that show definitively injury to all of the beforementioned body parts. \nThe claimant was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the motor vehicle \naccident and in that period of time, performing employment services. The claimant had arrived at \nthe respondent’s place of business in Berryville in his own motor vehicle. The claimant clocked \ninto  work  and  loaded  into  the  respondent’s  vehicle  as  a  passenger to  be  transported  at  the \ndirection  of  the  respondent  to  that  day’s  work  area  in  Rogers,  Arkansas.  The  claimant’s \ntestimony is that he went to sleep while being transported to the worksite. However, the claimant \nhad  no  other  employment  duties  to  do  at  the  time  of  the  motor  vehicle  accident  other  than  to \nallow the respondent to transport him to the worksite. Clearly, the respondent had an interest in \nthe claimant arriving at the worksite which directly furthered the respondent’s interest. \n The claimant did not arrive at the worksite that day due to an accident in which he had no \npart of its course as he was asleep while being transported. Instead, a co-worker was driving the \nrespondent’s truck at the time of the accident which did cause the claimant’s injuries. \n The   respondent   in   this   matter   has   raised   the   Intoxication   Defense.   ACA §11-9-\n102(4)(B)(iv)(a)(b) states: \nCompensable injury does not include: \n \nInjury  where  the  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by  the  use \nof    alcohol,    illegal    drugs,    or    prescription    drugs    used    in \ncontravention of physician’s orders. \n \nThe presence of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-10- \ncontravention  of  a  physician’s  orders  shall  create  a  rebuttable \npresumption   that   the   injury   or    accident    was   substantially \noccasioned  by  the  use  of  alcohol,  illegal  drugs,  or  prescription \ndrugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. \n \nThe Supreme Court analyzed the intoxication statute with regard to alcohol usage, in \nERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63, 977 S.W.2d 212 (1998), and \ndetermined the following: \n(1) Any amount   of   an   intoxicating   or   illegal   substance   invokes   the  \npresumption  that  the  injury  or  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by \nthe use of the intoxicant or illegal substance. \n \n(2) Whether  a  rebuttable  presumption  is  overcome  by  the  evidence  is  a \nquestion of fact for the Commission to determine. \n \n(3) The  phrase,  \"substantially  occasioned  by\"  requires  that  there  be  a  direct \ncausal  link  between  the  use  of  an  intoxicant  or  illegal  substance  and  the \ninjury. \n \nArk.  Code  Ann. §11-9-102(4)(B)(iv)(a)-(d)  states  that  compensable  injuries  do  not  include \ninjuries  where  the  accident  was  substantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of  alcohol,  illegal  drugs,  or \nprescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. The presence of alcohol, illegal \ndrugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of a physician’s orders shall create a rebuttable \npresumption that the injury or accident was substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, illegal \ndrugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. An employee is not \nentitled to compensation unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the alcohol \ndid not substantially occasion the injury or accident. \n The respondent introduced a medical document found at Respondents’ Exhibit 1, page 1, \ndated October 31, 2023, which does show a positive result for both amphetamines and cannabis. \nThat medical report is from Washington Regional Medical Center. This document in and of itself \nis enough to raise the rebuttal presumption of ACA §11-9-102. However, I note that the claimant \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-11- \ndid not dispute that marijuana or amphetamines would show up in his system. I also note that the \nclaimant was certain that cannabis would show up in his system but was unsure if amphetamines \nwould. \n However, here the claimant is able to rebut the presumption, in that the injury or accident \nwas not substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used \nin the contravention of physician’s orders. In the present case, the claimant was being transported \nby the respondent while admittedly asleep. When the motor vehicle accident occurred, he had no \nrole or part in the incident that caused his injuries. Thus, his intoxication, if it was even present at \nthat time, could not have substantially occasioned the motor vehicle accident.  \n The claimant is able to rebut the presumption of intoxication. The claimant is also able to \nprove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  his  skull, \nbrain, and jaw on or about October 31, 2023. \n The claimant has asked the Commission to determine if he entitled to medical treatment \nfor his compensable skull, brain, and jaw injuries.  \nEmployers  must  promptly  provide  medical  services  which  are  reasonably  necessary  in \nconnection  with  the  compensable  injuries,  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-508(a).    However,  injured \nemployees have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that medical treatment \nis  reasonably  necessary.   