{"id":"full_commission-H005827-2026-01-15","awcc_number":"H005827","decision_date":"2026-01-15","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Earl Glass","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Correction","title":"GLASS VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AWCC# H005827 & H106715 January 15, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","knee","shoulder","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Glass_Earl_H005827H106715_20260115.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Glass_Earl_H005827H106715_20260115.pdf","text_length":16252,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NOS. H005827 & H106715 \n \nEARL GLASS, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION,  \nTPA \nRESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 15, 2026 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. \nMCLEMORE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Respondents appeals and claimant cross-appeals an opinion and \norder of the Administrative Law Judge filed on May 20, 2025.  In said \norder, the Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has \njurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby \naccepted. \n \n3. Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe owed for underpayment(s) related to a miscalculated \naverage weekly wage associated with his second accident \n(Claim H106715). \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   2 \n \n \n4. The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he is entitled to permanent partial disability \nbenefits associated with his low back injuries. \n \n5. The Claimant has failed to prove by preponderance of the \nevidence that he is entitled to benefits associated with the \nunauthorized medical treatment he sought through the Pain \nTreatment Centers of America. \n \n6. The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that the Respondents controverted the benefits he \nreceived in relation to his compensable right hip injuries. \n \n7. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhis left hip injury is a compensable consequence of his accepted \ncompensable right hip injuries. \n \n8. The Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he is permanently and totally disabled; but he \nproved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \na wage-loss benefit in the amount of twenty-five percent (25%) \nover and above his fifteen percent (15%) whole-body \nimpairment rating for his accepted compensable right hip \ninjuries. \n \n9. The Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat he is entitled to an attorney’s fee on the indemnity benefits \nawarded in this opinion. \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's May 20, \n2025 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find \nfrom a preponderance of the evidence that the findings made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   3 \n \n All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount \nand with interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the \nAdministrative Law Judge's decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-809 (Repl. 2012). \n For prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, \nclaimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the \nFull Commission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of \nfive hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. In my \nde novo review of the record, I find that the claimant’s left hip complaints \nare not a compensable consequence of his compensable right hip injury. \nThe claimant is not entitled to a twenty-five percent (25%) wage-loss \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   4 \n \ndisability over and above his fifteen percent (15%) anatomical impairment \nrating.     \nThe respondent was a 66-year-old former mental health counselor \nfor the Arkansas Department of Correction. In the course of his \nemployment, claimant sustained two separate injuries: one to his right hip \nand low back on August 5, 2020, and one to the right hip, low back, right \nknee and bilateral shoulders on August 2, 2021.  \n A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) \non May 20, 2025.  The following issues were presented:  \n1. Whether the average weekly wage was miscalculated for the \npurpose of benefits associated with the claimant’s second \nworkplace incident and injuries.   \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to PPD benefits associated with \nhis accepted compensable low back injuries.  \n3. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment \nwith Pain Treatment Centers of America for his accepted \ncompensable low back, right knee, and bilateral shoulder \ninjuries.  \n4. Whether the claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee \nrelated to indemnity benefits already provided in relation to his \ncompensable right hip injuries.  \n5. Whether the claimant’s alleged left hip injury is a compensable \nconsequence of his compensable right hip injuries.  \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   5 \n \n6. Whether the claimant is entitled to permanent and total disability \nbenefits or, in the alternative, wage-loss benefits associated with \nhis compensable injuries. He claims that this entitlement relates \nto either or both claims.  \n7. Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee on the \nadditional indemnity benefits being sought. \nThe ALJ opined that the claimant has met his burden of proving that \nhis left hip pain is a compensable consequence of his compensable right \nhip injury, and the claimant is entitled to a twenty-five percent (25%) wage \nloss disability over and above his fifteen percent (15%) anatomical \nimpairment rating.  The respondents appeal and the claimant cross-\nappeals. \nGenerally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising \nout of the course and scope of employment caused by a specific incident \nidentifiable by time and place of an occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i). This, therefore, requires that a claimant establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external \nphysical harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in \ndisability or death; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings \nestablishing an injury as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) \nthat the injury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and \nplace of occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i). \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   6 \n \nHowever, a compensable injury may also arise as a compensable, \nor natural, consequence of a prior specific incident injury. If an injury is \ncompensable, then every natural consequence of that injury is also \ncompensable. Martin Charcoal, Inc. v. Britt, 102 Ark. App. 252, 284 S.W.3d \n91 (2008). The basic test is whether there is a causal connection between \nthe two episodes. Walker v. Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc., 2014 Ark. \nApp. 322, 436 S.W.3d 164 (2014). \nOn September 18, 2024, the claimant’s case manager, Heather \nMontgomery, wrote to the claimant’s treating physician, Adam Smith, M.D. \nIn her letter, Ms. Montgomery posed four questions, answered by Dr. \nSmith: \n1. In your opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical \ncertainty, is the need for the proposed IM hip nailing for the non-displaced \nfracture, greater than 51% related to the work injury of 08/05/20? \nNo \n2. Can you state within a reasonable degree of medical \ncertainty; the reported left hip symptoms and pathology are the direct \nresult of the 08/05/20 work injury or to pre-existing conditions? Please \nprovide acute objective findings. \nNo \n3. If the need for the proposed left hip surgery is greater than \n51% related to the work injury of 08/05/20, please provide details about \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   7 \n \nthe post recovery process, release to full duty work, and anticipated date \nof maximum medical improvement. \nN/A \n4. If the 09/17/24 appointment and proposed treatment are \nunrelated to the work injury of 08/05/20, please state unrelated to the work \ninjury of 08/05/20 and note with your billing department future treatment \non the left hip should be filed under Mr. Glass’ private health insurance \nplan. \nunrelated \nBeyond the claimant’s own self-serving testimony that his hip \nsurgery resulted from overuse due to his right hip injury, the claimant \nintroduced no evidence to support that contention, no surgical reports or \nmedical opinions, nor did he depose his treating physician. In fact, the \nclaimant has not provided any medical proof to support his contention that \nthe issues with his left hip were the result of overuse of his right hip.            \nIn ruling that the claimant met his burden of proving his left hip \nsurgery was a compensable consequence of his injury, the ALJ opined \nthat he “assign[ed] little evidentiary value” to Dr. Smith’s responses to the \nSeptember 2024 letter, because he “answered the questions as they were \nwritten.”   \nIt is within the Commission's province to weigh all the medical \nevidence, to determine what is most credible, and to determine its medical \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   8 \n \nsoundness and probative force. Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark. \nApp. 459, 637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  \nIn weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily \ndisregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness. Id. However, \nthe Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions. \nWilliams v. Ark. Dept. of Community Corrections, 2016 Ark. App. 427, 502 \nS.W. 3d 530 (2016). Furthermore, it is the Commission's duty to use its \nexperience and expertise in translating the testimony of medical experts \ninto findings of fact and to draw inferences when testimony is open to \nmore than a single interpretation. Id. \nHere, the ALJ arbitrarily disregarded the opinion of Dr. Smith in \nfavor of the unsubstantiated and self-serving testimony of the claimant and \nhis wife with no medical proof on which to base his findings. There is \nnothing in our Rules to suggest that concise answers, in writing, to direct \ninquiries by a case manager is somehow prohibited or carries less \nevidentiary weight. In fact, this has become the standard for obtaining \nsimple medical opinions from physicians across a large number of the \ncases that come before us. Accepting the ALJ’s ruling on this sets an \nunviable and costly standard that would require respondents to depose \nevery doctor in every case where any medical treatment is controverted. \nThis is unsustainable. \nSimply, in the matter at hand, the claimant failed to meet his burden \nof proof. In fact, he took no steps to establish a causal connection through \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   9 \n \nany