{"id":"full_commission-H305182-2025-01-16","awcc_number":"H305182","decision_date":"2025-01-16","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Andrea Ewton","employer_name":"Dardanelle Public Schools","title":"EWTON VS. DARDANELLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AWCC# H305182 January 16, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","ankle","knee","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ewton_Andrea_H305182_20250116.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Ewton_Andrea_H305182_20250116.pdf","text_length":31503,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H305182 \n \nANDREA EWTON, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nDARDANELLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION \nWCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 16, 2025 \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 \nAugust 12, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she sustained a compensable injury.  After reviewing the \nentire record de novo, the Full Commission reverses the administrative law \njudge’s opinion.  The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved she \nsustained a compensable injury.  We find that the claimant proved she was \nentitled to reasonably necessary medical treatment and temporary total \ndisability benefits.     \nI.  HISTORY \n\nEWTON - H305182  2\n  \n \n \n Andrea Ewton, now age 41, testified that she became employed with \nthe respondents, Dardanelle Public Schools, in 2022.  The parties \nstipulated that the employee-employer-carrier relationship existed on \nAugust 15, 2023.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  And you were an employee of the Dardanelle Public \nSchools on or about August 15, 2023? \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  And how were you employed?  What was your job title? \nA.  Substitute custodial.   \nQ.  As a substitute custodial person for the Dardanelle Public \nSchools, what did you do on a day-to-day basis? \nA.  We – I cleaned bathrooms, the gym, Central Office, \ncafeteria, whatever we needed to clean.... \nQ.  How would you get your assignments? \nA.  They would call me and let me know ahead of time that \nthey needed me to work.   \nQ.  So were you called in the night before August 15\nth\n to come \ninto work? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Do you remember who called you? \nA.  Becca.   \nQ.  And is that Becca Manatt, the person who is here? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  And what was your shift as a part-time custodial? \nA.  We worked usually about four hours, from 6:00 in the \nmorning until after lunch or until school was let out, however \nlong they needed us.... \nQ.  On this particular instance when you were called in to \ncome in on August 15\nth\n, what were you given in terms of your \ninstructions on what your time would be? \nA.  Just however long they needed and to be there at 6 \no’clock in the morning.   \nQ.  So you were to report on August 15\nth\n at 6:00 a.m.? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  Did you do that? \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  Where did you go? \nA.  Central Office.... \n\nEWTON - H305182  3\n  \n \n \nQ.  Are there multiple campuses and buildings that you would \nhave to go to? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  So when you reported to Central Office, what did you do \nwhen you got there? \nA.  I talked to Susie Howell for a minute and then I got the \nkeys and went and finished doing the rest of the offices in \nCentral.... \nQ.  About how long did you clean there? \nA.  It was an hour, maybe and hour and a half.   \nQ.  Okay.  And where did you go next? \nA.  To Intermediate across town on 2\nnd\n Street. \nQ.  Is that the Intermediate School? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And did you drive your vehicle from Central Office to \nIntermediate School? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And what did you do when you got to the Intermediate \nSchool? \nA.  I pulled in my parking spot and went in the building and got \nthe keys from Becca Moffitt. \nQ.  You said Becca Moffitt.  It is my understanding her name \nis Becca Manatt? \nA.  Manatt, Moffitt, it sounded the same, Andy.  But I got the \nkeys from Becca and went back out to my car and drove down \nto the gym to start cleaning it and it wasn’t the right set of \nkeys.... \nQ.  And did you have to fill out any paperwork at that time? \nA.  When I got to the office to talk to Becca, I had to fill out a \ntime sheet.... \nQ.  