{"id":"full_commission-H302750-2026-02-06","awcc_number":"H302750","decision_date":"2026-02-06","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kevin Briggs","employer_name":"Utc Railcar Repair Services, LLC","title":"BRIGGS VS. UTC RAILCAR REPAIR SERVICES, LLC AWCC# H302750 February 06, 2026","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Briggs_Kevin_H302750_20260206.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Briggs_Kevin_H302750_20260206.pdf","text_length":14240,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H302750 \n \n KEVIN BRIGGS, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nUTC RAILCAR REPAIR SERVICES, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nOLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY/ \nCONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, LLC, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 6, 2026 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GREGORY R. GILES, Attorney \nat Law, Texarkana, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE R. SCOTT ZUERKER, \nAttorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n Respondents appeal an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed August 5, 2025.  In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has \njurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. I  hereby  accept  the  above-mentioned  proposed  stipulations  as \nfact.  \n \n3. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence \nthat  he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  left  shoulder  on \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  2\n  \n \n \nMarch  16,  2023,  during  and  in  the  course  and  scope  of  his \nemployment with UTC.  \n \n4. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible \nevidence that all the medical treatment of record was reasonably \nnecessary in connection with the left shoulder injury received by \nhim. No further medical treatment has been recommended for the \nClaimant’s left shoulder injury. \n \n5. The Claimant proved his entitled to temporary total disability \ncompensation from April 28, 2023, through and until September \n23, 2024. \n \n6. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he \nsustained a 5% whole person permanent impairment for his left \nshoulder injury.  \n \n7. The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible \nevidence that he sustained wage loss disability in the amount of \n22%.  \n \n8. The parties stipulated that the Respondents have controverted \nthis claim in its entirety. Therefore, the Claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on the indemnity benefits \nawarded to the Claimant herein.  \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 that the findings made by the Administrative Law Judge are \ncorrect and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission.  \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  3\n  \n \n \n We therefore affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, \nincluding all findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, and adopt the \nopinion as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal. \n All accrued benefits shall be paid in a lump sum without discount and \nwith interest thereon at the lawful rate from the date of the Administrative \nLaw Judge's decision in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. \n2012). \n For prevailing on this appeal before the Full Commission, claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the Full \nCommission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five \nhundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(b)(Repl. \n2012). \n  IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                       _____________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n                                       _____________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  4\n  \n \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding that the \nclaimant is entitled to a five percent (5%) permanent impairment rating and \nwage-loss disability of twenty-two percent (22%).  \nI. The claimant should be limited to the two percent (2%) \nwhole person impairment rating assigned by Dr. Sharp. \n \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 \nthose findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. \nArk Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(ii)(a).  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\nBRIGGS - H302750  5\n  \n \n \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. \nIn the present matter, the claimant received two whole person \nimpairment ratings.  The first was provided by Dr. Richard Sharp on \nSeptember 25, 2024, and the second was provided by Dr. Joe Huggins on \nApril 8, 2025.  In her opinion, the ALJ disregards Dr. Sharp’s evaluation, \nbecause it “does not take into account all of the Claimant’s resulting deficits \nfrom his compensable left shoulder injury.”  However, none of the deficits \nnoted in Dr. Huggins’s evaluation are anatomical in nature but rather are \nnon-compensable subjective complaints.  In his evaluation, Dr. Huggins \nnotes: \nHe rated his left shoulder pain as 3/10, \nand states that it varies from 3/10 two \n(sic) 8/10.  He states that lifting causes \nincreased pain.  He estimates that his left \nupper extremity strength is approximately \n55-60% of his preinjury strength.  He \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  6\n  \n \n \nstates that he has tingling in his thumb, \nmiddle finger, and ring finger of his left \nhand.  He states that he did not have this \nsymptom prior to his injury, so he thinks it \nis related to the shoulder injury.  He feels \nthat he has plateaued in his recovery. \n \nWith regard to activities of daily living Mr. \nBriggs indicates that he has difficulty \nputting on and taking off pullover shirts \nand coats.  He states that he has difficulty \ndrying his back with a towel.  He states \nthat he drives with his right hand only on \nthe wheel.  He states that he can mow his \nlawn on the riding mower, but cannot we \neat (sic) or use lawn tools such as a chain \nsaw.  He states that he cannot lay on his \nleft side.  He states that lifting any \nweights, including groceries, causes \nincreased discomfort and swelling in his \nleft shoulder.  He states that he cannot \nhold his dog on a leash with his left hand. \n \nEach of these complaints by the claimant is subjective and there are \nno objective findings in the record to support their inclusion in Dr. Huggins’s \nreport.  