{"id":"full_commission-G900188-2024-04-04","awcc_number":"G900188","decision_date":"2024-04-04","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Clayton Mcwilliams","employer_name":"Arkansas State Police","title":"McWILLIAMS VS. ARKANSAS STATE POLICE AWCC# G900188 APRIL 4, 2024","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["ankle","fracture","back","hip","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McWilliams_Clayton_G900188_20240404.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"McWilliams_Clayton_G900188_20240404.pdf","text_length":53978,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  G900188 \n \nCLAYTON McWILLIAMS, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS STATE POLICE,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT NO. 1 \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL \nDISABILITY TRUST FUND  \nRESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \n \nRESPONDENT NO. 2 \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED APRIL 4, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GREGORY R. GILES, Attorney \nat Law, Texarkana, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. \nMcLEMORE, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE DAVID L. PAKE, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nRespondent No. 1 appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJuly 5, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved \nhe was permanently totally disabled.  After reviewing the entire record de \nnovo, the Full Commission reverses the administrative law judge’s finding \nthat the claimant proved he was permanently totally disabled.  The Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved he sustained wage-loss \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  2\n  \n \n \ndisability in the amount of 40% in excess of his 49% permanent anatomical \nimpairment.     \nI.  HISTORY \n Clayton Hendrix McWilliams, now age 37, testified that he had \nearned an undergraduate degree in criminal justice.  Mr. McWilliams \ntestified that he had volunteered in the area of diesel mechanics while he \nattended college.  The claimant subsequently became employed with the \nrespondents, Arkansas State Police.       \nThe parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed at all \npertinent times, including January 2, 2019.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \nQ.  So let’s go to the date of your accident, January the 3\nrd\n of \n2019, and take us to that day.  As best you can recall, what \nwere the events that led to your accident? \nA.  Okay.  Sure.  So it was raining terribly that day and I left \nthe house, the trailer  house....They called me on my cell \nphone and said they had been trying to get ahold of me, and \ntold me about the wreck....There was [an] overturned log \ntruck that they didn’t have a trooper to work and so I started \nheading that way....I actually turned the entire vehicle \nsideways....and I went into the only tree in somebody’s \nyard.... \nQ.  You ended up getting off the highway and struck a tree? \nA.  Yes, sir....the last thing I remember is bracing for impact.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “sustained compensable \ninjuries to, among others, his head/brain, pelvis, right femur, right ankle, \n[and] left leg.” \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  3\n  \n \n \n The record indicates that the claimant received inpatient physical \ntherapy at NeuroRestorative Timber Ridge beginning April 11, 2019.   \n The Social Security Administration informed the claimant on June 16, \n2020, “You are entitled to monthly disability benefits beginning July 2019.”   \n Dr. Robert L. Garrison noted on July 24, 2020: \nClayton returns today for followup.  He is now little over a year \nand a half out from pelvic ring injury that underwent repair and \na left segmental femur fracture that underwent open reduction \nwith intramedullary fixation.  He also sustained a right tibia \nfracture that underwent intramedullary nailing, which has gone \non to heal.   \nClayton reports he is starting to jog a little bit and would like to \nstart doing more activities such as weightlifting, things that he \nwas involved with before this accident.... \nASSESSMENT:   \n1.  Status post open reduction and internal fixation of pelvic \nring injury, clinically and radiographically healed. \n2.  Open reduction with intramedullary fixation of left \nsegmental femur fracture, clinically and radiographically \nhealed. \n3.  Radiographically and clinically healed right tibia fracture \nafter intramedullary nailing.   \nPLAN:  I told Clayton and his mom today I think he has met \nmaximum medical improvement from my standpoint.  From \nmy standpoint, impairment rating will need to be done by \nphysician dealing with impairment ratings.  I would defer to \nthem at this time.  He will follow up from my standpoint as \nneeded.  I feel from an orthopaedic standpoint when he can \ntolerate as far as activities, he can proceed doing.  In regard \nto his closed head injury, I will defer that for further evaluation \nas far as impairment rating is concerned.  Again, we will see \nhim back as needed.   \n \n The claimant participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation at \nFunctional Testing Centers, Inc. on August 28, 2020:  “The results of this \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  4\n  \n \n \nevaluation indicate that a reliable effort was put forth, with 52 of 52 \nconsistency measures within expected limits....Mr. McWilliams completed \nfunctional testing on this date with reliable results.  Overall, Mr. McWilliams \ndemonstrated the ability to perform work in the LIGHT classification of \nwork[.]”  The claimant was also assigned a 19% whole-person impairment \nrating on August 28, 2020.   \nDr. Barry D. Baskin provided an INDEPENDENT MEDICAL \nEVALUATION on October 7, 2020: \nMr. McWilliams is a 34-year-old gentleman from Magnolia, \nArkansas.  He worked as an Arkansas state police officer.  He \nwas involved in a single car accident 1/3/2019.  He was on a \ncall, it was raining heavily, and he hydroplaned and his police \ncruiser hit a tree.  He had extensive pelvic trauma with sacral \nfractures, pelvic fractures, comminuted fracture of the left \nfemur, right tibia, left hip, and ring fractures of the pelvis.  He \nunderwent ORIF of the pelvis, right SI joint screw.  He had a \ntraumatic brain injury with subarachnoid hemorrhage and \nsubdural hematoma.  He was stabilized at St. Michael’s \nMedical Center in Texarkana which was near the accident and \nthen he was transferred to UAMS where he was on a \nventilator x 2 weeks.  He spent 3 weeks at UAMS and then \nwent to Texas Institute of Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) \nfor 2-1/2 months.  He then went to Timber Ridge \nNeuroRestorative Center in Benton.  He had complications of \nDVT in the left leg.  He is still being treated at Timber Ridge \nas an inpatient.  He is now going 3 days a week and home for \n4 days a week with a long weekend every other weekend.  