{"id":"full_commission-H005594-2024-09-10","awcc_number":"H005594","decision_date":"2024-09-10","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Francisco Bonilla","employer_name":"Juan Carlos Calderon","title":"BONILLA VS. JUAN CARLOS CALDERON AWCC# H005594 September 10, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","granted:3","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["lumbar","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bonilla_Francisco_H005594_20240910.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Bonilla_Francisco_H005594_20240910.pdf","text_length":4329,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.  H005594 \n \nFRANCISCO BONILLA, EMPLOYEE          CLAIMANT \n \nJUAN CARLOS CALDERON, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nLIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nPICK-IT CONSTRUCTION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \nEMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE MATTHEW J. KETCHAM, Attorney at \nLaw, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE JASON M. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE DAVID C. JONES, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n Respondent No. 1 appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed May \n7, 2024.  The administrative law judge entered the following findings of fact and \nconclusions of law: \n1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing conference \nconducted on November 13, 2023, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order \nfiled on November 14, 2023, are hereby accepted as fact.   \n\nBONILLA - H005594  2\n  \n \n \n \n2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe was an employee of Respondent No. 2 on July 14, 2020.  The issue \nof whether the claimant was employee of Respondent No. 1 on July 14, \n2020, is moot. \n \n3. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained compensable injuries to his lumbar spine and right shoulder on \nor about July 14, 2020. \n \n4. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nis  entitled  to  medical  treatment  for  his  compensable  lumbar  spine  and \nright shoulder injuries.   \n \n5. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nis  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  July  14,  2020,  to \nOctober 1, 2020.   \n \n6. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence under \nA.C.A.  §11-9-518(c)  that  he  is  entitled  to  an  average  weekly  wage  of \n$800.00 per week, which computes to a temporary total disability rate of \n$533.00 and a permanent partial disability rate of $400.00.  \n \n7. The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhis attorney is entitled to an attorney fee in this matter. \n \n8. Respondent  No.  1  has  failed  to  prove  their  lack  of  notice  defense.  \nRespondent No. 2’s lack of notice defense is moot. \n \n9. Respondent No. 2’s statute of limitations defense is moot. \n \n10. Regardless of whether the claimant is the employee of  \nRespondent No. 1 or an intermediate subcontractor under A.C.A. §11-\n9-402(a), Respondent No. 1 is still liable for benefits due to the claimant \nunder the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act for his compensable \ninjuries to his right shoulder and lumbar spine he sustained on July 14, \n2020, in the fall from the roof of the home located at 1915 Cherry Hills \nDrive, Fayetteville, Arkansas.   \n \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, we find that the administrative \nlaw judge’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, correctly \n\nBONILLA - H005594  3\n  \n \n \napplies the law, and should be affirmed.  The administrative law judge’s findings \nof fact are therefore adopted by the Full Commission.  See SSI, Inc. v. Cates, \n2009 Ark. App. 763, 350 S.W.3d 421.   \n The claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on Respondent No. \n1’s appeal to the Full Commission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an \nadditional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n715(b)(Repl. 2012).  Respondent No. 1 shall be solely liable for attorney’s fees \nherein.   \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                       _____________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n                                       _____________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n                                       _____________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H005594 FRANCISCO BONILLA, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1 PICK-IT CONSTRUCTION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 2 EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALT...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.923Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H005594-2024-09-10","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bonilla_Francisco_H005594_20240910.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}