{"id":"alj-H500305-2026-02-20","awcc_number":"H500305","decision_date":"2026-02-20","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Wendy Carbantes","employer_name":"Bell Planting Co","title":"CARBANTES VS. BELL PLANTING CO. AWCC# H500305 February 20, 2026","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carbantes_Wendy_H500305_20260220.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Carbantes_Wendy_H500305_20260220.pdf","text_length":23641,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H500305 \n \n \nWENDY JAMILETH CARBANTES, \n ALLEGED EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nBELL PLANTING CO., \n ALLEGED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nSTONETRUST COMMERCIAL INS. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nRITO RENARDO LUCIANO \n UNINSURED ALLEGED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 20, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on December  5,  2025, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Andy L. Caldwell, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by Mr. Michael E. Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondent No. 2, pro se, failed to appear. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On December  5,  2025,  the  above-captioned  claim  was heard  in Jonesboro, \nArkansas.  A prehearing conference took place on September 8, 2025.  The Prehearing \nOrder  entered  on  that  date  pursuant  to  the  conference  was  admitted  without  objection \nas  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the  stipulations, \nissues, and respective contentions, as amended, were properly set forth in the order. \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n2 \nStipulations \n At  the  hearing,  the  parties  discussed  the  stipulations  set  forth  in  Commission \nExhibit 1.  After the withdrawal of Stipulation No. 3, they read as follows: \n1. The  Arkansas Workers’  Compensation  Commission  (the  “Commission”) \nhas preliminary jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. This claim has been controverted in its entirety. \nIssues \n The  parties  discussed  the  issues  set  forth  in  Commission  Exhibit  1.   The \nfollowing were litigated: \n1. Whether  Claimant’s  work  for  Respondent  Bell  Planting  Company \nconstituted “employment” under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(11)(A)(iii). \n2. Whether   Claimant was   an   employee   of   Respondent   Bell   Planting \nCompany on January 9, 2025, and at all other relevant times. \n3. Whether   Claimant   was   an   employee   of   Respondent Rito   Renardo \nLuciano;    and    whether    Respondent Luciano was    an    uninsured \nsubcontractor of Respondent Bell Planting Company on January 9, 2025, \nand at all other relevant times. \n4. Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  left  lower \nextremity by specific incident. \n5. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary treatment of her \nalleged injury. \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n3 \n6. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from \nJanuary 10, 2025, to a date yet to be determined. \n7. Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \nAll other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties, following amendments at the hearing, \nread as follows: \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant  was  performing  agricultural  farm  labor  for Respondent Bell \nPlanting Company  at  the  time  of  her  injury  on  or about  January  9,  2025.  \nTherefore, she was  not  performing “employment” under  the Arkansas \nWorkers’  Compensation  Act; and   the Exclusive   Remedy   Provision \nthereunder   is   inapplicable.      The Arkansas   Workers’ Compensation \nCommission does not have jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. In  the  event that the Commission  finds  that Claimant  is  subject  to  the \nArkansas  Workers’  Compensation Act, Claimant contends   that   she \nsustained  an  injury  to  her  left  leg  on  about  January  9,  2025.  She  was \nremoving  beans  from a storage  silo and her  foot  became  caught  in  an \nauger  in  a  grain  bin,  resulting  in  the  amputation  of  her  left  leg  below  the \nknee.  Respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n3. Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  will  be  determined  by  her  contract  of \nhire; and she will offer testimony bearing on that.  She contends that she \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n4 \nis entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 10, 2025, to a \ndate  yet  to  be  determined.  Upon  information  and  belief, she is  at \nmaximum medical improvement; but the exact date is not currently known.  \nShe is entitled to 131 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits for her \nbelow-the-knee  amputation, in accordance  with  Ark. Code Ann.  § 11-9-\n521.  