He \nwas on Eliquis for a few months and now is off.  He has had \nneuropsych evaluation by Dr. Zolten.  He has had a functional \ncapacity evaluation ordered by Dr. Robert Garrison, his \ntrauma orthopaedic surgeon at UAMS.  This was done on \n8/28/2020, and I have that study.  He is now referred to me for \nongoing management.... \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  5\n  \n \n \nReview of the medical records includes a functional capacity \nevaluation by Functional Testing Centers from 8/28/2020.  He \ngave good effort.  He was given a [rating] on his orthopaedic \ninjuries.  He was not rated on his traumatic brain injury.  His \northopaedic injuries were rated on referral from Dr. Garrison \nat 19% whole person impairment using the combined values \nchart on page 322.  I am not asked to see him for his \northopaedic injuries, but instead for his closed head injury.... \nRecords from Timber Ridge are reviewed.  Those records \nindicate that Mr. McWilliams was diagnosed with a closed \nhead injury with subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage, \nhemorrhagic contusion of the left temporal lobe, closed pelvic \nring fracture, open displaced left femoral shaft fracture, open \nright tibia and fibula fractures, closed nondisplaced anterior \nprocess of the right calcaneous fracture, left chin laceration.  \nHe was treated primarily at UAMS with Dr. Robert \nGarrison....MRI of the brain revealed extensive shear injury \nthroughout the brain most pronounced at the corpus callosum.  \nHe had atrophy at the right cerebral peduncle, \nencephalomalacia was noted within the left side greater than \nright frontal lobes and right medial temporal lobe was noted.  \nInterval development of diffuse cerebral volume loss was also \nnoted.... \nIMPRESSION:  Mr. McWilliams is a nice gentleman referred \nto me by Heather Montgomery, RN, Case Manager with \nSystemedic.  He is a former state trooper involved in a severe \nmotor vehicle accident when he hydroplaned on a rainy night \n1/3/2019 and sustained multiple orthopaedic trauma and a \nclosed head injury.  He had complications of a DVT.  He has \nhad extensive rehabilitation at TIRR and subsequently at \nTimber Ridge.  He is still at Timber Ridge and they are \nweaning him back to an outpatient program.  He has had \nneuropsych evaluation by Dr. Zolten which I do not have....I \nwould like to get Dr. Zolten’s records.  This evaluation is an \nIME to get to know Mr. McWilliams with plans of me following \nhim long term for ongoing traumatic brain injury rehabilitation \nefforts....He has been disabled from his job as an Arkansas \nState Trooper.  I will see him back in follow up in about a \nmonth.   \n \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  6\n  \n \n \n An occupational therapist noted in part on February 4, 2021, “Mr. \nMcWilliams is recommended for approval by physician to resume driving \nindependently.”  The claimant testified that he was physically able to \noperate a motor vehicle, at least for shorter distances.     \nDr. Baskin gave the following impression on March 9, 2021:  “Mr. \nMcWilliams is making good progress after a severe traumatic brain injury \n1/3/2019.  He is now two years post injury....We are going to get a \nvocational rehab evaluation to see what type of work he can do.  He is not \ngoing to be able to go back to work as a state police officer....I am \nrecommending a functional capacity evaluation to find out what Mr. \nMcWilliams can do with regards to return to work.”   \nThe claimant was discharged from Timber Ridge on or about March \n29, 2021.   \nThe claimant participated in another Functional Capacity Evaluation \non May 6, 2021:  “The results of this evaluation indicate that a reliable effort \nwas put forth, with 50 of 50 consistency measures within expected \nlimits....Mr. McWilliams completed functional testing on this date with \nreliable results.  Overall, Mr. McWilliams demonstrated the ability to \nperform work in the LIGHT classification of work[.]”   \n The parties stipulated that the claimant reached maximum medical \nimprovement on May 6, 2021. \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  7\n  \n \n \n Heather Taylor, a Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant, provided a \nVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION INITIAL EVALUATION on May 24, 2021.  \nHeather Taylor reported in part, “before beginning the job search process \nwith Mr. McWilliams, it is my recommendation and opinion that he could \nbenefit from working as a volunteer on a transitional basis as a simulation of \nwork and as a gauge of whether or not he would eventually be capable of \nreturning to competitive employment.  Therefore, I will research the non-\nprofit agencies in his local area that accept volunteers and identify one that \nwould be appropriate for him to participate in.”  \n Heather Taylor opined on June 21, 2021, “Because of his brain injury \ndeficits, he will be unable to return to his previous skilled occupation and, in \nmy opinion, will not be able to return to any other skilled occupation.  If, or \nwhen, he is able to return to competitive employment, because of his brain \ninjury deficits, he will likely only be able to return to an unskilled or semi-\nskilled occupation.”    \n Dr. Baskin provided an IMPAIRMENT RATING on June 21, 2021: \nMr. McWilliams is back in for follow up for his traumatic brain \ninjury.  Overall he is doing fairly well.  He has had a functional \ncapacity evaluation with good reliability.  He still has left \nspasticity and hemiparesis.  He still has difficulty with spasm \nin his left side.  He had multiple fractures.  He has had \nneuropsych evaluation with Dr. Zolten that revealed extensive \n[shearing] injury throughout his brain.  He has had significant \ngross and fine motor defects primarily on the left side.  He has \nhad cognitive deficits.  He has had some impairment of visual \nperceptual skills....He has made significant \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  8\n  \n \n \nimprovement....His recent FCE revealed reliable effort with \n50/50 [consistency] measures with the expected limits.  He \nwas able to work in a light physical demand category.  He is \nmedically retired from the Arkansas State Police Department \nas a trooper.  His functional capacity evaluation was noted to \nbe able to stand better on the right side than the left.... \nUsing the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent \nImpairment Mr. McWilliams has an impairment due to mental \nstatus changes and cognitive impairment of 25% to the whole \nperson using table 2 on page 142.  Due to his sacroiliac \nfractures and diastasis requiring screw fixation turning to table \n64 on page 85 he has a 3% whole person impairment.  Due to \nhis pelvic diastasis and bilateral pubic rami fracture and \nfixation turning to section 3.4 on page 131 he has a 5% whole \nperson impairment.  Due to his spastic hemiparesis and gait \nabnormality using the station and gait eval [table] 13 on page \n148 he has a 9% whole person impairment.  