{"id":"alj-H501827-2025-09-08","awcc_number":"H501827","decision_date":"2025-09-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Earnestine Jackson","employer_name":"St. Francis Area Dev. Ctr., Inc","title":"JACKSON VS. ST. FRANCIS AREA DEV. CTR., INC. AWCC# H501827 September 08, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Earnestine_H5018278_20250908.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Jackson_Earnestine_H5018278_20250908.pdf","text_length":10420,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H501827 \n \nEARNESTINE JACKSON, EMPLOYEE   CLAIMANT \n \nST. FRANCIS AREA DEV. CTR., INC., EMPLOYER   RESPONDENT \n \nATA WORKERS’ COMP. SI TRUST, CARRIER/ \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA   RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on August  1,  2025,  in Forrest  City, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant was Pro Se, Hughes, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  full  hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on August  1,  2025.  A  prehearing  telephone \nconference  took  place  on June  11,  2025.  A  prehearing  order  was  entered  on  that  date  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 among the parties on \nDecember 22, 2024, when Claimant allegedly sustained a compensable \ninjury resulting in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. \n \n3. Respondents denied the claim in its entirety.  \n \n4. The  parties  stipulate  to  Claimant’s  average  weekly  wage  of  $278.68 \nentitling her to temporary total disability (TTD) benefit rate of $186.00 \nweekly, and her permanent partial disability (PPD) benefit rate of $154.00 \nweekly.  \n\nJACKSON H501827 \n \n2 \n \n \n \n \nThe parties have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether Claimant suffered a compensable injury in the form of Post Traumatic Stress \nDisorder (PTSD) by specific incident.\n1\n \n \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment and related \nexpenses. \n \n3. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to Temporary Total  Disability  (TTD)  benefits  from \nDecember 23, 2024, to May 17, 2025. \n \n All other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \nClaimant contends: \nThe client ate his dinner around 1:30 a.m.  He got up and pushed me over on the couch and \nstarted humping on me. \nRespondents contend: \nThat Claimant did not suffer a compensable mental injury under the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Act. Alternatively, respondents contend that in the event compensability is found, \nthe medical documentation does not support the entitlement to benefits associates with such injury, \nnor do they support entitlement to indemnity benefits. \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 \n \n1\n This issue was slightly amended by the Commission, without objection from the parties, so that it would be clear \nand precise. \n\nJACKSON H501827 \n \n3 \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The Claimant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a \ncompensable injury in the form of PTSD by specific incident.  \n \n4. Based  on  my  findings  of  no  compensability,  the  remaining  issues  of  reasonable  and \nnecessary medical treatment, and temporary total disability benefits are moot and will \nnot be addressed in this opinion. \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Claimant’s Exhibit 1, medical bills and records, consisting of 21 \npages, Claimant’s Exhibit 2, medical records, that consists of 38 pages, Claimant’s Exhibit 3, \npolice report, consisting of 2 pages, Respondents’ Exhibit 1, medical records, that consist of 17 \npages, and Commission Exhibit 1, Pre-Hearing Order filed June 11, 2025, that consists of 5 pages. \nThe Claimant, Melissa Ward, and Gregory Gordan were the witnesses that testified at the full \nhearing.  \nClaimant was employed as a direct support professional for the Respondent/Employer. The \nClaimant was responsible for caring for elderly patients who had mental difficulties. On December \n22, 2024, Claimant was tending to a patient named Shilford “Paw-Paw” Anderson, when he pushed \nher onto a couch and began to hump her, on the left side of her body, in a sexual manner. The \nClaimant screamed for help which caused Mr. Anderson to stop and leave the area. The Claimant \ntestified that this attack went on for approximately 1 minute. TR 20-21. The Claimant testified that \nshe thought she was fine until she saw Mr. Anderson and began to feel uneasy. TR 22. The Claimant \ntestified that she has never been sexually assaulted, and that this situation was a lot on her. TR 21  \nThe Claimant eventually went to Arisa Health, in West Memphis, Arkansas and was \ndiagnosed by Sabrina Lewis, a mental health care worker, with PTSD on February 11, 2025. \nRespondents Ex. 1, pp. 12, 16. The Claimant received follow-up treatment by Joseph Labonte, a \n\nJACKSON H501827 \n \n4 \n \nnurse practitioner, on March 13, 2025, who noted that Claimant’s PTSD was stable. Id. Anita \nKirby, case manager, signed off on Mr. Labonte’s report. Id. All of Claimant’s mental health \ntreatment for this work-related incident involved the aforementioned individuals. See Claimant’s \nEx. 2. \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant suffered a compensable