And where were you going to? \nA.  I was going to the gym and the agra building to clean.... \nQ.  And what did you do once you parked? \nA.  Once I parked, I got to – I went up to the gym to see if \nanybody was in there to let me in and there wasn’t because I \ndidn’t have the right set of keys.   \nQ.  So then what did you do? \nA.  I went back to my car to get my bottle of water and get the \nother set of keys that I needed to go start the agra building \nand the electronics building.   \nQ.  So did you make it to your car? \n\nEWTON - H305182  4\n  \n \n \nA.  No, sir, I did not.  I stepped off of the sidewalk and twisted \nmy ankle and broke it. \nQ.  So you stepped off the sidewalk walking from one of the \nbuildings back to your car? \nA.  Back to my car, yes.   \nQ.  And what happened when you stepped off the curb? \nA.  I twisted my ankle.... \nQ.  At the time you stepped off the curb and injured your ankle \n–  \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  You were on the clock? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  You were on the premises? \nA.  Yes, sir, \nQ.  Were you supposed to be working? \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  If a member of the administration had come by and asked \nyou to take some sort of action, would you have been required \nto do so? \nA.  Yes, sir.     \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  When you got out of the car, you testified in your \ndeposition that you had your car keys and your personal \nphone with you.  Is that right? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  When your ankle twisted, did you trip on anything?  Did \nyou fall over anything? \nA.  No, ma’am.  I just stepped off the curb wrong and my \nankle twisted. \nQ.  No one was around when that happened? \nA.  No, ma’am.   \nQ.  So then you went back to the Intermediate Office.  Is that \nright? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.   \nQ.  That is when you reported it to April McGuire? \nA.  Yes, ma’am.   \nQ.  At that time was a call made to Misty Thompson? \nA.  Yes.   \n \n\nEWTON - H305182  5\n  \n \n \n Rebecca K. Manatt testified that she was employed as a secretary at \nDardanelle Intermediate School.  The claimant’s attorney examined Ms. \nManatt: \nQ.  And did you talk to [the claimant] on August 14, 2023, \nabout coming to the school as a substitute custodian the night \nbefore? \nA.  Well, I don’t really recall the date, that is a long time ago, \nbut, yes, I did call her to sub. \nQ.  And I know you may not recall the date, but do  you recall \nthe day she was injured? \nA.  Well, I do recall the day.  I am just not real sure about the \ndate.... \nQ.  If [the claimant] testified that she came to the school, the \nIntermediate School that day, came to your office and had to \nsign in, do they typically have to sign in? \nA.  Yes.... \nQ.  You don’t remember it, but that is consistent with what \nthey do? \nA.  Right.  Yes.   \nQ.  If that happened, would you give them keys as a substitute \ncustodian to be able to get in and out of buildings? \nA.  Well, not really.  I mean I keep keys, but I don’t for – like if \nthey go to the gym or those buildings, I don’t have those keys.  \nNormally the custodians have those.   \nQ.  As you sit here today, do you have any recollection as to \nwhether or not if you gave her any keys that morning? \nA.  I do not remember that, no. \nQ.  If she testified that you did, any reason to dispute that? \nA.  Well, I wouldn’t have any reason to dispute it.  This has \nbeen a long time ago and I don’t remember.   \n \n Misty Thompson testified that she was the respondent-carrier’s \nClaim Supervisor for Workers’ Compensation.  The record indicates that the \nclaimant gave a recorded statement to Misty Thompson on August 15, \n2023: \n\nEWTON - H305182  6\n  \n \n \n Q.  And what school district do you work for, Andrea? \n A.  Dardanelle. \n Q.  Which campus do you work at? \n A.  I’m a sub and I was working at the intermediate campus.... \n Q.  Do you need medical treatment for your injuries? \n A.  Yes.... \n Q.  Are you full time or part time? \n A.  Part time. \n Q.  And when were you injured? \n A.  Today. \n Q.  Today is August 15\nth\n, approximately what time, ma’am? \n A.  About 8:16, 8:15.   \n Q.  What time did you start work this morning? \n A.  6:00.... \n Q.  Have you notified your supervisor of this injury? \n A.  I’m in the nurse’s office now.  \nQ.  Okay, and who did you notify and approximately what \ntime? \nA.  I come straight to the nurse and I notified her as soon as it \nhappened.   \n Q.  And her name? \n A.  