{"id":"full_commission-G708582-2024-04-12","awcc_number":"G708582","decision_date":"2024-04-12","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Linda Bradley","employer_name":"Pine Bluff School District","title":"BRADLEY VS. PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# G708582 APRIL 12, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bradley_Linda_G708582_20240412.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Bradley_Linda_G708582_20240412.pdf","text_length":8066,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. G708582 \n \nLINDA K. BRADLEY, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nPINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER        RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nAR SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT              \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                               RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY  \nTRUST FUND                                                              RESPONDENT NO. 2\n   \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 12, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondent No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE DAVID L. PAKE, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n  Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative \nLaw Judge filed November 17, 2023. In said order, the Administrative Law \nJudge made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n\n \nBradley-G708582    2  \n \n \n2. The stipulations offered by the parties are accepted as \nfact. \n \n3. The claimant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the \nevidence, that she is entitled to the additional benefits \nsought in connection with her compensable injuries. \n \n4. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. \n \n  We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire \nrecord herein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's \ndecision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings of fact made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n  Therefore, we affirm and adopt the November 17, 2023 \ndecision of the Administrative Law Judge, including all findings and \nconclusions therein, as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal.  \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs and dissents.                                       \n\n \nBradley-G708582    3  \n \n \n                  CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION \nThe Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter, “ALJ) found that, inter \nalia, the Claimant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, \nthat she is permanently and totally disabled or entitled to wage-loss \ndisability benefits as a result of her admittedly compensable shoulder injury \non December 4, 2017 for which she was given a 4% permanent impairment \nrating.  After conducting a thorough review of the record, I would find that \nthe Claimant is entitled to a 10% wage-loss disability benefit for her \ncompensable shoulder injury. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-522 provides in pertinent part:  \n(b)(1) In considering claims for permanent partial disability \nbenefits in excess of the employee’s percentage of permanent \nphysical impairment, the Workers’ Compensation Commission \nmay take into account, in addition to the percentage of \npermanent physical impairment, such factors as the \nemployee’s age, education, work experience, and other \nmatters reasonably expected to affect his or her future earning \ncapacity.  \nWhen a Claimant has been assigned an anatomical impairment \nrating to the body as a whole, the Commission has the authority to increase \n\n \nBradley-G708582    4  \n \n \nthe disability rating, and it can find a Claimant totally and permanently \ndisabled based upon wage loss factors.  Milton v. K-Tops Plastic Mfg. Co., \n2012 Ark. App. 175, 392 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. App. 2012).  The wage loss \nfactor is the extent to which a compensable injury has affected the \nClaimant’s ability to earn a livelihood.  Id.  The Commission is charged with \nthe duty of determining disability based upon a consideration of medical \nevidence and other matters affecting wage loss, such as the Claimant’s \nage, education, and work experience.  Id.  In considering factors that may \naffect an employee’s future earning capacity, the court considers the \nClaimant’s motivation to return to work, since a lack of interest or a negative \nattitude impedes our assessment of the Claimant’s loss of earning capacity. \nId.  A Claimant’s lack of interest, however, is not a complete bar in \nassessing wage loss benefits.  Drake v. Sheridan Sch. Dist., 2013 Ark. App. \n150. \n The record supports a finding that the Claimant is entitled to wage-\nloss benefits.  The Claimant was given a 4% permanent impairment rating \nto the body as a whole by Dr. Charles Pearce on June 9, 2022 for her \ncompensable shoulder injury.  At the time of the hearing, the Claimant was \nsixty-two years old. The Claimant’s education consists of a cosmetology \ndegree obtained in the 1980’s, a bachelor’s degree in psychology obtained \nin 1988, and a secretarial word-processing certificate obtained in 1990 for a \n\n \nBradley-G708582    5  \n \n \ndos computer system.  The Claimant’s work experience prior to working for \nthe Respondent consisted of working as a form editing clerk for the Census \nBureau for a summer while she was in college, a program operations \nassistant at the Pine Bluff Convention Center, and a correctional officer at \nthe Arkansas Department of Corrections in the mid-to-late 1990’s.  \n Since the workplace accident, the Claimant has not been able to earn \nmeaningful  wages  in  the  same  or  other  employment.    The  Claimant  was \nreleased to return to work without restrictions by her treating physician, Dr. \nEric  Gordon.    Claimant  briefly  returned to  work  with  Respondent  but  was \nphysically incapable of performing her job duties both as a secretary and a \nparaprofessional.  Claimant then sought and was granted a one-time right to \nchange  physicians  and  began  treating  under  Dr.  Shahryar  Ahmadi  who \ndiagnosed the Claimant’s condition as subacromial bursitis recommending \nsurgery and further treatment.  The Claimant testified that she suffers from \ndecreased range of motion in her shoulder and must hold her arm at a 90-\ndegree angle to perform basic secretarial work such as typing. Additionally, \nthe  Claimant  provided  credible  testimony  that  she  continues  to  suffer  from \nsevere pain which was corroborated by her use of prescription opioids and \nnerve blocks.  Further she is unable to dress herself fully, wash her hair in \nthe shower, or care for her daughter with Aspergers.  \n\n \nBradley-G708582    6  \n \n \n In order to avoid a wage-loss award, the Respondent has the burden \nof proving the employee received a bona fide offer to be employed at wages \nequal to or greater than her average weekly wage at the time of the accident. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(c)(1).  Employers have been held as having failed \nto  make  a  bona  fide  offer  of  employment  when  the  duties  exceeds  the \nemployee’s physical limitations.  Foster v. Gilster Mary Lee Corp., 2011 Ark. \nApp. 735, 387 S.W.3d 212 (2011) and, Wal-Mart Assocs. V. Keys, 2012 Ark. \nApp.  559,  423  S.W.3d  683  (2012).    Following  the  release  by  Dr.  Gordon, \nRespondent gave Claimant a position she was unable to perform and then \nmoved her to her former position as a paraprofessional which she was unable \nto perform.  Based upon these facts, I find that Respondent failed to prove \nthat Claimant received an appropriate, bona fide offer of employment and a \nwage-loss award is warranted.  \n  I further find that the Claimant’s future earning capacity has been \naffected by her compensable injury and that she is entitled to a ten percent \n(10%) wage-loss benefit.  \n For the foregoing reasons, I must dissent. \n \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G708582 LINDA K. BRADLEY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 AR SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT NO. 1 DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO....","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.759Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G708582-2024-04-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bradley_Linda_G708582_20240412.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}