{"id":"full_commission-H103080-2026-05-15","awcc_number":"H103080","decision_date":"2026-05-15","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Jimmy Foster","employer_name":"Booneville Human Development Center","title":"FOSTER VS. BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER AWCC# H103080 May 15, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Foster_Jimmy_H103080_20260515.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Foster_Jimmy_H103080_20260515.pdf","text_length":52629,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H103080 \n \nJIMMY FOSTER, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nBOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT \nCENTER, EMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED MAY 15, 2026  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE JARID M. KINDER, Attorney at \nLaw, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. McLEMORE, \nJR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed in part, reversed in part. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals and the respondents cross-appeal an \nadministrative law judge’s opinion filed December 23, 2025.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove he was \npermanently totally disabled.  The administrative law judge found that the \nclaimant failed to prove he was entitled to permanent partial disability \nbenefits “for loss in wage earning capacity.”  After reviewing the entire \nrecord de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove \nhe was permanently totally disabled.  The Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant proved he sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of 15%.  \n\nFOSTER - H103080  2\n  \n \n \nWe find that the claimant proved the compensable injury was the major \ncause of his 15% wage-loss disability.     \nI.  HISTORY \n Jimmy Glenn Foster, Sr., now age 71, testified that he had been \neducated through the 12\nth\n grade.  Mr. Foster testified that his employment \nhistory included “ a lot of prison work.”  The claimant’s testimony indicated \nthat he had worked in various correctional facilities for approximately 13 \nyears.  The claimant testified that he had also worked as a “bouncer” and \narmed security officer in a casino.        \nThe claimant testified that he had formerly been employed with the \nrespondents, Booneville Human Development Center.  Mr. Foster testified \non direct examination: \n  Q.  And what does BHDC do? \nA.  They take care of clients that is not able to take care of \ntheir self.  They feed them.  They take care of them.  They \nteach them how to work and they just work with clients that is \nnot privileged to be at home.   \nQ.  What did you do for them?   \nA.  I done the same thing.  I bathed them.  I shaved them.  I \nbrushed their teeth.  I made their beds.  We fed them.  We \nwashed their clothes.  We dried them and stuff like that.   \nQ.  How long did you work there? \nA.  Before I got sick, I think around eight years, nine years.  It \nwas going on 10 years, I think.  Pretty close....I was full time \nMonday through Friday and weekends off.... \nQ.  Was your job at Booneville Health, was that a physical \njob? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \nQ.  Would you mind describing that for me and the Court. \n\nFOSTER - H103080  3\n  \n \n \nA.  The physical part where we would strip the client’s bed, \nremake them ourselves, mop and sweep the floors, clean the \ntoilets.  We would take their clothes down to laundry and wash \nand dry them and fold them and then put them away.  And \nmake sure that they had food to eat at the time of food and we \nwould brush their teeth and shave them.... \nQ.  Now, out of an eight-hour workday, how much of that \nwould you spend on your feet while working? \nA.  Pretty much the whole eight hours constantly being busy.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nJuly 31, 2020, on which date the claimant “sustained a compensable injury.”  \nThe claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  When did you contract COVID-19? \nA.  I want to say it was in August.  That’s when I got tested \nand I tested positive at the facility.... \nQ.  How did you contract it? \nA.  COVID-19 had hit our facility through staff at first and then \nit spread to the clients.  And we had one client that – when I \ncame on duty that morning, we had one client that was \nquarantined and he had COVID and I had to take care of him.  \nHe was quarantined in his room.  I had to go feed him.  I had \nto brush his teeth.  I  had to shave him because he couldn’t \ncome out of his room.... \nQ.  When did you first start noticing symptoms? \nA.  About probably the last week in July and the first week in \nAugust.  I started losing my breath and feeling really bad.... \n \n The claimant testified that he did not return to work for the \nrespondents after July 31, 2020.  A physician’s diagnoses on August 8, \n2020 were “Pneumonia due to COVID-19 virus (Primary)” and “Morbid \nobesity with BMI of 70 and over, adult.” \n Dr. Monali Hanmant Patil noted on August 9, 2020, “Jimmy G Foster \nis a 65 y.o male admitted 8/8/2020 with complaints of shortness of breath.  \n\nFOSTER - H103080  4\n  \n \n \nPatient works [at] human development center in Booneville.  Patient had an \nexposure to COVID patient couple 2 weeks ago.  Patient started having \nsymptoms about 8 to 9 days ago.  Patient tested positive for COVID.”     \n A Nurse Practitioner noted on August 25, 2020, “65 yo male admitted \n17 days ago with hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 \npneumonia.  Sedation was recently weaned and the patient was noted to be \nunresponsive.  He remains critically ill with frequent oxygen desaturation \nepisodes requiring continued sedation.” \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that he was hospitalized through \napproximately October 2020.  An APRN noted on November 9, 2020, “His \ngoal is to improve his health so he can return to work.”  Dr. Julio F. \nSchwarz, a cardiologist, diagnosed “Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation” on \nFebruary 1, 2021.   \n Rhonda Murphy, an Assistant Claims Determination Manager, \ncorresponded with the claimant on March 31, 2021: \nPublic Employee Claims Division (PECD) administers the \nworkers compensation benefits for AR Human Development \nCenter – Booneville.   \nYour claim has been accepted as compensable based on \nyour positive COVID-19 medical status. \nThe total disability rate is based upon sixty-six and two-thirds \npercent (66 2/3%) of your average weekly wage at the time \n[of] the exposure.  