{"id":"alj-H404818-2025-11-03","awcc_number":"H404818","decision_date":"2025-11-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Randell Weicht","employer_name":"Quality Trucking Of Little Rock","title":"WEICHT VS. QUALITY TRUCKING OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# H404818 November 03, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:3","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["knee","shoulder","back","rotator cuff","neck"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WEICHT_RANDELL_H404818_20251103.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WEICHT_RANDELL_H404818_20251103.pdf","text_length":19826,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H404818 \n \nRANDELL WEICHT, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nQUALITY TRUCKING OF LITTLE ROCK, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nBROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2025 \n \nHearing   before   ADMINISTRATIVE   LAW   JUDGE GREGORY   K.   STEWART in \nSpringdale, Washington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant unrepresented and appearing pro se. \n \nRespondents  represented  by ZACHARY  F.  RYBURN,  Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On September  24,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at \nSpringdale, Arkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on July 23, 2025, and \na pre-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. \n 2. The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed among the parties on July \n16, 2024. \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-2- \nThe issues to be litigated at the forthcoming hearing are as follows: \n1. Compensability of injuries to right knee and right shoulder on July 16, 2024. \n2. Payment of medical. \n3. Temporary total disability benefits from date last paid through a date yet to be \ndetermined. \n4. Compensation rates. \n5. Cost of deposition. \nPrior to the hearing, respondent also added as an issue its entitlement to the cost \nof filing a Motion to Dismiss. \nThe  claimant  contends  he  injured  his  right  knee  and  right  shoulder  on  July  16, \n2025. He requests payment of related medical and temporary total disability benefits. \nThe   respondents   contend   the   claimant   did   not   experience   an   accident. \nAlternatively,  the  claimant’s  accident  did  not  injure  the  claimant  as  alleged.  The \nclaimant’s injuries are preexisting. The claimant owes costs and fees for the deposition \ncancelled by him after misrepresenting that the deposition was not necessary. \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 \n \n \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-3- \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted on July 23, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed that same date \nare hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. Claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nthat  he  suffered  a  compensable  injury  to  his  right  knee  and  right  shoulder  on  July  16, \n2024. \n 3.  Respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment provided in connection with claimant’s compensable injuries. \n 4.  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  the \ndate  last  paid,  September  10,  2024,  through  a  date  yet  to  be  determined  at  the \npreviously paid compensation rate. \n 5. Respondent has failed to prove its entitlement to costs for the deposition or for \nfiling the Motion to Dismiss in this claim. \n \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \n The  claimant  is  a  57-year-old  man  who  began  working  for  respondent in  May \n2024, driving a dump truck. Claimant testified that on July 16, 2024, he had weighed his \ntruck  on  a  scale and  had  pulled  his  truck  down  to  the  scale  house  to  go  in  to  get  his \nscale  ticket.  As  he  opened  the  door  of  his  truck  to  step  out,  he  lost  his  footing  on  the \nsteps of the truck and fell. Although he landed on his feet, his right elbow was caught as \nit hit the door on the way down causing an injury to his right shoulder. He also testified \nthat he injured his right knee as a result of the fall.  \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-4- \n Claimant  testified  that  after  this  incident  he  went  to  the  scale  house,  got  his \nticket,  and  returned  to  his  truck.  He  then  reported  the  incident  to  his  supervisor  and \nupon returning to the respondent’s yard, he completed an accident report.  \n Medical  records  indicate  that  claimant  received  treatment  from  Dr.  Robert \nMcLeod  at  Ozark  Orthopedics  on  August  8,  2024.  Dr.  McLeod  indicated  that  claimant \nhad  a  partial-thickness  rotator  cuff  tear  and  a  right  medial  meniscus  tear.  Dr.  McLeod \nindicated that an arthroscopic procedure might be necessary on the claimant’s right \nknee  and  a  rotator  cuff  repair.  However,  on  August  8,  2024,  Dr.  McLeod  provided \ntreatment in the form of injections to claimant’s right knee and right shoulder.  \n Claimant also testified that he has treated with Dr. Dougherty and has undergone \ntwo knee surgeries and two shoulder surgeries.  \n The  respondent  originally  accepted  this  claim  as  compensable  and  paid  some \ncompensation benefits; including, temporary total disability benefits through September \n10,  2024.  Respondent  subsequently  controverted  this  claim, and  claimant  requested a \nhearing  contending  that  he  suffered  compensable  injuries  to  his  right  knee  and  right \nshoulder  on  July  16,  2024.  He  seeks  payment  of  medical  treatment,  temporary  total \ndisability  benefits  from  the  date  last  paid  through  a  date  yet  to  be  determined. \nRespondent has raised as an issue its entitlement to payment for costs of a deposition \nand for the filing of a Motion to Dismiss. \n \n \n \n \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-5- \nADJUDICATION \n Claimant  contends  that  he  suffered  compensable  injuries  to  his  right  knee  and \nright  shoulder  when  he  fell  while  getting  out  of  his  dump  truck  on  July  16,  2024. \nClaimant’s claim is for a specific injury, identifiable by time and place of occurrence. \nIn order to prove a compensable injury as the result of a specific incident that is \nidentifiable   by   time   and   place   of   occurrence,   a   claimant   must   establish   by   a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of \nemployment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body which required \nmedical  services  or  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific \nincident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Odd Jobs and More v. Reid, 2011 \nArk. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has met his burden of proof. \n First, I find that claimant has proven that he suffered an injury which arose out of \nand in the course of his employment with respondent and that the injury was caused by \na specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Claimant testified that on \nJuly  16,  2024,  he had  weighed  his dump truck  on a  scale  and  had  pulled  down  to the \nscale house to go into the scale house and get his weigh ticket. As he opened the door \nof his truck to step out, he lost his footing on the steps of the truck and fell, landing on \nhis feet but in the process, injuring his right shoulder and right knee.  \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-6- \n Following  this  incident,  claimant  reported  the  injury  to  his  supervisor  and \ncompleted an accident report. Testifying at the hearing was claimant’s supervisor, Slade \nZeigler. Zeigler testified that he was aware of the incident on July 16, 2024. \n I note that the respondent submitted into evidence a video which was taken from \ninside claimant’s truck cab on July 16, 2024. Although that video does not show the \nclaimant  falling  as  he  gets  out  of  his  truck,  the  video  contains audio shortly  after \nclaimant stepped out of his truck, which sounds like it could be a fall.  \n Also appearing at the hearing was Stephanie Stallsworth, an individual who had \nworked with claimant at a prior job. On July 16, 2024, as claimant was driving his truck \noff of the weigh scale, claimant and Stallsworth were having a telephone conversation. \nWhen claimant stopped his truck to get out in order to go into the scale house and get \nhis  ticket,  he  simply  put  his  headset  down  but  did  not  hang  up  on the phone  call  with \nStallsworth. Stallsworth testified that the following transpired.  \nAnd  all  of  the  sudden  I  heard  thunk – thunk,  and  I  was \nwaiting for you to get back on the phone and I said, “Randell, \nRandell, are you ok?” And you got back in there in the truck \nafter  a  few  minutes,  probably  two  or  three  minutes  had \npassed,  and  you  put  your  headset  back  on  and  you  said, \n“You’re  never  gonna  believe  what  happened.”  I  was  like, \n“Did you just fall out of the truck, because I heard thunks?” \nAnd you said, “Yeah, I sure did.” And you said you scratched \nup  your  elbow,  you  hurt  your  back,  you  hurt  your  shoulder, \nyour whole body was hurting. \n \n Based upon claimant’s testimony which I find to be credible; the fact that claimant \nreported  the accident to  his  supervisor  and  completed  an  accident  report;  the  video \nwhich contains a sound which appears to be claimant falling as he gets out of the truck; \nand Stallsworth’s testimony that it was her impression that claimant had fallen, I find that \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-7- \nthat claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his \ninjury  arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  his  employment  with  respondent  and  that  it  was \ncaused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. \n With  respect  to  this  issue,  I  note  that  respondent  introduced  into  evidence  text \nmessages  between  claimant  and  Zeigler  regarding  claimant  having  been  side-swiped \nby a car that swerved to miss a deer and the fact that at one point claimant was moving \nsome furniture. Both of these events occurred before July 16, 2024. However, there is \nno  credible  evidence  that  claimant  injured  either  his  right  knee  or  right  shoulder  as  a \nresult of these incidents. Claimant denied having been injured and the medical does not \nmention  either  of  these  incidents.  