Patchell  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.,  86  Ark.  App.  230,  184  S.W.3d  31 \n(2004).    What  constitutes  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  is  a  fact  question  for  the \nCommission,  and  the  resolution  of  this  issue  depends  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence.  \nGansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). \n I  have  reviewed  all  of  the  medical  records  submitted  by  the  parties  and  admitted  into \nevidence in this matter. I find that all of the treatment submitted into evidence is reasonable and \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-12- \nnecessary medical treatment for the claimant’s compensable injuries and shall be paid for by the \nrespondents.  That  payment  should  include  any  out-of-pocket  expenses  made  by  the  claimant.  I \ndo  note  that  the  claimant  was  referred  by  Washington  Regional  Medical  Center  for  cognitive \ntherapy, but it appears he has only had speech therapy. \n The claimant has asked the Commission to determine if he is entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits from November 1, 2023, to a date yet to be determined.  \nIn order to be  entitled to temporary total disability benefits, the claimant  has the burden \nof proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he remains within his healing period and that \nhe suffers a total incapacity to earn wages as a result of his compensable injury. Arkansas State \nHighway  &  Transportation  Department  v.  Breshears, 272  Ark.  244,  613  S.W.  2d  392  (1981).\n From a review of the claimant’s speech therapy records it appears that he resumed work \nin July of 2024. The claimant, according to the claimant’s testimony and to medical records \nfound at Claimant’s Exhibit 1, page 78, he had applied for a job on  or before  July  7,  2024. \nMedical records also indicate the claimant began and obtained a job or employment on or before \nJuly  15,  2024.  The  claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  until  he  began  his \nemployment. \n In  review  of  the  evidence  before  the  Commission,  I  find  the  claimant  is  entitled  to \ntemporary  total  disability  benefits  from  November  1,  2023,  until  that  date  that  he  began \nemployment in July of 2024, which is a date between July 7, 2024, and July 15, 2024.  \nThe claimant has also proven by a preponderance of the evidence his attorney is entitled \nto an attorney’s fee in this matter, set forth in the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-13- \nthe  witness  and  to  observe his demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nJuly 28, 2025, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed July 30, 2025, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n 2. The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained \ncompensable injuries to his skull, brain, and jaw on or about October 31, 2023. \n 3.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \nmedical treatment for his skull, brain, and jaw injuries. This payment should include any out-of-\npocket expenses made by the claimant. \n 4. The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from November 1, 2023,  until    that    date    that    he    began \nemployment in July of 2024, which is a date between July 7, 2024, and July 15, 2024. \n 5.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  attorney  is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee set forth in the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. \n 6. The  respondents  successfully  raised  the  rebuttable  presumption  of  Intoxication; \nhowever, the claimant was able to successfully rebut that presumption. \n ORDER \nThe  respondents  shall  pay  for  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  associated \nwith the claimant’s compensable skull, brain, and jaw injuries. \n\nOlson – H307648 \n \n-14- \nThe   respondents   shall   pay   the   claimant   temporary   total   disability   benefits   from \nNovember  1,  2023,  until  that  date  that  he  began  employment  in  July  of  2024,  which  is  a  date \nbetween July 7, 2024, and July 15, 2024. \nThe respondents shall pay to the claimant's attorney the maximum statutory attorney's fee \non the benefits awarded herein, with one half of said attorney's fee to be paid by the respondents \nin addition to such benefits and one half of said attorney's fee to be withheld by the respondents \nfrom such benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715. \n All  benefits  herein  awarded  which  have  heretofore  accrued  are  payable  in  a  lump  sum \nwithout discount. \n This award shall bear the maximum legal rate of interest until paid. \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H307648 JOSHUA OLSON, Employee CLAIMANT J. WILLIAMS CONTRACTOR, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT STONETRUST INSURANCE, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 17, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansa...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:53.560Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H307648-2025-12-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/OLSON_JOSHUA_H307648_20251217.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}