{"id":"alj-H404559-2025-09-10","awcc_number":"H404559","decision_date":"2025-09-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Ronny Rangel","employer_name":"S N S Erectors Inc","title":"RANGEL VS. S N S ERECTORS INC. AWCC# H404559 September 10, 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_20250910.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"RANGEL_RONNY_H404559_20250910.pdf","text_length":19501,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H404559 \n \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 AMENDED OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2025\n1\n \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. \n \n1\n An  opinion  was  issued  in  this  matter  on  August  22,  2025.   That  opinion  granted  respondent’s  motion  for  an \nindependent medical examination to address the degree of claimant’s permanent impairment rating on his left knee.  \nFollowing that decision, the parties reached a stipulation on the issue of the extent of claimant’s permanent impairment \nrating,  and I  accept  that  stipulation.    As  such,  respondents  withdrew  their  request  for  an  independent  medical \nexamination.  This opinion is amended to remove any references to an independent medical examination.  The post-\nhearing agreed order is blue backed to the record of this case.   \n \nThe issues regarding temporary total disability and attorney’s fee are not affected by that agreed order, and this opinion \nrepeats the findings in the previous order.  \n\nRangel-H404559 \n2 \n \n \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.  \n  At the hearing, the parties also stipulated that claimant sustained a compensable injury to his \nleft knee on May 22, 2024.    \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n1. Whether  claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  May  31,  2024, \nthrough August 23, 2024. \n2.  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 \n\nRangel-H404559 \n3 \n \n \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.” \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 to his left knee \non May 22, 2024. \n 2. 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 \n\nRangel-H404559 \n4 \n \n \ntemporary total disability benefits from May 31, 2024, through June 27, 2024.  \n3. 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.  \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 \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 \n\nRangel-H404559 \n5 \n \n \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 \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 \n\nRangel-H404559 \n6 \n \n \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. \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 \n\nRangel-H404559 \n7 \n \n \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).  The  FCE was  conducted  of  February 4,  2025, in  which  he  put  forth  a \nreliable effort. Based on the results, the evaluator concluded claimant was able to work in the heavy \nclassification  as  far  as  his  ability  to  lift  and  carry  up  to  fifty  pounds  on  a  frequent  basis  and  an \noccasional  lift  and  carry  up  to  one  hundred  pounds. The  examiner  noted  that  claimant  did  not \ndemonstrate an ability to kneel, and his crouching should be done only occasionally. It was noted that \nwhen claimant was carrying heavy weights, his left lower extremity limp increased and a mild limp on \nclaimant’s left lower extremity when 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 \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 \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 \n\nRangel-H404559 \n8 \n \n \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.”   \nADJUDICATION \n \nClaimant  seeks  TTD  benefits  from  May 31,  2024,  the  date  after  he  last  worked  for  SNS, \nthrough August 23, 2024, which is when the insurance carrier for SNS agreed to start paying TTD \nbenefits. Claimant also requests attorney’s fees on all indemnity benefits that have been paid and those \nthat may be awarded.  \n The parties have stipulated that a compensable injury to claimant’s left knee occurred on May \n22, 2024. While claimant did not receive any medical treatment for the injury until June 27, 2024, I \nbelieve  his  testimony  that  the  injury  noted  at  the  first  visit  to  a  medical  provider  was  the  one  he \nsuffered on May 22, 2024. However, claimant continued to work at a modified position until that job \nwas finished. Claimant candidly said he was not planning to work during the summer of 2024; as he \nput it “I let my bank account decide when I need to go to work” (T.46). However, he also said that \nhis finances were running low when he retained the services of his attorney (T.50). Accepting both \nstatements as true, I conclude claimant would not have been working before his financial situation \nmandated it rather than because he was physically unable to do so, and deny his claim for TTD from \nMay 31, 2024, through June 27, 2024.  \n\nRangel-H404559 \n9 \n \n \n It is my opinion that claimant entered his healing period when he sought medical treatment as \nhe became interested in working again. When he was given the physical limitations noted above by \nDr. Murphy, I believe claimant realized he was about to be in a financial bind due to those restrictions \nwhich would limit his employment options. He testified that he talked to representatives of respondent \nTravelers but was unable to secure temporary disability payments until after he hired counsel. As such, \nI am awarding  claimant  TTD  from  June  28,  2024,  through  August 23,  2024,  the  date respondents \nbegan paying TTD benefits.\n2\n   \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 \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, including those benefits agreed to by \nthe parties in their post-hearing agreed order.  \n \n \n2\n Respondents  paid  TTD  until  claimant  returned  to  work.    As  claimant  has  a  scheduled  injury, TTD  would  have \nproperly  ended  when  claimant  returned  to  work  or  had  reached  maximum  medical  improvement, Wheeler \nConstruction Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W. 3d 822 (2001)  \n\nRangel-H404559 \n10 \n \n \n \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 AMENDED OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 1 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Sprin...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:14.097Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404559-2025-09-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RANGEL_RONNY_H404559_20250910.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}