{"id":"alj-H406862-2026-02-11","awcc_number":"H406862","decision_date":"2026-02-11","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Cody Stevens","employer_name":"Snap On, Inc","title":"STEVENS VS. SNAP ON, INC. AWCC# H406862 February 11, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Stevens_Cody_H406862_20260211.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Stevens_Cody_H406862_20260211.pdf","text_length":12240,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H406862 \n \nCODY STEVENS, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nSNAP ON, INC., EMPLOYER   RESPONDENT \n \nXL SPECIALTY INS., CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \nGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., TPA  RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on January 13,  2026,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant was represented by Mr. Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Mr. Jarrod Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  full  hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on January 13,  2026.  A  prehearing  telephone \nconference took place on October 21, 2025. A prehearing order was entered on the same day, and \nsubsequently entered into evidence as Commission Exhibit 1. The parties’ stipulations are set forth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim.   \n \n2. An employer/employee/carrier relationship existed on September 11, 2024, \nwhen Claimant allegedly sustained injuries to his left knee. \n \n3. Respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n \nThe parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n\nSTEVENS H406862 \n \n2 \n \n1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury\n1\n to his left knee as a result of a \nspecific incident on September 11, 2024\n2\n. \n \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment, mileage \nand benefits for his alleged injuries. \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nClaimant contends: \n \nThat he sustained compensable injuries to his left knee on September 11, 2024.  \nMedical expenses have been incurred, and further treatment is recommended.  This claim \nis entirely controverted. \nClaimant’s attorney respectfully requests that any attorney’s fee owed by \nClaimant on controverted benefits, paid by award or otherwise, be deducted from \nClaimant’s benefits and paid directly to Claimant’s attorney by separate check, and that \nany Commission Order direct the Respondents to make payment of attorney fees in this \nmanner.  \nRespondents contend: \n That the Claimant did not suffer a compensable injury on September 11, 2024.  \nRespondents contend that Claimant’s need for medical treatment, if any, is related to pre-existing \nor underlying problems and not an acute injury.  Respondents, lastly, contend that in the event \ncompensability is found, the medical documentation does not support entitlement to indemnity \nbenefits. \n \n \n1\n The original term was “injuries” and was amended to the term “injury” for clarity. \n2\n Claimant made a motion at the full hearing to amend issue one’s alleged injury date from September 11, \n2024, to August 14, 2024. The motion was denied, and the denial reasons will be addressed in this opinion. \n\nSTEVENS H406862 \n \n3 \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and the \nevidentiary  record,  I  hereby  make  the  following  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. Claimant’s motion to amend Issue No. 1 is denied. \n \n4. The Claimant has failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \na compensable left knee injury during the course and scope of employment by specific \nincident on September 11, 2024.  \n \n5. Based  on  my  finding  of  no  compensability,  the  remaining  issue  of  reasonable  and \nnecessary medical treatment is moot and will not be addressed in this opinion. \n \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nPreliminary Ruling \n On January 6, 2026, I received an email with an attached letter from Claimant’s counsel \nstating that the date of injury was not September 11, 2024, but August 14, 2024. See Mr. Davis’s \nblue-backed January 6, 2026, email. Mr. Davis realized that the injury date was a mistake through \na conversation with his client, Mr. Cody Stevens. Id. The Respondents objected to the change of \nthe injury date, via email, on January 12, 2026. See Mr. Parrish’s blue-backed email dated January \n12, 2026. I made the parties aware that I would address this matter at the full hearing. \n During the hearing, Claimant’s counsel reiterated his position as to the date of injury \nactually being August 14, 2024, not September 11, 2024. He further argued that the medical records \nsubstantiate that the real date of injury was August 14, 2024. TR-5-6. Respondents objected to the \n\nSTEVENS H406862 \n \n4 \n \nchange of the injury date, arguing that it was unfair for Claimant to change the date one week \nbefore the hearing date. TR-7-8. \n My review of the Commission’s file show that a Form AR-N was filed on October 10, \n2024, and signed by Claimant purporting the alleged date of injury to have been September 11, \n2024. There is a Form AR-1 filed on October 18, 2024, that also shows the alleged injury date as \nbeing September 11, 2024. There is a Form AR-2 also filed on October 18, 2024, that states the \nalleged date of injury was September 11, 2024. There is a Form AR-C filed by Claimant’s counsel \non March 19, 2025, again purporting that the date of injury was September 11, 2024. Resp. Ex. 2, \np. 7. There was also a sworn deposition, taken by Respondents’ counsel, on June 12, 2025, where \nClaimant acknowledged that the date of injury was September 11, 2024. Resp. Ex. 2, pp. 4-6; TR-\n4, 13. Claimant’s counsel next filed an amended Form AR-C on January 6, 2026, a week before \nthe full hearing, purporting August 14, 2024, to have been the actual date of the alleged injury.  \nThere has been fifteen (15) months that has passed developing the events that occurred on \nSeptember 11, 2024, the purported injury date; nine (9) months had passed where Claimant’s \ncounsel was involved in the claim. As the Court of Appeals wrote in Sapp v. Tyson Foods, 2010 \nArk. App. 517, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 549, “elementary principles of fair play” apply in \nCommission  proceedings. As  the  Prehearing  Order  reflects,  the  parties  had  to  disclose  their \nwitnesses, and exchange exhibits no later than seven days before the hearing. The last-minute \nchange  of the  alleged  injury date  essentially  hamstrung Respondents,  preventing  them  from \nperhaps calling additional witnesses or offering exhibits to counter this new date. This scenario is \na perfect illustration of the violation of “elementary principles of fair play.” Thus, Claimant’s \nmotion to amend the allege injury date, this late in the proceedings, was thus denied from the \nbench. We now move to the full hearing. \n\nSTEVENS H406862 \n \n5 \n \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Claimant’s Exhibit 1, medical records, consisting of twenty-five \n(25) pages; Respondent’s Exhibit 1, medicals records, consisting of eight (8) pages; Respondents \nExhibit 2, statements, pleadings, and video, consisting of nine (9) pages; Commission Exhibit 1, \nPre-Hearing Order Filed October 21, 2025, consisting of five (5) pages total. I have blue-backed \nForm AR-1, Form AR-2, Mr. Davis January 6, 2026, email with attachments, and Mr. Parrish’s \nJanuary 12, 2026, email with attachments. \nThe Claimant was employed as an assembler for the Respondent/Employer during the time \nof the alleged incident. The Claimant allegedly injured his left knee on September 11, 2024, while \nworking on a tire changer or a cabinet; the submitted evidence is unclear. See Resp. Ex. 2, pp. 2-\n3. Claimant did not put on any testimonial evidence whatsoever. Instead, Claimant, through his \ncounsel, stated that he had no evidence to prove that he sustained a compensable left knee injury \non September 11, 2024. TR-6, 8-9, 12, 24-26. The Respondents likewise did not put on any \ntestimonial evidence and rested. TR-25-26.  \nAdjudication \nA. Whether  Claimant sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  left  leg by  specific \nincident. \n \nUnder Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012), which I find applies to \nthe analysis of Claimant’s alleged injuries, defines “compensable injury”: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body . . . \narising out of and in the course of employment and which requires medical services \nor results in disability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a \nspecific incident and is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings that \n\nSTEVENS H406862 \n \n6 \n \ncannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16).  The element “arising \nout of . . . [the] employment” relates to the causal connection between the claimant’s injury and \nhis or her employment.  City of El Dorado v. Sartor, 21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987).  \nAn  injury arises  out  of  a  claimant’s  employment  “when  a  causal  connection  between  work \nconditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.”  Id. \n If  the  Claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the \nrequirements for establishing compensability, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard means the evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; \nSmith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n Claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much \nweight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through \nconflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \nto believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into \nfindings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \nClaimant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he has sustained a \ncompensable left knee injury that arose out of and in the course of his employment on September \n11, 2024, by specific incident. The Claimant did not offer any testimony on how he was injured at \nwork. Instead, Claimant’s counsel stated: “Claimant rest(s)...We’ve put on no evidence. We offer \nnothing\n3\n.” TR-12. This is consistent with Claimant’s counsels’ previous admission, during the \n \n3\n The transcript ends the following statement with a question mark “We offer nothing?” I believe this is a \nscrivener’s error and should have ended that sentence with a period. \n\nSTEVENS H406862 \n \n7 \n \nportion of the hearing dealing with the motion to amend Issue No. 1,\n4\n that “there was no injury on \nSeptember 11\nth\n.” TR-8. Thus, Claimant has not met his burden of proof on the compensability \nissue as set forth in the Prehearing Order. Therefore, his claim must fail. Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \nREMAINING ISSUES \n Based  on  my  previous  finding of  no  compensability,  the  remaining  issue  regarding \nreasonable and necessary medical treatment is moot and will not be addressed in this opinion.  \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, this claim \nfor initial benefits is hereby denied and dismissed.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge  \n \n \n \n4\n This injury date amendment hearing was held the same day as the full hearing.","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H406862 CODY STEVENS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SNAP ON, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT XL SPECIALTY INS., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Steven Porch, on J...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:02.486Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H406862-2026-02-11","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Stevens_Cody_H406862_20260211.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}