{"id":"full_commission-H205774-2025-04-02","awcc_number":"H205774","decision_date":"2025-04-02","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Tommy Jones","employer_name":"Superior Chevrolet Siloam Springs","title":"JONES VS. SUPERIOR CHEVROLET SILOAM SPRINGS AWCC# H205774 April 02, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jones_Tommy_H205774_20250402.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Jones_Tommy_H205774_20250402.pdf","text_length":5718,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H205774 \n \nTOMMY E. JONES, EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \nSUPERIOR CHEVROLET SILOAM SPRINGS,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                           RESPONDENT \n \nCENTRAL ARKANSAS AUTO DEALERS SIF/ \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER/TPA          RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 2, 2025 \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 JARROD S. PARRISH, \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 November 18, 2024. In said order, the Administrative Law \nJudge made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-\nhearing conference conducted on June 24, 2024, and \ncontained in a Pre-hearing Order filed June 25, 2024, \nare hereby accepted as fact.  \n \n2. The respondent has successfully raised the Intoxication \nDefense and the claimant has been unable to \novercome the rebuttable presumption that his motor \n\nJones-H205774    2  \n \n \nvehicle accident was substantially occasioned by the \nuse of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used \nin contravention of physician’s orders. \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he sustained compensable injuries to \nhis spleen, liver, collar bone, ribs, and left hand on or \nabout August 8, 2022.  \n \n4. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to medical treatment in \nthis matter.  \n \n5. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that he is entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits in this matter.  \n \n6. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that his attorney is entitled to an \nattorney’s fee in this matter. \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 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 the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law Judge \nare correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission.  \n Therefore, we affirm and adopt the November 18, 2024 decision of \nthe Administrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions \ntherein, as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal.  \n  \n\nJones-H205774    3  \n \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n     \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs. \n \nCONCURRING OPINION \n  After my de novo review, I concur with the majority opinion finding \nthat Claimant failed to overcome the rebuttable presumption that his motor \nvehicle accident was substantially occasioned by the use of illegal drugs, \nbut write separately for the benefit of the Claimant.  \n Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(B)(iv) a compensable injury does \nnot include: \n(a)   Injury   where   the   accident   was   substantially \noccasioned  by  the  use  of  alcohol,  illegal  drugs,  or \nprescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s \norders.  \n(b) The presence of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription \ndrugs used in contravention of a physician’s orders shall \ncreate   a   rebuttable   presumption   that   the   injury   or \naccident  was  substantially  occasioned  by  the  use  of \nalcohol,  illegal  drugs,  or  prescription  drugs  used  in \ncontravention of physician’s orders.  \n(...) \n(d)  An  employee  shall  not  be entitled  to  compensation \nunless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence \n\nJones-H205774    4  \n \n \nthat  the  alcohol,  illegal  drugs,  or  prescription  drugs \nutilized in contravention of the physician’s orders did not \nsubstantially occasion the injury or accident.  \n \nOn the date of the accident, the medical records from St. Francis Health \nSystem indicate that Claimant tested positive for benzodiazepine and \ncannabinoid. The Claimant denied taking benzodiazepine, and it is not clear \nif this medication was administered in the emergency room pursuant to a \nphysician’s order. Therefore, I find that the presumption stated in Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-102(B)(iv)(b) was not created by the presences of \nbenzodiazepine in the Claimant’s urine. The positive test for cannabinoid \npresents a different issue. The Claimant testified that he had a valid medical \nmarijuana card on the date of the accident. However, cannabinoid remains \na federally illegal drug pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. Therefore, I must \nconcur with the majority and find that the presence of cannabinoid in the \nClaimant’s urine does create a rebuttable presumption that the work \naccident resulted from the use of the illegal substance. I find that the \nClaimant was unable to overcome this presumption and did not sustain a \ncompensable injury.   \n For the foregoing reasons, I concur with the majority but write \nseparately for the benefit of the Claimant.   \n                                                         _______________________________                                                                                           \n                                                       M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205774 TOMMY E. JONES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SUPERIOR CHEVROLET SILOAM SPRINGS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CENTRAL ARKANSAS AUTO DEALERS SIF/ RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 2, 2025 Upon review befo...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.335Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H205774-2025-04-02","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jones_Tommy_H205774_20250402.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}