Based on the wage information we have \nreceived, you will be entitled to receive TTD compensation in \nthe amount of $$329.00 per week.  TTD compensation is \nbased on a seven day week.   \n\nFOSTER - H103080  5\n  \n \n \nIt is my understanding that you received Director’s Leave pay \nthrough 1/8/2021.  A State Warrant for compensation benefits \nin the amount of $3,948.00 representing payment for the \nperiod of 1/9/2021 through 4/2/2021 has been ordered.... \nTemporary Total Disability (TTD) compensation will continue \nto be paid to you on a bi-weekly basis until you receive the \nrelease letter from AR Department of Health and return back \nto work.   \n \n Kimberly Thomas, a Human Resources Specialist, corresponded \nwith the claimant on August 16, 2021: \nYou are due for your five-year background checks.  Please fill \nout the attached forms and bring back to Human Resources \nby Friday, September 10, 2021 along with your driver’s \nlicense or photo ID.  I will get these forms notarized once they \nare returned.   \n \n Julie Street, Assistant Personnel Manager for Booneville Human \nDevelopment Center, corresponded with the claimant on October 25, 2021: \nOn August 16, 2021, we sent you the Catastrophic Leave \napplication.  We sent follow-up paperwork to correct dates on \nAugust 30, 2021.  Also, on October 1, 2021, we sent another \ncomplete Catastrophic Leave application for your completion.  \nAs of today, October 22, 2021, we have not received the \ncompleted application to submit to the Catastrophic Leave \nCommittee.  I spoke with Tara Barnes with the Office of \nFinance and Administration regarding your incomplete \napplication on October 12, 2021, and she confirmed after \nspeaking with you that you were having a hard time \nscheduling an appointment to get additional paperwork \nupdated and would get it to us once completed.   \nOn August 30, 2021, we sent you your five-year Background \nCheck forms to be completed and returned by September 10, \n2021.  These were not received by the requested date.  After \nspeaking with you on September 23, 2021, you stated you \ncould not locate the forms and needed them resent.  On \nOctober 1, 2021, we resent the forms as requested.  As of \n\nFOSTER - H103080  6\n  \n \n \ntoday, we still have not received the completed Background \nChecks.   \nAt this time, we have not received the requested updated \napplication to submit to the committee nor have we received \nyour Background Checks (State, Federal, Adult and Child \nMaltreatment). \nThe Catastrophic Leave Committee can not process your \napplication without the requested documentation and will \nreject if not submitted.   \nYour Background Checks with our facility are currently out of \ndate and in violation of Office of Long-Term Care regulations.  \nPlease return the requested Background Check forms and \nupdated medical information by November 2, 2021 to prevent \nus from proceeding with termination.   \n \n The respondent-employer’s Director of Residental Services \ncorresponded with the claimant on November 30, 2021: \nThis letter is to inform you that your employment with the \nArkansas Department of Human Services is terminated \neffective November 30, 2021.  This notification is provided to \nyou in accordance with DHS Policies 1049 (Resignation or \nTermination).   \nYour termination has been coded “Involuntary” based on an \ninternal investigation.   \nYou must immediately return any keys, parking decal, \nidentification badge, and any other DHS property in good \nworking order.... \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  Were you terminated from this position? \n  A.  Yes, sir, I was.   \nQ.  What was your understanding of why you were \nterminated? \nA.  From what I understand, refusing to go have an FBI \nbackground check because I wasn’t released from the doctor \nat that time.   \nQ.  Did you go have the FBI background check done? \nA.  No, sir. \nQ.  Why did you not? \n\nFOSTER - H103080  7\n  \n \n \nA.  Because I was still under doctor’s care and wasn’t \nreleased to go back to work.   \nQ.  What all did they ask you to do in going about getting that \nbackground FBI check done? \nA.  They sent me some papers to fill out, which I didn’t \nunderstand them, and I called to personnel and talked to a \nlady in personnel.  And she told me on some things what to fill \nout and told me what to check, which I had no clue.  I was \nfollowing orders.  Other than that, I didn’t know nothing about \nall that paperwork.   \nQ.  As part of the FBI check, where you physically required to \ngo into the Booneville Health? \nA.  We was physically required to go there at the facility and \nlet them do whatever they do to do the background check. \nQ.  And that was part of the request back when they asked \nyou to do the FBI check was to come into work? \nA.  Yes, sir.... \nQ.  Have you worked at all since July 31\nst\n of 2020? \nA.  No, sir. \nQ.  Why not? \nA.  Because I am not physically able to pass a physical and \nhold a job. \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \n  Q.  Did you ever fill out the forms for the background checks? \nA.  They sent me some papers to fill out and I didn’t quite \nunderstand them.  And I tried to fill them out, but I just couldn’t \nfill them out.  And I just back off on it because I wasn’t \nreleased to even go to that facility.  I was still under a doctor’s \ncare.   \nQ.  Well, that is where I am a little confused again.  You said \nyou weren’t released.  Did you understand what the \nbackground checks were for? \nA.  We used to have them every five years to make sure you \ndidn’t have no criminal record.  I have a perfect record.  I \nworked in prison systems in the past, lockup facilities before I \ncame to BHDC.  I have a perfect record.  I can buy a firearm \nwithout any flaws in my background check.   \nQ.  So you have completed the FBI background check \nbefore? \nA.  While I was at that facility, yes.   \n\nFOSTER - H103080  8\n  \n \n \nQ.  Okay.  So you already knew what it was? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  Did you understand that it was required for you to \nhave that job in that facility? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  Okay.  So my question is why did you not at least get the \nbackground check done so that you could go back to work \nthere? \nA.  Because I wasn’t released from any doctor yet.  I was still \nunder doctor’s care, wound care, the heart doctor, my \nphysical doctor, and they still had COVID on the hill and I \ndidn’t want to risk redoing it again after my lungs were \nscarred.          \n \n The diagnosis of Dr. Schwarz on March 28, 2022 included \n“Hypertensive heart disease with chronic diastolic congestive heart failure.”   \nThe claimant participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation \nthrough Functional Testing Centers, Inc. on April 26, 2022:   \nMr. Foster is referred following reports of long term residual \neffects from Covid \n19....Consistency of effort testing obtained during this \nevaluation indicate \nsignificant observational and evidence-based inconsistencies \nresulting in self-limiting behavior and sub-maximal effort.  The \nresults of the evaluation indicate that an unreliable effort was \nput forth, with 13 of 53 consistency measures within expected \nlimits....Mr. Foster completed functional testing on this date \nwith unreliable results....Overall, Mr. Foster demonstrated \nthe ability to perform work in at least the SEDENTARY \nclassification of work[.]... \nMr. Foster reports that he was diagnosed with Covid-19 in \nJuly of 2020.  He reports that he was admitted into the \nhospital and remained in the hospital for approximately 2 \nmonths before he was transitioned to a long-term facility for \nanother month.  Mr. Foster reports he has had multiple \ncomplications including a decubitus ulcer which required \nwound care as well as IV antibiotics for an infection....Mr. \nFoster reports that he has permanent damage to his lungs \n\nFOSTER - H103080  9\n  \n \n \ndue to Covid.  He reports that he can only walk for 100 feet \nbefore he has to stop and rest.  Mr. Foster reports he has not \nreturned to work and states he was terminated by his \nemployer.... \n \n It was also reported at Functional Testing Centers on or about April \n26, 2022:  “When utilizing the Guides Table 8 (p. 162):  Classes of \nRespiratory Impairments:  Mr. Foster does have a class 2 (mild) impairment \nwith a 10% Whole Person Impairment.”  \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  It is also my understanding that you have issues with your \nlungs from COVID.  Is that right? \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  Tell me about that. \nA.  My lungs were scarred real bad.  They said I had double \npneumonia when I was in Mercy, and I was on the ventilator, \nand they said my lungs was permanently damaged....I still \nhave problems breathing.  I have a thing at home that the \ndoctor prescribed for me.  And I can’t walk far because of my \nshortness of breath.  I try to make myself do.  In other words, I \ngo and try to make myself function more than normal.... \nQ.  And the respondents are paying you for the 10 percent \nrating to your lungs.  Is that correct? \nA.  I get some kind of check every two weeks or every week, \nbut I don’t know what it is for.   \n \n The claimant’s testimony indicated that he did not receive temporary \ntotal disability benefits for the period after May 6, 2022. \n Rhonda Murphy, the respondents’ Assistant Claims Determination \nManager, corresponded with the claimant on May 17, 2022: \nWe have received a report from Rick Byrd indicating you have \nreached maximum medical benefit as of 4/26/2022. \n\nFOSTER - H103080  10\n  \n \n \nMr. Byrd also stated you have a 10% Permanent Partial \nImpairment for a mild ventilatory defect.  This impairment \nrating entitles you to 45 weeks of PPD benefits at the weekly \nrate of $247.00 for a total of $11,115.00.  PPD benefits are \npaid bi-weekly, and your first PPD payment will cover the \ndates 5/7/22 through 5/20/22.  You should receive this check \nin the next few days.  The PPD benefits will pay out on March \n17, 2023.... \n \n Dr. Sara L. Roberson reported on June 17, 2022: \nJimmy G Foster 10/16/1954 is a patient of mine at the family \nmedicine clinic in Waldron.  I have been this patient’s primary \ncare provider since 2014.  He is requesting this letter \nstatement concerning his ability to work.  This patient was \nhospitalized with severe COVID-pneumonia, he has had \ndeterioration in his health that has included diastolic heart \nfailure, pulmonary hypertension, paroxysmal A. fib and \nrespiratory failure.  He has had a great deal of trouble \nregaining his prior level of functioning.  I do not believe the \npatient will be able to return to work and should strongly \nconsider retirement at this time.   \n \n Dr. Terry Clark examined the claimant on September 26, 2022 and \ndiagnosed “1.  Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia,” “2.  Other \nnontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage,” and “3.  Pressure ulcer of sacral \nregion,  stage 4.”  Dr. Clark stated, “Jimmy’s recommended work status is \nRegular Duty.  The effective date for this work status is 9/26/2022....Unable \nto determine work restrictions due to inconsistent/submaximal effort on the \nFCE.”    \n A pre-hearing order was filed on October 6, 2022.  The claimant \ncontended, “1.  The claimant, Jimmy Foster, sustained compensable \ninjuries following a COVID-19 injury on August 6, 2020 while working for \n\nFOSTER - H103080  11\n  \n \n \nBooneville Development Center in Booneville, Arkansas.  Said injuries, \ninclude, but are not limited to:  a respiratory disorder, sacral wound, \nparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, dyspnea on exertion, essential hypertension, \nhypertensive heart disease, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, pulmonary \nhypertension, left ventricular dilation, trivial nonrheumatic mitral \ninsufficiency trivial nonrheumatic tricuspid insufficiency, a subarachnoid \nhemorrhage, and hemiparesis.  2.  Sara L. Roberson has taken the \nclaimant off work indefinitely due to his severe COVID-pneumonia and \nsubsequent deterioration of health.  3.  To date, the claimant has only been \nreleased as at maximum medical improvement for his sacral wound on \nSeptember 27, 2021 and his lungs (mild ventilatory defect) [on] April 26, \n2022.  He remains in his healing period and has not been returned to work \nand thus contends he is owed temporary total disability benefits from May \n17, 2022 through a date yet to be determined.  4.  Due to the controversion \nof entitled benefits, the respondents are obligated to pay one half of the \nclaimant’s attorney’s fees.  5.  Claimant reserves the right to raise additional \ncontentions at the hearing of this matter.\"   \n The respondents contended, “[T]he claimant reported on August 5, \n2020 that he tested positive for COVID, with his last day of work being July \n31, 2020.  