{"id":"full_commission-H208417-2026-03-20","awcc_number":"H208417","decision_date":"2026-03-20","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"William Cyrus","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock","title":"CYRUS VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# H208417 March 20, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["fracture","back","thoracic","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cyrus_William_H208417_20260320.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Cyrus_William_H208417_20260320.pdf","text_length":21213,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H208417  \n \nWILLIAM CYRUS, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED MARCH 20, 2026  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nOctober 21, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove he was entitled to “a permanent partial disability rating.”  \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that \nthe claimant proved he sustained permanent anatomical impairment in the \namount of 2%.    \nI.  HISTORY \n William Charles Cyrus, now age 61, testified that he became \nemployed with the respondents, City of Little Rock, in about April 2019.  \n\nCYRUS - H208417  2\n  \n \n \nThe parties stipulated that an employment relationship existed on \nNovember 25, 2022.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  And on this date, were you injured on the job? \n  A.  I was. \n  Q.  Just briefly tell the judge what happened. \nA.  Well, we had pulled up to an address that we needed to \nclean, and I jumped out of the truck before the guy that was \ndriving did.  And as I jumped out of the truck, a black Charger \ndrove up behind us and kind of pulled a little bit further to the \nside of us, and a guy come out and talked out the window and \nsat on top of the hood and start firing with a gun with a \nsilencer on it, and that’s why I was shot because I never heard \na sound.   \nQ.  And so what were you there to do?  Were y’all cleaning off \nthis lot? \nA.  We was cleaning debris off of it getting ready to cut it.   \n \n According to the record, the claimant was treated at UAMS on \nNovember 25, 2022: \nCyrus R. William is a 58 y.o. male brought in by EMS \nfollowing gsw x2 to the torso.  Patient denies LOC.  Unaware \nof attacked.  Handgun ballistics at close range.... \nCT Chest Abdomen and Pelvis \n-IMPRESSION. \n1.  Comminuted fracture on the right 8\nth\n rib as well as the right \ntransverse process and spinous process of T8 vertebra. \n2.  Bilateral pulmonary contusions are seen, greater on the \nright with right-sided hemothorax. \n3.  Active hemorrhage seen along the posterolateral 9\nth\n rib \nsuperficially, likely coming from the 9\nth\n intercostal artery.   \n4.  No acute findings within the abdomen or pelvis.   \n \n Dr. Sydney M. Hodgeson noted on November 25, 2022: \n[M]ale presenting with T6-T7 spinous process fractures and R \nT8 transverse process fracture s/p GSW that occurred around \n11:00 today. \nOther injuries:  hemothorax, rib fractures.... \n\nCYRUS - H208417  3\n  \n \n \nBack:  Ballistic wound over R lateral back and L lateral back.  \nTTP over mid-lower thoracic spine.  There are no palpable \ndeformities appreciated.... \nImaging:  CT c/a/p were independently reviewed which \ndemonstrated T6-T7 spinous process fractures and R T8 \ntransverse process fracture.   \n \n Dr. Hodgeson assessed “58 y.o. male T6-T7 spinous process \nfractures and R T8 transverse process fracture s/p GSW to the back with no \nneuro deficits.”  Dr. Hodgeson planned “No acute orthopaedic spine \nintervention” and “Non-operative management.”  Dr. David B. Bumpass co-\nsigned Dr. Hodgeson’s report. \n The claimant was discharged from UAMS on November 26, 2022 \nwith the diagnosis, “GSW, stable T spine fracture.”  The parties stipulated \nthat “the claim was accepted as compensable and certain benefits have \nbeen paid.”    \n An x-ray of the claimant’s thoracic spine was taken on December 13, \n2022 with the following findings: \nComparison is made with prior examination dated 11/26/2022.  \nThe vertebral body heights are maintained.  The alignment is \nintact.  Mild degenerative changes are stable.  Known right T8 \ntransverse and spinous process fractures are in very difficult \nto visualize.  No interval abnormalities are noted. \nImpression:  Unremarkable thoracic spine.  Known right T8 \ntransverse and spinous process fractures are difficult to \nvisualized (sic).   \n \n An APRN returned the claimant to light duty on December 13, 2022.   \nAn APRN noted on January 5, 2023: \n\nCYRUS - H208417  4\n  \n \n \nMr. Cyrus is a 58 y.o. male who presents to surgery clinic for \nfollow up after GSW to back (11/25/22) with R. rib fx, T spine, \nfx, R. hemothorax and pulm contusion.  He states that he is \ndoing well overall.  Improved ROM, breathing and pain \nmanaged adequately with PO medications.  Mild throbbing \nsoreness preset (sic) toward the end of the day, but feel he is \nable to perform daily functions without difficulties....Able to \ntake deep inspiration without any pain/difficulties.... \nCT Chest with contrast 1/4/2022 \nNo acute process within the chest.   \nHealing 7 right rib fracture and unchanged appearance of T8 \nspinous process fracture.   \n \n The APRN assessed, “Mr. Cyrus is a 58 y.o. male who presents to \nsurgery clinic for follow up after GSW to back with R. rib fx, T spine fx, R. \nhemothorax and pulm contusion.  