April McGuire.... \n Q.  And how were you injured, or what happened? \nA.  I stepped off of the curb and twisted my ankle and fell in \nthe parking lot.   \nQ.  And what were you doing at the time, I mean like taking \ntrash out, going to another building? \nA.  I was getting ready – I was going to my car to get \nsomething to drink that I had left in there, and when I stepped \noff of the curb I twisted my ankle and it’s all swollen.   \nQ.  Okay.   \nA.  It looks like it might be broke or whatever. \nQ.  And you were going to your personal vehicle? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  And it was to get a drink for yourself? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  And that was something you had left in your car? \nA.  Yes, and I was going back out, I was going to go back in \nafter I got my drink, but then I –  \nQ.  Okay. \nA.  – couldn’t make it back in because I fell and messed up \nmy ankle.   \n\nEWTON - H305182  7\n  \n \n \nQ.  Was there any other purpose for you going out there, \nother than to get your drink? \nA.  No ma’am.   \nQ.  Okay.  Alright, and what body parts did you injure? \nA.  My right ankle.   \nQ.  Any other body parts injured? \nA.  No.  Well, my left knee is skinned up, but it’s –  \nQ.  Okay. \nA.  My left knee is skinned, but it’s not as bad as what my \nankle is.   \nQ.  Okay.  Alright.  And where were you at when this \noccurred? \nA.  Dardanelle Intermediate School.   \nQ.  Were you like in the parking lot, or? \nA.  I was at the gym.   \nQ.  Okay.  And you were outside in the parking lot, is that \ncorrect? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  Any witnesses? \nA.  No. \nQ.  Okay.  Have you completed the Form N yet, the \nEmployee’s Notice of Injury? \nA.  Yes, April has filled out the Employee’s Notice of Injury. \nQ.  That needs to be filled out by you, not by April, and so if \nyou will have her to give you a blank one, that’s supposed to \nbe filled out by the injured employee, if they’re able.  Alright, \nand Andrea, I do have to tell you, since you were going to \nyour vehicle to get your personal drink, that’s not something \nthat would be considered in the course and scope of \nemployment, so we would not be able to authorize treatment \nunder workers’ comp, because you have to be performing \nemployment services at the time an injury occurs, and if you \nwere going to your vehicle for the sole purpose of getting your \npersonal, you know, a drink for yourself, that’s not something \nthat would be considered in the course and scope of your \nemployment.  So if you do need to go to the doctor, that would \nneed to be under your personal insurance.   \nA.  Okay, thank you. \nQ.  Okay, and can I speak to April, and I’ll let her know also. \nApril:  This is April. \nQ.  Hey April, it’s Misty at Arkansas School Boards.  Hey, \nsince Ms. Ewton was going to her personal vehicle to get a \n\nEWTON - H305182  8\n  \n \n \ndrink for herself at the time the injury occurred, that’s not \nsomething that would be covered under workers’ comp, so I \ndid let her know that we would not be able to authorize any \ntreatment under workers’ comp.   \nApril:  Okay, we weren’t sure, and we were just going to you \nknow, fill it out and all that.   \nQ.  Oh, absolutely.  And yeah, that is the correct thing to do, \nbut I did just want to let you know, since she was sitting there \nwith you and I didn’t know if you would be, you know, are you \nusually the one that schedules the appointment? \nApril:  No, this is the first time I’ve ever had to even fill out the \nform, so we were just – Carla, the school nurse at the \nintermediate told me to just fill out the form, call the number, \nand then you guys would guide us from there.   \nQ.  Yeah, yeah.  And the Form N is to be completed, she said \nthat you had completed it.  That’s to be completed by the \ninjured employee, so if you’ll just give her a blank one and let \nher fill it out, and then if you ever have a situation where an \nemployee is not able to fill it out, if you will just give them the \nblank one and tell them to get it back to you as soon as \nthey’re able.... \nApril:  Okay, and even though you guys aren’t covering \nanything, you still want us to fill it out, right? \nA.  Yes ma’am, on every incident it needs to be filled out, yes \nma’am....   \n  \n The claimant’s attorney cross-examined Misty Thompson at hearing: \nQ.  Any doubt that Ms. Ewton was on the clock at the time of \nher injury? \n  A.  No, sir. \nQ.  Any doubt that she was in the time and space boundaries \nof her employment?  She was actually on the premises where \nshe was supposed to be.  