medical exhibits. The ALJ, in searching for a reason to find in favor of \nthe claimant, disregarded the most clear and only medical evidence \navailable and did so without reason, and his findings should be reversed. \nWhen a claimant sustains an injury not scheduled in Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-521, permanent disability benefits are controlled by Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-522(b)(1), which states:  \nIn considering claims for permanent partial \ndisability benefits in excess of the employee's \npercentage of permanent physical \nimpairment, the Workers' Compensation \nCommission may take into account, in \naddition to the percentage of permanent \nphysical impairment, such factors as the \nemployee's age, education, work experience, \nand other matters reasonably expected to \naffect his or her future earning capacity. \n \nTherefore, when a claimant has been assigned an anatomical \nimpairment rating to the body as a whole, the Commission has the \nauthority to increase the disability rating and find a claimant permanently \ndisabled based upon wage-loss factors. Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 89 \nArk. App. 228, 201 S.W.3d 449 (2005).  \nThe wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury \nhas affected the claimant's ability to earn a livelihood. Enterprise Products \nCompany v. Leach, 2009 Ark. App. 148, 316 S.W.3d 253 (2009). When \ndetermining wage-loss disability, the Commission may take into account, \nin addition to the percentage of permanent physical impairment, such \nfactors as the employee’s age, education, work experience, and other \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   10 \n \nmatters reasonably expected to affect his or her future earning capacity.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-522(b)(1).  \nOther factors may include but are not limited to motivation to return \nto work, post-injury earnings, credibility, and demeanor. Curry v. Franklin \nElectric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990). A lack of interest or \nnegative attitude in pursuing employment impedes the assessment of the \nclaimant's loss of earning capacity. Logan County v. McDonald, 90 Ark. \nApp. 409, 206 S.W.3d 258 (2005).  \nThe Commission may use its own superior knowledge of industrial \ndemands, limitations, and requirements in conjunction with the evidence to \ndetermine wage-loss disability. Taggart v. Mid America Packaging, 2009 \nArk. App. 335, 308 S.W.3d 643 (2009). \nVictor Vargas, M.D. released the claimant at MMI with no \nimpairment rating on April 28, 2022. Dr. Smith released the claimant at \nMMI with a fifteen percent (15%) impairment rating for his right hip injury \non March 14, 2023. \nThe claimant has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s \ndegree in clinical psychology and has worked as a counselor and therapist \nwith children and adults. Despite having numerous other skills including \ntax preparation, prior teaching experience, director of a charter school, \nand experience in insurance sales, the claimant reluctantly agreed to \nparticipate in vocational rehabilitation after initially refusing. At the time of \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   11 \n \nthe hearing, he had earned $1500 preparing tax returns and anticipated \nearning additional income preparing tax returns.  \nMs. Keondra Hampton and Ms. Cecilia Bruson, identified available \njobs in the sedentary classification on the claimant’s behalf, including \nremote work which offers greater pay than the claimant previously earned. \nDespite this information, the claimant has not applied for work, looked for \nwork anywhere, or made any effort whatsoever to return to the workforce.  \nIn addition, he has not even considered working remotely. Ms. Bruson \ntestified that she found jobs for the claimant as recently as a week prior to \nthe hearing.  \nThe claimant is able to travel since his injuries and can drive \nhimself. He is not home bound and has no work restrictions. He is capable \nof using a computer and smart phone. Simply put, the claimant has no \ndesire to return to work.  \nThe claimant has had ample opportunity to work with Ms. Hampton \nand Ms. Brunson who have identified jobs within his restrictions that pay \nthe same or more than he was earning with the respondent employer. The \nclaimant has no incentive to return to the work force and has failed and \nrefused to even look for a job or return to work. \nThe claimant should not be rewarded with a wage loss award when \nhe has no work restrictions and has made no effort whatsoever to return to \nthe work force. Because the claimant has made no effort and has no \n\nGLASS – H005827 & H106715   12 \n \ninterest in returning to the workforce, he is not entitled to wage-loss \nbenefits. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n                                                                   \n                                                        _______________________________ \n                                                        MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS. H005827 & H106715 EARL GLASS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA RESPONDENT","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.908Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H005827-2026-01-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Glass_Earl_H005827H106715_20260115.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}