Therefore,  I  find  no  credible  evidence  that  claimant \ninjured his right knee or right shoulder while moving furniture or as the result of a motor \nvehicle accident. \n I  also  find  that  claimant  has  proven  that  his  injury  caused  internal  or  external \nharm to his body that required medical services or resulted in disability and that he has \noffered  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury.  As \npreviously  noted,  claimant  was  treated  for  his  right  knee  and  right  shoulder  by  Dr. \nMcLeod on August 8, 2024. According to Dr. McLeod claimant had a torn rotator cuff as \nwell  as  a  right  medial  meniscus  tear.  These  are  objective  findings.  Dr.  McLeod  further \nindicated  that  if  conservative  treatment  was  not  successful,  claimant  might  need  an \narthroscopic procedure on his right knee and a rotator cuff repair. However, on August \n8, 2024, Dr. McLeod simply provided claimant with injections in his right knee and right \nshoulder. Based  upon  this  evidence,  I  find  that  claimant  has  satisfied  the  remaining \nelements of compensability.  \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-8- \n In   summary,   I   find   that   claimant   has   met   his   burden   of   proving   by   a \npreponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable injury to his right knee \nand right shoulder as a result of a fall while getting out of his truck on July 16, 2024. \n Having  found  that  claimant  suffered  compensable  injuries  to  his  right  knee  and \nright  shoulder,  I  find  that  respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and \nnecessary  medical  treatment  provided  in  connection  with  claimant’s  compensable \ninjuries.  \n The next issue for consideration involves claimant’s request for temporary total \ndisability benefits. The injury to claimant’s right shoulder is an unscheduled  injury  for \nwhich  claimant  would  have  the  burden  of  proving  that  he  remained  within  his  healing \nperiod and that he suffered a total incapacity to earn wages. Arkansas State Highway & \nTransportation  Dept.  v.  Breshears,  272  Ark.  244,  613  S.W.  2d  392  (1981).    However, \nthe injury to claimant’s right knee is a scheduled injury. An employee who has suffered \na  scheduled  injury  is  entitled  to  receive  temporary  total  disability  benefits  during  the \nhealing  period  or  until  they  return  to  work  regardless  of  whether  they  are  totally \nincapacitated  from  earning  wages. Wheeler  Construction  Company  v.  Armstrong,  73 \nArk. App. 146, 41 S.W. 3d 822 (2001).  \n Claimant  introduced  into  evidence  payment  records  indicating  that  he  was  paid \ntemporary  total  disability  benefits  from  August  28,  2024,  through  September  10, 2024. \nAt that point, respondent apparently chose to controvert the claim.  \n As previously noted, claimant testified that he subsequently came under the care \nof Dr. Dougherty and has undergone two surgical procedures on his right knee and two \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-9- \nsurgical  procedures on  his  right  shoulder.  Claimant  did not  submit  into  evidence  these \nmedical records from Dr. Dougherty nor these surgical procedure records. \n Claimant did testify that he has not worked since the date of his injury and that he \nis  not  currently  capable  of  working  because  he  cannot  drive  his  truck  and  take  his \nmedication.  \n When  claimant  was  seen  by  Dr.  McLeod  on  August  8,  2024,  Dr.  McLeod  gave \nclaimant  a  20  lb.  push,  pull,  lift,  carry  limit  of  5  lbs.  over  head  with  no  squatting  or \nkneeling. \n It should also be noted at this point that claimant submitted into evidence medical \nrecords  from  Wesley  McGehee,  a  physician’s  assistant  at  Ozark  Orthopedic, dated \nSeptember  9,  2024.  In  that  report,  and  in  a  return  to  work  note  of  that  same  date, \ncertain limitations were placed upon claimant’s ability to return to work. However, I note \nthat this evaluation was for complaints of pain involving claimant’s neck, mid back, and \nlow  back.  Although  at  one  point,  claimant  originally  contended  that  he  had  injuries  to \nthose body parts as a result of the fall, claimant did not pursue compensability of those \nbody parts at the hearing. Therefore, any limitations placed upon the claimant for those \nconditions  cannot  serve  as  the  basis  for  the  awardance  of  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits. \n I  note that  at  the  hearing  respondent  showed  a  video  taken  by  Zeigler  on  his \nphone as he drove past claimant’s home. The video showed claimant on a ladder and \nusing a leaf blower to remove leaves from his gutter. Claimant testified that leaves in his \ngutter  were  causing water  to  leak  into  his  house  through  a  window.  