{"id":"alj-H404559-2025-08-22","awcc_number":"H404559","decision_date":"2025-08-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Ronny Rangel","employer_name":"S N S Erectors Inc","title":"RANGEL VS. S N S ERECTORS INC. AWCC# H404559 August 22, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","sprain","back","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RANGEL_RONNY_H404559_20250822.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"RANGEL_RONNY_H404559_20250822.pdf","text_length":22383,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H404559 \nRONNY L. RANGEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nS N S ERECTORS INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED AUGUST 22, 2025 \n \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by JARID M. KINDER, Attorney,  Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by AMY C. MARKHAM, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On  June 2, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, Arkansas. A \npre-hearing  conference  was conducted  on May  15,  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 May 22, 2024. \n3  The compensation rates are $699.00 for temporary total disability and $525.00 for  \npermanent partial disability.  \nAt the hearing, the parties also stipulated that claimant sustained a compensable injury on May \n 22, 2024.    \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \n\nRangel-H404559 \n2 \n \n \nwere limited to the following: \n1 Whether  claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  May  31,  2024, \nthrough August 23, 2024. \n2  Whether claimant is entitled to a permanent partial disability rating above the 10% rating    \naccepted by respondent for his left knee injury.  \n3  Attorney fees on all indemnity payments. \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe claimant contends that “The claimant, Ronny Rangel, sustained a compensable injury to \nhis  left  knee  on  May  22,  2024,  while  working  for  SNS  Erectors,  Inc.,  in  Nashville,  Arkansas. This \nmatter was controverted in its entirety by the respondents. Below is a timeline of events:  \na. The claimant filed an AR-C on July 19, 2024; \nb. The  respondents  filed  an  AR-2 on July 22, 2024, controverting stating “No injury per \nstatutory definition;” \nc. Claimant’s counsel requested a hearing on compensability – requesting medical and TTD \nbenefits on August 1, 2024; \nd. Respondents’ counsel filed her response to the pre-hearing questionnaire on September 6 \n2024, again controverting the claim.  \nThe claimant contends that he is still owed temporary total disability benefits from May 31, \n2024, through August 23, 2024. The claimant was assessed an impairment rating of 40% to the body \nas  a  whole. The  claimant  is  owed  $44,160.00  in  permanent  partial  disability  benefits. Due  to \ncontroversion of entitled benefits, the respondents are obligated to pay one half of the claimant’s \nattorney’s fees. This includes all indemnity paid after controversion on July 22, 2024. Claimant reserves \nthe right to raise additional contentions at the hearing of this matter.” \n\nRangel-H404559 \n3 \n \n \nThe  respondents  contend  that “Claimant  declined  medical  treatment  on  May 22,  2024. \nClaimant worked until May 31, 2024, which was the last day of the project and everyone working on \nthat project was laid off. Claimant did not seek medical treatment until June 27, 2024, when he was \nplaced on modified duty. The claim was accepted for a grade 2 sprain of medial collateral ligament of \nthe knee, which his doctor determined to be non-surgical. Claimant was diagnosed with degeneration \nin  the  knee  unrelated  to  the  occupational  injury. Claimant  has  undergone  a  functional  capacity \nexamination, which determined claimant can perform work in the heavy classification. Appropriate \nmedical treatment has been provided to claimant; and no additional benefits are owed.”  \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 \nwitnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance 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 May \n15, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact, as \nis the stipulation announced at the hearing that claimant suffered a compensable injury on May 22, \n2024. \n 2. Respondents’ motion for an independent medical examination is granted. The issue of the \ndegree  of  claimant’s  permanent  partial  impairment  rating  is reserved until  the  results  of  the \nindependent medical examination is provided to the Court.  \n3. Claimant has met his burden of proving he is entitled to temporary total disability from June \n28,  2024,  through August  23,  2024. Claimant  did  not  meet  his  burden  of  proving  entitlement  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from May 31, 2024 through June 27, 2024.  \n\nRangel-H404559 \n4 \n \n \n4. Claimant's attorney is entitled to an attorney fee on temporary total disability benefits and \npermanent partial disability payments previously paid to claimant, on unpaid benefits awarded herein, \nand on future indemnity benefits, if any.  \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n On May  30, 2025,  respondents  requested  an  independent  medical  examination (IME) be \nconducted. I denied that request as untimely (see the blue backed email exchange). After considering \nit  further,  respondents  were  permitted  to  make  their  motion  at  the hearing, which I  took  it  under \nadvisement. The hearing  on  the  merits  was  then  conducted,  and  the testimony  and  documentary \nevidence in the case in chief was considered in deciding respondents’ motion for an IME.  \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \nClaimant stated on May 22, 2024, he was working for respondent SNS Erectors (herein after \nSNS) at a job site at Nashville, Arkansas. Claimant said that as he was attempting to climb onto the \nback  of  a  semi-truck,  he  stepped  on  one  of  the  rear  wheels  while  searching  for  a  hand  hold. He \nsomehow missed his footing, and his left foot and/or knee buckled, and his right foot went down and \ntouched the ground between the tires, causing his left foot to bend behind him. He pulled himself out \nof the position he was in and reported the injury to his boss. He felt excruciating pain in his knee, \ncould not walk well at all, and felt it beginning to swell. His boss asked if he wanted to go to the clinic, \nand  claimant  decided  to  simply  go  to  his  room,  ice  and  elevate  the  leg,  and  try  to  get  the swelling \ndown. Claimant returned to work the next day and was able to work a half day before returning to his \nroom. After the weekend, claimant was placed on a different job that did not require a lot of walking. \nThe job ended on scheduled on May 29, 2024, then claimant returned home.  \n Claimant’s knee continued to hurt and was swollen after returning home. He called SNS about \nseeing  a  physician, but  the  company  had  no  information  on  physicians  in  Siloam  Springs  where \n\nRangel-H404559 \n5 \n \n \nclaimant lived. He was eventually sent to Conservative Care in Springdale where he was x-rayed and \ndid physical therapy for a few weeks. He then saw Dr. Craig Murphy two more times before he was \nreferred to an orthopedist, Dr. Tyler Carllee. Claimant then learned that he had injured the MCL in \nhis left knee.  \n Claimant  said  that  he  was  given  restrictions  at  Conservative  Care  on  June  27,  2024,  that \nincluded no ladders, stairs, pushing, or pulling over fifteen pounds. He sought legal counsel because \nthe doctor had released him to light duty. The employer had no work for him, and he was not drawing \nweekly checks, so he contacted his attorney. Claimant said that if his employer had cooperated with \nhim on getting treatment for his knee he would have cooperated and would have worked at light duty \nhad it been offered.  \n After  the  AR-C  was  filed, claimant  saw  Dr.  Tyler  Carllee  at  UAMS  Orthopedics  where  he \nbegan more intense physical therapy designed to have the MCL repair itself. Claimant said that his \ntemporary total disability checks began after he saw Dr. Carllee and continued until he was released \nfrom treatment. \n Claimant was advised by his doctor not to have surgery on his left knee because he had had a \ntotal prosthetic knee replacement which claimant had undergone years earlier. Claimant stated that he \nhad no issues with his left knee for four or five years and it did not interfere with his working. \n Claimant testified that he was released from treatment at UAMS in March 2025, at which time \nhe was given a 40% impairment rating on his left lower extremity. After he was released, he began \nworking immediately. Claimant is earning more money at the jobs he has worked since his employment \nended with SNS because he is a union worker. \n Claimant requested temporary total disability benefits from May 29, 2024, when his job ended \nwith  SNS, through August  23,  2024,  when  respondents  began  paying  temporary  total  disability \n\nRangel-H404559 \n6 \n \n \nbenefits. Claimant also requested attorney’s fees on those sums because he had received no disability \nbenefits prior to retaining counsel.  \n On cross-examination, claimant explained more about his manner of work. He is a member \nof a union hall but can call other union halls to secure work. He said he was sometimes contacted by \ncontractors or business agents regarding jobs in various parts of the country. Claimant learned when \nhe started the job at SNS that it would last approximately three or four weeks barring any extraordinary \ncircumstances. He again confirmed that he declined to go to the doctor so SNS would not have lost \ntime injury on their insurance claim. Claimant recognized Respondents Exhibit B, the declination of \ntreatment that he signed on May 23, 2024, which stated: \n“I am declining medical treatment at this time. Should my condition worsen, \nor should I change my mind regarding treatment, I know I must inform my \nsupervisor immediately.” \n \n Claimant did not know if he missed any work with SNS other than going home early a couple \nof days and when the job ended, he had not been told not to work by a doctor. Claimant said he first \nsought medical treatment in mid-June, and it took a little bit of time for him to be sent to Conservative \nCare Occupational Health on June 27, 2024. Claimant said the people he dealt with at SNS was rude \nand he quit talking to them and began dealing with respondent Travelers. Claimant understood that \nhe was told by Dr. Craig Murphy at Conservative Care Occupational Health that he could work within \ncertain restrictions but understood that his physician at UAMS completely restricted him from work.  \n Claimant explained that the way he worked was dependent on his financial need. He had not \nplanned to  work during  the  summer  of  2024  but a  union  representative  asked him a  few  times  to \naccept the job with SNS, and claimant agreed to do so. He did not have an immediate plan to work \nonce the SNS position was over. Claimant understood that he had been released to heavy duty with \nrestrictions on using stairs and ladders. \n\nRangel-H404559 \n7 \n \n \nMEDICAL RECORDS REVIEW \n \n Claimant submitted 50 pages of medical records, while respondents submitted 31 pages, five \nof which duplicated claimant’s submission. These will be reviewed in chronological order. \nAs claimant testified, he was first seen at Conservative Care Occupational Health on June 27, \n2024, Dr. Craig Murphy believed claimant had suffered an MCL strain and prescribed physical therapy \nfor that as well as Naproxen, ice and heat treatment and restricted claimant’s activity to no climbing \nstairs, no lifting, no pushing or pulling over fifteen pounds.  Claimant began physical therapy on July \n8, 2024, with the stated goal of returning claimant to his previous employment without restrictions. \nHe returned  to  see  Dr.  Murphy  on  July  11,  2024,  but  there  was  no  change  in  the  diagnosis  and \nrecommended treatment. Physical therapy did not yield any improvement and on July 26, 2024, Dr. \nMurphy referred claimant to an orthopedic doctor. Claimant had three visits with Dr. Tyler Carllee \nbefore he was referred to a total joints surgeon.  \nClaimant  next saw  Dr.  Benjamin  Stronach  at  UAMS, who  referred  him  for  a  functional \ncapacity  evaluation  (FCE),  which  was  conducted  of  February 4,  2025. and in  which  he  put  forth  a \nreliable  effort. The  evaluator  stated  that  claimant put  forth  a  reliable  effort  and  based  on this \nevaluation, he was able to work in the heavy classification as far as his ability to lift and carry up to \nfifty  pounds  on  a  frequent  basis  and  an  occasional  lift  and  carry  up  to  one  hundred  pounds. The \nexaminer  noted  that  claimant  did not  demonstrate  an ability  to  kneel,  and his  crouching  should  be \ndone only occasionally. The FCE evaluator noted that when claimant was carrying heavy weights, his \nleft lower extremity limp increased and further observed a mild limp on claimant’s left lower extremity  \nwhen he was walking and gradually worsening by the end of the activity.  \nAfter some additional physical therapy, Dr. Stronach recorded on March 6, 2025:  \n“He has plateaued in regard to benefits of physical therapy. At this point  I \nwould  not recommend  any  further  intervention  for  his  left  knee. He  does \n\nRangel-H404559 \n8 \n \n \nhave some stable radiolucencies appreciated around the left knee implant with \nno  evident changes  since we  have seen  him with  multiple, serial x-rays. He \ndoes  have  continued  pain  since  his  injury. At  this  time,  I  have  not \nrecommended any surgical intervention. He may require a revision of his left \ntotal knee replacement in the future.” \n \n After  reviewing  the  results  of  the  FCE, Dr.  Stronach assigned  a  40%  lower extremity \nimpairment rating for claimant’s left knee injury.   \n Respondents submitted medical records from Dr. Stronach to Dr. Hilary Alpert at CareReview \nin  Arlington,  Texas. Dr.  Alpert  did  not  examine  claimant,  but  from  her  review  of  the  records,  she \nbelieved claimant should be assessed a 10% permanent impairment rating for his left knee injury.  \nNON-MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW \n Claimant submitted thirteen pages of non-medical exhibits which outlined the history of this \nmatter from July 16, 2024, through September 6, 2024. These records demonstrate that after claimant \nretained counsel and filed his AR-C Form on July 19, 2024, the employer denied that there was an \ninjury  as  per  the  statutory  definition  of  that  term. Further, respondents’ prehearing questionnaire \nresponse as of September 6, 2024, stated that an issue to be litigated was “compensability of an alleged \ninjury to the left knee.” \n Respondents’ non-medical documentary evidence consisted of four pages, which included the \ndeclination of treatment form claimant signed on May 23, 2024, and the physician’s report from Dr. \nMurphy following the claimant’s first visit with him in which claimant was released to return to work \nwith the restrictions of “No climbing stairs, no lifting, pushing pulling over fifteen pounds.”   \n \nADJUDICATION \n \nAddressing  first  the  motion  by  respondents  for  an  IME, the  question  is  whether  an \nindependent medical examination is reasonable and necessary in this matter. \nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-511(a) provides, in relevant part: \n\nRangel-H404559 \n9 \n \n \nAn injured employee claiming to be entitled to compensation shall submit to \nsuch physical examination and treatment by another qualified physician, \ndesignated or approved by the Workers' Compensation Commission, as the \nCommission may require from time to time if reasonable and necessary. The \nthreshold question is whether the examination is reasonable and necessary. \n(Emphasis added.) \n \n11 C.A.R § 25-125 (formerly Rule 30 of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission) \nprovides: \nAn independent medical examination shall include a study of previous history  \nand MedicalCare information, diagnostic studies, diagnostic x-rays, and laboratory  \nstudies, as well as an examination and evaluation. This service may be necessary in \norder to make a judgment regarding the current status of the injured or ill \nworker, or to determine the need for further health care. (Emphasis added.) \n \nWhen  viewing  the  medical  evidence  considering  the  standards  set  forth  above,  I  believe \nrespondents  have  shown  that  an  IME  is  reasonable  and  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  make  an \ninformed judgment in this case about the degree of claimant's permanent partial impairment rating \nfor  his compensable  injury. The  opinions  from Dr. Stronach  and  Dr.  Alpert on  the  degree  of \npermanent  impairment  claimant  has  suffered  to  his  left  knee are very  different. I recognize  that  a \nconflict in the opinions of the doctors is no reason, in and of itself, to order a \"tiebreaker\" IME. The \nCommission has authority to accept or reject medical opinion and to determine its medical soundness \nand  probative  force. Oak  Grove  Lumber  Co.  v.  Highfill,  62  Ark.  App.  42,  968 S.W.2d  637  (1998). \nHowever, because claimant had a left knee replacement many years before this injury, and since I do \nnot see  that  Dr.  Stronach  took  that  into  consideration  in  his  assessment  of  a  40% permanent \nimpairment rating for claimant’s injury, I find the request by respondents for an IME to be reasonable \nand  necessary  for  me  to make  a  fair  determination of the degree of claimant’s permanent partial \nimpairment,  and  I  grant  its  motion  for  an  IME.  