{"id":"full_commission-H204394-2026-05-15","awcc_number":"H204394","decision_date":"2026-05-15","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Johnny Wright","employer_name":"Central Moloney, Inc","title":"WRIGHT VS. CENTRAL MOLONEY, INC. AWCC# H204394 May 15, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wright_Johnny_H204394_20260515.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Wright_Johnny_H204394_20260515.pdf","text_length":6292,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H204394 \n \nJOHNNY WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n  \nCENTRAL MOLONEY, INC., \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES \nTPA                                                                                        RESPONDENT \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 GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, \nLittle Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE GUY ALTON WADE, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed March 4, 2026. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim.  \n \n2. The Stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and \nare hereby accepted.  \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to vocational \nrehabilitation.  \n \n\nWright-H204394     2 \n   \n \n4. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to additional medical \nbenefits.  \n \n5. Because the claimant has failed to prove that he is \nentitled to any additional indemnity benefits, he is not \nentitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein, and it is our opinion the Administrative Law Judge's decision is \nsupported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies \nthe law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from a preponderance \nof the evidence that the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law \nJudge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission.  \n Therefore, we affirm and adopt the March 4, 2026 decision of the \nAdministrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as \nthe decision of the Full Commission on appeal.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n     \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents \n  \n\nWright-H204394     3 \n   \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n            After my de novo review of the record, I would concur with the \nAdministrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as ‘ALJ’) Opinion finding \nthat the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe is entitled to vocational rehabilitation, additional medical treatment or \nattorney’s fees. However, my reasoning for the denial of vocational \nrehabilitation differs from the ALJ.  \n The purpose of Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-505 is to “place an \nemphasis on returning the injured worker to work, while still allowing and \nproviding for vocational rehabilitation programs when determined \nappropriate by the commission. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(d). Arkansas \nCode Annotated § 11-9-505(a)(1) provides:  \nAny employer who without reasonable cause refuses to return \nan employee who is injured in the course of employment to \nwork,  where  suitable  employment  is  available  within  the \nemployee’s physical and mental limitations, upon order of the \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission, and in addition to other \nbenefits, shall be liable to pay to the employee the difference \nbetween benefits received and the average weekly wages lost \nduring the period of the refusal, for a  period not exceeding one \nyear.  \nBefore Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-505(a)(1) applies, several \nrequirements must be met:  \n(1) The employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat he sustained a compensable injury;  \n\nWright-H204394     4 \n   \n \n(2) That suitable employment which is within his physical and mental \nlimitations is available with the employer;  \n(3) That the employer has refused to return him to work;  \n(4) And, that the employer’s refusal to return him to work is without \nreasonable cause.  \n \nTorrey v. City of Fort Smith, 55 Ark. App. 226, 934 S.W .2d 237 (1996).  \n Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-505(b)(1) states: \nIn addition to benefits otherwise provided for by this chapter, an \nemployee who is entitled to receive compensation benefits for \npermanent disability and has not been offered an opportunity \nto return to work or re-employment assistance shall be paid \nreasonable  expenses  of  travel  and  maintenance  and  other \nnecessary costs of vocational rehabilitation if the commission \nfinds that the program is reasonable in relation to the disability \nsustained by the employee.  \n The Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right index and \nmiddle fingers. At the time of his employment with the Respondent, the \nClaimant was an inmate within the Arkansas Department of Correction \nsystem. Claimant’s employment was a part of the Arkansas Department of \nCorrection’s work-release program. After his injury, the Arkansas \nDepartment of Correction’s contract with the Respondent lapsed. The \nRespondent was therefore not able to offer the Claimant employment after \nhe was released at maximum medical improvement on May 15, 2023. \nNevertheless, the Arkansas Department of Correction found employment in-\nline with their work-release program for the Claimant. The Claimant did not \nseek further employment with the Respondent after his injury or after his \nrelease from the Arkansas Department of Correction. Further, the Claimant \n\nWright-H204394     5 \n   \n \nadmitted at the hearing with the ALJ that he has worked at least three \ndifferent jobs since being released.  \n As employment with the Respondent was not available for the \nClaimant due to the Arkansas Department of Correction’s cancellation or \nnon-renewal of Respondent’s contract, I find that the Respondent did not \nrefuse to return an employee who sustained a compensable injury to work. \nTherefore, I find that the Claimant is not entitled to voluntary rehabilitation \nunder Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-505(b)(1).  \n \n    _______________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H204394 JOHNNY WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CENTRAL MOLONEY, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 15, 2026 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulask...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.543Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H204394-2026-05-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wright_Johnny_H204394_20260515.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}