{"id":"alj-H308247-2025-06-25","awcc_number":"H308247","decision_date":"2025-06-25","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Katrena Macdonald","employer_name":"Aramark","title":"MACDONALD VS. ARAMARK AWCC# H308247 June 25, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MACDONALD_KATRENA_H308247_20250625.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MACDONALD_KATRENA_H308247_20250625.pdf","text_length":9444,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H308247 \n \nKATRENA MACDONALD, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nARAMARK, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nIDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/SEDGWICK, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 25, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE GREGORY   K.   STEWART in \nSpringdale, Washington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by ANDY L. CALDWELL, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by RANDY  P.  MURPHY,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On June  4,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at \nSpringdale, Arkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on February 26, 2025, \nand  a pre-hearing order  was  filed on that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order \nhas  been  marked  Commission's  Exhibit  No.  1  and  made  a  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The  Arkansas  Workers'  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  this \nclaim. \n 2. Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her head, neck and right shoulder \non or about December 6, 2023. \n\nMacDonald – H308247 \n \n-2- \n The parties will stipulate to claimant’s compensation rates prior to the hearing. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n 1. Claimant’s entitlement to a neurosurgical evaluation as recommended by Dr. \nJacobelli. \n 2. Temporary total disability benefits from date last paid through a date yet to be \ndetermined. \n 3. Attorney’s fee. \n Subsequent  to  the  prehearing  conference,  the  claimant  added as an issue  her \ncorrect  compensation  rate.  In  addition,  claimant  clarified  that  she  was  requesting \ntemporary total disability benefits from January 28, 2025, through March 12, 2025, and \ntemporary  partial  disability  benefits  from  March  13,  2025,  through  a  date  yet  to  be \ndetermined.  \n Prior  to  the  hearing,  respondent  agreed  to  allow  claimant  to  receive  treatment \nfrom  Dr.  Olszewski;  therefore,  there  is  no  longer  an  issue  regarding  a  neurosurgical \nevaluation. In addition, respondent also agreed to pay temporary total disability benefits \nfrom  January  28,  2025,  through  March  12,  2025,  and  temporary  partial  disability \nbenefits beginning March 13, 2025. \n As a result of these agreements, the only issues to be litigated at the time of the \nhearing  are  the  claimant’s  correct  average  weekly  wage  and  corresponding \ncompensation rates and an attorney fee. \nThe  claimant  contends that  she  earned  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  her  to  an \naverage equal to $696.00, which would result in compensation rates of $464.00 for total \ndisability benefits and $348.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n\nMacDonald – H308247 \n \n-3- \nThe respondents contend that claimant’s average weekly wage equals $679.00, \nwhich  would  result  in  compensation  rates  of  $453.00 for temporary  total  disability \nbenefits and $340.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to \nhear  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  the  following \nfindings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing conference and set \nforth  in  a  prehearing  order  filed  that  same  date  on  February  26,  2025,  are  hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2. The parties’ stipulation  that  claimant  is  entitled  to  medical  treatment  from  Dr. \nOlszewski; that claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 28, \n2025,  through    March  12,  2025;  that  claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  partial  disability \nbenefits  beginning  March  13,  2025;  and  that  respondent  controverted  this  claim  as  of \nJanuary 27, 2025, are also hereby accepted as fact. \n 3. Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat  she  earned  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $696.00,  which  would  entitle  her  to \ncompensation at the rate of $464.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $348.00 \nfor permanent partial disability benefits. \n 4.  Respondent  has  controverted  claimant’s  entitlement  to  the  payment  of \ncompensation  benefits  based  on  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $696.00  versus  the  rate \n\nMacDonald – H308247 \n \n-4- \npreviously  paid.  Respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  an  attorney  fee  on  the  difference \nfor previous underpayments as well as the difference in future indemnity payments. \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant   worked   for   respondent   performing   catering   services   for   Walmart \ncorporate  events  beginning  on  October  23,  2024.  This  was  during  respondent’s \nbiweekly  pay  period  of  October  12,  2024,  through  October  25,  2024.  As  a  result, \nclaimant only worked three days during this pay period. After that time claimant worked \nsix  full  weeks  for  respondent  before  suffering  an  admittedly  compensable  injury  to  her \nhead, neck, and right shoulder on December 6, 2024. \n Claimant’s  treatment  for  her  compensable  injury  has  included  medication; \ninjections;  and  physical  therapy.  Respondent  has  paid  claimant  for  medical  treatment \nand  has  paid  some  indemnity  benefits.  Claimant  has  filed  this  claim  contending  that \nrespondent  has  paid  those  indemnity  benefits  based  on  an  incorrect  average  weekly \nwage. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant  has  filed  this  claim  contending  that  respondent  has  paid  indemnity \nbenefits  based  on  an  incorrect  average  weekly  wage.  This  case  revolves  around \nwhether the three days claimant worked during the pay period ending October 25, 2024, \nshould  be  included  in  calculating  the  average  weekly  wage.  Claimant  has  excluded \nthose  three  days  from  calculating  the  average  weekly  wage,  while  respondent  has \nincluded those three days in its calculation of an average weekly wage. \n\nMacDonald – H308247 \n \n-5- \n After my review of the evidence, I find that claimant’s calculations are correct and \nthat claimant’s average weekly wage equals $696.00. Calculation of the average weekly \nwage  is  governed  by  the  provisions  of  A.C.A. §11-9-518.  Subsection  (a)(1)  of  that \nstatute states: \nCompensation  shall  be  computed  on  the  average  weekly \nwage  earned  by  the  employee  under  the  contract  of  hire  in \nforce  at  the  time  of  the  accident and  in no  case shall  be \ncomputed   on   less   than   a   full-time   workweek   in   the \nemployment. (Emphasis added.) \n \n The initial three days claimant worked for respondent were the last three days of \na  two-week  pay  period  and  did  not  constitute  a  full  week  of  work.  Therefore,  they  are \nexcluded from the average weekly wage calculation pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-518(a)(1). \nAdditionally,  I  do  not  find  that  there  are  exceptional  circumstances  that  would  prevent \nclaimant’s average weekly wage from being fairly and justly determined by this formula.  \n Accordingly,  I  find  based  on  the  evidence  presented  that  claimant  earned  an \naverage weekly wage equal to $696.00. This results in compensation rates of $464.00 \ntotal disability benefits and $348.00 for permanent partial disability benefits. \n Respondent has controverted claimant’s entitlement to benefits at this rate and is \nliable for payment of an attorney fee on the difference between indemnity benefits paid \nat this  rate  and  the  rate  previously  paid.  It  is  also  liable  for  an  attorney  fee  on  the \ndifference for payment of future indemnity benefits.  \n \nAWARD/ORDER \n Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe   earned   an   average   weekly   wage   of   $696.00,   which   would   entitle   her   to \n\nMacDonald – H308247 \n \n-6- \ncompensation at the rates of $464.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $348.00 \nfor  permanent  partial  disability  benefits.  Respondent  has  controverted  claimant’s \nentitlement   to   payment   of   indemnity   benefits   for   the   difference   between   this \ncompensation rate and the rates previously paid. \nPursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(1)(B), claimant’s attorney is entitled to an \nattorney fee in the amount of 25% of the compensation for indemnity benefits payable to \nthe claimant.   Thus, claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney fee based upon \nthe indemnity benefits awarded.   This fee is to be paid one-half by the carrier and one-\nhalf by the claimant.   Also pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(1)(B), an attorney fee is not \nawarded on medical benefits. \nAll sums herein accrued are payable in a lump sum and without discount.  This \naward shall bear interest at the maximum legal rate until paid. \nRespondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $263.90. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H308247 KATRENA MACDONALD, Employee CLAIMANT ARAMARK, Employer RESPONDENT IDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/SEDGWICK, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 25, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:40:04.490Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H308247-2025-06-25","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MACDONALD_KATRENA_H308247_20250625.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}