{"id":"alj-H400417-2025-12-15","awcc_number":"H400417","decision_date":"2025-12-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Kenneth Cypert","employer_name":"Davis Iron & Metal, Inc","title":"CYPERT VS. DAVIS IRON & METAL, INC. AWCC# H400417 December 15, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CYPERT_KENNETH_H400417_20251215.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CYPERT_KENNETH_H400417_20251215.pdf","text_length":11356,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H400417 \n \nKENNETH CYPERT (DEC’D), Employee CLAIMANT \n \nDAVIS IRON & METAL, INC., Employer RESPONDENT \n \nSUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED DECEMBER 15, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE GREGORY  K.  STEWART in  Fort \nSmith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by ZACHARY  F.  RYBURN,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On November 17, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort \nSmith, Arkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on August 20, 2025, and a \npre-hearing  order  was  filed  on  that  same  date. A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has \nbeen  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: \n1.    The  Arkansas  Workers'  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  the \nwithin claim. \n2. Claimant sustained a compensable burn injury on January 9, 2024. \n\nCypert – H400417 \n \n-2- \nAt the time of the hearing the parties agreed to stipulate that claimant earned an \naverage weekly wage of $689.60. \nThe issues to be litigated at the forthcoming hearing are as follows: \n1. Whether Claimant’s death was the result of his compensable burn injury. \n2. Dependency benefits. \nMary Edith Cypert contends she is the mother of the deceased, Kenneth Cypert, \nwho  passed  away  as  a  result  of  his  compensable  on-the-job  fire  injury  on  January  9, \n2024. She contends that she is entitled to benefits as a dependent. \nThe respondents contend “while this is an accepted claim for the burn injuries, \nthe death of the claimant is not accepted. Additionally, the claimant’s mother is not a \ndependent of the claimant.” \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 \nconducted  on August  20,  2025,  and  contained  in  a pre-hearing  order  filed  that  same \ndate are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. The  parties’  stipulation  that  claimant  earned  an  average  weekly  wage  of \n$689.60 is also hereby accepted as fact.  \n 3. Claimant’s death was causally related to his compensable burn injury. \n\nCypert – H400417 \n \n-3- \n 4.  Respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  funeral  expenses  in  the  amount  of \n$6,000.00. \n 5.  Mary  Cypert,  claimant’s  mother,  has  met  her  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  was  partially  dependent  upon  claimant’s \nearnings for support at the time of his death.  \n 6.  Mary  Cypert  is  entitled  to  dependent  benefits  in  the  amount  of  $34.48  per \nweek. \n 7. Respondent has controverted payment of dependency benefits. \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant  was  a  59-year-old  man  who  worked  for  respondent.  The  parties  have \nstipulated that claimant suffered a burn injury while working for respondent on January \n9, 2024. According to the history contained in the medical evidence, claimant’s coat \ncaught on fire from a propane heater. Claimant was taken to the Arkansas Children’s \nBurn  Center  where  he  was hospitalized,  and  he was  diagnosed  with  having  second- \nand  third-degree  burns  involving  more  than  20-29% of his body’s surface. Claimant’s \ntreatment  included surgery  for  burn  wound  excision  and  allograft  placement.  The \nmedical  records  indicate  that  while  hospitalized  claimant  was  placed  on  treatment  for \nalcohol withdrawal. \n On the morning of January 17, 2024, claimant was found to be unresponsive and \nunfortunately, he perished. At the time of his injury, claimant was living with his mother, \nMary Edith Cypert. Cypert has filed this claim contending that her son’s death was a \nresult of his compensable injury and requesting payment of dependent benefits.  \n\nCypert – H400417 \n \n-4- \n \nADJUDICATION \n The first issue for consideration is whether claimant’s death was a result of his \ncompensable  burn  injury.  I  find  based  upon  the  evidence  presented  that  claimant’s \ndeath resulted from his compensable burn injury on January 9, 2024.  \n In support of his contention that claimant’s death did not result from his burn \ninjury, respondent states that there is no proof that the death was caused by the injury \nand that he was suffering from alcohol withdrawal while in the hospital. While it is true \nthat  claimant  was  being  treated  for  alcohol  withdrawal  during  his  hospitalization,  the \nevidence  proves  that  his  death  was  a  result  of  the  burn  injury. Following claimant’s \ndeath, an autopsy was performed, and a Certificate of Death was completed by Jennifer \nA. Forsyth, Associate Medical Examiner for the State of Arkansas. In the section, Cause \nof Death, Forsyth indicated:  \nIMMEDIATE  CAUSE  a.  COMPLICATIONS  OF  THERMAL \nINJURY \n \n On the Certificate there is also a section labeled “PART II” which states: “Enter \nother significant conditions contributing to death [emphasis provided] but not resulting in \nthe underlying cause given in PART I”. In this portion, Forsyth stated: \nHEPATIC STEATOSIS AND FIBROSIS \n Thus, while Forsyth did indicate that there were other conditions that contributed \nto  claimant’s  death,  the  form  indicates  that  these  conditions  did  not  result  in  the \nunderlying  cause.  