{"id":"full_commission-H303639-2025-09-29","awcc_number":"H303639","decision_date":"2025-09-29","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Afrim Rushani","employer_name":"Nbmc, Inc","title":"RUSHANI VS. NBMC, INC. AWCC# H303639 September 29, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Rushani_Afrim_H303639_20250929.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Rushani_Afrim_H303639_20250929.pdf","text_length":6340,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.  H303639 \n  \nAFRIM RUSHANI, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nNBMC, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF CT, CARRIER \nTHE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 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 MICHAEL E. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rok, 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 June 26, 2025.  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 accepted. \n \n3. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe is entitled to a wage-loss benefit of ten percent (10%) over and \nabove his eight percent (8%) whole-body impairment rating for his \nstipulated compensable back injury. \n\n \nRUSHANI - H303639  2\n  \n \n \n4. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that \nhe  is  entitled  to  an  attorney’s  fee  on  the  indemnity  benefits \nawarded in this opinion. \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 June 26, \n2025 decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, \ncorrectly applies the law, and should be affirmed.  Specifically, we find from \na preponderance of the evidence that the findings of fact made by the \nAdministrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by \nthe Full Commission.  \n Therefore we affirm and adopt the decision of the Administrative Law \nJudge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as the decision of the \nFull Commission on appeal.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents. \n \n \n \n \n\n \nRUSHANI - H303639  3\n  \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n \nThe Claimant appeals an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter \nreferred to as “ALJ”) Opinion which stated that Claimant has proven by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a wage-loss benefit of \nten percent (10%) over and above his eight percent (8%) whole-body \nimpairment rating for his stipulated compensable back injury.  After \nconducting a thorough review of the record, I would find that the Claimant is \nentitled to a thirty-five percent (35%) wage-loss benefit over and above his \neight percent (8%) whole-body impairment rating for his stipulated \ncompensable back injury.  \nWage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has \naffected the Claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood.  Whitlatch v. Southland \nLand & Dev., 84 Ark. App. 399, 141 S.W. 3d 916 (2004).  The Commission \nis charged with the duty of determining disability.  Cross v. Crawford County \nMemorial Hosp., 54 Ark. App. 130, 923 S.W.2d 886 (1996).  In considering \nclaims for permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the employee’s \npercentage of permanent physical impairment, the Workers’ Compensation \nCommission may take into account, in addition to the percentage of \npermanent physical impairment, such factors as the employee’s age, \n\n \nRUSHANI - H303639  4\n  \n \n \neducation, work experience, and other matters reasonably expected to \naffect his or her future earning capacity.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b)(1). \nSuch other matters are motivation, post-injury income, credibility, \ndemeanor, and a multitude of other factors.  Glass v. Edens, 233 Ark. 786, \n346 S.W.2d 685 (1961); City of Fayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 \nS.W.2d 946 (1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 \nS.W.2d 130 (1990); Cross v. Crawford County Memorial Hosp., supra.  It is \nwell established that a claimant’s prior work history and education are \nfactors to be considered in determining eligibility for wage-loss benefits.  \nSee Cross v. Crawford County Memorial Hosp., supra.; Glass v. Edens, \nsupra.; City of Fayetteville v. Guess, supra.; Curry v. Franklin Electric, \nsupra. \n Claimant is 36 years old.  Claimant did not graduate high school and \nhas an education up to sophomore year in high school.  Claimant began \nworking manual labor jobs since leaving high school and has no higher \neducation or certifications.  Claimant’s work-history is only in manual labor. \nIn the ALJ’s Opinion, it is noted that the Claimant has few skills that would \ntranslate outside of physical labor. \n Claimant underwent a functional capacity evaluation (or “FCE”) on \nApril 29, 2024, where he was given a light classification with reliable results \n\n \nRUSHANI - H303639  5\n  \n \n \nbased on an 8-hour workday.  Of note, the Claimant put forth 49 out of 49 \nconsistency measures within expected limits.  Ultimately, the Respondents \ndid not return the Claimant to any position within their company that fit within \nthe Claimant’s light classification.  \nClaimant’s compensable injuries have affected his ability to earn a \nlivelihood.  Claimant  has  limited  education.    Claimant  is  unable  to  perform \nlabor intensive work as he has in the past.  Pursuant to the stipulations by \nthe  parties  at  the  hearing,  the  Claimant’s  average  weekly  wages  were \napproximately  $1,159.89.    The  credible  evidence  in  the  record  supports  a \nfinding that the Claimant will be unable to earn wages in that range given his \nlimited  training  and  work  restrictions.  This  Commission  has  ruled  that \nsignificant  wage-loss benefits  are appropriate  for  fact  patterns  such  as  the \ncase at hand.  See Ark. Dot v. Abercrombie, 2019 Ark. App. 372, 584 S.W.3d \n701 (2019); Ark. Highway & Transp. Dep’t v. Wiggins, 2016 Ark. App. 364, \n499 S.W.3d 229.  Therefore, I would rule that the Claimant is entitled to 35% \nwage-loss disability over and above his permanent impairment rating. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n  M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303639 AFRIM RUSHANI, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NBMC, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF CT, CARRIER THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSIO...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.066Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H303639-2025-09-29","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Rushani_Afrim_H303639_20250929.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}