{"id":"alj-H401401-2025-12-31","awcc_number":"H401401","decision_date":"2025-12-31","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Cristina Garcia-Lopez","employer_name":"George’s Processing Inc","title":"GARCIA-LOPEZ VS. GEORGE’S PROCESSING INC. AWCC# H401401 December 31, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","repetitive","back","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GARCIA-LOPEZ_CRISTINA_H401401_20251231.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GARCIA-LOPEZ_CRISTINA_H401401_20251231.pdf","text_length":27828,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H401401 \n \nCRISTINA GARCIA-LOPEZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nGEORGE’S PROCESSING INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCORVEL ENTERPRISE CLAIMS INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED DECEMBER 31, 2025 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by R. SCOTT ZUERKER, Attorney, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On October 9, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort Smith, Arkansas. \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on February 20, 2025, and a pre-hearing order was filed on \nFebruary 24, 2025. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and \nmade a 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 June 1, 2023. \n3.   The respondents have controverted the file in its entirety.  \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n           1.  Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury on or about June 1, 2023. \n           2.  If compensable, compensation rate. \n           3.  If compensable, whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from  \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n2 \n \n \nOctober 15, 2024, through January 6, 2025, and to additional medical benefits. \n           4.  Attorney fees.  \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n The claimant contends that “She  is  entitled  to  medical  treatment  for  her  left  shoulder, \nincluding surgery by Dr. Christopher Dougherty. Claimant contends she is entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits. Claimant reserves all other issues.” \n The respondents contend that “Claimant was working for George’s when she alleged a June \n1, 2023, work related injury to her left shoulder. Respondents paid for initial treatment for the alleged \ninjury including an initial evaluation with Dr. Robert Macleod on October 19, 2023, where claimant \nwas referred for an MRI of her left shoulder. On November 14, 2023, claimant underwent another \nevaluation with Dr. Macleod at Ozark Orthopedics. According to Dr. Macleod, the left shoulder MRI \nrevealed  a  small  loose  body  with  no  evidence  of  a  rotator  cuff  tear. Thus, Dr. Macleod diagnosed \nclaimant with a loose body in the joint of the left shoulder region, and he opined, “she does not have \nthe classic mechanism for loose body with any reported history of fall or trauma to the shoulder from \nthe work...” Dr. Macleod went on to recommend a left shoulder arthroscopy removal of the loose \nbody.  On December 1, 2023, Dr. Macleod authored a letter addressing the major cause of claimant’s \nalleged left shoulder injury. Dr. Macleod stated, “she does not, again, have the normal mechanism for \na loose body and considering her work duties and job description with prior video review, I do not \nthink it is more than 51% likely that the foreign body is a result of her work as there is no one specific \nincident that seems to have started the pain... I think [it] is reasonable to have her proceed through \nher  regular  private  insurance  if  not  approved  through  work comp.” Thereafter,  on  March  3,  2024, \nrespondents  denied  the  claim  for  a  left  shoulder  injury  on  the  basis  that  it  was  not  a  work-related \ninjury, as supported by Dr. Macleod’s causation letter. Arkansas law is well settled that the burden is \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n3 \n \n \non  the  claimant  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  a  causal  connection  between  the \nemployment and the claimed injury. Kelly v. Courtyard Marriott, 2011 Ark. App. 715, 386 S.W.3d 677 \n(2011). Respondent  contends  claimant  has  never  suffered  a  compensable  work-related  injury  or \naggravation to her left shoulder, rather claimant’s left shoulder symptoms are the result of a non-work-\nrelated,  non-compensable  personal  medical  condition. Therefore,  medical  benefits  and  indemnity \nbenefits should be denied.”  \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 her 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 \nFebruary 20, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed February 24, 2025, are hereby accepted \nas fact. \n 2.     