Based upon Claimant’s age, education, work experience, and other \nfactors,  she  is  permanently and totally  disabled.  She  is also entitled  to \nreasonable and necessary   medical   treatment,   along   with mileage \nreimbursement in connection  with  her  treatment.  Respondents No.  1 \ndirected  the  initial  medical  treatment that  Claimant  underwent;  and  they \nshould  be  responsible  for  the  ambulance,  air  flight,  and  hospital  stay in \nthat they directed her medical treatment, even if the Commission finds that \nthe claim is otherwise not compensable. \n4. Respondents  have  controverted the  claim  in  its  entirely.    Therefore, \nClaimant’s  counsel is entitled to  a  controverted attorney’s fee on  any \nindemnity benefits awarded herein. \n5. All other issues have been reserved. \nRespondents No. 1: \n1. Respondent  Bell  Planting  Company  is  a  farming  operation.    There  are \nperiods  of  time  before  the  H2A  workers  start  that  require  contract  labor.  \nThe owners of  the  farm  call Respondent Rito  Luciano,  who  then  sends a \nworker to the farm on a daily basis.  Luciano hires and pays the workers.  \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n5 \nHe  runs  a  temporary  worker  employment  service.    Claimant  is  not  an \nemployee  of  Respondent  Bell  Planting  Company.    Luciano  is  not  an \nuninsured  contractor  as  he  is  not  in  the  same  farming  business;  he  is  in \nthe temporary employment business. \n2. Respondents  No.  1  further  contend  that  Claimant  was  both  a  temporary \nworker  and  a  seasonal  worker.    For  that  reason,  the  valuation  of  her \naverage  weekly  wage  is  controlled  by Sierra  v.  Griffin  Gin, 374  Ark.  320, \n287  S.W.3d  556  (2008), where  the  Arkansas  Supreme  Court  determined \nthat seasonal workers have their gross wages divided by 52 weeks. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  including  medical  reports  and  other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  the \ntestimony  of  the hearing witnesses and  to observe their demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the \nfollowing  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  § \n11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The Stipulations set out above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 3 will be admitted into evidence and given \ndue weight. \n4. Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 4 will not be admitted into evidence. \n5. Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 5 will not be admitted into evidence. \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n6 \n6. Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 6 will be admitted into evidence and given \ndue weight. \n7. Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 7 will not be admitted into evidence. \n8. Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 8 will be admitted into evidence and given \ndue weight. \n9. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  her \nalleged left lower extremity injury was compensable because regardless of \nwhether the alleged  employer  on  the  date  of  injury  was  Respondent  Bell \nPlanting Company and/or Respondent Rito Renardo Luciano, her work for \neither or both on that date constituted “[a]gricultural farm labor” under Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-102(11)(A)(iii) (Supp. 2023). \n10. Because  of  Finding/Conclusion  No.  9, supra,  the  remaining  issues  are \nmoot and will not be addressed. \nPRELIMINARY RULINGS \nAdmission of Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 3 \n At the hearing, Claimant sought the admission of this proffered exhibit, consisting \nof  a  summary  of  a  recorded  statement  purportedly  given  by  hearing  witness  Edward \nBecton  Bell  II (“Becton Bell”) to  Lori  Marionneaux,  who  is  an  insurance  adjustor with \nCentral  Adjustment  Company.   Respondents No  1 objected,  noting  that  the  subject  of \nthe  statement  was  present  in  the  courtroom  and  was  to  testify.    In  fact,  he  not  only \ntestified  at  the  hearing,  but  his  deposition  was  admitted  into  evidence.   See  supra.  \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n7 \nRespondents No.  1 also  pointed  out  that  the  summary  was  not  only  hearsay,  but  was \nmerely a summary of a statement. \n The analysis of this aspect of the issue falls within the purview of Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012), which states: \nIn making an investigation or inquiry or conducting a hearing, the Workers’ \nCompensation  Commission  shall  not  be  bound  by  technical  or  statutory \nrules of evidence or by technical or statutory rules of procedure, except as \nprovided  by  this  chapter,  but  may  make  such  investigation  or  inquiry,  or \nconduct the hearing, in a manner that will best ascertain the rights of the \nparties. \n \nUnder this provision, the Commission is not bound by the Arkansas Rules of Evidence–\nincluding the  rules  governing hearsay and  the  exceptions  thereto.   