As  previously  noted,  Forsyth  indicated  that  the  immediate  cause  of \nclaimant’s death was from “COMPLICATIONS OF THERMAL INJURY”. \n\nCypert – H400417 \n \n-5- \n Based  on  the  findings  in  the  Certificate  of  Death  completed  by  the associate \nmedical examiner, which I find to be credible, I find that claimant’s death was causally \nrelated to his compensable burn injury of January 9, 2024.  \n Mary  Cypert  submitted  into  evidence  funeral  expenses  totaling  more  than \n$10,000.00. Pursuant to ACA §11-9-527(a), I find that respondent is liable for paying the \nmaximum of $6,000.00.  \n The  next  issue  for  consideration involves  Mary  Cypert’s  request  for  partial \ndependency benefits. The applicable statute is ACA §11-9-527(i)(1) which states: \nIf  the  employee  leaves  dependents  who  are  only  partially \ndependent upon his or her earnings for support at the time of \ninjury,  the  compensation  payable  for  partial  dependency \nshall  be  in  the  proportion  that  the  partial  dependency  bears \nto total dependency. \n \n Dependency is a fact question that must be determined in light of the surrounding \ncircumstances. Findlay  v.  Farm  Cat,  Inc., 103  Ark.  App.  292,  288  SW  3d  685  (2008); \nFordyce  Concrete  v.  Garth,  84  Ark.  App.  256,  139  SW  3d  154  (2003).  Factors  to  be \nconsidered in making a determination of partial dependency for workers’ compensation \npurposes  includes  whether  support  was  given  at  the  time  of  the  injury  and  the \nreasonable  expectation  of  future  support. Williams  v.  Cypress  Creek  Drainage, 5  Ark. \nApp.  256,  635  SW  2d  282  (1982).  The  fact  that  the  claimant  is  not  the  sole  source  of \nsupport  is  not  dispositive,  because  partial  dependency  benefits  are  calculated  in \nproportion that the partial dependency bears to the total dependency. ACA §11-9-527(i): \nPinecrest Memorial Park v. Miller, 7 Ark. App. 185, 646 SW 2d 33 (1983). \n As previously noted, Mary Cypert is the claimant’s mother, and claimant was \nliving with her at the time of his death. Cypert testified that when claimant received his \n\nCypert – H400417 \n \n-6- \nweekly  check,  he  would  cash  it  and  give  her  $300.00.  She  testified  that  this  would \nhappen  every  week  unless  the  claimant  had  an  unusual  expense.  In  response, \nrespondent  notes  that  there  are  no  written  or  financial  records  supporting  Cypert’s \ntestimony  regarding  the  money  given  to  her  by  her  son.  However,  I  find  Cypert’s \ntestimony regarding the financial support given to her by her son to be credible.  \n Cypert  testified  that  during  the  calendar  2023  she  earned  $5,000.00  sitting  with \nindividuals  who  are  incapacitated  or  unable  to  take  care  of  themselves.  She  also \ntestified  that  she  received  $1,588.00  per  month  in  Social  Security  retirement  benefits. \nThis resulted in an annual income of $24,056.00 for 2023. While Cypert testified that her \nson  gave  her  $300.00  per  week,  she  also  acknowledged  that  there  were  some  weeks \nthat she did not receive cash due to her son’s expenses. I also note that in answers to \ninterrogatories, Cypert indicated that the weekly payments were $200.00 to $250.00 per \nweek. \n Finally,  if  a  parent  is  claiming  dependency  benefits,  it  is  also  appropriate  to \nconsider  the  amount  of  any  contribution  the  parent  made  in  support  of  the  claimant. \nWilliams,  supra.  Here,  Cypert  was  providing  her  son  a  monetary  benefit  by  providing \nhim a place to live.  \n After  taking  all  of  this  evidence  into  account,  I  find  that  Cypert  was  partially \ndependent  upon  claimant  in  the  amount  of  20%  pursuant  to  ACA  §11-9-527(i)(1). \nConsequently,  in  accordance  with  ACA  §11-9-527(c)(4),  she  is  entitled  to  a  weekly \nbenefit amounting to 5% of claimant’s average weekly wage, or $34.48. [$689.60 AWW \nX  25%  equals  $172.40,  maximum  wholly  dependent  rate.  Partial  dependent  finding  of \n20% X $172.40 equals $34.48.] \n\nCypert – H400417 \n \n-7- \nAWARD \n Claimant’s  death  was  causally  related  to  his  compensable  burn  injury. \nRespondent is liable for payment of funeral expenses in the amount of $6,000.00. Mary \nCypert, claimant’s mother, was partially dependent upon claimant’s earnings for support \nat the time of his death. Mary Cypert is entitled to dependent benefits in the amount of \n$34.48  per  week.  Respondent  has  controverted  Cypert’s  entitlement  to  payment  of \nthose dependency benefits. \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. \n Respondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $416.00. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H400417 KENNETH CYPERT (DEC’D), Employee CLAIMANT DAVIS IRON & METAL, INC., Employer RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 15, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Fort Smith, Sebastian Coun...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:41.154Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H400417-2025-12-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CYPERT_KENNETH_H400417_20251215.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}