Claimant has met her burden of proving that she suffered a compensable injury to her \nleft shoulder on or about June 1, 2023, and is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment \nfor that injury as recommended by her treating physicians \n 3.     Claimant has met her burden of proving she is entitled to temporary total disability \nfrom October 15, 2024, until January 6, 2025.  \n4.     Claimant’s compensation rate is based on her average weekly wage of $728.21, yielding \na temporary total disability rate of $485.00 per week.  \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The prehearing order listed as the threshold issue “whether claimant suffered a compensable \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n4 \n \n \ninjury  on  or  about June 1, 2023.” The  order  did  not  specify  that this  was  a gradual-onset  claim. \nHowever,  before  the  testimony  began, claimant  pointed  out  that  she alleged the injury was “on or \nabout June 1, 2023” and was making a claim for a gradual-onset injury.  Both affirmed they were there \nto present or defend those issues as clarified. I am satisfied respondent was aware the nature of the \nclaim was a gradual-onset injury and was not surprised by the clarification of that issue at the hearing.   \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \nClaimant  was  the  only  witness  to  testify  at  the  hearing.  Her  job  involved  sorting  meat  and \nplacing the various pieces into boxes. When a box filled, she stacked it on top of another box, then \nput an empty box in its place. She testified that the meat was coming down in front of her rapidly and \nshe spent all day in repetitive work. She had worked at this particular position for about a year and a \nhalf before her left shoulder started to bother her in June 2023. She reported the pain to her supervisor \nand to the plant nurse and initially was only given Tylenol for the pain. Claimant testified that the pain \nwas bearable at first but continued to worsen over time. After complaining three or four times about \nthe shoulder injury, she filled out the initial incident report which stated: \"I have pain in my left arm. \nStarted on June 10th with a little bit of pain. And now as the days go by, the pain gets stronger. I think \nit keeps getting more aggravated more and more with repetitive work.\" This report was completed on \nSeptember 15, 2023. \nClaimant was sent to see Dr. Robert Macleod. She said she was scheduled to have surgery on \nher left shoulder, but the claim was denied and that surgery was canceled. She then went on her own \nto see Dr. Chris Dougherty, who performed surgery on her shoulder on October 15, 2024. Claimant \nwas off work from that date until January 7, 2025, when she returned to work for George's, but is now \ndoing an easier job than before her shoulder surgery. She said her left shoulder is better now, but she \nis not able to lift it as she does her right shoulder and cannot tie her apron behind her back. She still \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n5 \n \n \ndoes  physical  therapy  exercises  at  her  house. Claimant  testified  that  before  June  2023,  she  had  no \ntrouble with her left shoulder. She had been working at George's since 2005, and her previous jobs \nwere less strenuous than the one she was doing on June 1, 2023. \nOn cross-examination, claimant testified that she is right-handed and had been managing four \nlines of meat. A whole breast would come before her and her duty was to separate the good part from \nthe bad part. She was required to put good meat in one box, bad meat in another, and the skin and \nbones in a third box. She was the only person working at her station, filling plastic tote bins. Claimant \nfirst said that she only moved the boxes when they were empty but later described stacking boxes full \nof meat and believed that the boxes were stacked ten feet high. She used a stool to help her stack the \nboxes. Claimant acknowledged that she did not know that her estimate as to that height was correct. \nWhen claimant saw Dr. Dougherty, she used her husband's insurance to pay for the treatment. \nShe testified that she explained to Dr. Dougherty what was involved with her job. \nOn redirect examination, claimant explained that a man was supposed to come by and pick \nup the boxes she had filled and sometimes she had to get him because he was not at hand. If she was \nalone, she had to stack the full boxes. She was working on a flat surface which allowed her to have \nfour boxes on it before she had to start stacking. She said it was a tight working area with no room \nfor her to move around. Claimant clarified that she did not use any tools to get the chicken separated, \nas that was all done by hand. \nWhen asked on cross-examination about how often she had to reach above shoulder level, she \nsaid it was both retrieving the empty boxes and stacking the full ones. After she had pulled an empty \nbox off the top of the stack, claimant conceded that the next box was not as high. During her shift, \nclaimant testified she was constantly using both of her arms, extending them when throwing meat into \nthe bins and stacking/retrieving boxes. \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n6 \n \n \nDr.  