Due to [his] \nmultiple comminuted femur and hip fracture on the left with \ndecreased external rotation at only 30% he has a 2% whole \nperson impairment using table 40 on page 78.  Due to the lost \nrange of motion in the right ankle associated with his foot and \ncalcaneous fractures using table 42 on page 78 he has a 4% \nwhole person impairment rating.  Due to the lumbar disc \nprotrusions x 2 using table 75 on page 113 he has a 10% \nwhole person impairment rating....Using table 2 on page 280 \nhe has a 3% whole person impairment rating.  Turning to the \ncombined values chart of the 4\nth\n Edition AMA Guides on page \n322 Mr. McWilliams’s impairment ratings as outlined above \nare combined to equal a 47% whole person impairment.  He \nwas previously rated by Functional Testing Centers and not all \nthe ratings that he actually has were included.  Three hours \nwas spent on this evaluation looking through his medical \nrecords and applying them appropriately to the AMA Guides \n4\nth\n Edition in determining his whole person impairment rating \nas a result of his injuries.  Mr. McWilliams is effectively, totally \nand permanently disabled as a result of his motor vehicle \naccident.  Again, his impairment rating of the whole person is \ncalculated at 47%.... \n \n Dr. Baskin informed a case manager on July 14, 2021, “There is one \nitem that needs to be added to my rating that I overlooked.  I did not rate \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  9\n  \n \n \nMr. McWilliams on the calcaneal fracture.  He had lost some range of \nmotion in the right ankle in plantar flexion and equal to 3% whole person \nimpairment and he lost some range of motion in inversion of the right ankle \nequal to 1% whole person....This 4% impairment rating would then be \ncombined with the 47% rating that I calculated to yield a permanent partial \nimpairment rating of 49% to the whole person....I believe the 49% rating is \nthe whole package at this point.”   \n The parties stipulated that Respondent No. 1 paid a 49% permanent \nanatomical impairment rating “which includes/takes into consideration all of \nthe claimant’s compensable injuries.”      \n Heather Taylor provided a VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION \nCLOSURE REPORT on November 3, 2021: \nMr. Clayton McWilliams began his volunteer work program on \n06/08/21.  As of this date, his volunteer schedule has \nremained as follows:  Tuesday and Thursday evenings from \n7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Southern Arkansas University (SAU) \ncampus police department and on Wednesdays from 11:00 \na.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the local animal shelter, Columbia County \nAnimal Protection Society (CCAPS).... \nMy vocational recommendation at this time is for Mr. \nMcWilliams to continue to participate in his volunteer work \nprogram for an indefinite period of time.  Both places have \nstated he can continue to volunteer there for as long as he \nwants and, in my opinion, this will be very good for him and \nmay increase his overall independence. \nAfter working with Mr. McWilliams, communicating with both \nvolunteer places, and observing Mr. McWilliams doing his \nvolunteer work, it is my professional opinion that he is not able \nto return to competitive employment at this time....If his \nindependence increases overtime, he may eventually be able \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  10\n  \n \n \nto return to competitive employment, but in my opinion, it \nwould only be to an unskilled occupation.   \nI have communicated my final opinion and my most recent \nonsite observation to Public Employee Claims Division.  At \nthis time, vocational rehabilitation file closure is \nrecommended.  I have also communicated with Mr. \nMcWilliams that I am closing his vocational rehabilitation file.   \nThank you for this referral.  It was a pleasure working with Mr. \nMcWilliams.   \n \n On January 11, 2022, the claimant was re-admitted to \nNeuroRestorative Timber Ridge “for further evaluation and treatment.”  The \nclaimant’s admission was described as an annual “tune up,” and he was \ndischarged on January 31, 2022.   \nA pre-hearing order was filed on February 16, 2022.  According to \nthe text of the pre-hearing order, the parties contended the following:  “The \nclaimant contends he is permanently and totally disabled (PTD) as a result \nof his multiple injuries or, alternatively, is entitled to substantial wage loss \ndisability benefits.  The claimant contends further the claimant contends \n(sic) the Commission should order Respondent No. 1 to pay a controverted \nattorney’s fee on any and all additional PPD benefits he may be awarded. \n First, Respondent No. 1 contends the claimant sustained \ncompensable injuries on January 3, 2019, in a motor vehicle accident \n(MVA), which they accepted as compensable and that they have paid and \ncontinue to pay all appropriate medical and indemnity benefits to date to \nwhich the claimant is entitled.  Respondent No. 1 states they have paid for, \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  11\n  \n \n \namong other treatment and medications, etc., the claimant’s pelvic surgery \nperformed by Dr. Richard Garrison, for physical therapy (PT), in-patient \ntreatment, and for treatment with Dr. Barry Baskin for the claimant’s \ntraumatic head/brain injury. \n Second, Respondent No. 2 contends the claimant performed reliably \nin the Light classification of employment on a Functional Capacity \nEvaluation (FCE) on May 6, 2021, and also on August 28, 2020.  \nRespondent No. 1 continues to provide vocational rehabilitation for the \nclaimant, who performs volunteer work, and collects Social Security \ndisability (SSD) benefits, as well as a separate disability benefit from his \nemployer due to his disability.  Dr. Garrison, who had treated the claimant’s \npelvic injury, released the claimant at maximum medical improvement \n(MMI) on July 24, 2020.  In addition, Dr. Barry Baskin, who treated the \nclaimant for his head/traumatic brain injury, determined the claimant \nreached MMI for his traumatic brain injury injury/mental condition on March \n29, 2021.  Again, Respondent No. 1 notes Dr. Baskin assigned the claimant \nat 49% BAW permanent anatomical impairment rating, which they accepted \nin full which they began paying on or about May 7, 2021, and which they \ncontinue to pay. \n Third, Respondent No. 1 contends the claimant has the burden of \nproving he is in fact PTD or, alternatively, that he is entitled to PPD benefits \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  12\n  \n \n \nin excess of his 49% impairment rating.  Further, Respondent No. 1 \ncontends they are entitled to a dollar-for-dollar offset pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-411 (2022 Lexis Replacement) for any and all disability benefits \nthe claimant has received or is receiving from any and all third-party payors.  \nFinally, Respondent No. 1 reserves the right to raise additional contentions, \nor to modify those stated herein, pending the completion of discovery, and \nreserves any and all issues not addressed therein for future determination \nand/or litigation.   \n Respondent No. 2 defers to the outcome of the litigation on the \nissues of whether the claimant is PTD or, alternatively, is entitled to wage \nloss disability benefits in excess of his 49% BAW impairment rating.  \nFurthermore, Respondent No. 2 points out and reiterates it has not \ncontroverted any benefits in this claim and, therefore, may not be deemed \nliable for the payment of any of the claimant’s attorney’s fees.  Respondent \nNo. 2 waives its appearance at the aforementioned subject hearing.  \nFinally, Respondent No. 2 specifically reserves any and all other issues for \nfuture determination and/or litigation.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether the claimant is permanently and totally disabled \n(PTD) as a result of the January 3, 2019 compensable \ninjuries; or alternatively, whether he is entitled to wage loss \ndisability benefits in excess of his forty-nine (49%) body-as-a-\nwhole (BAW) impairment rating. \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  13\n  \n \n \n2.  Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted fee on these facts. \n3.  The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for \nfuture litigation and/or determination.   \n \n Heather Taylor reported in part on March 21, 2022: \nMy vocational rehabilitation file was closed on 11/03/21, with \nmy overall vocational opinion being that Mr. Clayton \nMcWilliams still needed frequent to constant supervision even \nfor his volunteer work situation.  But with additional time, if his \nindependence increased overtime, he may eventually be able \nto return to competitive employment in an unskilled/semi-\nskilled job. \nOn 02/23/22, Mr. McWilliams’ attorney requested a re-\nassessment of Mr. McWilliams’ vocational/return-to-work \noptions.  Therefore, Verlene Williams with Public Employee \nClaims Division authorized me to re-open this case for a \nfurther review/assessment of his employability. \nFor purposes of vocational re-assessment, I met with Mr. \nMcWilliams again on 03/16/22, talked with his former \nvolunteer supervisor at Southern Arkansas University (SAU) \nwhere he was doing volunteer work, talked with his mother, \nand reviewed all Timber Ridge reports from his recent twenty-\nday stay for therapies in January 2022.  Timber Ridge noted \ncontinued cognitive deficits and ongoing issues.  I discovered \nthat Mr. McWilliams abruptly stopped doing his volunteer work \nat SAU at the beginning of November 2021, with no timely \nnotice to his direct supervisor and has not been doing any \nvolunteer work since that date.... \nThis information has been conveyed to Public Employee \nClaims Division and they have since requested I keep this \ncase open for a while longer to assist Mr. McWilliams in re-\nestablishing a volunteer work situation.... \n \n Heather Taylor reported on April 25, 2022, “In late March 2022, he \nbegan volunteering at the Magnolia Senior Center two days per week....My \nmain recommendation at this time is to continue to monitor him participating \nin this newly re-established volunteer work program for a few months and \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  14\n  \n \n \nthen, once again, re-assess his progress and level of independence in a \nvolunteer situation and make an assessment/determination if he is ready to \ntry and return to the workforce.  I have notified Mr. McWilliams and Rene, \nthe senior center director, of my leaving Systemedic and Public Employee \nClaims Division has also been notified.  In the coming weeks this case will \nbe transitioned to a new vocational rehabilitation staff member at \nSystemedic to continue to provide him with vocational rehabilitation \nservices.”   \nThe claimant began meeting with another Vocational Rehabilitation \nConsultant, Keondra Hampton, on or about May 31, 2022.  Ms. Hampton \nrecommended, “Overall, Mr. McWilliams is doing very well in his volunteer \nexperience.  In my professional opinion, I am not ruling out the possibility of \ncompetitive employment in an unskilled/semiskilled job.  My \nrecommendation at this time is to continue to monitor his participation in his \nvolunteering experience with Magnolia Senior Center.”    \n Keondra Hampton corresponded with the claimant on July 25, 2022: \nPer our telephone conversation, I have scheduled a meeting \nwith representatives from TEEM Academy and your attorney, \nGreg Giles, to discuss the details of the supported \nemployment program with TEEM.  Public Employment Claims \nDivision has approved your participation to move forward with \nsupported employment services.  I reserved a meeting space \nat the Columbia County Library at 2057 N. Jackson, Magnolia, \nArkansas.  Our meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August \n4, 2022, at 1:00 p.m.   \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  15\n  \n \n \nYour attorney and the TEEM Academy Program Director, \nRobert Pierce, will attend the meeting virtually via zoom \nconference.  Please feel free to invite your parents to attend \nthis meeting as well.  If all parties agree to your participation, \nwe will proceed with completing your referral forms for TEEM \nAcademy.... \n \n The record includes a Narrative Report from TEEM Academy dated \nAugust 18, 2022: \nClayton is able to perform everything on his own inside the \nhome and doesn’t need any assistance.  He is able to cook, \nclean and take care of himself.  He does walk with a cane and \nis considered a fall risk.  He has balance issues. \nIf sitting he would need cushion and good back support.  He \nwould prefer not to have a desk job.  He is able to walk \nwithout the cane but prefers not to work in places that might \nrequire quick reactions.... \nClayton drives himself.  He would prefer to work in Magnolia, \nEl Dorado, Camden or in Stamps and Lewisville.  (Lafayette \nCounty).... \nClayton is most comfortable with medium paced jobs.  He \nrelies on a lot [of] post it notes and reminders.  Routine, \npredictable activities are best.... \nHe is interested in looking into surveillance type work at \nWalmart or perhaps a door greeter.  Possibly working with the \npolice department like filing, looking over reports, etc.  \nSomething that is not too strenuous.... \nClayton gets up and eats breakfast around 6, then goes to the \ngym every morning for about 30 minutes or so.  Then he goes \nback home and checks the mailbox.  He enjoys driving but \ndoes not want to be a truck driver.  He also [likes] to travel \nwith his family. \nSummary and Recommendations:   \nClayton Williams has lots of transferrable skills and some \npositive employable characteristics, such as willingness to try \nnew things, friendliness, punctuality, and strong motivation to \nwork.  Clayton has a clean criminal record and has reliable \ntransportation.  