Respondent did accept this claim as compensable pursuant to \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-601 (effective from March 11, 2020 and until May 1, \n\nFOSTER - H103080  12\n  \n \n \n2023) and respondent has provided benefits to or on behalf of the claimant \nfor this claim.  Respondent has provided reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment for the claimant, including treatment with Dr. Terry Clark, Dr. \nDelilah Easom for wound care and Dr. Julio Schwarz, cardiac specialist.  \nThe claimant tested unreliably in the Sedentary classification of work at a \nFunctional Capacity Evaluation on April 26, 2022 with 13 of 53 consistency \nmeasures.  The claimant was paid his salary by his employer until January \n8, 2021 at which point the claimant was paid temporary total disability \nbenefits by the respondent from January 9, 2021 until May 6, 2022 when \nthe claimant was released at maximum medical improvement by his treating \nphysician Dr. Terry Clark.  The claimant was assigned permanent \nanatomical impairment of 10% to the whole person which has been \naccepted by respondent and permanent partial disability benefits are being \npaid to the claimant for this impairment rating.  The claimant would not \nreturn to work and would not complete his mandatory background checks \nfor his job.  The claimant’s employment ended November 30, 2021.  The \nrespondents reserve the right to raise additional contentions, or to modify \nthose stated herein, pending the completion of discovery.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits.   \n  2.  Attorney’s fee.  All other issues are reserved by the parties.   \n \n\nFOSTER - H103080  13\n  \n \n \n A hearing was held on December 6, 2022.  The claimant testified \nthat he was not working, because “I am not physically able.”    \nAn administrative law judge filed an opinion on February 9, 2023.  \nThe administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove his \n“heart disease” and “right ulnar neuropathy” were compensable conditions.  \nThe administrative law judge found that the claimant was entitled to a \nperiod of additional temporary total disability benefits.  The claimant \nappealed to the Full Commission and the respondents cross-appealed. \n The Full Commission filed an opinion on August 9, 2023.  A majority \nof the Full Commission found that the claimant proved “the diagnosis of \natrial fibrillation was a natural consequence of the compensable COVID-19 \ncondition sustained by the claimant.”  The Full Commission found that the \nclaimant did not prove the right ulnar neuropathic condition was a natural \nconsequence of the compensable injury.  The Commission found that the \nclaimant “did not prove he remained within a healing period or was totally \nincapacitated from earning wages at any time after April 26, 2022.”  The \nFull Commission found that the claimant “proved he sustained 10% \npermanent anatomical impairment as a result of the diagnosis of atrial \nfibrillation.”        \n The respondents appealed the Full Commission’s opinion to the \nArkansas Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the Full \n\nFOSTER - H103080  14\n  \n \n \nCommission in part and reversed in part.  Booneville Hum. Dev. Ctr. v. \nFoster, 2024 Ark. App. 618, 704 S.W.3d 618.  The Court of Appeals \naffirmed the Full Commission’s finding that the claimant proved the \ndiagnosis of atrial fibrillation was a natural consequence of the \ncompensable COVID-19 condition sustained by the claimant.  However, the \nCourt reversed the Commission’s finding that the claimant proved he \nsustained 10% permanent anatomical impairment as a result of the \ndiagnosis of atrial fibrillation. \n Tanya Rutherford Owen, Ph.D. provided a VOCATIONAL \nANALYSIS on March 17, 2025.  Dr. Owen reported in part: \nI engaged Mr. Foster in a discussion about work.  He has not \nsought other employment since contracting COVID-19 in \n2020, reporting that he is physically unable to do so.  He \nbelieves that his primary barriers to return to work involve his \nlimited stamina, debility, and shortness of breath.  He also \ncites ongoing memory problems following his illness.   \nIn addition to his ongoing medical problems and related \nphysical and cognitive limitations, Mr. Foster also has several \nvocationally relevant barriers that negatively impact his ability \nto obtain employment.  First, his age is a barrier to \nemployment.  Second, he has never performed sedentary \nwork or work that requires computer skills and is not computer \nliterate.  Third, Mr. Foster has been out of the workforce for \nover 4 years.  Based upon a review of literature, the \nprobability of returning to the workforce decreases the longer \nan individual is unemployed.... \nFollowing his hospitalization in 2020 and termination from \nBooneville Human Development Center, Mr. Foster’s \nemployment was terminated by BHDC and he applied for \nretirement benefits.  He notes prior to contracting COVID, he \nwas physically fit and lifted weights three times per week, and \nas such planned to work as long as necessary to maximize \n\nFOSTER - H103080  15\n  \n \n \nhis State of Arkansas retirement benefit.  However, after \ncontracting COVID, he took retirement benefits after his \ntermination.  He essentially exited the labor market earlier \nthan intended due to his illness.... \nMr. Foster’s previous positions have consisted of medium \nstrength level work (lifting/carrying/pushing/pulling up to 50 \npounds) as an aide and correctional officer and light work \n(lifting/carrying/pushing/pulling up to 20 pounds) as a security \nguard.  If Dr. Clark’s opinions are given the weight of medical \nevidence, he should have been able to return to full duty and \nwould sustain no loss of earnings capacity.   \nWith either sedentary (lifting/carrying/pushing/pulling up to 10 \npounds) work limitations (per the FCE) or the medical opinion \nof his treating provider, Dr. Roberson, Mr. Foster could not \nreturn to past work and could not access transferable skill \noccupations.  Given either of these scenarios, he would be \nunemployable and sustained, as a result of his condition, a \ntotal loss of earnings capacity.... \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on June 2, 2025.  The claimant \ncontended, “1.  The claimant, Jimmy Foster, sustained compensable \ninjuries following a COVID-19 injury on August 6, 2020, while working for \nBooneville Development Center in Booneville, Arkansas.  Said injuries, \ninclude, but are not limited to:  a respiratory disorder, sacral wound, \nparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, dyspnea on exertion, essential hypertension, \nhypertensive heart disease, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, pulmonary \nhypertension, left ventricular dilation, trivial nonrheumatic mitral \ninsufficiency trivial nonrheumatic tricuspid insufficiency, a subarachnoid \nhemorrhage, and hemiparesis.  