{"id":"full_commission-H304408-2025-06-30","awcc_number":"H304408","decision_date":"2025-06-30","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Charles Anderson","employer_name":"White Hall School District","title":"ANDERSON VS. WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H304408 June 30, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Anderson_Charles_H304408_20250630.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Anderson_Charles_H304408_20250630.pdf","text_length":34358,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H304408 \n \nCHARLES ANDERSON, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nWHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION \nWCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JUNE 30, 2025  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE DANIEL E. WREN, Attorney at \nLaw, 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 respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nFebruary 7, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nproved he was permanently totally disabled.  After reviewing the entire \nrecord de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove \nhe was permanently totally disabled.  We find that the claimant proved he \nsustained wage-loss disability in the amount of 25%.     \nI.  HISTORY \n Charles Anderson, now age 58, testified that he was a high school \ngraduate.  Mr. Anderson testified that his primary field of employment had \n\nANDERSON - H304408  2\n  \n \n \nbeen in the area of “maintenance.”  The claimant testified on cross-\nexamination that he had performed electrical work, plumbing, HVAC, \npainting, and roofing.  The claimant testified that he had worked for \nhospitals, nursing homes, and hotels.  The claimant had worked as a \nMaintenance Supervisor for at least two employers, including Saracen \nCasino.   \n The claimant testified that he became employed with the \nrespondents, White Hall School District, in October 2022.  The parties \nstipulated that the employment relationship existed at all pertinent times, \nincluding April 3, 2023.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  And at one point, were you working for the White Hall \nSchool District? \n A.  Yes. \n Q.  How long did you work there? \n A.  Six months. \n Q.  And what was your job title? \n A.  Maintenance man.   \nQ.  We don’t have to cover everything, but can you give me a \nthumbnail sketch of what your duties were as a maintenance \nperson for the White Hall School District? \nA.  Duties, electrical, plumbing, painting, drywall, HVAC, \nlifting, climbing, and just, basically, whatever came up. \nQ.  When you say, “Whatever came up,” basically, is it fair to \nsay your job was to take care of the physical building and \nstructures that belong to the White Hall School District? \nA.  Yes.... \nQ.  And we don’t have to get into all the details, but tell me \nhow you got hurt? \nA.  Okay....We had a problem down at the Redfield \nElementary School.  So [the supervisor] was discussing we \nneed to take care of that, had some bad ceiling tiles that were \nfalling.  We didn’t want it to fall on the kids, so that was our \n\nANDERSON - H304408  3\n  \n \n \nfirst duties for that day to try and make it down there, before \nthe school even opened.... \nQ.  And did you get there in a van? \nA.  Yes, I did.... \nQ.  Where were [the ceiling tiles]? \nA.  In the back of the van. \nQ.  At some point did you try to get them out? \nA.  No.  I got co-workers to help me to get it out, because they \nknew what had happened to me putting them in. \nQ.  Okay.  So you got hurt putting those tiles into the back of \nthe van, is that correct? \nA.  Yes, yes....I put them on the dolly and I rolled them to the \nvan and by me not having no help at the time, I just laid the \nfront part over in the van and as I was picking up to pick them \nup to scoot them in the van that’s when the accident occurred. \n \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “suffered an accepted \ncompensable injury” on April 3, 2023.  The claimant testified that he had not \nworked for any employer since the date of his compensable injury.  \nAccording to the record, the claimant treated with Trent Tappan, PA-C \nbeginning July 12, 2023: \nMr. Anderson is a 56-year-old man who was involved in a \nwork-related injury in April.  Early April he was lifting some \nstuff helping to clean up from a room and picked up and \ntwisted something and felt severe pain in his back with \nradiation down the left leg.  Basically since that time he had a \nsevere left radiculopathy type of sciatic pain that not really \nimproved.  He has been on some naproxen and \ncyclobenzaprine.  The only thing that seemed to help him \n[was] some hydrocodone from his sister that he would take \nevery now and then.  He is miserable.  This poor guy has not \nbeen able to get any relief.  I am not sure he has had any \nspecific treatment but he has not been able to return to work \nfor 3 months.... \nI reviewed the x-rays of the lumbar spine which were mild \ndegenerative changes.   \n\nANDERSON - H304408  4\n  \n \n \nI had a long visit with Mr. Anderson about his symptoms and \nimages.  This poor man is miserable.  He has had a lot of \nsevere pain in his back and leg for 3 months.  He has not \nbeen able to work because of the degree of pain.  He has \ndifficulty ambulating in the exam room.  I told him I would give \nhim some more pain medication to have on hand.  I \nprescribed keep him off work for now until he returns.  I would \nrecommend an MRI of his lumbar spine for further \nevaluation....He says that he has not been able to work in 3-\nmonth so he is has (sic) not been able to pay his bills or car \npayment in 3 months.   \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on July 14, 2023 \nwith the following impression: \n1. At L1-L2, there is a broad disc protrusion with bilateral \nsubarticular and left greater than right foraminal \ncomponents.  Effacement of the exiting left L1 nerve root \nfrom foraminal disc protrusion.  Likely effacement of the \ntraversing left L2 nerve root from subarticular disc \nprotrusion.  Recommend correlation for radiculopathy. \n2. At L2-L3, there is moderate left and mild right neural \nforaminal stenosis. \n3. Diffusely heterogenous marrow signal, nonspecific.  This \ncan be seen with anemia or marrow \nconversion/myeloproliferative disorders.  Clinical \ncorrelation is recommended. \n \nThe claimant followed up with Trent Tappan on July 14, 2023: \nMr. Anderson returns after getting the MRI of his lumbar \nspine.  He continues to have severe pain in his low back and \nleft hip and groin and thigh.  This began after a work-related \ninjury a few months back.  He has very severe constant pain.  \nHe has not been able to work since the injury.  Unfortunately \nhe has not had any specific treatment.... \nI reviewed the x-rays of the lumbar spine which reveal \ndegenerative changes.  I reviewed the MRI which reveals disc \nherniation at L1 to the left in the foramen with L1 nerve root \nimpingement.   \n\nANDERSON - H304408  5\n  \n \n \nI suspect Mr. Anderson is symptomatic from a disc herniation \nat L1-2 on the left....I would recommend a transforaminal \nepidural steroid injection at L1-2 on the left.  I am hopeful \nmaybe this will calm down his inflammatory symptoms.  I am \nalso going to release him to light sedentary office work.  They \nmay not be able to accommodate this.  But I would like for him \nto be able to get out of the house and at least return to some \nkind of employment for the time being.  We will get this set up \nand I will see him back when the injection is complete.   \n \n Trent Tappan signed a “Return to Work” form on July 14, 2023:  \n“Activity is restricted as follows:  Light sedentary office work.”   \nTrent Tappan performed an epidural steroid injection on or about \nAugust 3, 2023.  Mr. Tappan reported on August 18, 2023, “Mr. Anderson \nreturns after getting a transforaminal epidural steroid injection at L1-2 on \nthe left.  This helped him quite a bit but only for about a week.  He has \nrecurring pain in his back radiation to the left groin and leg....He is doubtful \nthat he is going to be able to return back to his regular occupation despite \nthe treatment offered him and I think that is actually somewhat \nunderstandable.  He wants to consider disability and I told him that is up to \nhim and his option....He wants to try another injection which I think is fine.  \nAs for now I am going to keep him on his current work restrictions we will \nset up a second injection at L1-2 on the left.  I told him I would plan to see \nhim back after the injection and placement [of] maximum medical \nimprovement and release him at that time.”   \nThe claimant followed up with Trent Tappan on November 2, 2023: \n\nANDERSON - H304408  6\n  \n \n \nMr. Anderson returns after getting another transforaminal \nepidural steroid injection at L1-2 on the left.  This will did (sic) \nhelp him quite a bit.  He is doing better today.  He still has \nsome pain but he is improved quite a bit I believe from where \nhe began although he [is] still symptomatic.  We had a long \nvisit about further options.  I think he [has] been rendered \nsymptomatic from this disc herniation at L1-2 on the left.  This \nwas likely the result of his work-related injury.  We discussed \nsome further treatment options.  I told Mr. Anderson that I \nthink if he had surgery would likely need a facetectomy and a \nfusion.  He really does not want to have surgery and I would \nagree with that.  I do not think it would be the overall best care \nhomerun for him.  It would be an option [if he] wants to pursue \nthat but I agree with him right now [I would leave] this alone.  \nHe is improving and I think this will continue to improve.  I do \nnot think there is any need to repeat any more injections at \nthis point.  I plan to just release him in 1 to place him at \nmaximal medical improvement and release him to work \nwithout restrictions.  