Plan:  No need for followup at this \ntime....Ok to return to full activity per trauma perspective.” \n An x-ray of the claimant’s thoracic spine was taken on January 23, \n2023 with the following findings: \nThe known right T8 transverse process and spinous process \nfractures are again not confidently visualized on the plain \nradiographs.  The alignment and curvature of the thoracic \nspine remains stable with no interval acute vertebral body \ncollapse/compression.  Pedicles appear intact.   \nVisualized lungs are clear.  The cardiomediastinal silhouette is \nwithin normal limits.   \nImpression \nNo significant interval change since the prior radiograph.  The \nknown right T8 transverse and spinous process fractures are \nagain not confidently identified on the plain films.   \n \n Dr. Bumpass reported on January 23, 2023: \nPatient presents today for follow-up of T8 spinous process \nfracture and transverse process fracture secondary to gunshot \ninjury.  This is a worker’s compensation injury.  It occurred \n\nCYRUS - H208417  5\n  \n \n \nNovember 25, 2022.  No neurological injury.  He has had \ndefinite improvement in pain symptoms last visit in December.  \nAt this time he reports that his function has returned to normal \nand he has minimal pain.... \nImaging:  Unchanged alignment spine AP and lateral views, \nreviewed and interpreted by myself.  Cannot clearly identify \nfractures on radiographs. \nAssessment:  Healed T8 fractures, secondary to non \noperative treatment, after gunshot wound sustained \nNovember 25, 2022.   \nPlan:  This time the patient can follow up with me on an as-\nneeded basis.  He has no work restrictions.  He has no need \nfor a permanent impairment rating.  He is at maximum \nmedical improvement.   \n \n Dr. Bumpass also stated on January 23, 2023, “It is my medical \nopinion that Mr. Cyrus may return to work on 1/24/23 with no restrictions.”      \n Casey Garretson, an Occupational Therapist at Functional Testing \nCenters, Inc., provided an IMPAIRMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY on \nMarch 7, 2025: \nMr. Cyrus reports an injury at work when he was picking up \ntrash and he reports a car drove up and started shooting at \nMr. Cyrus’s co-worker, and he reports one of the bullets shot \nhim through the right side of his torso and the bullet came out \nof the other side of his torso....He reports the bullet hit his \nspine and when he full (sic) he broke a rib or two.... \nAccording to the “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent \nImpairment, Fourth Edition”; Mr. Cyrus has a permanent \nimpairment rating of 2% of the Whole Person due to his work \nrelated injury.   \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on June 17, 2025.  The claimant \ncontended, “The Claimant sustained compensable injuries as a result of [a] \ngunshot wound on or about November 25, 2022, in the course and scope of \n\nCYRUS - H208417  6\n  \n \n \nhis employment.  The Respondents accepted the claim and paid medical \nand indemnity benefits.  The Claimant sustained gunshot wounds in the \ncourse and scope of his employment.  He has permanent anatomical loss \nas a result of these wounds.  The Claimant contends that he is entitled to \npermanent partial disability benefits for his injuries.  The Claimant sought an \nevaluation with the Functional Testing Centers for his permanent \nimpairment.  The Claimant has been assigned a 2% impairment rating \nwhich has been controverted by Respondents.  The Claimant is either \nentitled to the 2% rating or the Commission should assess impairment in \naccordance with Arkansas law.  If the Commission finds that [it] is without \nsufficient information upon which to assess the Claimant’s impairment, it \nshould order an Independent Medical Examination in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-511.  Claimant also contends that the cost of the \nimpairment evaluation with Functional Testing Centers is reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment for which Respondents should be responsible.  \nClaimant’s attorney is entitled to attorney’s fees on all controverted \nindemnity.  All other issues are reserved.”   \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that all \nappropriate benefits are being paid with regard to Claimant’s compensable \ninjuries sustained on 11/25/22.  Claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Bumpass, \nindicated that he reached MMI on 1/23/23 with a 0% impairment rating.  \n\nCYRUS - H208417  7\n  \n \n \nClaimant’s rating evaluation performed by Functional Testing Centers is not \nmedical treatment, and Respondents should not be responsible for the \nsame.  Likewise, an IME is not reasonable and necessary, as permanency \nhas already been addressed by Claimant’s treating physician.” \n According to the text of the pre-hearing order, the parties agreed to \nlitigate the following issues: \n1. Average Weekly Wage.  If the parties are unable to reach \nan agreement on this issue, they are required to submit a \nbrief seven days prior to the hearing. \n2. Underpayment or overpayment of TTD. \n3. Entitlement to PPD. \n4. Reasonable and necessary medical expenses. \n5. Attorney Fees.   \n \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nOctober 21, 2025.  The administrative law judge found, among other things, \nthat there was “insufficient evidence to satisfy the required burden of proof \nto show that the claimant is entitled to a permanent partial disability rating.”  \nThe administrative law judge found that a requested Independent Medical \nEvaluation was not reasonably necessary.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Permanent impairment is any functional or anatomical loss remaining \nafter the healing period has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 \nArk. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994).  The Commission has adopted the \n\nCYRUS - H208417  8\n  \n \n \nAmerican Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent \nImpairment (4\nth\n ed. 1993) to be used in assessing anatomical impairment.  \nSee Commission Rule 34; Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(g)(Repl. 2012).  It is \nthe Commission’s duty, using the Guides, to determine whether the \nclaimant has proved he is entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment.  \nPolk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001). \n Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment \nshall be supported by objective and measurable physical findings.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-704(c)(1)(Repl. 2012).  Objective findings are those \nfindings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  Although it is true that the \nlegislature has required medical evidence supported by objective findings to \nestablish a compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is \nrequired to establish each and every element of compensability.  Stephens \nTruck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).  All that \nis required is that the medical evidence be supported by objective medical \nfindings.  Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244 S.W.3d 709 \n(2006).  Medical opinions addressing impairment must be stated within a \nreasonable degree of medical certainty.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(16)(B)(Repl. 2012). \n\nCYRUS - H208417  9\n  \n \n \n Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that \nthe compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means \n“more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of major cause \nshall be established according to the preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(14)(Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  \nMetropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d \n252 (2003).       \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “5.  That the \nClaimant is found to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) \non January 23, 2023, with a 0% impairment rating as assigned by his \ntreating physician and that there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the \nrequired burden of proof to show that the claimant is entitled to a permanent \npartial disability rating.”  The Full Commission does not affirm this finding.     \n The parties agreed that the claimant sustained compensable injuries \non November 25, 2022.  The claimant testified that he was performing \nclean-up work for the City of Little Rock when he was randomly shot with a \nhandgun.  The medical evidence showed that the claimant was shot twice \nin the back, once under each shoulder.  There were a number of objective \nfindings demonstrated following the compensable injury.  These objective \n\nCYRUS - H208417  10\n  \n \n \nfindings included a rib fracture, thoracic spine fracture, and pulmonary \ncontusion.  The claimant was treated nonoperatively.  Dr. Bumpass from \nUAMS released the claimant on January 23, 2023 and concluded in part, \n“He has no need for a permanent impairment rating.”  The claimant has \nsince returned to full-duty work for the respondents.     \n As we have discussed, the record contains an “IMPAIRMENT \nEVALUATION SUMMARY – Spine” prepared at Functional Testing \nCenters, Inc. on March 7, 2025.  An occupational therapist opined, \n“According to the “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, \nFourth Edition’:  Mr. Cyrus has a permanent impairment rating of 2% of the \nWhole Person due to his work related injury.”  A 2% permanent anatomical \nimpairment rating is fully supported by objective medical findings not within \nthe claimant’s voluntary control, including rib fractures, bilateral pulmonary \ncontusions, and hemorrhage.  The 2% percent rating is also wholly \nconsistent with the 4\nth\n Edition of the Guides at Table 75, page 3/113.  The \nFull Commission recognizes Dr. Bumpass’ conclusion that that there was \n“no need for a permanent impairment rating.”  Nevertheless, the \nCommission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if the evidence \nis conflicting, its resolution is a question of fact for the Commission.  Green \nBay Packaging v. Bartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 695 (1999).  It is \nwithin the Commission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence and \n\nCYRUS - H208417  11\n  \n \n \nto determine what is most credible.  Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 \nArk. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  In the present matter, the Full \nCommission finds that the assessment of a 2% permanent anatomical \nimpairment rating at Functional Testing Centers is entitled to more \nevidentiary weight than Dr. Bumpass’ conclusion that there was “no need \nfor a permanent impairment rating.”   \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained a \n2% permanent anatomical impairment rating.  We find that the 2% rating is \nsupported by the 4\nth\n Edition of the Guides.  The 2% rating is supported by \nobjective medical findings, and evaluation at Functional Testing Centers \nwas stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  The claimant \nalso proved that the compensable injury he sustained on November 25, \n2022 was the major cause of the 2% permanent anatomical impairment \nrating. \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, therefore, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved he sustained 2% permanent \nanatomical impairment as a result of the compensable injury he sustained \non November 25, 2022.  The claimant proved that the evaluation at \nFunctional Testing Centers, Inc. was reasonably necessary in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  See Gansky v. Hi-Tech \nEng’g, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996).  The claimant’s attorney is \n\nCYRUS - H208417  12\n  \n \n \nentitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012).   \n IT IS SO ORDERED.     \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \nDISSENTING OPINION \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding that the \nclaimant is entitled to a two percent (2%) permanent impairment rating. \n\"Permanent impairment\" has been defined as \"any permanent \nfunctional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has \nended.\" Carrick v. Baptist Health, 2022 Ark. App. 134, 643 S.W.3d 466 \n(2022).  \nAny determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment \nmust be supported by objective and measurable physical or mental \nfindings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B).  \"Objective findings\" are those \nfindings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Ark \n\nCYRUS - H208417  13\n  \n \n \nCode Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  Complaints of pain are not to be \nconsidered objective medical findings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(16)(A)(ii)(a); Reed v. First Step, Inc., 2019 Ark. App. 289, 577 S.W.3d \n424 (2019).  \nThe Commission is authorized to decide which portions of the medical \nevidence to credit and to translate this evidence into a finding of permanent \nimpairment using the AMA Guides; thus, the Commission may assess its own \nimpairment rating rather than rely solely on its determination of the validity of \nratings assigned by physicians.  Carrick, 2022 Ark. App. 134, 643 S.W.3d 466 \n(2022).  \nIn weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard \nmedical evidence or the testimony of any witness.  Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, \n2021 Ark. App. 459,637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  However, the Commission has the \nauthority to accept or reject medical opinions.  Williams v. Ark. Dept. of \nCommunity Corrections, 2016 Ark. App. 427, 502 S.W. 3d 530 (2016). \nFurthermore, it is the Commission's duty to use its experience and expertise in \ntranslating the testimony of medical experts into findings of fact and to draw \ninferences when testimony is open to more than a single interpretation.  Id. \nHere, although the claimant was diagnosed as having a rib fracture, a \nthoracic spine fracture, hemothorax, and pulmonary contusion, he was released \nto full duty on January 5, 2023.  \n\nCYRUS - H208417  14\n  \n \n \nA January 23, 2023 thoracic x-ray revealed that “[t]he known right T8 \ntransverse process and spinous process fractures are again not confidently \nidentified on the plain films.”  The claimant treated with Dr. David Bumpass on \nthat date.  Dr. Bumpass reported “[n]o neurological injury.  He has had definite \nimprovement in pain symptoms since last visit in December.  At this time he \nreports that his function has returned to normal and he has minimal pain.”  Dr. \nBumpass opined that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement \non January 23, 2023, and assigned no impairment rating.  \nThe claimant has continued to work since the time of his injury, including \nwashing dishes, at Black Bear Diner before returning to work filling potholes for \nthe city of Little Rock.  He has had no problems performing either job.  The \nclaimant has no restrictions from any doctor and suffers no permanent effects \nfrom his injuries. \nThe ALJ was correct in finding that because the claimant underwent a \nfunctional capacity evaluation over two years after his injuries, there is \ninsufficient evidence to show that the claimant is entitled to a permanent \nimpairment rating.  The claimant’s treating physician did not assign an \nimpairment rating, and the claimant has worked physical jobs with no issues \nduring this time.  There is simply no evidence that the claimant suffers any \npermanent impairment from his injuries. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent. \n\nCYRUS - H208417  15\n  \n \n \n    \n    _______________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208417 WILLIAM CYRUS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 20, 2026","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.631Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H208417-2026-03-20","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cyrus_William_H208417_20260320.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}