2.  Sara L. Roberson has taken the \nclaimant off work indefinitely due to his severe COVID-pneumonia and \nsubsequent deterioration of health.  3.  The claimant was evaluated by a \n\nFOSTER - H103080  16\n  \n \n \nvocational expert, Tonya Owen, PHD, and she determined that due to his \nworkplace injuries, the claimant ‘would be unemployable and sustained, as \na result of his condition, a total loss of earnings capacity.’  A summary of \nher report is attached as Exhibit 1.  4.  The claimant contends that he is \npermanently and totally disabled as a result of his workplace injury and is \nowed benefits for said total disability.  In the alternative, the claimant \ncontends he is owed wage loss benefits.  5.  Due to the controversion of \nentitled benefits, the respondents are obligated to pay one half of the \nclaimant’s attorney’s fees.  6.  Claimant reserves the right to raise additional \ncontentions at the hearing of this matter.”   \n The respondents contended, “The claimant tested positive for \nCOVID, and that respondent did accept this claim as compensable \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601 [Effective from March 11, 2020, and \nuntil May 1, 2023] and respondent has provided benefits to or on behalf of \nthe claimant for this claim.  The claimant was paid his salary by his \nemployer until January 8, 2021, at which point the claimant was paid \ntemporary total disability benefits by the respondent from January 9, 2021, \nuntil May 6, 2022, when the claimant was released at maximum medical \nimprovement by his treating physician, Dr. Terry Clark.  The claimant tested \nunreliably in the sedentary classification of work at a Functional Capacity \nEvaluation on April 26, 2022, with 13 of 53 consistency measures, and Dr. \n\nFOSTER - H103080  17\n  \n \n \nClark was unable to determine work restrictions due to the claimant’s \ninconsistent/submaximal effort on the FCE.  The claimant was assigned \npermanent anatomical impairment of 10% to the whole person which has \nbeen accepted by respondent and permanent partial disability benefits were \npaid to the claimant for this impairment rating.  The claimant would not \nreturn to work and would not complete his mandatory background checks \nfor his job.  The claimant’s employment ended November 30, 2021.  The \nclaimant testified at the December 6, 2022, hearing that he is not looking for \nwork.  The claimant has, in fact, retired and collects his pension in addition \nto his Social Security retirement.  The claimant had a bona fide and \nreasonably obtainable offer to be employed at wages equal to or greater \nthat his average weekly wage at the time of the accident, therefore, he is \nnot entitled to permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the \npercentage of permanent physical impairment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-522(b)(2).  The Full Commission found that the claimant did not \nprove a right ulnar nerve neuropathic condition was a natural consequence \nof the compensable injury and that he did not prove that he remained within \na healing period or was totally incapacitated from earning wages at any \ntime after April 26, 2022.  The claimant demanded additional permanent \nimpairment ratings but was not awarded any additional impairment rating \nbeyond the 10% already accepted and paid by the respondent.  These \n\nFOSTER - H103080  18\n  \n \n \ndecisions are now res judicata and the law of the case.  Respondents \ncontends (sic) that the claimant cannot meet his burden of proving that he is \npermanently and totally disabled or unable to earn any meaningful wages at \nthe same or other employment.  Respondent further contends that the \nclaimant lacks motivation to return to the workforce and cannot meet his \nburden of proving that he is entitled to disability benefits in excess of his \nanatomical impairment rating for wage loss.  The respondents also contend \nthat the claimant cannot meet his burden of proving that a compensable \ninjury is the major cause of his disability.  Respondent also contends that if \nthe claimant establishes that he is disabled, his compensation should be \nreduced and limited to the proportion only of the compensation that would \nbe payable if the occupational disease were the sole cause of the disability \nas the occupational disease as a causative factor bears to all the causes of \nthe disability, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601(c)(1)[Effective from \nMarch 11, 2020 and until May 1, 2023].  The respondents reserve the right \nto raise additional contentions, or to modify those stated herein, pending the \ncompletion of discovery.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether claimant is entitled to permanent total disability or, \nalternatively, wage loss disability.   \n2.  Whether claimant can establish that his compensable \nCOVID-19 injury is a major cause for his permanent disability \nor alternatively, wage loss disability. \n\nFOSTER - H103080  19\n  \n \n \n3.  Whether claimant refused a bona fide offer of employment \nof wages equal to or greater than his average weekly wage \nafter he was released at maximum medical improvement. \n4.  Attorney’s fee.  All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n \n The parties deposed Dr. Tanya Rutherford Owen on August 19, \n2025.  The claimant’s attorney examined Dr. Owen: \n  Q.  Did you conduct a vocational analysis on Jimmy Foster? \n  A.  I did.... \n  Q.  Did you meet with Mr. Foster? \n  A.  My interviews have been by telephone for him.... \nQ.  Do you believe Mr. Foster has any transferable skills to \nother jobs? \n  A.  No, he has no – he has no transferable skills. \nQ.  Is it your opinion that Mr. Foster suffered a loss of earning \ncapacity? \n  A.  Yes.   \nQ.  Do you mind explaining that – why – do you mind \nexplaining your basis for that to the court? \nA.  Sure.  So basically when we look at loss of earnings \ncapacity, we look at a number of different factors and those I \nhave outlined on page six and the top of page seven in my \nreport....So before his injury, he did like medium level work, \nyou know, kind of semiskilled work.  And post-injury, other \nthan Clark, the most generous opinion that’s been offered is \nsedentary-level work.  So he has no past sedentary work and \ntherefore he just can’t access employment or whatever is left \nhe’s just not going to be competitive for because he doesn’t \nhave the skills to do it.... \nQ.  