But I will calculate an impairment rating \nbased on the disc herniation and a letter to follow.  I will just \nsee him back as needed.   \n \n Trent Tappan signed a “Return to Work/School” form on November \n2, 2023:  “Work limitations:  Released to work no restrictions.”  Mr. Tappan \nstated on November 3, 2023, “based on the American Medical Association \nguidelines and permanent impairment rating fourth edition page 3/113 table \n75 I would award Mr. Anderson a 7% impairment of the whole person \nbased on his disc herniation at L1-2 on the left.”  The parties stipulated that \nthe claimant “has been assigned a permanent disability rating of 7% to the \nbody as a whole.” \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  During this period of time that you were off work, did they \nfind you had some cancer in your stomach? \n\nANDERSON - H304408  7\n  \n \n \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And were you treated for that? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And was your cancer doctor giving you pain medication for \nthat? \nA.  Yes.       \n \n The claimant participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation on \nApril 19, 2024: \nThe results of this evaluation indicate that a reliable effort was \nput forth as he passed 46 of 46 consistency measures.... \nIt is noted that Mr. Anderson’s functional abilities were limited \ndue to his back injury as well as his overall fatigue due to his \ncurrent symptoms related to his Cancer and his Cancer \ntreatment.  Throughout the evaluation, activities were stopped \nor limited due to both conditions and it is undetermined which \ncondition had more affect (sic) on his functional \nabilities/limitations.... \nMr. Anderson completed functional testing on this date with \nreliable results.   \nOverall, Mr. Anderson demonstrated the ability to perform \nwork in the SEDENTARY classification of work as defined by \nthe US Dept. of Labor’s guidelines over the course of a \nnormal 8 hour workday with limitations as noted above.... \nMr. Anderson reports that he was injured on 403-23 while \npicking up a bundle of ceiling tiles and he felt an immediate \npain in his low back.  He reports that was in the morning and \nby lunch he had to go to an Urgent Care Medical Clinic due to \nhis pain, and he reports they gave him a steroid injection and \npain medication.  He reports no one would give him an MRI \nbecause the doctors kept saying he didn’t have insurance.  He \nreports he then got an attorney involved and he went from \nApril to June and he eventually had an MRI in June of 2023.  \nHe reports he was then sent to OrthoArkansas in Little Rock, \nAR and they did an MRI and he reports that is when they \ndiscovered his back was “Messed up.”  He reports he was told \nhe needed surgery to do a cage or fusion, however he reports \nhe did not want to have surgery.  He reports that his treatment \nthen consisted of 3-4 injections in his low back.  He reports he \nhas been off work since his injury. \n\nANDERSON - H304408  8\n  \n \n \nMr. Anderson reports around 2 months ago, he went to the \nhospital with stomach and chest pain and they discovered he \nhad lymphoma.  He reports the Doctors started him on \ntreatment pretty quickly and he reports due to his cancer \ntreatment he now has a lot of fatigue, and he reports he feels \ngood some days and some days he doesn’t.  He reports his \nPCP wants him walking with a cane due to his decreased \nbalance and his fatigue related to his cancer treatment.   \nMr. Anderson describes his current activity level as, “I can’t do \nany housework or yard work or anything like that.”  When \nasked if his back or the cancer treatment was his primary \nlimiting factor with everyday activities, he stated, “They are \nkind of blending in together and both give me problems.”  He \nreports he has a lot of pain in his back that is limiting him, but \nhe also has a lot of fatigue from his cancer treatment.  He \nreports that he has the most difficulty performing, “Standing \ntoo long, or anything to do with bending or lifting.”  He reports \nhe lays down most of the day at home.   \nMr. Anderson describes his pain as being in his back and \ndown both legs.  He also reports pain in his belly which he \nreports is due to his cancer.... \n \n Cecilia A. Brunson, a Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant, provided \na Vocational Rehabilitation Initial Evaluation on August 25, 2024: \nAt the request of Arkansas School Boards Association, I met \nMr. Charles Anderson to complete a vocational rehabilitation \nassessment, preliminary to exploring his return-to-work \noptions based on his work-related injury.  Prior to the \nbeginning of the meeting with Mr. Anderson, I explained my \nrole as a vocational rehabilitation counselor.   \nMr. Anderson sustained a work-related injury on 04/03/23.  As \nof this date, he has completed his medical treatments and has \nbeen released to return to the workforce by his physician.  