{"id":"full_commission-H306460-2025-04-22","awcc_number":"H306460","decision_date":"2025-04-22","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Alfred Grasso","employer_name":"City Of Fort Smith","title":"GRASSO VS. CITY OF FORT SMITH AWCC# H306460 April 22, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:6"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Grasso_Alfred_H306460_20250422.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Grasso_Alfred_H306460_20250422.pdf","text_length":5727,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H306460 \n \nALFRED GRASSO, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF FORT SMITH, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCENTRAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 22, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., \nAttorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE DOUGLAS M. CARSON, \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 November 18, 2024.  In said order, the Administrative Law \nJudge made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The   stipulations   agreed   to   by   the   parties   at   a   pre-hearing \nconference conducted on September 18, 2024 and contained in a \npre-hearing order filed that same date are hereby accepted as fact.  \n \n2. Respondent  has  controverted  this  claim;  therefore, claimant’s \nattorney is entitled to an attorney fee on the 2% impairment rating. \n \n \n\nGRASSO - H306460  2\n  \n \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 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 \n \n\nGRASSO - H306460  3\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’s attorney is entitled to a fee on claimant’s 2% impairment rating. \n The claimant suffered a work-related injury to his left shoulder on \nSeptember 5, 2023.  While the respondents initially controverted the claim, \nthey later amended their response and accepted compensability prior to a \nhearing being scheduled.  The respondents ultimately paid for the \nclaimant’s medical treatment; temporary total disability benefits, as well as \nan attorney’s fee on those benefits and, a two percent (2%) impairment \nrating. The respondents did not pay an attorney’s fee on the claimant’s \nimpairment rating.  \nAfter a hearing on October 28, 2024, an ALJ determined that the \nclaimant is entitled to a fee on claimant’s impairment rating, and the \nrespondents appeal. \n\nGRASSO - H306460  4\n  \n \n \nIn workers’ compensation claims, “[a]ttorney's fees can only be \nawarded when the statutes specifically authorize them.”  Aluminum Co. of \nAmerica v. Neal, 4 Ark. App. 11, 626 S.W.2d 620 (1982).  Pursuant to our  \nRules, an attorney’s fee “shall be allowed only on the amount of \ncompensation for indemnity benefits controverted and awarded.”  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-715(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).  \nAn “award” means a decision of an ALJ or the Commission.  \nClemons v. Bearden Lumber Co., 240 Ark. 571, 401 S.W.2d 16 (1966). \nFurther, our Rules explicitly allow respondents to amend their position of \nacceptance or controversion of a claim.  AWCC Rule 099.39.  \nIn the present case, the ALJ reasoned that the claimant is entitled to \nan attorney’s fee for PPD benefits because he believed it was necessary for \nthe claimant to hire an attorney to obtain benefits.  \nAlthough medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits \nwere briefly controverted, the claim was accepted as compensable, and the \nrespondents paid for the medical treatment as well as temporary total \ndisability benefits.  In addition, the respondents paid an attorney’s fee on \nthe disputed temporary total disability benefits.    \nThere was no award of permanent partial disability benefits, and the \nrespondents amended their position and accepted the 2% PPD rating prior \nto the issue of PPD benefits even arising.  The respondents accepted \n\nGRASSO - H306460  5\n  \n \n \ncompensability before PPD benefits could have been awarded or were \nconsidered in any prehearing paperwork, and were not the subject of any \nhearing, nor was the respondents position amended due to any action by \nthe claimant’s attorney. \nFrom the plain language of our Rules, it is clear that the ALJ erred in \nawarding the claimant’s attorney a fee on an uncontroverted permanent \nimpairment rating.  Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must \ndissent. \n \n                                       _____________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H306460 ALFRED GRASSO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF FORT SMITH, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CENTRAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 22, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.417Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H306460-2025-04-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Grasso_Alfred_H306460_20250422.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}