Correct? \nA.  That is my understanding, yes. \nQ.  Do you contend that she was on a break at the time of her \ninjury? \nA.  No, sir. \n \n The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on August 15, 2023.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of \n\nEWTON - H305182  9\n  \n \n \nthe Form AR-C indicated that an accident occurred at 8:15 a.m. on August \n15, 2023.  It was written on the Form AR-N that the claimant injured her \n“Right ankle & Left knee,” “Stepped off the curb in the gym parking lot, \nrolled right ankle and heard it pop.”   \n The claimant received emergency medical treatment on August 15, \n2023: \nPATIENT IS A 40 YO WHITE FEMALE WHO TWISTED HER \nRIGHT ANKLE AT WORK ABOUT 1 HOUR PTA.  PATIENT \nC/O SWELLING AND TENDERNESS OVER LATERAL \nASPECT OF RIGHT ANKLE.... \nMethod of Injury:  Other (TWISTED ANKLE WHILE \nSTEPPING OFF CURB).... \nRIGHT ANKLE XRAY:  SOFT TISSUE SWELLING, NO FX \nOR DISLOCATION.... \n \n The Differential Diagnosis on August 15, 2023 was “FX,ANKLE \nSPRAIN.”  The claimant was instructed, “COLD COMPRESSES FOR \nNEXT 3 DAYS, CONTINUE CURRENT PAIN MEDICATIONS, AVOID \nWEIGHT BEARING, WEAR SPLINT UNTIL HEALED, EXCUSE FROM \nWORK FOR NEXT 48 HOURS, FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR PCP.”   \nAn x-ray of the claimant’s right foot was taken on August 18, 2023 \nwith the following impression: \n1.  Small suspected avulsion fragment distal to lateral \nmalleolus with overlying soft tissue thickening. \n2.  No abnormality in the right foot.   \n \n An APRN noted on August 18, 2023, “Refer to ortho for suspected \navulsion fragment of the ankle.  Nonweightbearing until she [sees] them.” \n\nEWTON - H305182  10\n  \n \n \n Shawna Mott, LPN messaged the claimant on August 18, 2023: \n  Hey Andrea,  \nJessica said that you need to be off from work until you can \nbe seen and cleared by Orthopedics.  We’ve already placed \nthat referral and their office will be contacting you to set up an \nappointment.  We have a letter printed for you that will be at \nthe front desk.  You should also be able to access the letter \nthrough your mymercy.   \n \n Jessica M. Russell, APRN-CNP provided a Work/School Excuse on \nAugust 18, 2023: \n  To Whom it May Concern: \nAndrea Ewton was seen in my clinic on 8/18/2023.  Please \nexcuse Andrea from work until she can be seen and cleared \nby Orthopedics.... \n \n The record indicates that the claimant applied for unemployment \ninsurance benefits on September 12, 2023.  The APPLICATION FOR \nUNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS indicated, “Last Date worked \nat your last job:  08/15/2023.”     \nA pre-hearing order was filed on May 29, 2024.  The claimant \ncontended, “The claimant sustained injuries to her right ankle and left knee \nin the course and scope of her employment which resulted in the need for \ntreatment beginning on or about August 15, 2023.  Respondents have \ncontroverted the claim.  Claimant contends she is entitled to temporary total \ndisability from August 16, 2023 to a date yet to be determined, reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment and attorney’s fees, and all other issues \nare reserved.”   \n\nEWTON - H305182  11\n  \n \n \n The respondents contended, “The respondents contend that \nclaimant did not suffer a compensable injury on August 15, 2023.  She was \nnot in the course and scope of employment when she injured her left knee \nand right ankle.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Compensability of injury to claimant’s left knee and right \nankle on August 15, 2023. \n2.  Related medical. \n3.  Temporary total disability benefits from August 16, 2023 \nthrough a date yet to be determined.   \n4.  Attorney’s fee.   \n \n After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nAugust 12, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she sustained a compensable injury.  The administrative law \njudge denied and dismissed the claim.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission.    \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n  (A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external physical \nharm to the body ... arising out of and in the course of \nemployment and which requires medical services or results in \ndisability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused \nby a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence[.]... \n(B)  “Compensable injury” does not include:   \n(iii)  Injury which was inflicted upon the employee at a time \nwhen employment services were not being performed[.]   \n \n\nEWTON - H305182  12\n  \n \n \n A compensable injury must also be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D)(Repl. \n2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. \n2012).   \n The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(E)(i)(Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence means the \nevidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l \nBank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered a compensable injury to her left knee and right ankle on August 15, \n2023.  Specifically, claimant was not performing ‘employment services’ at \nthe time of her injury.”  The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved \nby a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable \ninjury. \n The claimant was employed with the respondents as a part-time \ncustodian.  The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed \non August 15, 2023.  The claimant testified that Becca Manatt, secretary at \nDardanelle Intermediate School, had contacted her the previous day and \n\nEWTON - H305182  13\n  \n \n \ninformed the claimant that her employment services were needed on \nAugust 15, 2023.  The claimant testified that she reported for work at 6:00 \na.m. on August 15, 2023.  The claimant began cleaning at the respondent-\nemployer’s Central Office before driving to the Intermediate School to work \nat that facility.  The claimant testified that she filled out a time sheet \nprovided by Ms. Manatt upon arriving at Intermediate School.  The claimant \ntestified that she proceeded to the respondent-employer’s gymnasium and \n“agra building” before realizing that she did not have the proper keys for \naccess into the buildings.  The claimant testified, “I went back to my car to \nget my bottle of water and get the other set of keys that I needed to start the \nagra building and the electronics building.”  On the way to her personal \nvehicle which was parked on the respondents’ premises, the claimant \ntripped and twisted her ankle.  The claimant sustained a right ankle sprain \nas a result of the accident. \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she was performing employment \nservices at the time of the accidental injury on August 15, 2023.  An \nemployee is performing employment services when she is doing something \nthat is generally required by her employer.  Dairy Farmers of America v. \nCoker, 98 Ark. App. 400, 255 S.W.3d 905 (2007).  The Arkansas Court of \nAppeals uses the same test to determine whether an employee is \n\nEWTON - H305182  14\n  \n \n \nperforming employment services as it does when determining whether an \nemployee is acting within the course and scope of employment.  Pifer v. \nSingle Source Transp., 347 Ark. 851, 69 S.W.3d 1 (2002).  The test is \nwhether the injury occurred within the time and space boundaries of the \nemployment, when the employee was carrying out the employer’s purpose \ndirectly or indirectly.  Id.  The Commission is bound to examine the activity \nthe claimant was engaged in at the time of the accident in determining \nwhether or not she was performing employment services.  Hill v. LDA \nLeasing, 2010 Ark. App. 271, 374 S.W.3d 268 (2010).   \n In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the injury on \nAugust 15, 2023 occurred within the time and space boundaries of the \nclaimant’s employment, and that the claimant was at least indirectly \nadvancing her employer’s interests.  See Hudak-Lee v. Baxter County Reg. \nHosp., 2011 Ark. 31, 378 S.W.3d 77.  The claimant was on the respondent-\nemployer’s premises at the time of the accident and was “on the clock.”  \nThe claimant had signed in with the respondent-employer at the \nIntermediate School.  Whether or not the claimant had keys to the buildings \nat the time of the injury, she was getting a bottle of water from her personal \nvehicle in order to continue her work duties for the respondents in their \nfacilities.  Misty Thompson, a Claims Supervisor for the respondents, \nagreed that the claimant was “on the clock” at the time of the accidental \n\nEWTON - H305182  15\n  \n \n \ninjury, that the claimant was “within the time and space boundaries” of her \nemployment, and that the claimant was “not on a break.” \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant was within the time and \nspace boundaries of her employment at the time of the accidental injury.  \nSee Arkansas Methodist Hospital v. Hampton, 90 Ark. App. 288, 205 \nS.W.3d 848 (2005).  The claimant remained on the respondent-employer’s \npremises, was available to resume her duties as a custodian, had clocked \nin, and was available to work.  