See  Tracor/MBA  v. \nArtissue Flowers, 41 Ark. App. 186, 850 S.W.2d 30 (1993). \n After  consideration  of  this  matter,  I  find  that  admission  of  this  summary would \nhelp to “best ascertain the rights of the parties.”  While he was on the stand, Becton Bell \nwas shown a copy of the summary and was given an opportunity to explain his answers \nthereon.  This proffered exhibit will be admitted into evidence and given due weight. \nAdmission of Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 4 \n This proffered exhibit is a summary of the interview of Phillip Bickerstaff that was \nconducted  by  Marionneaux.    Respondents No.  1 lodged an  objection  to  the  admission \nof the summary on similar grounds as they did to Becton Bell’s.  The key distinction in \nthis  case,  however,  is  that  while  Bickerstaff  was  sworn  in  as  a  witness  at  the  hearing, \nneither side called him to testify.  Thus, even the parties decided that his testimony was \nnot  worth  being  placed  into  the  evidentiary  record.    Admission  of  a  summary  of  an \nunsworn interview by him would, it is reasonable to conclude, certainly not help to “best \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n8 \nascertain the rights of the parties.”  Therefore, Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 4 will not be \nadmitted into evidence. \nAdmission of Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 5 \n This proffered exhibit is Marionneaux’s summary of the interview she conducted \nwith Maria  Ribera,  the  wife  of  Respondent Luciano.    Similar  objections  were  offered \nagainst its admission.  As reflected in Claimant’s Exhibit 9, Claimant attempted—without \nsuccess—to subpoena Ribera to testify at the hearing.  I have no means with which to \nassess  the  credibility  of  Ribera  or  determine  the  truthfulness  of  what  she  purportedly \nconveyed to Marionneaux.  Thus, Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 5 will not be admitted into \nevidence. \nAdmission of Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 6 \n This  proffered  exhibit  is  the  summary  by  Marionneaux  of  the  interview  she \nconducted  with  Wesley  Byers.    Due  to  his  unavailability on  the day  of  the  hearing,  the \nClaimant  and  Respondents  No.  1 arranged  for  him  to  give  an  evidentiary  deposition \nafter the hearing, which was admitted as Joint Exhibit 1.  For the same reason as that \nfor the admission of the Becton Bell interview summary, Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 6 \nwill be admitted into evidence and given due weight. \nAdmission of Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 7 \n This  proffered  exhibit  is  Marionneaux’s  summary  of  her  interview  with \nRespondent  No.  2,  Rito  Luciano.    Luciano  failed  to  appear  on  either  the  prehearing \ntelephone conference or at the hearing, despite being given reasonable notice of each.  \nAs  was  the  case  with  respect  to  his  wife,  Ribera,  I  am  not  able  to  determine  his \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n9 \ncredibility.  Therefore, admission of Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 7 will not help to “best \nascertain the rights of the parties.”  Accordingly, it will not be admitted into evidence. \nAdmission of Claimant’s Proffered Exhibit 8 \n This  proffered  exhibit  is  the  summary  by  Marionneaux  of  the  interview  she \nconducted with Ross Bell.  This individual testified at the hearing.  For the same reason \nas that for the admission of the Byers and Becton Bell interview summaries, Claimant’s \nProffered Exhibit 8 will be admitted into evidence and given due weight. \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The hearing witnesses  were Claimant,  Ross  Haynes  Bell,  and  Edward  Becton \nBell II. \n In  addition  to  the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  admitted  into  evidence  in \nthis case were the following:  Commission Exhibit 2, the Prehearing Order that was sent \nvia  certified  mail  to  Respondent  No.  2,  along  with  the  enclosure  letter  and  envelope; \nCommission   Exhibit   3,   the   prehearing   questionnaire   responses   of   Claimant   and \nRespondents No. 1, consisting of four and two numbered pages, respectively; Claimant \nExhibit  1,  a  compilation  of  her  medical  records,  consisting  of  one  index  page  and  27 \nnumbered  pages  thereafter;  Claimant’s Exhibit  2,  the  transcript  of  the  deposition  of \nBecton  Bell  taken  on  June  19,  2025, plus  attachments, consisting  of 80 pages; \nClaimant’s Exhibit 3, the interview summary of Becton Bell taken January 14, 2025, \nconsisting of four pages; Claimant’s Exhibit 6, the interview summary of Wesley Allen \nByers taken  January  16,  2025,  consisting  of three pages;  Claimant’s  Exhibit 8,  the \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n10 \ninterview  summary  of Ross  Bell taken  January  16,  2025,  consisting  of  four  pages; \nClaimant’s Exhibit  9,  the  Service  Return  of  the  witness  subpoena  for  Maria  Rivera, \nconsisting of two pages; and Joint Exhibit 1, the deposition of Wesley Allen Byers taken \nDecember 16, 2025, consisting of 31 numbered pages. \nAdjudication \nA. Compensability \n At the outset, it must be determined whether Claimant sustained a compensable \ninjury to her left lower extremity.  