{"id":"full_commission-H201972-2023-09-28","awcc_number":"H201972","decision_date":"2023-09-28","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"James Beauchamp","employer_name":"Conagra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC","title":"BEAUCHAMP VS. CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS, LLC AWCC# H201972 SEPTEMBER 28, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Beauchamp_James_H201972_20230928.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Beauchamp_James_H201972_20230928.pdf","text_length":7758,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H201972 \n \nJAMES BEAUCHAMP, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nCONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nBROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney \nat Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE JARROD S. PARRISH, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n ORDER \n The respondents in the above-styled matter have filed a MOTION \nFOR RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON \nCONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE ALTERNATIVE.  The Full Commission \ndenies the respondents’ motion for reconsideration, and we find that the \nrespondents have not suffered a violation of their constitutional rights. \n The parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed on January 4, 2022.  The claimant testified that he fell \non his left knee and hip that day at work.  A pre-hearing order was filed on \nSeptember 15, 2022.  The claimant contended, among other things, that he \nwas “entitled to medical treatment for his right hip, and pelvic fractures in \n\nBEAUCHAMP - H201972   2\n  \n \n \naddition to treatment respondents are providing for his left hip.”  The \nrespondents contended that the claimant “did not suffer a right hip injury on \nor about January 4, 2022.”  The parties agreed to litigate issues including, \n“1.  Whether claimant sustained a compensable injury on January 4, 2022, \nregarding his right hip and pelvis.”  After a hearing, an administrative law \njudge filed an opinion on January 23, 2023.  The administrative law judge \nfound that the claimant proved he “suffered a compensable injury to his \nright hip and pelvis on January 5, 2022.”   \n The respondents appealed to the Full Commission.  The Full \nCommission filed an opinion on July 13, 2023 and found that the claimant \ndid not prove he sustained a compensable injury to his right hip or pelvis on \nJanuary 4, 2022.  However, we found that “the claimant’s right hip and \npelvis difficulties were a natural consequence of the January 4, 2022 \ncompensable injury to the claimant’s left hip.”  The Full Commission \nawarded temporary total disability benefits beginning February 15, 2022 \nuntil a date yet to be determined. \n In their motion for reconsideration, the respondents state that the Full \nCommission determined sua sponte that the claimant’s right hip and pelvis \ninjury was a natural consequence of the compensable left hip injury.  The \nrespondents assert that the Full Commission “interjected another \nissue/contention to justify awarding Claimant benefits.”  However, the \n\nBEAUCHAMP - H201972   3\n  \n \n \nArkansas Court of Appeals has held that Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nRule 25, which defines the scope of review from the administrative law \njudge to the Full Commission, does not preclude the Commission from \nreviewing issues not appealed from or not raised at the administrative law \njudge level if it so chooses.  See CHI St. Vincent Infirmary v. McCauley, \n2023 Ark. App. 126, citing Pharmerica v. Seratt, 103 Ark. App. 9, 285 \nS.W.3d 699 (2008).  The Full Commission has the authority, and the duty, \nto render anew findings relevant to the claim before it.  Id. \n Moreover, we reiterate the claimant’s pre-hearing contention that he \nwas “entitled to medical treatment for his right hip, and pelvic fractures in \naddition to treatment respondents are providing for his left hip.”  The \nrespondents expressly argued in their brief on appeal to the Full \nCommission, “A.  CLAIMANT DID NOT ESTABLISH A CAUSAL LINK \nBETWEEN HIS ALLEGED RIGHT HIP INJURY AND THE \nCOMPENSABLE INJURY TO HIS LEFT HIP.”  In arguing that there was \nno “causal link” between the claimant’s alleged right hip injury and the \ncompensable injury to the claimant’s left hip, the respondents plainly and \nmanifestly raised to the Full Commission the pertinent issue of whether the \nclaimant’s right hip injury was a “natural consequence” of the compensable \nleft hip injury.  Stated another way, the issue of whether there was \"a causal \nconnection” between the compensable left hip injury and alleged right hip \n\nBEAUCHAMP - H201972   4\n  \n \n \ninjury was squarely and properly before the Full Commission.  The Full \nCommission recognized that the burden was on the claimant to establish \nthe necessary causal connection.  See Nichols v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 2010 \nArk. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d 178. \n The Full Commission therefore denies the respondents’ motion for \nreconsideration.  The respondents do not identify which section of the \nConstitution of the United States or Constitution of Arkansas have \npurportedly been violated by the Full Commission’s award of benefits in the \npresent matter.  Nevertheless, there is no evidence of record demonstrating \nthat the Full Commission has denied the respondents’ federal or state \nconstitutional rights.   \n IT IS SO ORDERED.     \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton concurs, in part, and dissent, in part. \n \nCONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION \n  I concur, in part, and dissent, in part, with the majority’s opinion.  \nSpecifically, I concur with the majority’s denial of the respondents’ motion \n\nBEAUCHAMP - H201972   5\n  \n \n \nfor reconsideration and finding that the respondents have not suffered a \nviolation of their constitutional rights.  \n  It is well settled that Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission \nRule 25, defining the scope of review from the ALJ to the Commission, \ndoes not preclude the Commission from reviewing issues not appealed \nfrom or not raised at the ALJ level if it so chooses.  Pharmerica v. Seratt, \n103 Ark. App. 9, 285 S.W.3d 699 (2008).  The Commission reviews cases \nappealed to it de novo, and the duty of the Commission is not to determine \nwhether there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings; \nrather, it must make its own findings in accordance with a preponderance of \nthe evidence.  Id.  (citing Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, \n792 S.W.2d 348 (1990).  Hence, the Commission has authority, and the \nduty, to render anew findings relevant to the claim before it.  Id. \nOur Rules and case law are clear that the Commission is \nempowered to raise relevant issues sua sponte on appeal.  CHI St. Vincent \nInfirmary Med Ctr. v. McCauley, 2023 Ark App. 126, 663 S.W.3d 411 \n(2023). \n However, I respectfully dissent from the finding of the majority that \nthe respondents “expressly argued in their brief on appeal to the Full \nCommission, ‘A. CLAIMANT DID NOT ESTABLISH A CAUSAL LINK \nBETWEEN HIS ALLEGED RIGHT HIP INJURY AND THE \n\nBEAUCHAMP - H201972   6\n  \n \n \nCOMPENSABLE INJURY TO HIS LEFT HIP,’” therefore “plainly and \nmanifestly” raising the issue of whether the claimant’s right hip injury was a \nnatural consequence of his compensable injury.  (P. 3).  This finding is not \nrelevant to the issue before the Commission and fails to address the \nrespondents’ position that “[t]he main thrust of the arguments made by \nClaimant seems to be that he injured his right hip in the initial incident but \ndid not discover that fact until a later date.”  The respondents did not raise \nor argue the issue of whether the claimant’s right hip injury was a natural \nconsequence of his compensable left hip injury.  \nFor the reasons stated above, I concur, in part, and dissent, in part, \nfrom the majority’s opinion. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H201972 JAMES BEAUCHAMP, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2023","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.155Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H201972-2023-09-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Beauchamp_James_H201972_20230928.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}