Mr. \nAnderson will not be able to return to his job of injury, but in \nmy opinion should be able to return to the workforce in the \nfuture to a different job that is within his work restrictions.... \nMr. Anderson stated he is not interested in returning to work \nat this time.  He reported he can barely move around the \nhouse most days due to pain.  Mr. Anderson has computer \nskills and is confident in his ability to navigate computers.... \n\nANDERSON - H304408  9\n  \n \n \nBased on Mr. Anderson’s transferable skills, functional ability, \nrecords reviewed of his injury and past work history, he is \ncapable of working within the sedentary category of physical \nwork demands.  Recommendations for vocational \nrehabilitation services will include drafting a resume, \ncompleting a follow-up meeting to provide interview skills \ntraining and preparation, assist him with any online job \napplication for which he needs assistance, and begin \ncompleting regular job market research in his local area.  The \njob market research will identify current job openings for which \nhe can apply with the eventual goal of returning to the \nworkforce to a new occupation.   \n \n Cecilia Brunson also provided a Job Market Research Report on \nAugust 25, 2024: \nAt the request of the Arkansas School Boards Association, I \nhave completed job market research to identify current job \nopenings in Mr. Charles Anderson’s local labor market area.  \nRecords reflect he has a Pine Bluff, Arkansas, address. \nRecords reviewed to date include the following:  Functional \nCapacity Evaluation (FCE), workers’ compensation first report \nof injury records, and OrthoArkansas records.  \nIn summary records reflect Mr. Anderson has a 12\nth\n grade \neducation, [a] reliable FCE that placed him capable of working \nin the Sedentary category of physical work demands, and a \nwork history in skilled occupations as a Maintenance Repairer \nand Maintenance Supervisor.   \n \n Ms. Brunson identified job openings such as Local Office \nAdministrative Assistant, Extra Help Administrative Specialist II, Service \nRepresentative, and Emergency Dispatcher.  The record indicates that the \nclaimant did not follow up on any of the job leads provided by the vocational \ncounselor.  The claimant testified that he completed his cancer treatment on \nor about August 27, 2024.   \n\nANDERSON - H304408  10\n  \n \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on August 27, 2024.  The claimant \ncontended, “The Claimant is not able to return to his current employment \nand therefore is entitled to wage loss.”   \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that all \nappropriate benefits have been and are continuing to be paid with regard to \nthis matter.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether the claimant is entitled to wage loss disability \nbenefits.   \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee.  Other \nissues are reserved.   \n \nCecilia A. Brunson provided another Job Market Research Report on \nSeptember 18, 2024.  Ms. Brunson identified job openings such as Local \nOffice Administrative Assistant, Administrative Specialist I, Administrative \nAssistant, and Patient Care Coordinator.    \nA hearing was held on November 14, 2024.  At that time, the \nclaimant contended that he was entitled to permanent total disability \nbenefits or alternatively wage-loss disability.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \nQ.  Your cancer treatment, did that cause some fatigue, \nsleepiness? \n A.  Yes.   \nQ.  All right.  But has that stopped now that your treatment \nhas stopped, that fatigue from the medicine? \nA.  Somewhat.   \nQ.  Okay.  You still have some? \n\nANDERSON - H304408  11\n  \n \n \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Describe the loss of fatigue that you have at this point? \nA.  Still having a little numbness in my left thigh.  I have to \nwalk with a rollator if I can get out, because my legs will go \nnumb on me.   \nQ.  Now, your legs going numb, was that a problem – pain \nand numbness in your legs, was that a problem that you had \nbefore the cancer? \nA.  Yes.... \nQ.  But was [the rollator] ordered by Dr. Tappan or by the \ncancer doctor? \nA.  By the cancer doctor.   \n \n The claimant testified on cross-examination that he was receiving \nSocial Security Disability benefits.   \n The respondents’ attorney examined Cecilia Brunson: \nQ.  In your expert opinion, do you think Mr. Anderson should \nbe able to return to the workforce to a different job within his \nrestrictions? \nA.  Yes, to a different job.... \nQ.  You reviewed his functional capacity evaluation, is that \nright? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  And you’re aware that that assigned sedentary \nrestrictions? \nA.  Correct.   \nQ.  What would some of those restrictions be? \nA.  Sitting six hours out of a (sic) eight-hour work day.... \nQ.  What were your recommendations after reviewing the \nrecords and talking with Mr. Anderson? \nA.  