In your review of the records in this case, did you notice \nany other ailment or condition that was the major cause of Mr. \nFoster’s inability to return to the workplace? \nA.  No.  And I have his pre-event medical history outline on \npage two.  Again, at the time of his injury, he’s 65 years old \ndoing a pretty physically demanding job.  I mean, working with \npeople with disabilities is pretty physically demanding, and the \nonly thing that I really see is he had hypertension, which lots \nof people work with, so, no, I don’t think there was – I don’t \nthink that there was a pre-event medical history factor that \ncaused him to go out of the labor market.   \n\nFOSTER - H103080  20\n  \n \n \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined Dr. Owen: \nQ.  Of course if someone is not looking for work, they’re not \ngoing to find work, are they? \nA.  True.  I agree.... \nQ.  And then I think you’ve also stated your own opinion now \nthat you think Mr. Foster is unable to return to work? \nA.  I think the most likely scenario, the judge has to determine \nwhat happens next, I think the most likely vocational scenario \nis the one that has already been occurring for five years and \ngiven his – you know, his age, his education, his work \nbackground, his ongoing health complaints, the opinions from \nhis treating doctor, his lack of computer skills, his lack of \nperforming, you know, sitdown, sedentary type work, I don’t \nthink he ever goes back to work, that’s my opinion.... \n \n A hearing was held on September 29, 2025.  The claimant testified \nthat he was not physically able to return to work.  The claimant testified on \ndirect examination: \nQ.  Out of an eight-hour workday, what do you think the most \nyou could stand would be? \nA.  Maybe a couple of hours, maybe, of trying to do \nsomething.  I’ve got to try to function.  If I sit down and don’t \ndo nothing, I will die. \nQ.  All right.  What is the longest you can stand before you \nhave to sit down, do you think? \nA.  Maybe in the kitchen, maybe 10 minutes, 15 at the tops.   \nQ.  What do you think the furthest you could walk is? \nA.  No more than 100 feet, maybe.... \nQ.  What do you think the most you could lift is? \nA.  Right now, maybe 10, maybe 15 pounds, and that would \nbe a strain on me.... \nQ.  Now, these physical limitations that we just walked \nthrough, did you have any of these limitations before? \nA.  No.  I was perfect in every way just about.   \n \n\nFOSTER - H103080  21\n  \n \n \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on December 23, 2025.  \nThe administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove he was \nentitled to permanent total disability benefits.  The administrative law judge \nfound that the claimant that the claimant failed to prove he was entitled to \npermanent partial disability benefits “for loss in wage earning capacity.”  \nThe claimant appeals to the Full Commission and the respondents cross-\nappeal. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n     The wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury \nhas affected the claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood.  Grimes v. North Am. \nFoundry, 316 Ark. 395, 872 S.W.2d 59 (Ark. 1994).  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n522(Repl. 2012) 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 any other \nmatters reasonably expected to affect his or her future earning \ncapacity.   \n(2)  However, so long as an employee, subsequent to his or \nher injury, has returned to work, has obtained other \nemployment, or has a bona fide and reasonably obtainable \noffer to be employed at wages equal to or greater than his or \nher average weekly wage at the time of the accident, he or \nshe shall not be entitled to permanent partial disability benefits \nin excess of the percentage of permanent physical impairment \nestablished by a preponderance of the medical testimony and \nevidence.   \n\nFOSTER - H103080  22\n  \n \n \n(c)(1)  The employer or his or her workers’ compensation \ninsurance carrier shall have the burden of proving the \nemployee’s employment, or the employee’s receipt of a bona \nfide offer to be employed, at wages equal to or greater than \nhis or her average weekly wage at the time of the accident.   \n \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-519(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n \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 A.  Permanent Total Disability \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to permanent total disability benefits pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-519.”  \nThe Full Commission affirms this finding.   \nThe claimant is age 71 with only a high school education.  The \nclaimant’s employment history primarily involves work in correctional \ninstitutions and private security.  The claimant eventually became employed \nwith the respondents, Booneville Human Development Center.  The \nclaimant testified that he provided personal care to clients, which included \nbathing, shaving, and dental hygiene.  The claimant’s work duties also \nrequired occasional manual labor such as mopping and sweeping.   \nThe parties stipulated that the claimant “sustained a compensable \ninjury” on or about July 31, 2020.  The claimant contracted COVID-19 in the \n\nFOSTER - H103080  23\n  \n \n \ncourse and scope of his employment with the respondents.  The claimant \ntestified that he did not return to work for the respondents after July 31, \n2020.  A physician’s diagnosis on August 8, 2020 included “Pneumonia due \nto COVID-19 virus (Primary).”  The claimant’s testimony indicated that, as a \nresult of his compensable injury, he was hospitalized through approximately \nOctober 2020.  Dr. Schwarz diagnosed “Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation” on \nFebruary 1, 2021.   \nThe respondents terminated the claimant’s employment effective \nNovember 30, 2021.  A representative of the respondent-employer informed \nthe claimant on that date, “Your termination has been coded ‘Involuntary’ \nbased on an internal investigation.”  The record indicates that the claimant \ndid not complete a “Background Check” requested by the respondents.  \nThe claimant participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation on April 26, \n2022.  It was concluded that the claimant’s effort during the Functional \nCapacity Evaluation was “unreliable,” and the claimant was released to “the \nSEDENTARY classification of work.”  