injury in the form of Post Traumatic \nStress Disorder by specific incident. \n Under Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-113(a) (Repl. 2012) provides: \n(a)(1) A mental injury or illness is not a compensable injury unless it is caused by \nphysical injury to the employee’s body, and shall not be considered an injury arising \nout of and in the course of employment or compensable unless it is demonstrated \nby a preponderance of the evidence; provided, however, that this physical injury \nlimitation shall not apply to any victim of a crime of violence. \n \n(2) No mental injury or illness under this section shall be compensable unless it is \nalso diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and unless the diagnostic \nof the condition meets the criteria established in the most current issue of the \nDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [“DSM”]. \n \n Based on § 11-9-113(a)(1) the Claimant must prove that the alleged condition was caused \nby a physical injury to her body. The exception to the physical injury requirement is a “crime of \nviolence” which has been alleged to have occurred here. The Claimant testified that she was pushed \nonto a couch by a patient and humped in a sexual manner against her will.  Claimant testified that \nshe screamed, and the episode continued for approximately 1 minute. TR 19-21. I credit Claimant’s \nstatement. According to Ark. Code Ann §5-14-125(a)(1) states that a person commits sexual \nassault in the second degree if the person “Engages in sexual contact with another person by \nforcible compulsion....” This is a class B felony punishable by imprisonment, 5 to 20 years. See \nArk. Code Ann. §5-14-125(b)(1) and Ark. Code Ann. §5-4-401(a)(3). Forcible compulsion means \nphysical force. See Ark. Code Ann §5-14-101(3). The Claimant testified that she was pushed onto \na couch against her will. Sexual contact is defined by Ark. Code Ann. §5-14-101(12)(A) as an “act \n\nJACKSON H501827 \n \n5 \n \nof sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, \nbuttocks, or anus of a person or the breast of a female....” The Claimant testified that Mr. Anderson \nwas humping her around the left hip area which would include her buttocks. TR 18-21. \n Moreover,  this  incident  could  be  looked  at  as  attempted  rape. Rape  occurs  when  an \nindividual engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person by forcible \ncompulsion. See Ark. Code Ann §5-14-103(a)(1). Attempted rape occurs when a person purposely \nengages in conduct that constitutes a “substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate \nin the commission of an offense whether or not the attendant circumstances are as the person \nbelieves them to be.” Ark. Code Ann §5-3-201(a)(1). I find by the preponderance of the evidence \nthat Mr. Anderson took a substantial step in trying to have sexual intercourse with the Claimant by \nforcible compulsion. I further find both offenses, second degree sexual assault and attempted rape, \nwere consummated by Mr. Anderson against the Claimant. I also find they are both violent \noffenses, especially the attempted rape. See Ark. Code Ann §5-73-202(1)(D). Thus, I find by the \npreponderance of the evidence that Claimant’s work-related incident meets the definition of a \ncrime of violence. Therefore, no physical injury is required to be proven for Claimant’s alleged \nmental injury.  \n Next, according to A.C.A. §11-9-113(a)(2) (Repl. 2012), Claimant’s diagnosis of PTSD \nmust be diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or licensed psychologist. Here is where Claimant’s \nclaim fails. Claimant’s diagnosis was done by Sabrina Lewis, a mental health counselor, and her \nongoing treatment was  done by Joseph Labonte, a nurse practitioner. The Claimant has not \nproduced one report demonstrating that her PTSD diagnosis, for her work-related incident, was \never made by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. Thus, her claim must fail. Therefore, I find \n\nJACKSON H501827 \n \n6 \n \nthat the Claimant has failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a \ncompensable injury in the form of PTSD by specific incident.  \n                                         MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES \n Based on my previous findings that Claimant has failed to prove that she sustained a work-\nrelated  injury  by  specific  incident,  the  remaining  issues  regarding  reasonable  and  necessary \nmedical treatment, and temporary total disability benefits, are moot and will not be addressed in \nthis opinion.  \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, the parties \nshall act consistent with this opinion.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       ___________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H501827 EARNESTINE JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ST. FRANCIS AREA DEV. CTR., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WORKERS’ COMP. SI TRUST, CARRIER/ RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Stev...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:36:05.683Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H501827-2025-09-08","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Earnestine_H5018278_20250908.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}