He has a preference to part-time work and is \nopen to several positions but is particularly interested in \nworking within the police force in a low stress capacity or as a \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  16\n  \n \n \ngreeter at a store.  Clayton would excel in a low stress \nenvironment where he can work with [any amount of] people, \nbut not super loud people where he can be easily startled.  \nClayton is capable of working independently once he is taught \nhow to do each task.  TEEM recommends a position with any \namount of interaction with others.... \nTEEM is pleased to share that we will enroll Clayton \nMcWilliams into our on-line integrated employment service \nthat will expedite job leads and job searching utilizing a \ncomprehensive infrastructure.  This system includes:  \nIndeed.com, Zip Recruiter.com, and the LWC workforce job \nboard.  These tools will increase the speed of finding, \napplying, and interviewing for appropriate positions.   \n \n The Narrative Report indicated that TEEM would investigate the \npositions “1.  Arkansas State Police – filing, records” and “2.  Walmart – \nGreeter.” \n The claimant also continued to meet with Keondra Hampton, the \nVocational Rehabilitation Consultant.  Ms. Hampton reported that the \nclaimant had applied for several employment positions but had not been \nhired.          \nA hearing was held on April 6, 2023.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \n Q.  Have you been able to return to work? \nA.  No, sir, I have not.  I’ve wanted to but I have not....I’ve \nwent and interviewed at several places and the volunteer jobs \nhave really stuck out.  Like, I first started out at SAU Police \nDepartment, which is just like a quarter mile from my parents’ \nhouse where I was living, and helped those guys twice a \nweek, basically just turning off lights around that \ncampus....Where I’m currently at now, I volunteer as well.   \nQ.  And where is that? \nA.  That’s at the Magnolia Senior Center.... \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  17\n  \n \n \nQ.  Did you submit job applications and try and locate jobs? \nA.  Yes, sir, I did.... \nQ.  And were you successful in getting some job interviews? \nA.  I was successful in getting interviews.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  How many interviews would you say that you had? \nA.  I would say two.   \nQ.  And were you successful in gaining any offers of \nemployment? \nA.  Well, I kinda felt like – I don’t know about gaining any \noffers.  No, sir, I was not.... \nQ.  At this point, as you sit here today, have you had a job \noffer? \nA.  No, sir.... \nQ.  After doing the volunteer work, and seeing where you are, \nand being out there in the volunteer world, what are your \nthoughts at this point in truly being able to return to work on \nan eight-hour-a-day, five-day-a-week basis within a structured \nwork day? \nA.  For that – to have that capability, that’s – no, sir, there’s no \nway. \nQ.  Why do you say that? \nA.  Because I don’t think I could come and stay coherent for \nthe full eight hours.   \nQ.  When you say coherent, what do you mean? \nA.  As far as doing tasks, and I’d have to walk around with a \npad in my hand and make out a task of everything I need to \ndo, or a list of tasks and put a check beside each one as I get \n‘em done.... \nQ.  If you were given the opportunity to do those volunteer \njobs eight hours a day, five days a week, do you think that you \ncould do that? \nA.  No, sir, I don’t.   \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  So you think part-time you could do some work or you \ndon’t think you’re able to do any work? \nA.  I don’t think I’m able to do any work.   \n \n Keondra Hampton reported on June 5, 2023: \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  18\n  \n \n \nMr. Clayton McWilliams remains within the first milestone of \nhis supportive employment plan with TEEM Academy.  During \nthis reporting period, Mr. McWilliams was assigned a new job \ncoach to assist with job development and placement, \nhowever, his newly assigned job coach was terminated from \nTEEM Academy within this reporting period.  Mr. McWilliams \nremains working at his volunteer experience with Magnolia \nSenior Center, three days a week.  Mr. McWilliams remained \ncooperative with me throughout this reporting period and is \neager for job placement.... \nMy recommendation for Mr. McWilliams is to continue with \neach milestone within the supported employment program for \non-the-job supports with Mr. Pierce until a new job coach is \nassigned.... \n \n Robert Pierce, TEEM Academy’s Director of Employment Services, \ncorresponded with Public Employee Claims Division on June 21, 2023: \nThis letter contains Mr. McWilliams’ request to pause his \nemployment search. \n“Hey Robert, can you take a break from my job hunt sir?  \nBecause it’s going to be 3-6 months before the judge who \nheard my case will make a decision and people are calling me \nabout applications that have been put in, honestly, I can’t \nhave a paying job right now or it will mess up my case \nbrother.”   \nPlease contact me if you have any questions. \n \n Keondra Hampton corresponded with the claimant’s attorney on July \n3, 2023: \nI contacted Mr. Clayton McWilliams on 06/30/23, and he \nstated he is no longer interested in receiving vocational \nrehabilitation at this time and has requested to close his \nvocational rehabilitation file with Systemedic.  Public \nEmployee Claims Division has been notified of Mr. \nMcWilliams’ request and has agreed to close the vocational \nrehabilitation file if continuation of services is not requested by \nyou.   \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  19\n  \n \n \nCurrently Mr. McWilliams’ file remains open.  However, if \nvocational rehabilitation services are no longer needed and a \nrequest for continued services is not received by 07/24/23, I \nwill proceed to close the file.   \n \n Meanwhile, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on July 5, \n2023.  The administrative law judge found, among other things, “2.  The \nclaimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating he is PTD within the \nmeaning of the Act and applicable case law.”  Respondent No. 1 filed a \ntimely notice of appeal. \n Keondra Hampton reported on July 25, 2023: \nAt the request of Public Employee Claims Division, vocational \nrehabilitation services were discontinued for Mr. Clayton \nMcWilliams on 07/25/23.  On 06/21/23, I received notification \nfrom Robert Pierce, Director of Employment Services with \nTEEM Academy regarding Mr. McWilliams’ request to pause \nhis employment search.  I contacted Mr. McWilliams on \n06/30/23, and he stated he is no longer interested in receiving \nvocational rehabilitation and requested to close his vocational \nrehabilitation file with Systemedic.... \nA letter of notification for the request of case closure was sent \nto Mr. McWilliams’ attorney, Greg Giles, on 07/03/23.  The \nletter indicated a request of continuation of vocational \nrehabilitation services was due by 07/24/23, in order to keep \nthe vocational rehabilitation file open.  