In order to prove the occurrence of an injury caused by \na  specific  incident  identifiable  by  time  and  place  of  occurrence,  a  claimant  must  show \nthat:  (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course of her employment; (2) \nthe injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required medical services or \nresulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  the  injury  is  established  by  medical  evidence \nsupported by objective findings, which are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and \nis identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, \n56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). \n If any  of  the  above  elements  are  not established by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence, compensation must be denied.  Id.  This standard means the evidence having \ngreater 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 A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879 S.W.2d  457 (1994).    The determination  of a  witness’ \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n11 \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission.  White v. Gregg Agric. Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The \nCommission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In \nso doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any \nother  witness,  but may  accept  and  translate  into  findings  of  fact  only  those portions of \nthe testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(11)(A)(iii) (Supp. 2023): \n“Employment” means: \n \n(A)  Every  employment  in  the  state  in  which  three  (3)  for  more \nemployees are regularly employed by the same employer in the course \nof business except: \n \n. . . \n \n(iii) Agricultural farm labor[.] \n \nWith respect to the first element of the compensability issue, if the alleged injury arose \nout  of  and  in  the  course  of alleged employment that consisted of “[a]gricultural farm \nlabor,”  the  injury  is  not  one  governed  by  the  provisions  of  the  Arkansas  Workers' \nCompensation Act. \n In  determining  whether  the  “[a]gricultural  farm  labor”  exemption  applies  in  a \nparticular case, the courts have focused more on “the nature and character of” the \nbusiness of the alleged or purported employer as opposed to the “nature and character \nof” the task in which the claimant was engaged at the time of injury.  See Griffith v. Int’l \nCattle Embryo, Inc., 23 Ark. App. 58, 742 S.W.2d 124 (1988)(citing Dockery v. Thomas, \n226 Ark. 946, 295 S.W.2d 319 (1956); Great Amer. Indemn. Co. v. Bailey, 221 Ark. 469, \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n12 \n254 S.W.2d 322 (1953); Gwin v. J.W. Vestal and Sons, 205 Ark. 742, 170 S.W.2d 598 \n(1943)).  Whether the employment at issue is comprised of “[a]gricultural farm labor” is a \nlegal question.  Griffith, supra; Franklin v. McCoy, 234 Ark. 558, 353 S.W.2d 166 (1952); \nGwin, supra.  Even if the alleged injury happened while the claimant was performing a \nnon-farm  work  function,  it  still  falls  within  the  ambit  of  the  exemption  if  nature  of  the \nemployer’s business is primarily agricultural.  See, e.g., Gwin, supra. \n With respect to Respondent Bell Planting Company (“Bell Planting”), Ross Bell \ntestified  that  he  is  one  (along  with  his  brother,  Becton)  of  its  general  partners.    The \nfollowing exchange occurred during his direct examination: \nQ. And what does Bell Planting do? \n \nA. I mean, as—I mean, we farm. \n \nQ. So— \n \nA. Grow crop grains. \n \nRoss  Bell  identified  the  Audit  Summary  in evidence  as  being  prepared by  Respondent \nStonetrust for Respondent Bell Planting.  It reads in pertinent part: \nThe  insured  operates  a  row  crop  farm.    The  insured  will  grow  corn, \nsoybeans,  wheat,  and  rice.    The  employees  will  plant,  cultivate,  and \nharvest  crops  and  will  transport  them  to  the  various  mills.    They  will \nperform routine maintenance around the farm. \n \nThe  summary  of  the  statement  that  Becton  Bell  provided  Marionneaux  that  is  in \nevidence reflects that he informed her that Bell Planting “produce[s] soybeans, rice, \ncorn,  and  wheat  on  14,000  acres  of  farmland.   Ross  Bell  gave  a  similar  statement  to \nMarionneaux. \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n13 \n The evidence above shows the primary function of Respondent Bell Planting was \nand is row crop farming.  