Claimant  testified \nthat  the  leaf  blower  was  within  his  lifting  restrictions  and  that  he  had  informed  his \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-10- \ntreating physician about the need to get on a ladder to clean out this one area of leaves. \nZeigler testified that presumably, claimant was moving the ladder from place to place to \nblow out leaves. \nQ Presumably,  he  was moving  this  ladder  from  location \nto location and blowing out more leaves as the gutter keeps \ngoing? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \n This is clearly an assumption since the video does not show claimant moving the \nladder from location to location and Zeigler did not testify that he saw claimant moving \nthe ladder from location to location. \n In short, I find that claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of \nthe   evidence   that   he   is   entitled   to   continued   temporary   total   disability   benefits \nsubsequent to September 10, 2024. Dr. McLeod’s medical report of that date indicates \nthat  claimant  would  need  additional  medical treatment,  and,  in  fact,  he  prescribed \nadditional medical treatment in the form of physical therapy. According to claimant’s \ntestimony, he  subsequently  came under  the care  of  Dr.  Dougherty and underwent two \nsurgical procedures on his right knee and two surgical procedures on his right shoulder. \nThe injury to claimant’s right knee is a scheduled injury and claimant is not required to \nprove that he is totally incapacitated from earning wages, only that he has not returned \nto work. Claimant testified that he has not returned to work and that he could not drive \nhis truck at the current time due to the medication he is currently taking. Therefore, I find \nthat  claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  beginning  September  10, \n2024, and continuing through a date yet to be determined. These benefits are to be paid \nat the previously accepted temporary total disability rate. \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-11- \n The final issue for consideration involves respondent’s request for the cost of \nattending a deposition and for filing a Motion to Dismiss. Claimant’s deposition was \nscheduled in this case for November 15, 2024. At that deposition, claimant indicated on \nthe record that he did not wish to proceed with the deposition, and he was informed this \nwould result in the respondent filing a Motion to Dismiss. Respondent did, in fact, file a \nMotion  to  Dismiss  and  claimant  objected  to  dismissal  of  his  claim.  At  the  hearing, \nclaimant  testified  that  it  was  his  understanding  that  he  did  not  have  to  undergo  the \ndeposition  since  it  had  not  been  required  by  the  Commission  but  simply  done  at  the \nrequest  of  the  respondent.  Obviously,  this  was  a  misunderstanding.  However,  to  the \nextent  that  claimant  is  responsible  for  the  cancellation  of  the  deposition  and  for  the \nsubsequent  filing  of  the  Motion  to  Dismiss,  I  note  that  respondent  has  not  offered  any \nspecific  amount  of  cost  requested.  Absent  specific  dollar  amounts,  even  if  costs  were \njustified, no costs could be awarded without those costs having been proven. Therefore, \nunder the circumstances, I find that respondent is not entitled to payment of any costs \nfor the deposition or the filing of the Motion to Dismiss.  \n \nAWARD \n Claimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe suffered a compensable injury to his right knee and right shoulder on July 16, 2024. \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment provided in connection with claimant’s compensable injuries. Claimant is also \nentitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  beginning  September  10,  2024,  and \ncontinuing through a date yet to be determined at the rate previously accepted and paid \n\nWeicht – H404818 \n \n-12- \nby the respondent. Respondent is not entitled to payment for costs for the deposition or \nthe filing of the Motion to Dismiss.  \nRespondents  are  liable  for  payment  of  the  court  reporter’s  charges  for \npreparation of the hearing transcript in the amount of $469.60. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      _______________________________ \n      GREGORY K. STEWART \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H404818 RANDELL WEICHT, Employee CLAIMANT QUALITY TRUCKING OF LITTLE ROCK, Employer RESPONDENT BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington Co...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:06.230Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404818-2025-11-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WEICHT_RANDELL_H404818_20251103.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}