Sedentary jobs that involved a high school diploma, little to \nno work experience with on-the-job training and working with \nthe public.  Mr. Anderson was just very open and just a very \nfriendly person, easy to talk to and so I just think that was a \nvery important skill that he possesses that would be very great \nwith dealing with the public or just talking to people period.   \nQ.  Your report on the bottom of page nine and going on to \npage 10 indicates that you had some rehabilitation services \n\nANDERSON - H304408  12\n  \n \n \nthat you had thought of for his case.  Can you tell me about \nthose? \nA.  Yes, I am offering to help him with a resume, interviewing \nskills before an interview, even calling the employers to find \nout if they would be hiring, how many they would be hiring \nand, you know, advocate for him, basically.  Let them know \nthat I have someone that would be great for a position and I \nwould be willing to help fill out the applications for him and \neven assist with going to an interview, if that was necessary \nas well. \nQ.  Did he ever contact you to pursue those options? \nA.  No, ma’am.   \n \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on February 7, 2025.  \nThe administrative law judge found that the claimant proved he was entitled \nto permanent total disability benefits.  The respondents appeal to the Full \nCommission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n The 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. 395, 872 S.W.2d 59 (Ark. 1994).  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n522(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 \n\nANDERSON - H304408  13\n  \n \n \n   Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-519(e)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent \npart: \n(1) “Permanent total disability” means inability, because of \ncompensable injury or occupational disease, to earn any \nmeaningful wages in the same or other employment. \n(2) The burden of proof shall be on the employee to prove \ninability to earn any meaningful wage in the same or other \nemployment. \n \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  The \nclaimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto permanent and total disability benefits.”  The Full Commission does not \naffirm this finding. \nThe claimant is only age 58 and is a high school graduate.  The \nrecord indicates that the claimant’s areas of employment have primarily \nbeen involved in “maintenance,” that is, electrical work, plumbing, HVAC, \nand related areas.  The claimant testified that he had worked in this \ncapacity for hospitals, nursing homes, hotels, and at least one casino, \nwhere the claimant was a supervisory employee.   \nThe parties stipulated that the claimant was employed with the \nrespondents, White Hall School District, on April 3, 2023.  The claimant \nworked for the respondents in the area of maintenance, described by the \nclaimant as “electrical, plumbing, painting, drywall, HVAC, lifting, climbing, \nand just, basically, whatever came up.”  The parties stipulated that the \n\nANDERSON - H304408  14\n  \n \n \nclaimant sustained a compensable injury on April 3, 2023.  The record \nshows that the claimant injured his back while lifting a load of tiles.   \nThe claimant has not returned to work for any employer since the \nstipulated April 3, 2023 compensable injury.  The claimant treated \nconservatively with Trent Tappan, PA-C beginning July 12, 2023.  Mr. \nTappan released the claimant to “light sedentary office work” on July 14, \n2023.  The claimant did not attempt to return to sedentary office work.  \nTrent Tappan opined in August 2023 that the claimant was physically \nunable to return to his former position as a Maintenance employee for the \nrespondents.  However, Mr. Tappan returned the claimant to work with “no \nrestrictions” on November 2, 2023.  Mr. Tappan assigned the claimant a 7% \nwhole-person impairment rating on November 3, 2023, which rating the \nrespondents have apparently accepted as compensable.  The claimant \ntestified that he was subsequently diagnosed with lymphoma, for which he \nhad completed treatment.  The claimant testified that he suffered from \nchronic fatigue related to his treatment for lymphoma. \nThe claimant gave a reliable effort during a Functional Capacity \nEvaluation carried out on April 19, 2024.  The evaluators released the \nclaimant to “Sedentary” work.  Cecilia A. Brunson provided vocational \nassistance to the claimant beginning August 25, 2024.  Cecilia Brunson \nopined, “Mr. Anderson will not be able to return to his job of injury, but in my \n\nANDERSON - H304408  15\n  \n \n \nopinion should be able to return to the workforce in the future to a different \njob that is within his work restrictions.”  However, Ms. Brunson noted that \nthe claimant was “not interested in returning to work at this time.”   \n The evidence does not demonstrate that the claimant is unable “to \nearn any meaningful wage in the same or other employment” as is required \nto prove permanent total disability in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-519(e)(Repl. 2012).  The treating physician’s assistant and the Functional \nCapacity evaluators both opined that the claimant could perform at least \nsedentary work.  Cecilia Brunson attempted to provide appropriate \nvocational rehabilitation, but the record shows that the claimant was not \ninteresting in returning to even light-duty work.  The claimant’s lack of \ninterest in returning to appropriate gainful employment impedes the \nCommission’s full assessment of the claimant’s wage-loss disability.  City of \nFayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 (1984).  We note \nthat the claimant is now drawing Social Security Disability benefits and is \nplainly not interested in returning to work within his permanent restrictions.  \nThe claimant testified at hearing that he had not applied for any jobs since \nthe compensable injury.     \n However, the evidence also demonstrates that, as a result of the \nApril 3, 2023 compensable injury, the claimant is physically unable to return \nto his former position as a Maintenance employee for the respondents.  In \n\nANDERSON - H304408  16\n  \n \n \nconsidering the claimant’s relatively young age of 58, his high school \neducation, the claimant’s work history, the 7% whole-body impairment \nrating, and the claimant’s demonstrated lack of motivation in returning to \nappropriate gainful employment, the Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant proved he sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of 25%.   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not prove he was permanently totally disabled in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-519(e)(Repl. 2012).  The Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved he sustained wage-loss \ndisability in the amount of 25%.  The claimant proved that the April 3, 2023 \ncompensable injury was the major cause of his 7% anatomical impairment \nand 25% wage-loss disability in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(F)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal \nservices in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For \nprevailing in part on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an \nadditional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n \n \n \n \n\nANDERSON - H304408  17\n  \n \n \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. \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion finding the \nclaimant proved he sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of 25%.   \n The claimant suffered an admittedly compensable injury to his lower \nback on April 3, 2023, and was ultimately released with a seven percent \n(7%) permanent impairment rating in November 2023.  \nAfter undergoing a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE), it was \ndetermined the claimant was unable to return to his job with the respondent \nemployer.  \nThe carrier provided the claimant with vocational rehabilitation which \nidentified multiple jobs within the claimant’s restrictions.  To date the \nclaimant has applied for none. \n“’Permanent total disability’ means inability, because of compensable \ninjury or occupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages in the same \nor other employment.”  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-519(e)(1).  \n\nANDERSON - H304408  18\n  \n \n \nThe employee bears the burden of proving the inability to earn any \nmeaningful wage in the same or other employment.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n519(e)(2).  “In the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary, the \nloss of both hands, both arms, both legs, both eyes, or of any two (2) \nthereof shall constitute permanent total disability;” however, “[i]n all other \ncases, permanent total disability shall be determined in accordance with the \nfacts.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-519(b)-(c). \n“Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that \nthe compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or \nimpairment.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a).  \nArkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-102(4)(D) provides that a \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \n\"objective findings.\"  An objective finding is defined as a finding which \ncannot come under the voluntary control of the claimant.  Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-102(16)(A)(i). \nThe same factors that are considered when analyzing wage loss \ndisability claims are usually considered when analyzing permanent and total \ndisability claims.  Maulding v. Price's Utility Contractors, 2009 Ark. App. \n776, 358 S.W.3d 915 (2009).  Those factors include the claimant’s age, \neducation, work experience, motivation, post-injury income, credibility, \ndemeanor, and any other matters reasonably expected to affect her future \n\nANDERSON - H304408  19\n  \n \n \nearning capacity.