UAMS v. Hines, 2019 Ark. App. 557, 590 \nS.W.3d 183 (Ark. App. 2019).  See also Mineral Springs – Saratoga Sch. \nDist. v. Bell, 2023 Ark. App. 458 (Ark. App. Oct. 18, 2023).  The claimant \nstill had job duties to complete at the time of her accident.  Wal-Mart \nAssociates, Inc. v. Anderson, 2022 Ark. App. 12, 640 S.W.3d 4.   \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury.  \nThe claimant proved that she sustained an accidental injury causing \nphysical harm to the body.  The injury arose out of and in the course of \nemployment, required medical services, and resulted in disability.  The \ninjury was caused by a specific incident and was identifiable by time and \nplace of occurrence on August 15, 2023.  The claimant established a \ncompensable injury by medical evidence supported by objective findings, to \n\nEWTON - H305182  16\n  \n \n \ninclude soft tissue swelling in the right ankle, and “suspected avulsion \nfragment distal to lateral malleolus” shown on August 18, 2023.  \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved she sustained a compensable injury.  The claimant \nproved that the medical treatment of record provided on and after August \n15, 2023 was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The evidence demonstrates that the claimant \nremained within a healing period and did not return to work beginning \nAugust 16, 2023 and continuing through June 22, 2024.  The claimant \ntherefore proved that she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits \nbeginning August 16, 2023 and continuing through June 22, 2024.  See \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-521(Repl. 2012); Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, \n73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  The claimant’s attorney is entitled \nto 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 \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n\nEWTON - H305182  17\n  \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding the \nclaimant suffered a compensable injury on August 15, 2023. \nThe claimant was injured on the respondent employer’s premises on \nAugust 15, 2023, when she fell in the parking lot while going to her car to \nget a drink.  At that time, the claimant was not performing employment \nservices and provided a recorded statement to the respondent carrier \nstating she had no reason to go to her car other than to get something to \ndrink.  This story would later change after the claimant obtained an \nattorney.  The claimant’s lack of credibility is clear throughout her testimony. \nIn his August 12, 2024 opinion, the administrative law judge found \nthe claimant was not a credible witness, and she failed to meet her burden \nof proving she sustained a compensable injury.  I agree. \nOur rules define a compensable injury as \"[a]n accidental injury . . . \narising out of and in the course of employment.\"  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i).  A compensable injury does not include an \"[i]njury which was \ninflicted upon the employee at a time when employment services were not \nbeing performed.\"  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iii).  The Act, however, \nfails to define the phrase \"in the course of employment\" or the term \n\nEWTON - H305182  18\n  \n \n \n\"employment services.\"  Wood v. Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, \n2010 Ark. App. 307, 374 S.W.3d 785 (2010).  \nOur Supreme Court has held an employee is performing \n\"employment services\" when he or she \"is doing something that is generally \nrequired by his or her employer.\"  Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. Conner, 373 Ark. \n372, 284 S.W.3d 57 (2008).   \nThe Commission uses the same test to determine whether an \nemployee was performing employment services as it does when \ndetermining whether an employee was acting within the course of \nemployment.  Id.  Specifically, it has been held the test is whether the injury \noccurred \"within the time and space boundaries of the employment, when \nthe employee [was] carrying out the employer's purpose or advancing the \nemployer's interest directly or indirectly.\"  Id.  The critical inquiry is whether \nthe interests of the employer were being directly or indirectly advanced by \nthe employee at the time of the injury.  Id.  \nThe issue of whether an employee was performing employment \nservices within the course of employment depends on the particular facts \nand circumstances of each case.  Id.  