Christopher  Dougherty's  deposition  was  taken  on  July  8,  2025.  He  is  an  orthopedic \nsurgeon  at  Arkansas  Center  for  Arthroscopy  in  Bentonville.  Respondent's  attorney  began  the \ndeposition by asking Dr. Dougherty to explain his dictation process. He said medical assistants (MA) \ngather information from the patient, he performs the physical exam, the MAs enters the notes, and \nhe reviews the chart before signing off. He issues amendments to medical records when mistakes are \nidentified. Sometimes he reviews his chart reports and realizes he said something wrong, so he amends \nit  before  signing  off.  On  those  occasions  when  he  amends  something  months  later,  it  is  typically \nbecause someone has pointed out a mistake in the report; that information usually comes somebody \nfrom  outside  the  office.  Dr.  Dougherty  will  issue  an  amendment  only  if  he  believes  the  requested \nchange is verifiable. \nDr.  Dougherty  explained  that  he  does  not  typically  address  causation  in  his  dictations. \nCausation is done on intake where the MA gathers the data. He addresses causation in dictations only \nwhen he perceives a need for such. When determining causation, he believes the mechanism of an \ninjury matters. \nDr. Dougherty saw claimant a total of six times for her left shoulder injury, which included \nthe surgery. Prior to providing treatment, he knew she had been to Ozark Orthopedics and was denied \nsurgery. He thought it was because she had not met Official Disability Guidelines because she had not \nbeen treated conservatively for a sufficient period of time. The only medical record he reviewed prior \nto treating claimant was the MRI from Ozark Orthopedics. He did not review any dictations from Dr. \nMacleod prior to the deposition because it is his practice to form his own opinion without seeing what \nanother doctor had recorded. He reviewed Dr. Macleod’s note of August 8, 2024, for the first time at \nthe deposition, and quoted it: \"She works pulling and packing. Has a lot of repetitive motion. States \nshe  was  already  having  shoulder  pain  back  then  from  her  job. Actually, getting  worse  for  the  past \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n7 \n \n \nseveral weeks. She reported to work comp and was referred there for evaluation and treatment.\" \nDr. Dougherty first saw claimant on September 4, 2024. The intake form noted that claimant \nsaid she had been lifting at work, that the injury was work related, but \"Not work comp\" and that she \n\"was going to have surgery but plant did not cover it.\" Dr. Dougherty's diagnoses were loose body \nleft shoulder, other specified arthritis left shoulder, bursitis left shoulder, and pain left shoulder. He \nsaw claimant again on September 30, 2024, for pre-operative evaluation. He reviewed the MRI from \nOzark  Orthopedics performed  on  November  7,  2023,  while  she  was  still  under  the  care  of  Dr. \nMacleod. Dr. Dougherty testified claimant “had an MRI done at Ozark Orthopedics in November of \n2023 that was consistent with a loose body in the left shoulder. Her MRI is also consistent with bursitis \nof the left shoulder and arthritis of the left acromioclavicular joint;\" \nOn October 15, 2024, Dr. Dougherty performed left shoulder arthroscopy with loose body \nremoval, subacromial  decompression,  distal  clavicle  resection,  and  biceps  tenotomy.  The  operative \nfindings documented that the articular surfaces were pristine, the rotator cuff was intact, there was a \nsplit tear of the biceps at the base of its anchor compromising approximately 50% of its anchor which \nwas  released,  a  loose  body  was  removed,  there  were  very  thickened  bursal  adhesions  that  were \nextremely erythematous, a large subacromial spur was resected, and the distal end of the clavicle was \nresected 8 mm.\n1\n   \nDr. Dougherty saw claimant for post-operative visits on October 28, 2024, and December 2, \n2024. On January 6, 2025, claimant reported she was doing much better and had minimal issues. Dr. \nDougherty released her to return to work with no restrictions. \n \n1\n Dr. Dougherty explained that his operative report contained an error mentioning that claimant had a previous left \nshoulder  surgery;  she  had  not.  