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b)(1); St. Vincent Health \nServ. v. Bishop, 2010 Ark. App. 141 (2010).  \nPermanent total disability, as defined by our legislature, makes no \nprovision for whether employment is available in any particular geographical \narea but instead, provides that a claimant must prove the inability to earn \nany meaningful wages because of the compensable injury.  See Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-519(e)(1); Birtcher v. Mena Water Utils., 2017 Ark. App. 210, \n518 S.W.3d 707 (2017). \nIn the present case, the claimant has a high school education and \ndrywall certification.  He has skills in “a little electrical, a little plumbing, a \nlittle HVAC, painting, roofing -- basically, that’s normally it, you know, \nanything that concerned a building that have to be done.”  \nSince graduating high school in 1984, the claimant has worked for \nvarious hospitals, nursing homes, and hotels among other institutions. \nFurther, the claimant has experience in sedentary supervisory roles, \nincluding work with a company called SAJ, where he supervised \napproximately twenty people.  This was not a physical job.  He would later \nserve as a maintenance supervisor for Saracen Casino for two and a half \nyears, supervising twelve people before transferring to a supervisory job \nwith the Casino’s food and beverage department overseeing bartenders, \nwaitresses, and bar backs. \n\nANDERSON - H304408  20\n  \n \n \nThe claimant had only been working for the respondent employer for \nsix months prior to his April 3, 2023 injury.  On November 2, 2023, the \nclaimant was released to return to work at full duty with no  \nrestrictions and was assigned a seven percent (7%) whole body impairment \nrating.  A later Functional Capacity Evaluation assigned the claimant \nsedentary duties.  \nDuring the treatment for his compensable injury, the claimant \nreceived a stomach cancer diagnosis that has led to his need for pain \nmanagement, a hydrocodone prescription, and a prescription for a cane. \nThe claimant has not applied for any jobs since his 2023 injury and is \ncurrently receiving $1,433.00 in monthly social security disability benefits.  \nThe claimant has been interviewed and evaluated by vocational \nexpert Cecilia Brunson.  At the hearing, Ms. Brunson testified that it is her \nprofessional opinion that the claimant is able to return to the workforce.  Ms. \nBrunson’s report reflects that the claimant’s work history allowed him to \nacquire the following skills: \n• Supervisory and leadership skills \n• Management and personnel resources \n• Active listening \n• Monitoring \n• Coordination \n• Critical thinking \n• Speaking \n• Reading comprehension \n• Complex problem solving \n• Operations monitoring \n\nANDERSON - H304408  21\n  \n \n \n• Social perceptiveness \n• Instructing \n• Negotiation \n• Persuasion \n• Writing \n• Judgement [sic] and decision making \n• Systems evaluation \n• Troubleshooting \n• Time management \n \n Ms. Bruson testified she had offered “to help with a resume, \ninterviewing skills before an interview, even calling the employers to find out \nif they would be hiring, how many they would be hiring and, you know, \nadvocate for him basically.  Let them know that I have someone that would \nbe great for a position, and I would be willing to help fill out the applications \nfor him and even assist with going on an interview if that was necessary as \nwell.”  The claimant has never contacted Ms. Brunson regarding those \noffers.  \nMs. Bruson has identified eighteen (18) current job openings that fall \nwithin the claimant’s FCE restrictions, education, and work history.  She \nbelieves the claimant can do any of these jobs.  \nThe claimant clearly has no intention to return to work.  Eighteen (18) \njobs have been found for him with his restrictions, and Ms. Brunson has \noffered extensive assistance in applying for and interviewing for these jobs. \nThe claimant has applied for none.  These issues are clearly compounded \nby the claimant’s cancer treatment and his other non-work related medical \n\nANDERSON - H304408  22\n  \n \n \nissues rather than any permanent impairment resulting from his \ncompensable injury for which the respondents are not responsible.  The \nclaimant should not be rewarded for his absolute refusal to even try to \nreturn to the workforce.  As a result, he is not entitled to any wage loss over \nand above his anatomical impairment rating.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H304408 CHARLES ANDERSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 30, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.284Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H304408-2025-06-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Anderson_Charles_H304408_20250630.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}