Therefore, the issue regarding claimant’s PPD is \nreserved pending the receipt of the report from the physician conducting the IME. This matter will \nbe referred to the Medical Cost Containment Division of the Commission to select that physician. \n\nRangel-H404559 \n10 \n \n \nThere are two components to this claim that are not dependent upon the results of the IME. \nClaimant  seeks  TTD  benefits  from  May 31,  2024,  the  date  after  he  last  worked  for  SNS, through \nAugust 23, 2024, which is when the insurance carrier for SNS agreed to start paying TTD benefits. \nClaimant also requests attorney’s fees on all indemnity  benefits  that  have  been  paid  and  those  that \nmay be awarded.  \n The  parties  have  stipulated  that  a  compensable  injury  occurred  on  May 22,  2024. While \nclaimant  did  not  receive  any  medical  treatment  for  the  injury  until  June  27,  2024,  I  believe  his \ntestimony that the injury noted at the first visit to a medical provider was the one he suffered on May \n22,  2024. However,  claimant  continued  to  work  at  a  modified  position until  that job  was  finished. \nClaimant candidly said he was not planning to work during the summer of 2024; as he put it “I let my \nbank account decide when I need to go to work” (T.46). However, he also said that his finances were \nrunning low when he retained the services of his attorney (T.50). Accepting both statements as true, \nI conclude claimant would not have been working before his financial situation mandated it, and deny \nhis claim for TTD from May 31, 2024, through June 27, 2024.  \n It is my opinion that claimant sought medical treatment when he became interested in working \nagain. When  he  was  given  the  physical  limitations noted  above  by  Dr.  Murphy, I  believe claimant \nrealized he  was  about  to  be  in a financial  bind due to those restrictions which would  limit  his \nemployment options. He testified that he talked to representatives of respondent Travelers but was \nunable to secure temporary disability payments until after he hired counsel. As such, I am awarding \nclaimant TTD from June 28, 2024, through August 23, 2024, the date respondents began paying TTD \nbenefits.  \n As to the claim for an award of an attorney’s fee, the decision to deny indemnity benefits for \nclaimant’s knee injury was made before claimant hired an attorney, as witnessed by the AR-2 form \n\nRangel-H404559 \n11 \n \n \nfiled on July 22, 2024, three days after claimant’s AR-C (CL.NMX.2-3), and continued through the \nfiling of respondent’s pre-hearing questionnaire response on September 6, 2024.  I find Cleek v. Great \nSouthern Metals, 335 Ark. 342, 981 S.W.2d 529 (1998) and Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 9 Ark. App. 228, \n201 S.W.3d 449 (2005) govern this matter; from reading these cases (and others), I believe it is the \ndenial of a claim before counsel is employed that is most relevant in determining if an attorney's fee is \nappropriate;  it  seems  even  more  appropriate  when  the  claim  continued  to  be  denied  after claimant \nretained his attorney. \"One of the purposes of the attorney's fee statute is to put the economic burden \nof litigation on the party who makes litigation necessary,\" Lee, supra. It was respondent's initial denial \nthat made the litigation necessary, and thus an award of an attorney's fee to claimant's counsel on all \nindemnity payments is appropriate under the facts of this case. \nORDER \n \n Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set forth  \nherein this 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 the carrier and one \nhalf by the claimant. \nThe respondent shall pay the court reporter's fee in the amount of $625.00 \nAll issues not addressed herein are expressly reserved under the Act. \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404559 RONNY L. RANGEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT S N S ERECTORS INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 22, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washin...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:56.193Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404559-2025-08-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RANGEL_RONNY_H404559_20250822.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}