Dr.  Dougherty  made the  mistake because  on  the  same  day  he  had  another  shoulder \nsurgery where that patient had a prior shoulder surgery. He inadvertently put that information in claimant's chart. \n \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n8 \n \n \nUpon  questioning  from  claimant's counsel,  Dr.  Dougherty  addressed  an  amendment  to  his \nSeptember  4, 2024, dictation  that  was  made  on  February  26,  2025.  In  the  original  dictation,  Dr. \nDougherty did not address causation in the Assessment and Plan section. In the amended version, the \nAssessment and Plan section states: \"She was injured in a lifting accident at work\" and \"The work-\nrelated injury is attributable to greater than 51 percent of the injury.\"  While Dr. Dougherty did not \nspecifically  recall what  prompted  him  to  add  the  causation  opinion  to  the  dictation,  he  remembers \ntyping the amendment himself. He agreed that a letter from claimant’s counsel would have caused his \nMA  to  bring  the  chart  to  his  attention.  When  asked  whether  his  causation  opinion  was  his  honest \nopinion based on his examination of claimant and the history, Dr. Dougherty testified \"Yes. Correct.\" \nDr.  Dougherty  testified  that  degenerative changes can  be  the  result  of  repetitive  work  over \nyears. If a person had been doing rapid, repetitive line work using their arms and hands for a period \nof years, it would be more likely than not that degeneration in the shoulder would occur. He explained \nthat arthritis is the wearing down of a joint; a loose body can be generated by that process. If a loose \nbody broke off in such a shoulder, he would expect that to lead to a rise in symptoms, which would \ncreate the need for surgery. \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \nIn  addition  to  the  prehearing  order  discussed above,  the  exhibits admitted  into  evidence  in \nthis case were Claimant’s Exhibit #1, consisting of one index page and 31  numbered pages of medical \nrecords thereafter; Claimant’s Exhibit #2, consisting of one index page and one page of the  initial \naccident report;  Claimant’s Exhibit #3, the deposition of Dr. Christopher Dougherty with the exhibits \nintroduced during that deposition; Claimant’s Exhibit #4, the Payment Detail Listing, consisting of \n13 pages; and Respondent #1 Exhibit #1, consisting of one index pages and nine numbered pages of \nmedical records. \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n9 \n \n \nDr. Robert Macleod saw claimant twice, the first visit being on October 19, 2023. His notes \nreflect that he suspected a possible rotator cuff injury to claimant's left shoulder which he categorized \nas work-related. He ordered an MRI, prescribed meloxicam and cyclobenzaprine, and returned her to \nfull duty with no restrictions.  \nOn her return visit, Dr. Macleod recorded this in the history/physical section of his November \n14, 2023, report:  \n“45-year-old female who presents for Evaluation of a left shoulder injury that \nbegan in June while she was working. She works at pulling and packing chicken \nand  has  a  lot of  repetitive  motion  and  she  states  that  she  started  having \nshoulder pain back then from her job. States her right shoulder hurts a little \nbit  as  well  pain  has  been  persistent  and  actually  getting  worse  for  the  past \nseveral weeks, she reported to work comp and was referred here for further \nevaluation and treatment.”   \n \n His assessment and plan from that visit was as follows:  \n \n“45-year-old female intra-articular loose body stemming from a work injury. \nAnd at length discussion with she and her interpreter went over the MRI we \ntalked   about   nonoperative   and   operative   treatment   alternatives she \nunderstands  if  we  do  not  do something  surgically  that  loose  body will  likely \ncause  symptoms  for  her  from  time  to  time  she  does  not  have  the  classic \nmechanism for loose body with any reported history of fall or trauma to the \nshoulder from the work however states that she never really had any issues and \nbelieves her symptoms started at work and have continued since then. Things \nreasonable proceed  with  left  shoulder  diagnostic  and  operative  arthroscopy \nremoval of loose body. full duty until surgery.” \n \nOn December 1, 2023, Dr. Macleod wrote the following “To Whom It May Concern” letter:  \n“In regards to Mrs. Lopez's work-related injury to the left shoulder, she does \nnot, again, have the normal mechanism for a loose body and considering her \nwork duties and job description with prior video reviewed, I do not think it is \nmore than 51% likely that the foreign body is a result of her work as there is \nno  1  specific  incident  that  seems  to  have  started  the  pain.  