{"id":"full_commission-H400417-2026-05-15","awcc_number":"H400417","decision_date":"2026-05-15","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Kenneth Cypert","employer_name":"Davis Iron & Metal, Inc","title":"CYPERT VS. DAVIS IRON & METAL, INC. AWCC# H400417 May 15, 2026","outcome":"reversed","outcome_keywords":["reversed:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cypert_Kenneth_H400417_20260515.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Cypert_Kenneth_H400417_20260515.pdf","text_length":10028,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.  H400417 \n \nKENNETH CYPERT (DEC’D), EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nDAVIS IRON & METAL, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 15, 2026 \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 ZACHARY F. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n Respondents appeal an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed December 15, 2025.  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 the pre-hearing conference \nconducted on August 20, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order \nfiled that same date are hereby accepted as fact.  \n \n2. The parties’ stipulation that claimant earned an average weekly wage \nof $689.60 is also hereby accepted as fact.  \n \n3. Claimant’s death was causally related to his compensable burn injury.  \n\nCYPERT - H400417  2\n  \n \n \n \n4. Respondent is liable for payment of funeral expenses in the amount \nof $6,000.00.  \n \n5. Mary Cypert, claimant’s mother, has met her burden of proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she was partially dependent upon \nclaimant’s earnings for support at the time of his death.  \n \n6. Mary Cypert is entitled to dependent benefits in the amount of $34.48 \nper week.  \n \n7. Respondent has controverted payment of dependency benefits. \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 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 \n\nCYPERT - H400417  3\n  \n \n \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 \nI respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion that the claimant’s \ndeath was causally related to his compensable burn injury.   \n Claimant was 58 years old when he suffered a burn injury to his low \nback while working for the respondent employer on January 9, 2024.  He \nwas taken to the Arkansas Children’s Burn Center where he was \nhospitalized for burns involving approximately 20-29% of his body.  \n The claimant underwent surgery for burn wound excision and \nallograft placement.  While hospitalized, the claimant began showing \nsymptoms of alcohol withdrawal, and his team began treatment for the \nalcohol withdrawal.  On the morning of January 17, 2024, claimant was \nfound to be unresponsive and ultimately died.  \n\nCYPERT - H400417  4\n  \n \n \n At the time of his injury, claimant was living with his mother, Mary \nEdith Cypert, who contends that her son’s death was a result of his \ncompensable injury and is requesting payment of dependent benefits.  After \na hearing, an ALJ ruled in favor of the claimant.  Respondents appeal. \nTo sustain a compensable injury, one must prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that (1) the injury arose out of and in the \ncourse of the employment, (2) the injury caused internal or external physical \nharm to the body that required medical services or resulted in disability \nor death, and (3) the injury was a major cause of the disability or need for \ntreatment.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d \n560 (2002). \nThe determination of whether there is a causal connection between \nthe injury and disability is a question of fact for the Commission to \ndetermine.  Oak Grove Lumber v. Highfill, 62 Ark. App. 42, 968 S.W.2d 637 \n(1998).  The determination of the existence of an independent intervening \ncause is a question of fact for the Commission to determine.  Id.   Further, a \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings.  Freeman v. Con-Agra Frozen Foods, 344 Ark. 296, 40 \nS.W.3d 760 (2001).  \nMedical opinions addressing compensability must be stated within a \nreasonable degree of medical certainty.  Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 \n\nCYPERT - H400417  5\n  \n \n \nArk. 804, 20 S.W.3d 900 (2000).  Speculation and conjecture cannot \nsubstitute for credible evidence.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. App. \n273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002). \nThe claimant suffered a burn injury covering approximately twenty to \ntwenty-nine percent of his body.  The claimant remained in the hospital for \nseveral weeks after his injury and was tested for lung and heart issues that \ncould arise from severe burns.  