{"id":"full_commission-H208333-2025-12-03","awcc_number":"H208333","decision_date":"2025-12-03","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Joseph Taylor","employer_name":"Dolgencorp., LLC","title":"TAYLOR VS. DOLGENCORP., LLC AWCC# H208333 December 03, 2025","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["wrist","back","hip","thoracic","lumbar","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Taylor_Joseph_H208333_20251203.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Taylor_Joseph_H208333_20251203.pdf","text_length":22050,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H208333 \nJOSEPH TAYLOR,          \nEMPLOYEE             CLAIMANT \n \nDOLGENCORP., LLC d/b/a \nDOLLAR GENERAL STORE,  \nEMPLOYER                RESPONDENT  \n \nDOLGENCORP., LLC/  \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MG’T SERVICES, INC., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA             RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 3, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas.  \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE DAVID C. JONES, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.  \n \nDecision of the Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed in part, reversed in part.  \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n \n The Claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed May \n22, 2025. The administrative law judge found that the Claimant failed to \nmeet his burden of proof in demonstrating that he is permanently and totally \ndisabled as a result of his November 15, 2022, compensable injury(ies), \nthat the Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof in demonstrating he is \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  2 \nentitled to any percentage of wage-loss disability in excess of his 19% body \nas a whole permanent anatomical rating as a result of his subject \nNovember 15, 2022, compensable injury(ies), and that the Claimant’s \nattorney is not entitled to an attorney’s fee based on these facts. After \nreviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that \nClaimant is entitled to an additional 10% wage-loss disability benefit as a \nresult of his November 15, 2022, compensable injuries.  \nI. HISTORY \nJoseph Taylor, now age 55, testified that he was a high school \ngraduate. Mr. Taylor testified that his primary fields of employment were \nworking as a cook in various establishments, a night stocker, and a \nwarehouse forklift operator. The Claimant testified that he had obtained a \ncertification as a forklift operator, but that certification has since lapsed. \nClaimant’s last job before working for the Respondent was with the City of \nLittle Rock as a waste management sanitation operator.  \nIn 2013, while working for the City of Little Rock as a waste \nmanagement sanitation operator, Claimant injured his shoulders, wrist and \nhead. Claimant testified: \nA: I was workin’ for the City of Little Rock. (sic.) [I]t was a day \njust like yesterday. (sic.) I was workin’ waste management, \nand it was snowin’ outside. And it’s like, you know, you fall off \ntrucks, you slip and fall in the rain and stuff like that, and like, \nwhen I fell off the truck, I as layin’ flat on my back. I couldn’t \nmove, I couldn’t talk, I couldn't do anything. So it’s like I was \njust layin’ there and the rain was just fallin’ down on me. I \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  3 \ncouldn’t’ even close my eyes, so it’s just like I was there for, \nlike, 20 minutes. And then I was able to get up and I went \nhome. I didn’t think (sic.) anything of it ‘cause I played sports \nall my life, so, you know, I was – I just thought it was just a \nlittle injury and I get over it, go home, rest up and be fine.  \nSo the next day when I woke up, I couldn’t move at all. I \ncouldn’t’ move, I couldn’t talk, so for three days I was stuck in \nmy bed, non-verbal, non-communicative, none of that. So for \nthree days my grandmother set and prayed on me for three \ndays, and I finally came around and she said, “Go to the \ndoctor.” And when I went to the doctor, you know how the \ndoctor give you that look? So once he gave me that look and I \nseen the look that he had given to my grandmother and my \ngreat-grandmother, that look of ‘Okay’. And when he gave me \nthat look it was like my life hasn’t been the same since.  \n*** \nQ: Okay. So you’ve had multiple body parts injured in that \naccident at work; is that correct?  \nA: Correct \n***  \nQ: Okay. Do you recall specifically what body parts were     \ninjured in that fall?  \nA: My shoulders, wrist, head, pretty much everything. \nAs a result of this work accident, Claimant began drawing social \nsecurity disability benefits.  \n On December 27, 2021, Claimant was hired by Respondent as a \ncashier. The Claimant testified that he disclosed his pre-existing physical \nlimitations and restrictions to the Respondent prior to being hired:  \nQ: Now when you applied to work at Dollar General, did you \ntell them about all of these injuries that you’d – \nA: They knew my whole medical history. They knew \neverything. That’s why, when they hired me, they didn’t hire \nme as a stocker ‘cause they know I couldn’t’ do no liftin’. \nThat’s why they put me as a cashier.  \n \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  4 \n On November 15, 2022, Claimant was working for the Respondent. \nClaimant testified that on that date, the following occurred:  \nQ: Okay. Tell us what happened to you on November 15\nth\n, \n2022.  \nA: Okay. On that time, the cash register was down so we \nwasn’t only takin – what was it? We wasn’t takin’ cash – we \nwasn’t takin’ cash, we was takin’ cards only, and that Dollar \nGeneral had been – we had been goin’ through that back and \nforth, like it’d be sometimes we take cards, sometimes we \ntake cash.  \nBut we had a note on the door that said card only, so when \nthe guy walked in I’m like “Hey, guy, you know, how you doin’? \nYou know, card only.” I’m like “Card only. The door says card \nonly, card only.” So he put the money down and I said “Card \nonly. Card only.” And then I gave him his money back.  \n  So he commenced to start cussin’, “I’m gonna take this.”  \nI said, “Well, you can – you can take it but you gotta take it up \nwith Dollar General, but if you take it, don’t come back. I’m not \nfixin’ to fight with you, I’m not fixin’ to argue with you about \nthis. It’s not mine, it’s Dollar General’s but if you take it, don’t \ncome back, ‘cause there’s a camera right there lookin’ at your \nspot.” So then he caught an attitude and I said, “Well, can I \nhave that back since you payin’ – wanna pay with cash?” I \nsaid, “Can we put this back?” \nSo he got mad, and you know like when you – you get in – get \naggressive with somebody you know how you get in your \nstance ‘cause you feel like somebody’s fixin’ to try somethin’ \nto ya? So I got in that stance ‘cause I felt like he was fixin’ to \ndo somethin’ to me, but when I took the stance, my hip \npopped, so therefore I lost my balance and he picked me up \nand slammed me on the ground. \n The parties stipulated that the Claimant sustained admittedly \ncompensable injuries to his face and upper back/thoracic spine. The \nClaimant testified that he had not worked for any employer since the date of \nhis compensable injury. Claimant also testified that his position was \nterminated with the Respondent subsequent to the compensable injury.  \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  5 \nAccording to the record, the Claimant initially treated with Dr. Michael \nDelcastillo-Hegyi on November 17, 2022, who diagnosed Claimant with a \nlumbar transverse process fracture and a closed head injury. Dr. Delcastillo-\nHegyi then referred Claimant to Dr. Wayne Bruffett. Claimant began \ntreatment with Dr. Bruffett on December 12, 2022:  \nJoseph Taylor is a 52 year old male who presents to discuss \nconcerns about their Low Back Pain, Mid Back Pain, that \nbegan on 11/15/2022.  \n \n*** \nX-rays reveal transverse process fractures on the left side in \nthe lumbar spine.  \nHis CT is reviewed he does have fractures L2 L3-L4-L5 on the \nleft the L5 fracture is pretty subtle the other ones are more \nnotable on the axial images  \n \nAn MRI of the Claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on January 13, \n2023, with the following impression:  \n  Mild neural foraminal stenosis on the right at L3-4.  \n The Claimant followed up with Dr. Bruffett on January 23, 2023: \n   \nMr. Taylor has transverse process fractures on the left L2-L3-\nL4 and L5. I recommended an MRI scan. This study does not \nshow any disc herniation or burst fracture. These are isolated \ntransverse process fractures. I think he can be released to \nsome light sedentary office work although he says he was \nfired from his job unfortunately. I will see him back in 6 weeks \nand he will be at maximal medical improvement and I will \ncalculate his impairment rating. He has subjective complaints \nof a vibratory sensation and such. He also has a history of \nfibromyalgia. \n \n On February 22, 2023, Claimant followed up with Dr. Bruffett:  \n \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  6 \nMr. Taylor returns a little over 3 months status post work-\nrelated injury in which [he] sustained transverse process \nfractures L2-L3-L4 and L5. There is no change in his \nexamination today. I would say he is now at a point of \nmaximum medical improvement. Based on the American \nMedical Association guides to the evaluation of permanent \nimpairment fourth edition I would assign him an impairment \nrating of 19% of the whole person. This is based on 5% \ntransverse process fractures x4 using the combined values \nchart. He is released without restrictions. I will see him back \nas needed.  \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on October 22, 2024. The Claimant \ncontended:  \nThe Claimant contends that on or about November 15, 2022, \nhe sustained admittedly compensable injuries to his face and \nupper back/thoracic spine as a result of a work-related \nassault. On February 22, 2022, Dr. Wayne Bruffett ultimately \nreleased the Claimant with a 19% to the body-as-a-whole \n(BAW) permanent anatomical impairment rating, which the \nRespondents have accepted and paid. The Claimant \ncontends he is PTD as a result of his admittedly compensable \nwork-related injuries or, alternatively, he is entitled to \nsubstantial wage loss disability as a result of his compensable \ninjuries. He further contends his attorney is entitled to the \nmaximum statutory attorney’s fee. [...] \nThe Respondents contended:  \n \nThe Respondents contend they have accepted the Claimant’s \nface and upper back/thoracic spine injury as compensable \nand have paid all appropriate benefits to date, including but \nnot limited to Dr. Bruffett’s 19% BAW impairment rating. The \nRespondents contend the Claimant is not PTD, nor is he \nentitled to any wage loss disability related to his compensable \ninjuries. The Respondents contend that any wage loss \ndisability the Claimant may have sustained is not the “major \ncause” of his overall disability, which the Respondents \ncontend is the result of preexisting conditions. The \nRespondents further contend the Claimant has applied for and \ncurrently is receiving Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits \nand, therefore, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-411 \n(Lexis Replacement 2024) they are entitled to a dollar-for-\n\nTAYLOR – H208333  7 \ndollar credit/offset in the amount of any and all group health, \nand/or disability benefits, as well as any and all \nunemployment benefits paid to or on the Claimant’s behalf. \n[...] \nThe parties agreed to litigate the following issues:  \n1. Whether the Claimant is permanently and totally disabled \n(PTD) and, if not, the extent of the Claimant’s wage loss \ndisability, if any.  \n2. Whether and to what extent, if any, the Claimant’s attorney \nis entitled to a controverted fee on these facts.  \nAn administrative law judge filed an opinion on May 22, 2025. The \nadministrative law judge found that the Claimant failed to prove that he is \npermanently and totally disabled, or that he was entitled to any percentage \nof wage loss disability in excess of his permanent anatomical impairment \nrating. The Claimant appeals to the Full Commission.  \nII. ADJUDICATION \nThe wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has \naffected the Claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood. Grimes v. North Am. \nFoundry, 316 Ark. 295, 872 S.W.2d 59 (Ark. 1994). Arkansas Code \nAnnotated § 11-9-522(b)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part:  \n(1) In considering claims for permanent partial disability \nbenefits in excess of the employee’s percentage of \npermanent physical impairment, the Workers’ \nCompensation Commission may take into account, in \naddition to the percentage of permanent physical \nimpairment, such factors as the employee’s age, \neducation, work experience, and other matters reasonably \nexpected to affect his or her future earning capacity.  \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  8 \nSuch other matters are motivation, post injury income, credibility, demeanor, \nand a multitude of other factors.  Glass v. Edens, 233 Ark. 786, 346 S.W.2d \n685 (1961); City of Fayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 \n(1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990); \nCross v. Crawford County Memorial Hosp., supra. It is well established that \na claimant’s prior work history and education are factors to be considered in \ndetermining eligibility for wage-loss benefits.  See Cross v. Crawford County \nMemorial Hosp., supra.; Glass v. Edens, supra.; City of Fayetteville v. \nGuess, supra.; Curry v. Franklin Electric, supra. \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “4. The \nClaimant has failed to meet his burden of proof in demonstrating he is \nentitled to any percentage of wage loss disability in excess of his 19% BAW \npermanent anatomical impairment rating as a result of his subject \nNovember 15, 2022, compensable injury(ies). The Full Commission does \nnot affirm this finding.  \nClaimant is a 55-year-old high school graduate. Claimant testified \nthat he worked as a cook in various fast-food establishments, a night \nstocker, and a warehouse forklift operator. Claimant has obtained a \ncertification as a forklift operator, but that certification has since lapsed. \nClaimant testified that the job he had prior to working for Respondents was \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  9 \nwith the City of Little Rock as a waste management sanitation operator \napproximately 13-14 years ago.  \nThe parties stipulated that the Claimant was employed with the \nRespondents on November 15, 2022. The parties stipulated that the \nClaimant sustained compensable injuries on November 15, 2022. The \nrecord shows that the Claimant injured his face and back after an assault.  \nThe Claimant has not returned to work for any employer since the \nstipulated November 15, 2022, compensable injuries. The Claimant treated \nconservatively with Dr. Wayne Bruffett beginning on December 12, 2022. \nDr. Bruffett released the Claimant to full duty without restrictions on \nFebruary 22, 2023. On that same date, Dr. Bruffett placed Claimant at \nmaximum medical improvement with a permanent anatomical impairment \nrating of 19% to the whole person but continued to prescribe multiple \nmedications for pain for Claimant’s admittedly compensable back injuries.  \nThe Claimant’s position with the Respondents was terminated after \nNovember 15, 2022. According to the record, Respondents have not \nprovided any vocational assistance to the Claimant. There is nothing in the \nrecord that shows the Claimant is not interested in returning to appropriate \ngainful employment as required in City of Fayetteville v. Guess, supra. \nHowever, the evidence demonstrates that, as a result of the November 15, \n2022, compensable injuries, the Claimant is physically unable to return to \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  10 \nhis former position as a cashier employee for the Respondents. In \nconsidering the Claimant’s relatively young age of 55, his high school \neducation, the Claimant’s work history, and the 19% whole-body impairment \nrating, the Full Commission finds that the Claimant proved he sustained  \nwage-loss disability in the amount of 10% above his impairment rating of \n19%.  \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the Claimant proved he sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of \n10%. The Claimant proved that the November 15, 2022, compensable \ninjury was the major cause of his 19% anatomical impairment and 10% \nwage-loss disability in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-\n102(F)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012). The Claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal \nservices in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-715(a)(Repl. \n2012). For prevailing in part on appeal, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to \nan additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Arkansas Code \nAnnotated § 11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012).  \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      \n_______________________________ \n   SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman             \n \n_______________________________ \n   M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner   \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  11 \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION      \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding that the \nclaimant is entitled to wage-loss disability of ten percent (10%) in addition to \nhis nineteen percent (19%) permanent impairment rating. \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 Therefore, when a claimant has been assigned an anatomical \nimpairment rating to the body as a whole, the Commission has the authority \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  12 \nto increase the disability rating, and it can 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). The wage-loss factor is the extent to \nwhich a compensable injury has affected the claimant's ability to earn a \nlivelihood. Enterprise Products Company v. Leach, 2009 Ark. App. 148, 316 \nS.W.3d 253 (2009).  \n When determining wage-loss disability, the Commission may take \ninto account, in addition to the percentage of permanent physical \nimpairment, such factors as the employee’s age, education, work \nexperience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her \nfuture earning capacity.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(b)(1). Other factors may \ninclude but are not limited to motivation to return to work, post-injury \nearnings, credibility, and demeanor. Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. \n168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990).  \nOur courts also consider the claimant’s motivation to return to work \nsince lack of interest in pursuing employment impedes the assessment of \nthe claimant's loss of earning capacity. Logan County v. McDonald, 90 Ark. \nApp. 409, 206 S.W.3d 258 (2005). The Commission may use its own \nsuperior knowledge of industrial demands, limitations, and requirements in \nconjunction with the evidence to determine wage-loss disability. Taggart v. \nMid America Packaging, 2009 Ark. App. 335, 308 S.W.3d 643 (2009). \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  13 \n On November 15, 2022, the claimant suffered an admittedly \ncompensable injury to his lumbar spine in a work-related assault. Before \ngoing to work for the respondent employer, the claimant had not worked in \n13 years. The claimant has an extensive history of physical disabilities and \ninjuries to his back, which led to a period of unemployment between 2013 \nor 2014 and 2021, and he received social security benefits for “[p]robably \nlike 13 years” prior to beginning work for the respondent employer in 2021. \nThe claimant suffers from a litany of mental and physical conditions, \ntestifying that he has sought disability for every part of his body and had \nundergone nineteen surgeries prior to his employment with the respondent.  \n After his injury, the claimant was initially treated at the CHI St. \nVincent emergency room and was discharged the same day. He later came \nunder the care of orthopedic surgeon, Wayne Bruffett, M.D. In January \n2023, Dr. Bruffett opined that the claimant could return to light, sedentary \nwork; however, by that point the claimant had been terminated due to a \n“fight situation” at work.” After conservative treatment, Dr. Bruffett released \nthe claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on February 23, \n2023, with a nineteen percent (19%) permanent impairment rating. In the \nclaimant’s return to work note, Dr. Bruffett released the claimant with no \nrestrictions related to his compensable injury. While the claimant testified \nthat he is in a great deal of pain, the record reflects that Dr. Bruffett was \naware of those complaints before he released him to return to work with no \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  14 \nrestrictions. Further, the claimant has not sought any additional medical \ntreatment since he was released at MMI.  \n The claimant is a 55-year-old man with a high school education and \nextensive experience working as a cook, a warehouse associate, a \nconstruction worker, a forklift operator, and a caregiver. Since the time of \nhis injury, the claimant has taken no steps to return to work. At the hearing, \nthe claimant testified that he loved his job with the respondent and would \nhave continued working for them had he not been terminated and testified \nat his deposition that he is able to work.  \n The only evidence indicating that the claimant is currently unable to \nfind work is his own self-serving testimony. The claimant’s treating \nphysician, Wayne Bruffett, M.D. released the claimant with no restrictions \nfrom his compensable injury and there is no medical evidence to rebut Dr. \nBruffett’s findings. The credible evidence overwhelmingly supports that the \nclaimant’s purported inability to find suitable employment, if any, arises from \nhis significant pre-existing conditions and a clear desire to remain out of the \nwork force given his ongoing refusal to seek meaningful employment. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n \n                                                    \n___________________________________ \n                                          MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n\nTAYLOR – H208333  15","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208333 JOSEPH TAYLOR, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DOLGENCORP., LLC d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL STORE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT DOLGENCORP., LLC/ SEDGWICK CLAIMS MG’T SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 3, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMM...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.934Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H208333-2025-12-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Taylor_Joseph_H208333_20251203.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}