Due to not receiving a \nrequest from Mr. Giles or Mr. McWilliams to keep the \nvocational rehabilitation file open, my file is now closed.  Mr. \nMcWilliams has been notified by letter of vocational \nrehabilitation file closure. \nIt was a pleasure working with Mr. McWilliams.  Thank you for \nthis referral.   \n \n On August 3, 2023, Respondent No. 1 filed a MOTION TO \nINTRODUCE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  The moving party \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  20\n  \n \n \nstated, among other things, “f)  That the Respondent No. 1 has, subsequent \nto the hearing, received additional reports from Ms. Keondra Hampton and \nthe claimant’s job coach at TEEM Academy regarding the claimant’s efforts \nto return to work, including June 5, 2023 progress report, June 21, 2023 \nletter, and July 25, 2023 closure[.]...Respondent prays that the \naforementioned newly discovered evidence be introduced into the record on \nthis claim or that further hearing for the purpose of introducing additional \nevidence be granted pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-705(c)(1)(C).”  The \nFull Commission unanimously granted the respondents’ motion in an \nopinion filed September 20, 2023.  The Full Commission entered into the \nrecord the aforementioned documents authored June 5, 2023, June 21, \n2023, July 3, 2023, and July 25, 2023.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION    \n The wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has \naffected the claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood.  Cross v. Crawford \nCounty Mem. Hosp., 54 Ark. App. 130, 923 S.W.2d 886 (1996).  In \nconsidering claims for permanent partial disability benefits exceeding the \nemployee’s percentage of permanent physical impairment, the Commission \nmay take into account, in addition to the percentage of permanent physical \nimpairment, such factors as the employee’s age, education, work \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  21\n  \n \n \nexperience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his future \nearning capacity.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(b)(1)(Repl. 2012). \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-519(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n(e)(1)  “Permanent total disability” means inability, because of \ncompensable injury or occupational disease, to earn any \nmeaningful wages in the same or other employment.   \n(2)  The burden of proof shall be on the employee to prove \ninability to earn any meaningful wage in the same or other \nemployment.   \n \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  The \nclaimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating he is PTD within the \nmeaning of the Act and applicable case law.”  The Full Commission does \nnot affirm the administrative law judge’s finding that the claimant proved he \nwas permanently totally disabled.  The claimant is only age 37 and is a \ncollege graduate.  The claimant sustained a traumatic compensable injury \nwhile employed with the respondents, Arkansas State Police, on or about \nJanuary 3, 2019.  The parties stipulated that as a result of his compensable \naccident the claimant sustained a traumatic brain injury as well as injuries to \nhis pelvis, right femur, and left leg.  However, Dr. Garrison noted in July \n2020 that the claimant was physically active.  Dr. Garrison noted that the \nclaimant was able to participate in activities such as running and \nweightlifting.  A Functional Capacity Evaluation in August 2020 indicated \nthat the claimant was able to perform at least light-duty work.   \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  22\n  \n \n \n Dr. Baskin began evaluating the claimant in October 2020.  Dr. \nBaskin opined that the claimant was physically unable to return to his \nprevious occupation of Arkansas State Trooper.  However, an occupational \ntherapist reported in February 2021 that the claimant was able to drive a \nmotor vehicle.  The claimant’s mother, Kay McWilliams, testified that the \nclaimant was physically able to operate a motor vehicle and travel relatively \nlong distances.  It was concluded following another Functional Capacity \nEvaluation on May 6, 2021 that the claimant could perform at least light \nwork.  The parties stipulated that the claimant reached maximum medical \nimprovement on May 6, 2021.   \n Heather Taylor provided Vocational Rehabilitation services to the \nclaimant beginning May 24, 2021.  On July 24, 2021, Dr. Baskin concluded \nthat the claimant had sustained permanent anatomical impairment in the \namount of 49%.  The parties stipulated that the respondents accepted and \npaid the 49% rating.  The record indicates that the claimant was physically \nable to perform part-time volunteer services in venues such as Southern \nArkansas University and the Magnolia Senior Center.  Keondra Hampton, a \nVocational Rehabilitation Consultant, stated on May 31, 2022, \"In my \nprofessional opinion, I am not ruling out the possibility of competitive \nemployment in an unskilled/semiskilled job [emphasis supplied].”  Ms. \nHampton arranged for the claimant to consult with a Vocational Placement \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  23\n  \n \n \nservice, TEEM Academy, beginning August 4, 2022.  It was noted at TEEM \nAcademy on August 18, 2022 that the claimant was struggling with some \nphysical limitations.  However, the claimant was able to perform activities \nsuch as cooking and cleaning and was able to perform “medium paced \njobs.”  The evaluator at TEEM Academy reported that employment \npositions could be available such as record-keeping with the Arkansas \nState Police or retail employment with Walmart.  The claimant testified at a \nhearing held April 6, 2023 that he believed himself unable to return to any \ntype of work.   \n Following the hearing held April 6, 2023, the respondents introduced \ninto the record the report of a letter to the claimant from Robert Pierce, \nDirector of Employment Services at TEEM Academy.  The claimant queried \nMr. Pierce, “Hey Robert can you take a break from my job hunt sir?  \nBecause it’s going to be 3-6 months before the judge who heard my case \nwill make a decision and people are calling me about applications that have \nbeen put in, honestly, I can’t have a paying job right now or it will mess up \nmy case brother [emphasis supplied].”  In addition, Keondra Hampton \nreported on July 25, 2023, “I contacted Mr. McWilliams on 06/30/23, and he \nstated he is no longer interested in receiving vocational rehabilitation \n[emphasis supplied].\"    \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  24\n  \n \n \nIn workers’ compensation cases, the Commission functions as the \ntrier of fact.  Blevins v. Safeway Stores, 25 Ark. App. 297, 757 S.W.2d 569 \n(1988).  The Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the \nclaimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into findings of \nfact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Farmers \nCo-op v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002).  