Doctors determined that the claimant was \nnot at risk for heart or lung conditions; however, the claimant began \nsuffering from severe alcohol withdrawal during this time.  The claimant \nultimately died during his hospitalization. \nAn associate medical examiner completed the claimant’s death \ncertificate, listing “Complications of Thermal Injury” as the immediate cause \nof death with “Hepatic Steatosis and Fibrosis” as a contributing factor. \nThere are no records or testimony that support or explain this finding, nor \nhas any expert stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it \nis more likely than not that the claimant succumbed to his burn injuries \nrather than alcohol withdrawal or pre-existing severe liver disease.  In fact, \nthe notes submitted by the parties regarding the claimant’s ultimate death \ndo not speculate as to the cause of death.  \nNeither party submitted any records of an autopsy to confirm the \nmedical examiner’s findings.  A death certificate prepared without full \n\nCYPERT - H400417  6\n  \n \n \nknowledge of the decedent’s medical condition cannot be treated as prima \nfacie evidence.  See Generally Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fuqua, 269 \nArk. 574, 599 S.W.2d 427 (1980). \nThe claimant’s medical history is too complex for the Commission to \nfind that his work-related injury was the cause of his death by the \npreponderance of the evidence.  The medical examiner’s findings, while \ninconclusive at best, also reflect that the decedent’s liver condition and \nalcoholism were significant contributing factors in his death.  \nThere is no testimony or evidence reflecting how the claimant’s \nburns may have resulted in his death, whether by shock, infection, heart \nfailure, or any other cause, nor are there any attempts by his medical team \nto establish the cause.  There is insufficient evidence to make the \nclaimant’s case in this matter.  For these reasons, it is clear that the \nclaimant has failed in meeting his burden of proof and the ALJ’s findings \nshould be reversed. \nOur rules provide that “compensation for the death of an employee \nshall be paid to those persons who were wholly and actually dependent \nupon the deceased employee.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-527(c) “If the \nemployee leaves dependents who are only partially dependent upon his or \nher earnings for support at the time of injury, the compensation payable for \npartial dependency shall be in the proportion that the partial dependency \n\nCYPERT - H400417  7\n  \n \n \nbears to total dependency.”  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-527(i)(1).  An important \nconsideration here is Ms. Cypert’s “reasonable expectation of future \nsupport.”  Roach Mfg. Co. v. Cole, 265 Ark. 908, 582 S.W.2d 268 (1979). \n“Partial dependency may be found when, although the claimant may \nhave other substantial sources of support from his own work, from property, \nor from other persons on whom the claimant is also dependent, the \ncontributions made by the decedent were looked to by the claimant for the \nmaintenance of his accustomed standard of living.”  Williams v. Cypress \nCreek Drainage, 5 Ark. App. 256, 635 S.W.2d 282 (1982). \nIn this case, the only evidence that the claimant’s mother, Mary \nCypert, was dependent on the claimant is her own self-serving testimony. \nThere is no record or evidence that the claimant ever made these purported \ncash payments to Ms. Cypert.  Further, the claimant’s mother owns the \nhome in which the two of them lived and has a monthly disability income of \napproximately $1,600.  Any payments from the claimant, which Ms. Cypert \nhas claimed at different times to be $200 to now $300 weekly, would merely \ncover the claimant’s living expenses.  \nMs. Cypert has produced no evidence that she actually relied on \npayments made by the claimant or that payments ever occurred.  The \nclaimant was living with Ms. Cypert and, it would seem, simply paid her for \nhis own living expenses.  There is no evidence in the record that reflects a \n\nCYPERT - H400417  8\n  \n \n \nfinding that Ms. Cypert was dependent on the claimant’s income or that she \nis worse off without it.  For these reasons, she has failed to establish her \nburden of proof. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n \n                                   _____________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H400417 KENNETH CYPERT (DEC’D), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DAVIS IRON & METAL, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 15, 2026 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Litt...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.460Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H400417-2026-05-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cypert_Kenneth_H400417_20260515.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}