The claimant was also assigned a \n“10% Whole Person Impairment” due his post-injury respiratory condition.  \nThe claimant testified that his lungs “were scarred real bad” as a result of \nthe compensable injury and that he suffered from chronic shortness of \nbreath.  The respondents accepted the 10% rating assigned on April 26, \n2022.   \n\nFOSTER - H103080  24\n  \n \n \nDr. Roberson opined on June 17, 2022, “I do not believe the patient \nwill be able to return to work and should strongly consider retirement at this \ntime.”  However, Dr. Clark opined on September 26, 2022 that the claimant \ncould return to “Regular Duty.”  The claimant testified at a hearing held \nDecember 6, 2022 that he had not returned to work because “I am not \nphysically able.”  Tanya Rutherford Owen, a vocational rehabilitation \nconsultant, stated on March 17, 2025 that the claimant was “unemployable” \nand had sustained “a total loss of earning capacity.”  Dr. Owen testified at a \nsubsequent deposition that the claimant had “no transferable skills” with \nwhich to secure employment.  Dr. Owen stated on cross-examination, “I \ndon’t think he ever goes back to work, that’s my opinion.”   \nThe Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove he was \npermanently totally disabled in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n519(e)(1)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant did not prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he was unable “to earn any meaningful wages in the \nsame or other employment” in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n519(e)(2)(Repl. 2012).  We recognize the significant physical limitations that \nhave confronted the claimant following the compensable injury that \noccurred on or about July 31, 2020.  The respondents terminated the \nclaimant’s employment effective November 30, 2021.  The claimant’s \ntermination was at least partially related to his failure to complete a \n\nFOSTER - H103080  25\n  \n \n \nrequested Background Check.  The evidence also demonstrates that the \nclaimant is now unable to perform his prior work duties as a result of his \npermanent physical condition.  However, unfortunately the claimant has \nprovided no meaningful effort to secure appropriate gainful employment at \nany time following the compensable injury.  The claimant testified that he is \nable to drive and occasionally serves as a pastoral assistant at his local \nchurch.  The claimant’s lack of interest in returning to appropriate gainful \nemployment impedes the Commission’s full assessment of the claimant’s \nwage-loss disability.  City of Fayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 \nS.W.2d 946 (1984).  The Full Commission finds in the present matter that \nthe claimant did not prove he was permanently totally disabled.   \nB.  Wage-loss Disability \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to permanent partial disability benefits as a result of the \ncompensable injury for loss in wage earning capacity.”  The Full \nCommission does not affirm this finding.  It is the Full Commission’s duty to \nenter findings in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence and \nnot on whether there is substantial evidence to support the administrative \nlaw judge’s findings.  Roberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184, 649 \nS.W.2d 402 (1983).  Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence \n\nFOSTER - H103080  26\n  \n \n \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La \nSher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003).  When deciding \nany issue, the Commission shall determine whether the party having the \nburden of proof on the issue has established it by a preponderance of the \nevidence.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-705(a)(3)(Repl. 2012).  The Full \nCommission enters its own findings in accordance with the preponderance \nof the evidence.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, 792 \nS.W.2d 348 (1990).   \nThe Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant \nproved he sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of 15%.  The \nclaimant is of relatively advanced age at 71 and has only a high school \neducation.  The claimant’s employment history consists primarily of \ncorrections and security work.  The parties stipulated that the claimant \n“sustained a compensable injury” on July 31, 2020.  The claimant \ncontracted COVID-19 resulting from his work for the respondents and was \nhospitalized through approximately October 2020.  The claimant was \nprovided “Director’s Leave pay” through January 8, 2021.  The respondents \nprovided temporary total disability benefits beginning January 9, 2021.  A \nHuman Resources Specialist informed the claimant on August 16, 2021, \n“You are due for your five-year background checks.  Please fill out the \nattached forms and bring back to Human Resources by Friday, September \n\nFOSTER - H103080  27\n  \n \n \n10, 2021 along with your driver’s license or photo ID.”  The claimant \ntestified, “They sent me some papers to fill out, which I didn’t understand \nthem, and I called to personnel and talked to a lady in personnel....I was \nfollowing orders.  Other than that, I didn’t know nothing about all that \npaperwork.”  The respondents terminated the claimant’s employment \neffective November 30, 2021.  The respondents did not inform the claimant \non November 30, 2021 that his termination was related to purported \n“Background Checks.”  Instead, the respondents told the claimant his \ntermination was “based on an internal investigation.”   \nThe evidence before the Commission does not demonstrate that the \nrespondents proved they extended a “bona fide and reasonably obtainable \noffer to be employed at wages equal to or greater than” the claimant’s \naverage weekly wage at the time of the claimant’s compensable injury.  \nThere is no probative evidence demonstrating that the respondents have \noffered the claimant an appropriate employment position within his \npermanent restrictions.  In order to bar wage-loss disability in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(b)(2)(Repl. 2012) et seq., there must be an \nactual offer of employment made by the employer to the employee.  Hope \nSch. Dist. v. Wilson, 2011 Ark. App. 219, 382 S.W.3d 782, citing Cross v. \nCrawford County Mem’l Hosp., 54 Ark. App. 130, 923 S.W.2d 886 (1996).  \nIn the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the respondents’ \n\nFOSTER - H103080  28\n  \n \n \nrequest for the claimant to complete a Background Check cannot be \ninterpreted as a legitimate “offer of employment” contemplated by the \nstatute.  