The Full \nCommission has the duty to adjudicate the case de novo and we are not \nbound by the characterization of evidence adopted by an administrative law \njudge.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 \n(1990).   \nIn the present matter, the respondents do not contend that the \nclaimant is disqualified from receiving additional compensation in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-505(b)(3)(Repl. 2012).  \nNevertheless, the claimant’s demonstrated lack of interest in returning to \ngainful employment within his permanent physical restrictions impedes an \nassessment of his loss of earning capacity and casts doubt on the \nclaimant’s contention that he is permanently and totally disabled.  Emerson \nElectric v. Gaston, 75 Ark. App. 232, 58 S.W.3d 848 (2001).  See also Oller \nv. Champion Parts Rebuilders, 5 Ark. App. 307, 635 S.W.2d 276 (1982).  \nWith regard to the claimant’s contention that he is physically unable to \nreturn to any gainful employment within his permanent physical restrictions, \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  25\n  \n \n \nthe claimant has not been an entirely credible witness.  The claimant’s \ncommunication with Robert Pierce of TEEM Academy and Keondra \nHampton, the vocational rehabilitation consultant, demonstrate a marked \nlack of motivation to return to appropriate gainful employment.       \nThe Full Commission therefore finds that the claimant did not prove \nhe was permanently and totally disabled.  The Full Commission finds that \nthe claimant sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of 40% in excess \nof the 49% permanent anatomical impairment accepted and paid by the \nrespondents.  The claimant is only 37 years old and is a college graduate.  \nThe claimant sustained a traumatic compensable injury on or about January \n3, 2019 which resulted in 49% permanent anatomical impairment.  The \nclaimant is physically unable to return to his previous occupation of \nArkansas State Trooper.  Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrates that \nthere are gainful employment opportunities available for the claimant within \nhis permanent physical restrictions.  Expert and credible vocational \nrehabilitation consulting has been provided to the claimant by Heather \nTaylor and Keondra Hampton, and additional assistance was provided \nthrough TEEM Academy.  However, again, the evidence demonstrates that \nthe claimant is not motivated to return to work.  As the Full Commission has \nstated supra, the claimant’s lack of interest in returning to appropriate \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  26\n  \n \n \ngainful employment impedes an assessment of his loss of earning capacity.  \nGaston, supra. \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, therefore, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant did not prove he was permanently and \ntotally disabled.  The Full Commission finds that the claimant sustained \nwage-loss disability in the amount of 40% in excess of the 49% permanent \nanatomical impairment accepted and paid by the respondents.  The \nclaimant proved that the compensable injury was the major cause of his \n49% permanent anatomical impairment and 40% wage-loss disability.  The \nrespondents are entitled to an appropriate offset in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-411(Repl. 2012).  The claimant’s attorney is entitled to \nfees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing in part on appeal, the claimant’s attorney \nis entitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012).   \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  27\n  \n \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant proved he is entitled to forty percent (40%) wage-loss disability in \nexcess of his forty-nine percent (49%) permanent anatomical impairment. \nThe claimant is not entitled to wage-loss disability under our Rules \ndue to his wholesale refusal to engage in vocational rehabilitation without \nreasonable cause.  Prior to his hearing with the administrative law judge on \nApril 6, 2023, the claimant contacted his career counselor through TEEM \nAcademy asking to discontinue his job search for the explicit purpose of \nbolstering his permanent and total disability claim.  \nOur rules are clear that:   \nThe employee shall not be required to \nenter any program of vocational \nrehabilitation against his or her consent; \nhowever, no employee who waives \nrehabilitation or refuses to participate in \nor cooperate for reasonable cause with \neither an offered program of rehabilitation \nor job placement assistance shall be \nentitled to permanent partial disability \nbenefits in excess of the percentage of \npermanent physical impairment \nestablished by objective physical \nfindings.  \n \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(b)(3).  \n \nAn employer relying on this defense must show that the claimant \nrefused to participate in a program of vocational rehabilitation or job-\n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  28\n  \n \n \nplacement assistance or, through some other affirmative action, indicated \nan unwillingness to cooperate in those endeavors and that such refusal to \ncooperate was without any reasonable cause.  Tillery v. Alma Sch. Dist., \n2022 Ark. App. 425 (2022). \nFurther, in considering factors that may affect an employee's future \nearning capacity, the Commission considers the claimant's motivation to \nreturn to work, since a lack of interest or a negative attitude impedes the \nassessment of the claimant's loss of earning capacity.  Emerson Electric v. \nGaston, 75 Ark. App. 232, 58 S.W.3d 848 (2001).  The Commission may \nalso consider other permanent disability factors such as the claimant's \nage, education, work experience, medical evidence and other matters \nreasonably expected to affect the worker's future earning power.  City of \nFayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 (1984).  These \nfactors are considered in Beal v. Fairfield Bay Cnty. Club, Inc., 2011 Ark. \nApp. 136 (2011) where the Court of Appeals stated: \nBeal further testified that he had \nworked all of his life but that he \nhas not returned to work because \n\"they are not going to let him back \nout there, as no doctor is going to \npass him on a physical and drug \ntest and stuff.\" Beal is blind in his \nleft eye, but admitted to having \nglaucoma before his \ninjury. According to Beal he does \nnot feel that there are any jobs he \ncan perform and is now retired. \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  29\n  \n \n \nThe Commission disagreed and \nconcluded that \"the evidence \nshows that [Beal] is clearly not \nmotivated to return to any form of \ngainful employment\" and noted \nthat Beal's lack of motivation is a \nvalid consideration in its denial of \nBeal's wage-loss disability \nclaim.  