I  think it is \nreasonable  to  have  her  proceed  through  her  regular  private  insurance  if  not \napproved through work comp.” \n \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n10 \n \n \nA  review  of  the  records  of  Dr.  Dougherty  would  be redundant in  light  of  his  deposition \ntestimony which covered his entire chart.  \nADJUDICATION \n \nFor  an  injury  to  be  compensable  under  the  gradual-onset,  rapid-repetitive-motion  law,  a \nclaimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the injury arose out of and in the \ncourse of her employment; (2) the injury caused internal or external physical harm to the body that \nrequired medical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) the injury was caused by rapid-repetitive \nmotion; and (4) the injury was a major cause of the disability or need for treatment. Lay v. United Parcel \nServ., 58 Ark. App. 35, 40, 944 S.W.2d 867, 870 (1997); Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(a). The \ninjury must be established by medical evidence supported by \"objective findings.\" Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-102(5)(D). \nThat claimant had an injury to her left shoulder is not in dispute; Dr. Dougherty's October 15, \n2024, operative findings confirmed the loose body shown on the MRI of November 7, 2023, as well \nas a split  tear  of  the  biceps  tendon,  thickened  bursal  adhesions,  and a  large  subacromial spur,  thus \nsatisfying the second and fourth elements of proof required to establish a compensable injury.    \nRespondents contended that claimant did not prove that her injury occurred in the course of \nher employment, relying on Dr. Macleod’s “To Whom It May Concern Letter” of  December 1, 2023, \nin which Dr. Macleod opined that he did not think “it is more than 51% likely that the foreign body \nis a result of her work as there is no one specific incident that seems to have started the pain.”  The \nreason Dr. Macleod composed this letter was not introduced at the hearing, but it is undoubtedly in \nresponse to an inquiry from the respondent employer or insurance carrier. I note that Dr. Macleod \nhad mentioned in his November 14, 2023, record that claimant did repetitive work at her job, but his \nDecember 1, 2023, letter addressed only the likelihood of the injury being due to a specific incident. \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n11 \n \n \nOn that point, claimant agreed with that assessment—her claim was for a gradual-onset injury, not \none due to a specific incident. As Dr. Macleod did not address the potential cause he documented in \nhis own records--repetitive motion--I conclude that he simply answered the questions posed by the \nemployer or carrier and was not asked about the likelihood of the injury being caused gradually. Dr. \nDougherty did specifically address that issue and unequivocally said that in his opinion \"The work-\nrelated injury is attributable to greater than 51 percent of the injury.\"  I find Dr. Dougherty’s opinion \nto be more persuasive on the issue before me, and therefore find claimant established that her injury \noccurred at work.\n2\n  \nWhile respondent did not specifically contest the rapid-repetitive nature of claimant’s work, it \nis her responsibility to demonstrate that portion of her claim. In Malone v. Texarkana Pub. Schs., 333 \nArk. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998), the Arkansas Supreme Court explained that because our legislature \nhad not established guidelines necessary to the determination of what constitutes \"rapid and repetitive \nmotion,\" that determination is made on a case-by-case basis. To determine rapid repetitive motion  \n“The standard is a two-pronged test: (1) the task must be repetitive, and (2) \nthe repetitive motion must be rapid. As a threshold issue, the tasks must be \nrepetitive,  or  the  rapidity  element  is  not  reached.  Arguably,  even  repetitive \ntasks  and  rapid  work,  standing  alone,  do  not  satisfy  the  definition.  The \nrepetitive tasks must be completed rapidly.”  \n \nThe only testimony I heard on the nature of claimant’s work came from her; there was no \nwitness called by the employer to provide a different description.  Although a claimant's testimony is \nnever viewed as uncontroverted, the Commission need not reject the claimant's testimony if it finds \nthat testimony worthy of belief. Ringier America v. Combs, 41 Ark. App. 47, 849 S.W.2d 1 (1993). I found \n \n2\n By the time Dr. Dougherty expressed his opinion on causation and attributed it to claimant’s work, he had already \nperformed the surgery on claimant’s shoulder; claimant used her health insurance through her husband’s group policy. \nTherefore, there was no financial motive for Dr. Dougherty to express this opinion in order for the claim to be paid \nby the workers’ compensation carrier, nor do I suggest that he would allow such to influence his medical opinion.  \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n12 \n \n \nclaimant credible in her testimony. She described sorting meat that came before her constantly through \nher shift at a rapid rate. She used her hands to tear the part of the chicken that needed to be separated, \nmoving those pieces to boxes that were then stacked until another person arrived to remove them. \nHer testimony was that her arms were in constant use; although she was doing different tasks during \nthe course of her workday, such does not preclude a finding that she was engaged in rapid repetitive \nwork, Baysinger v. Air Systems, Inc., 55 Ark. App. 174, 934 S.W.2d 230 (1996). Viewing the evidence as \na  whole,  I  find  claimant  has  established by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence that she  suffered  a \ncompensable gradual-onset injury on or about June 1, 2023.  \nThere were two additional issues to be decided if this was determined to be a compensable \nclaim. At the hearing, claimant announced her claim for temporary total disability benefits was from \nOctober 15, 2024, until January 6, 2025, which was the period following her shoulder surgery until \nshe  was  released  to  full  duty  by  Dr.  Dougherty. In  order  to qualify  for temporary  total  disability \nbenefits, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she remains within her healing \nperiod and suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Allen Canning Co. v. Woodruff, 92 Ark. App. 237, 212 \nS.W.3d 25 (2005). Nothing in the record indicates that claimant could have returned to meaningful \nemployment before she was released from care, and I find she has proven she is entitled to an award \nof temporary total disability benefits from October 15, 2024, through January 6, 2025.  \n Having decided that claimant was entitled to a period of indemnity benefits, I now turn to a \ndetermination  of claimant’s compensation rate. The parties agreed on the admission of Claimant’s \nExhibit #4, the payment record from George’s for the period of June 1, 2022, through June 1, 2023, \nbut disagreed on the average weekly wage. The dispute is how to consider claimant’s payment for the \nweek  of  November  10,  2022. She  did  not  work  that  week,  and  apparently  only  had  eight  hours of \nvacation time available to use. At the hearing, claimant argued that her gross pay should be divided by \n\nGarcia-Lopez-H401401 \n13 \n \n \n51 weeks; respondent agreed with that, but maintained the money paid for the vacation hours should \nbe subtracted from the yearly total. I agree with respondent that if the week is not counted as a week \nworked, then the money paid to claimant should be deducted from the yearly total. Therefore, I find \nclaimant’s average weekly wage at the time of her injury was $728.21, which yields a temporary total \ndisability rate of $485.00 per week.  \n Claimant’s contentions included a request for additional medical care, but there was no \nevidence  presented  of  any scheduled appointments or  any  future  treatment needed  at  this  time. \nNonetheless, should the need for such arise, respondents are to pay medical benefits as required by \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-508.  \nORDER \n \nRespondent is directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set forth herein \nthis Opinion. \nAll accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without discount, and this award shall earn interest \nat the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809. \nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715, the claimant's attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney's \nfee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein. This fee is to be paid one half by respondent and one \nhalf by the claimant. \nIf not already paid, respondent shall pay the court reporter's fee for preparation of the record \nin this case. \nAll issues not addressed herein are expressly reserved under the Act. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H401401 CRISTINA GARCIA-LOPEZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GEORGE’S PROCESSING INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CORVEL ENTERPRISE CLAIMS INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 31, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washin...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:04.148Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H401401-2025-12-31","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GARCIA-LOPEZ_CRISTINA_H401401_20251231.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}