In fact, Dr. Huggins’s evaluation notes that the claimant’s ongoing \ncomplaints are “mild to moderate left shoulder pain and weakness.”  These \nsubjective complaints are an insufficient basis upon which to grant Dr. \nHuggins’s evaluation greater weight. \nOn the other hand, Dr. Sharp conducted a detailed physical \nexamination, finding: \nThe claimant moves on off and on (sic) \nthe exam table with ease.  No left upper \nextremity spasm or atrophy noted.  Deep \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  7\n  \n \n \ntendon reflexes are 1+ at biceps, triceps, \nand brachioradialis.  Sensation to pinprick \nis intact throughout the upper extremities. \nMotor strength is 5/5 at right shoulder, \nelbow, and grip.  Motor strength is 5/5 at \nleft elbow flexion and extension, left grip, \nshoulder internal rotation, adduction, \nforward flexion and 4/5 left external \nrotation and abduction.  No ataxia noted \nin the upper extremities.  Fine motor \ncoordination is normal at both hands. \nFully closes bilateral fists.  Right elbow \nrange of motion is 140 degrees flexion \nand 0 degrees extension.  Right pronation \n80 degrees and 80 degrees supination.  \nLeft elbow is 140 degrees flexion and 0 \ndegrees extension.  Left pronation is 80 \ndegrees and 80 degrees supination.  \nRight Shoulder range of  motion is 180 \ndegrees forward flexion and 50 degrees \nextension. Right abduction is 180 \ndegrees and 50 degrees adduction.  \nRight internal rotation is 90 degrees and \n90 degrees external rotation.  Left \nshoulder is 180 degrees forward flexion \nand 50 degrees extension.  Left \nabduction is 90 degrees and 50 degrees \nadduction. Left internal rotation is 90 \ndegrees and 90 degrees external rotation.  \nMild tenderness noted at the left \nsubacromial area and biceps proximally. \nNo warmth, crepitus, redness or effusion \nnoted.  Left empty can sign mildly \npositive.  Left Neer’s test negative. \nHawkin’s Test negative.  Left Speeds test \nslightly positive.  Yergason’s test slightly \npositive.  Externally rotated and supinated \narm against resistance positive. \nTenderness ad bicipital groove.  Cross \nbody adduction test negative. \nApprehension test negative.  No crepitus \nleft shoulder.  Well healed left shoulder \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  8\n  \n \n \nscars. \n \nIn contrast, Dr. Huggins’s report does not contain the extensive \ndetailed revealed in Dr. Sharp’s evaluation. \nFor these reasons, it is clear that the Commission should grant \ngreater weight to Dr. Sharp’s clear, detailed, and objective findings on the \nclaimant’s permanent impairment.  Dr. Huggins is limited by his focus on the \nclaimant’s subjective complaints, and his opinion therefore should be \nafforded less weight.  Because Dr. Sharp’s findings are clearly more \naccurate, the claimant should be limited to a two percent (2%) whole body \npermanent impairment rating. \nII. The claimant is not entitled to wage loss benefits. \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 \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  9\n  \n \n \nreasonably expected to \naffect his or her future \nearning capacity. \n \n Other factors may include but are not limited to motivation to return \nto work, post-injury earnings, credibility, and demeanor.  Curry v. Franklin \nElectric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990).  \nTherefore, when a claimant has been assigned an anatomical \nimpairment rating to the body as a whole, the Commission may increase \nthe disability rating and find a claimant permanently disabled based upon \nwage-loss factors.  Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 89 Ark. App. 228, 201 \nS.W.3d 449 (2005).  \nThe wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has \naffected the claimant's ability to earn a livelihood.  Enterprise Products \nCompany v. Leach, 2009 Ark. App. 148, 316 S.W.3d 253 (2009).  \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).  \nThe Commission may use its own superior knowledge of industrial \ndemands, limitations, and requirements in conjunction with the evidence to \ndetermine wage-loss disability.  Taggart v. Mid America Packaging, 2009 \nArk. App. 335, 308 S.W.3d 643 (2009). \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  10\n  \n \n \nHere, the claimant is fifty-three years old with a high school \neducation.  After graduating from high school in 1992, the claimant served \nas a volunteer firefighter for approximately eighteen years, and obtained \ncertifications and training related to that field during that time.  The claimant \ntestified that he has approximately eighteen to twenty years of experience \nin welding and maintenance work. \nPresently, the claimant acknowledges that he can lift, carry, and \nmanage fifteen pounds.  While he does not subjectively believe that he can \nreturn to work as a welder, the claimant testified that he believes he could \nmanage driving a forklift or office type work and has submitted around \nseventeen job applications for these kinds of positions.  He continues to \nlook for work. \nIn her opinion, the ALJ relies on the fact that the claimant has not \nreceived any responses to his ongoing applications as the basis for granting \nhim twenty-two percent (22%) wage loss.  This is premature.  The claimant \nhas a clear desire to return to work and is qualified for a variety of roles. \nThere is no indication that the claimant will be unable to return to the work \nforce at any point.  There is simply no basis on which to grant the claimant \nwage loss when he is ready, willing, and able to return to work. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent. \n                                                   \n\nBRIGGS - H302750  11\n  \n \n \n                                       _____________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H302750 KEVIN BRIGGS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UTC RAILCAR REPAIR SERVICES, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY/ CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, LLC, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 6, 2026 Up...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.839Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H302750-2026-02-06","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Briggs_Kevin_H302750_20260206.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}