City of Fayetteville v. \nGuess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 \nS.W.2d 946 (1984). \n \nIn a 2010 case considering wage-loss, the Court of Appeals affirmed \nthe Commission’s decision to deny wage-loss to a claimant who was 25-\nyears-old and had not looked for any work outside of her previous job as a \ncake decorator or work within her restrictions.  Morrison v. Confectionately \nYours, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 687 (2010). This claimant received a seven \npercent (7%) disability rating, but the Court noted that this claimant had not \nattempted to look for work within her restrictions and had low motivation to \nreturn to any work other than her previous job.  Id.  The Commission found \nthat the claimant developed skills as a cake decorator that would serve her \nwell in other lines of work.  Id. \n It is undisputed that the claimant underwent vocational rehabilitation \nwith Ms. Keondra Hampton of Systemedic throughout 2022 and 2023 who \nbelieved that the claimant was an excellent candidate to transition into \nemployment with supports in place.  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 29).  Since his injury, \nthe claimant has written two books and has published and sold them \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  30\n  \n \n \nthrough Amazon.  (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 58-60).  He attends speaking \nengagements where he presents the story of his accident and recovery.  \n(Hrng. Tr., Pp. 160-162, 164).  The claimant attends the gym and uses the \ntreadmill there regularly, walking backwards, forwards, and on an incline.  \n(Hrng. Tr., Pp. 72-73).  He cares for his two children, ages four (4) and eight \n(8) monthly and takes them on various outings alone and is able to drive \nhimself alone for up to three hours, and shops at the grocery store, where \nhe pushes a loaded cart without assistance.  (Hrng. Tr., Pp. 39-40, 52-53, \n88-89).  He is currently drawing retirement from his employer and Social \nSecurity disability benefits.  (Resp. Ex. 2, Pp. 7-11, 22-27). \n The claimant currently volunteers for Magnolia Senior Center where \nhis duties and tasks include “1) assisting with preparing meals for the \nseniors by pressing the seal on the lunch trays, 2) placing labels on the \nmeal trays, and 3) sorting meals to prepare for delivery.”  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. \n16).  During these volunteer shifts, the claimant “mingled with the seniors \nand recited the blessing for the meal,” and supervisors reported that the \nclaimant arrives on time and works well with staff and residents.  Id.  As the \nclaimant’s time with Magnolia Senior Center progressed, his duties did as \nwell and he ultimately assisted the kitchen manager with tasks such as \ninventory, organizing lunch deliveries, and labeling and storing canned \nitems.  (Resp. Ex. 2, Pp. 28, 31).  The claimant’s volunteer hours were \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  31\n  \n \n \nextended by an additional day in August of 2022 and Systemedic began \nlooking for light duty part-time employment for the claimant through Teem \nAcademy.  (Resp. Ex. 2, Pp. 31-32). \n The claimant first met with Teem Academy on August 18, 2022, and \nreported that he “is able to perform everything on his own inside the home \nand doesn’t need assistance.  He is able to cook, clean and take care of \nhimself.”  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 34).  The claimant “loves reading in depth books \nas opposed to magazines or short stories.  He can learn by reading \ninstructions.”  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 35).  He has no trouble communicating his \nneeds or asking for help when needed.  Id.  Teem Academy found that the \nclaimant “has lots of transferrable skills and some positive employable \ncharacteristics, such as willingness to try new things, friendliness, \npunctuality, and strong motivation to work” and is capable of working \nindependently.  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 37).  \n The ALJ opined the claimant is highly motivated and continues to \nmake every effort to find and return to some kind of gainful employment if at \nall possible and is “in this ALJ’s humble opinion, a courageous young man \nwho, despite his occasional bouts with situational depression, is eager and \nhighly motivated to attempt to beat the odds and find gainful employment.” \n(Op., P. 12).  However, despite the assistance with preparing his resume, \ncompleting applications, and preparing for interviews, the evidence \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  32\n  \n \n \nindicates that the claimant has no interest in returning to the workforce. \nThrough his vocational rehabilitation program, the claimant was assigned a \ncareer counselor through TEEM Academy to assist with his job search.  On \nJune 21, 2023, the respondent carrier was notified that the claimant \nvoluntarily discontinued his employment search through TEEM Academy \nstating: \nHey Robert, can you take a break \nfrom my job hunt sir?  Because it’s \ngoing to be 3-6 months before the \njudge who heard my case will \nmake a decision and people are \ncalling me about applications that \nhave been put in, honestly, I can’t \nhave a paying job right now or it \nwill mess up my case brother.  \n(See attachment to Respondent \nNo. 1’s Motion to Introduce Newly \nDiscovered Evidence). \n \nOn June 30, 2023, Ms. Keondra Hampton contacted the claimant \nwho “stated he is no longer interested in receiving vocational rehabilitation \nat this time and has requested to close his vocational rehabilitation file.”  Id. \nThe claimant’s vocational rehabilitation file was closed on July 25, 2023.  Id.  \nNot only has the claimant refused to continue vocational \nrehabilitation, he has done so for the explicit purpose of benefiting his \nworkers’ compensation claim.  This alone renders the claimant ineligible for \nany disability beyond his impairment rating.  The claimant’s lack of \nmotivation and unwillingness to continue with vocational rehabilitation and \n\nMcWILLIAMS – G900188  33\n  \n \n \njob placement impedes the Commission’s ability to assess the full extent of \nthe claimant’s wage-earning capacity. \nThe claimant should not receive any wage loss disability when he \ninstructed his career counselor to take a break from his job hunt because in \nhis own words, “I can’t have a paying job right now or it will mess up my \ncase, brother.”  To rule otherwise allows claimants to waive rehabilitation or \nrefuse to participate in or cooperate with an offered program of \nrehabilitation or job placement without reasonable cause and still receive \nwage loss disability which is in direct conflict with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n505(b)(3). \nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G900188 CLAYTON McWILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.654Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G900188-2024-04-04","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McWilliams_Clayton_G900188_20240404.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}