Moreover, the Commission notes that the respondents terminated \nthe claimant’s employment effective November 30, 2021, while the claimant \nremained within his healing period and was totally incapacitated from \nearning wages.  The claimant did not reach the end of his healing period \nuntil April 26, 2022.   \nThe claimant in the present matter is advancing in age at 71.  He has \nonly a 12\nth\n grade education and a history of employment primarily in \ncorrections and security.  The claimant now has significant permanent \nphysical limitations as a result of the July 31, 2020 compensable injury.  \nThe claimant sustained an atrial fibrillation as a natural consequence of the \ncompensable injury.  The claimant sustained a 10% permanent physical \nimpairment for a permanent respiratory condition, accepted and paid by the \nrespondents.  The respondents terminated the claimant’s employment \neffective November 30, 2021, and the evidence does not demonstrate that \nthere was ever a bona fide offer of employment in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-522(Repl. 2012).  However, the record shows that the \nclaimant has made no effort to return to appropriate gainful employment \nfollowing the compensable injury.  The claimant’s lack of interest in \nreturning to appropriate gainful employment impedes the Commission’s full \n\nFOSTER - H103080  29\n  \n \n \nassessment of the claimant’s wage-loss disability.  City of Fayetteville, \nsupra.  The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained \nwage-loss disability in the amount of 15%.   \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not prove he was permanently totally disabled.  The \nclaimant proved that he sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of \n15%.  The claimant proved that the compensable injury sustained on July \n31, 2020 was the major cause of his 15% wage-loss disability.  The \nrespondents did not prove there was a bona fide offer of employment, and \nthe respondents did not prove that the claimant’s 15% wage-loss award \nshould be barred pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-526(Repl. 2012).  The \nclaimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing in part on appeal, \nthe claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars \n($500), pursuant to Ark. 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 \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \n\nFOSTER - H103080  30\n  \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nwage loss disability benefits in the amount of fifteen percent (15%). \n When 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 \npermanent partial disability \nbenefits in excess of the \nemployee's percentage of \npermanent physical \nimpairment, the Workers' \nCompensation Commission \nmay take into account, in \naddition to the percentage \nof permanent physical \nimpairment, such factors as \nthe employee's age, \neducation, work experience, \nand other matters \nreasonably expected to \naffect his or her future \nearning capacity. \n \n Other 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).  \nTherefore, when a claimant has been assigned an anatomical \nimpairment rating to the body as a whole, the Commission may increase \n\nFOSTER - H103080  31\n  \n \n \nthe disability rating and find a claimant permanently disabled based upon \nwage-loss factors.  Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 89 Ark. App. 228, 201 \nS.W.3d 449 (2005).  \nThe wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has \naffected the claimant's ability to earn a livelihood.  Enterprise Products \nCompany v. Leach, 2009 Ark. App. 148, 316 S.W.3d 253 (2009).  \nOur courts also consider the claimant’s motivation to return to work \nsince lack of interest or negative attitude in pursuing employment impedes \nthe assessment of the claimant's loss of earning capacity.  Logan County v. \nMcDonald, 90 Ark. App. 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). \nAny determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment \nshall be supported by objective and measurable physical or mental \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B). Pursuant to Arkansas Code \nAnnotated section 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a), “[p]ermanent benefits shall be \nawarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the \nmajor cause of the disability or impairment.  A finding of major cause shall \n\nFOSTER - H103080  32\n  \n \n \nbe established according to the preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-102(14)(B). \nHere, the ALJ opined:  \n[i]t is unnecessary for me to reach a \ndecision on whether a bona fide job offer \nwas extended or whether this claim would \nfail due to claimant's lack of motivation to \nreturn to the job market, because \nclaimant has failed to meet the threshold \nrequirement of proving his compensable \nrespiratory condition is the major cause of \nany wage loss disability. \n \nI agree.  The issue of major cause for any impairment related to the \nclaimant’s heart condition was decided by the Court of Appeals and is res \njudicata.  The Court of Appeals determined the claimant failed to establish \nmajor cause for impairment related to his heart condition.  The claimant \nsubmitted no new medical records, no new physician opinions, and no new \nimpairment evidence to establish that his respiratory impairment is the \nmajor cause of his inability to work.  Even if we accept Dr. Roberson’s \nopinion that the claimant is unable to return to work, Dr. Roberson attributed \nclaimant's decline to multiple conditions—\"diastolic heart failure, pulmonary \nhypertension, paroxysmal A. fib and respiratory failure\"—without stating the \ncompensable respiratory condition is the major cause of his inability to earn \nwages. \n\nFOSTER - H103080  33\n  \n \n \nBecause the claimant has failed to submit any medical evidence \nestablishing that his compensable respiratory condition is the major cause \nof his inability to earn wages, he has failed to meet his burden of proving by \nthe preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to wage loss disability \nbenefits. \nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H103080 JIMMY FOSTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 15, 2026","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.507Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H103080-2026-05-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Foster_Jimmy_H103080_20260515.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}