This unquestionably constitutes “[a]gricultural farm labor.”  As \ndiscussed above, the primary function of the alleged employer controls over the activity \nin which the claimant was engaged at the time of the injury was sustained for purposes \nof  applying  the  exemption.    But  Claimant  testified  that  her  left  lower  extremity  was \ninjured by an auger inside a grain bin at Bell Planting.  She was sweeping out the bin.  \nThe  auger  pulled  soybeans  out  of  the  bin  and  into  trucks.    Her  work  was  clearly \n“[a]gricultural  farm  labor.”    Consequently,  insofar  as  Claimant’s  claim  relates  to \nRespondent   Bell   Planting  being  her   alleged  employer   on   January   9,  2025,   the \ncompensability  of  her  alleged  left  lower  extremity injury  has  not  been  established \nbecause  it  has  not  been  shown  that  such  arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  her \nemployment  there  because  the  §  11-9-102(11)(A)(iii)  exemption  from  the  definition  of \n“employment” controls. \n As  for  Respondent  No.  2,  Luciano, the  evidence  at  bar  likewise  shows  that  he, \ntoo,  falls  under  the  above  exemption.   Ross  Bell  testified  that  Bell  Planting  would \ncontract  with  Luciano  to  furnish  the  company  labor.    He  added  that  the  Bell  Planting \nwould  issue  a  check  for  the  labor  to  Luciano  to  apportion  among  the  workers  he  had \nprocured.  Claimant’s testimony was that Luciano would receive the pay for Claimant’s \nservices; and that he, in turn, gave it to his wife, Maria, to remit to Claimant. \n The following exchange took place during the direct examination of Ross Bell: \nQ. According  to  this  statement,  the—or  at  least  the  summary  of  the \nstatement [Claimant’s Exhibit 8] . . . when the job with the grain bins \nwas  finished,  the  employees  may  go  and  help  you  or  go  help \nanother farmer plant.  Is that also correct? \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n14 \n \nA. Yes.    So  they  have  worked—Rito  [Luciano] and his  wife,  on  just a \nhandful  of  occasions,  have  worked  at  my  house  doing  flower  bed \nwork and they have cleaned a couple [of] rent houses for me a few \ntimes on  just a  handful  of  occasions.   And  I would  write  the  check \ndirectly to Rito just like the farm on those occasions, too. \n \nThe witness summary of Ross Bell referenced above shows that he was referencing the \npeople that Luciano procured for Bell Planting when he informed Marionneaux that they \nalso helped with planting.  He went on to state, per the summary, that they “do a lot of \nseasonal work for a couple of different farmers.”  The Becton Bell summary reflects that \nhe told Marionneaux that Bell Planting had used Respondent Luciano and his crew for \napproximately four to ten years to clean out grain bins. \n In his June 19, 2025, deposition, Becton Bell testified that Ross Bell  “would \nalways text Rito that we needed a crew to come do this or that, whatever the job may \nbe, whether it be to put in rice fields in the summer or to pull weeds out of a field in the \nsummer, or to clean grain bins in the winter.” \n The  evidence  at  bar  thus  establishes  that  the “the  nature  and  character  of” \nLuciano’s business, per Griffith, supra, was  to  procure  workers  to  perform  agricultural \nlabor—whether    it    be    planting,    pulling    weeds, or    cleaning    out    grain    bins.  \nNotwithstanding the evidence that Luciano’s business also included some landscaping \nand housecleaning, it was clearly primarily agricultural under Gwin, supra.  Thus, to the \nextent  that  the  instant  claim is  founded  on Claimant allegedly being  employed  by  an \nuninsured subcontractor, Respondent Luciano, of Respondent Bell Planting on January \n9, 2025, Claimant’s alleged left lower extremity injury has again not been proven to be \ncompensable.  This is because it has not been shown that the injury arose out of and in \n\nCARBANTES – H500305 \n \n15 \nthe  course  of  her  employment by Luciano  because  the  “[a]gricultural  farm  labor” \nexemption applies to him as well. \nB. Remaining Issues \n Because  of  the  above  finding,  the remaining issues are moot  and  will  not  be \naddressed. \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim for initial benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H500305 WENDY JAMILETH CARBANTES, ALLEGED EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BELL PLANTING CO., ALLEGED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 STONETRUST COMMERCIAL INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT NO. 1 RITO RENARDO LUCIANO UNINSURED ALLEGED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 2 OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:15.411Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H500305-2026-02-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carbantes_Wendy_H500305_20260220.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}