In short, an employee is performing \nemployment services when engaged in the primary activity he or she was \nhired to perform, or in incidental activities that are inherently necessary for \nthe performance of the primary activity, or when an employee is performing \n\nEWTON - H305182  19\n  \n \n \nemployment services when he or she is engaging in an activity that carries \nout the employer's purpose or advances the employer's interests.  Olsten \nKimberly Quality Care v. Pettey, 328 Ark. 381, 944 S.W.2d 524 (1997); \nHightower v. Newark Pub. Sch. Sys., 57 Ark. App. 159, 943 S.W.2d 608 \n(1997). \nIn the present case, the claimant’s initial statements regarding her \ninjury conflict with her later deposition and hearing testimony.  This is, at its \ncore, an issue of the claimant’s credibility.  \nIn workers’ compensation cases, a decision often rests solely on the \ncredibility of the claimant as a witness.  A determination of the weight and \ncredibility of a witness's testimony is exclusively within the province of the \nCommission.  Wade v. Mr. C. Cavenaugh's, 298 Ark. 363, 768 S.W.2d 521 \n(1989).  \nThe Commission has the right to believe or disbelieve the testimony \nof any witness, and the Commission's decision is entitled to the weight we \ngive a jury verdict.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Disheroon, 26 Ark. App. 145, 761 \nS.W.2d 617 (1988).  Importantly, a claimant’s testimony is never \nuncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d \n457 (1994). \nIn a recorded statement to the respondent carrier on August 15, \n2023, the claimant stated she was “going to my car to get something to \n\nEWTON - H305182  20\n  \n \n \ndrink that I had left in there, and when I stepped off the curb, I twisted my \nankle and it’s all swollen.”  When asked if there was any other purpose for \ngoing to her car, the claimant responded, “no ma’am.”  \nClaims Adjuster Misty Thompson recalls offering the claimant ample \nopportunity to address any additional, work-related reasons why she may \nhave been going to her car.  \nBy the time of the August 1, 2024 hearing, the claimant’s testimony \nhad changed.  At the hearing, the claimant testified she went to her car “to \nget my bottle of water and get the other set of keys that I needed to go start \nthe agra building and the electronics building,” The claimant also testified \nshe obtained those keys from Rebecca Manatt, the school secretary, that \nmorning.  \nShe previously testified at her deposition she was given the keys by \nthe school nurse, April.  Ms. Manatt testified she has no recollection of \ntalking to the claimant about a set of building keys or providing the claimant \nwith a set of keys, stating, “[n]ormally the custodians have those.”  \nWhile the claimant’s case hinges on the question of the “time and \nspace boundaries” of her employment, our Courts have consistently held \nevidence of an employee being injured on their employer’s premises is \ninsufficient to warrant a finding employment services were being performed. \nCV's Family Foods v. Caverly, 2009 Ark. App. 114, 304 S.W.3d 671 (2009) \n\nEWTON - H305182  21\n  \n \n \n(citing Hightower v. Newark Pub. Sch. Sys., 57 Ark. App. 159, 943 S.W.2d \n608 (1997)).  Therefore, the critical inquiry is whether the interests of the \nemployer were being directly or indirectly advanced by the employee at the \ntime of the injury.  Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. Conner, 373 Ark. 372, 284 \nS.W.3d 57 (2008). \nIn this case, it is obvious the claimant is seeking some way in which \nshe may have been furthering her employer’s interest by going to her car to \nget a drink.  Her testimony regarding why or how she had building keys in \nher vehicle has changed three times since her initial injury.  \nHer first statement is the most clear: The claimant was going to her \ncar for no other reason than to get her drink.  She was in no way furthering \nher employer’s interest in doing so.  This claim relies only on the claimant’s \nself-serving and unreliable testimony that has clearly evolved to suit the \nclaimant’s agenda.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H305182 ANDREA EWTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DARDANELLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION WCT, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 16, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.650Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H305182-2025-01-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ewton_Andrea_H305182_20250116.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}