{"id":"full_commission-H404010-2026-02-10","awcc_number":"H404010","decision_date":"2026-02-10","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Ricky Cooper","employer_name":"Atlas Asphalt, Inc","title":"COOPER VS. ATLAS ASPHALT, INC. AWCC# H404010 February 10, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","knee","neck","cervical","fracture","ankle","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cooper_Ricky_H404010_20260210.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Cooper_Ricky_H404010_20260210.pdf","text_length":25002,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H404010 \n \nRICKY W. COOPER, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nATLAS ASPHALT, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nBITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORP., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 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 MICHAEL E. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed July \n22, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to \nprove an employment relationship existed on June 24, 2022, the date the \nclaimant allegedly sustained a compensable injury.  After reviewing the \nentire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a \ncompensable injury.     \nI.  HISTORY \n\nCOOPER - H404010  2\n  \n \n \n Ricky Wayne Cooper, Jr., now age 51, testified on direct \nexamination: \nQ.  Can you give us a little history of your job [at White River \nMaterials] and what you had to do on a daily basis? \nA.  Well, sure.  When I hired in there, I was a motor-grader \noperator, a finish motor-grader operator.  Then they didn’t \nhave a dozer operator, so I went to running a dozer.  I run \ncrews, I’ve worked on different jobs in a day, multiple times of \nchanging workplaces.  I was mainly a finish operator.  That’s \nwhat I did with all phases of the job.   \nQ.  Is that what you were doing on June 24, 2022? \nA.  Well, no, sir, I wasn’t finishing.  I was running a bulldozer, \nbut I wasn’t doing finish work with it.  We was taking up old \nconcrete, really just sitting there not doing much, you know.  \nThe hoe did all the work. \nQ.  Is it more preparatory work for ultimately finishing – \nA.  Well, that’s what it was, yes, sir.  It was the starting of a job \nis what it was, at the beginning of the job.   \nQ.  All right.  So what – what – White River Materials, what do \nthey do? \nA.  White River Materials does civil construction, sir, build \nroads, you know, put down gravel, asphalt, clear land, you \nknow, anything that civil engineering and civil construction \nis.... \nQ.  The particular job that you were involved in on June 24, \n2022, where was the – where was it located? \nA.  Jonesboro, Arkansas.   \nQ.  Okay.  Now, Ricky, you were paid wages for your time \nwhile you were on the job? \nA.  White River paid me for everything, sir, that I did. \nQ.  Okay.  When you say – \nA.  Including commuting.   \nQ.  Okay.  Let’s talk about when you say “for everything,” what \ndo you mean by that? \nA.  Well, they paid me for my heart surgery.  I was off for \nundoubtedly amount of months.  I can’t remember exact.  Five \nbypasses.  And they paid me for my – six weeks for my \ndaddy’s funeral, six weeks right there for my wife’s daddy’s \nfuneral.  They paid me for everything.  Everything that I done, \nI got paid for.... \n\nCOOPER - H404010  3\n  \n \n \nQ.  Well, with respect to your – your job itself of heavy \nequipment operator going to these various job sites you had a \ntruck? \nA.  Yes, sir.  I had a truck when I hired in about nine or 10 \nyears ago from the date of the accident.  That’s where I can \ntalk from.... \nQ.  You were given a truck to drive to and from your home? \nA.  I was given a truck to drive from job to job and conduct \nbusiness out of my pickup truck and do my job, and I was sort \nof like a working foreman, you know.  That wasn’t my title, but \nthat was what I was.  I was over all the trucks several times.  I \nmean, I just ran – you know, I was over the flaggers.  \nWherever my area was I was working, that’s what I took care \nof, and it – I had to use my truck sometimes just to make \nphone calls or whatnot.... \nQ.  Did you, on the day of the accident, June 24, 2022, did \nyou drive from your home to the – in Shirley to the job site or \nfrom someplace else to the job site? \nA.  I drove from Baymont Hotel in Jonesboro, Arkansas to the \njob site. \nQ.  Okay.  So you were in fact –  \nA.  They was reimbursing me.  I’ve got credit card statements, \nnot with me, but I have it where I’ve paid for it, and they didn’t \nreimburse me that last week.   \n \n Warren D. Robinson, Jr. testified that he had been the respondent-\nemployer’s Project Manager on June 24, 2022.  The respondents’ attorney \nexamined Mr. Robinson at hearing: \nQ.  Did you happen to have some communications with Mr. \nCooper on [June 24, 2022]? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  Okay.  Tell me what happened. \nA.  Well, I was driving down the northbound lanes that \nafternoon, I saw the dozer that he was in parked, and so that’s \nwhen I called Ricky and I said, “What’s going on?  Why is the \ndozer parked?”  And he said some – said that he was quitting, \nhe was going home, that we could come pick up the truck \nfrom his house.   \nQ.  Did you question him about that, why he was quitting? \n\nCOOPER - H404010  4\n  \n \n \nA.  And I says, “What are you quitting for?” and he said he’s \ntired of the BS, and that was it, and the phone hung up.  And I \n-    \nQ.  So do you know that time of day this was? \nA.  I believe it was around 1:30 in the afternoon, 1:24 or 1:30.  \nYou know, I mean, it’s several years ago, but it was in that \nneighborhood.... \nQ.  So he just flat said, “I’m quitting”? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  Did you – did you write down a memorandum of this \nevent? \nA.  It’s right here, yes.  This is – this is my statement that was \nturned in for his file.... \nQ.  So if he quit at that point, he was still in Jonesboro? \nA.  As far as my knowledge is, he was in Jonesboro.   \nQ.  And did you see him in his truck? \nA.  No.  By the time I went by, his truck was gone. \nQ.  And after he quit, was there any job services or duties he \nwas supposed to do between Jonesboro and Shirley? \nA.  Not for me and not for the company.  We didn’t have any \nprojects that way.     \n \n The record includes an EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY ACTION \nFORM, “Date of Warning:  6/24/22.”  The EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY \nACTION FORM WAS signed by supervisor Warren Robinson on June 24, \n2022.  The Type of Violation was “Other (explain) Left project and said that \nhe was quitting, and we could come pick up the truck from his house.”  The \nViolation Date was June 24, 2022, “Violation Time:  around 12:00 PM.” The \nViolation Location was “I-555/Jonesboro.”   \n The EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY ACTION FORM included an \nEmployer’s Statement: \nOn the afternoon of 6/24/22 Ricky parked the dozer and left \nthe project.  I was driving by the dozer in the north bound lane \n\nCOOPER - H404010  5\n  \n \n \nand saw it parked, so I called him and he informed me he was \nquitting and going home.  He also stated that we could come \npick up the truck from his house.   \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  They say that you quit your job? \n  A.  No, sir. \n  Q.  Did not happen? \n  A.  No, it’d be wrong.... \nQ.  During your deposition, Ricky, again talking about your – \nabout your vehicle, about your transportation situation, you \nindicated to Mr. Ryburn that you get paid until you get home to \nyour driveway –  \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  – is that right? \nA.  That would be correct.   \n \n The claimant further testified on direct examination: \nQ.  So on June 24, 2022, you were involved in a motor vehicle \naccident, is that correct? \nA.  Yes, sir.... \nQ.  Do you remember what happened with respect to the \nactual accident that you were in? \nA.  Yeah.  Kenny and Jeremy both told me to take the rest of \nthe day off with pay.  And I got to about – right before Con – \nright after Concord, right around Highway 5 where you turn to \ngo – right past that Highway 5 turn, a girl lost control of her car \nand uncontrollable skid and hit me right behind the driver’s \nside door there in my work truck.   \nQ.  Now, you sustained injuries as a result of that accident? \nA.  I did....I went home, and the next morning I got up and \nwent to the emergency room.   \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  When you left Jonesboro to go back to Shirley, you got to \nwhere before you had the wreck? \nA.  Right past the turnoff to Highway 5 between Drasco and \nConcord.   \nQ.  Okay. \n\nCOOPER - H404010  6\n  \n \n \nA.  It was right past the Highway 5 turnoff to go to Mountain \nView.... \nQ.  Did you have any work to do between Jonesboro and \nDrasco? \nA.  Well, I – I was on the telephone with Kenny and Jeremy \nalmost all the way talking.  I guess I was.  I was talking work \nbusiness.... \nQ.  Now, at the time of this accident near Drasco, why were \nyou where you were? \nA.  Because Jeremy and Kenny told me to take the rest of the \nday off with pay.     \n \n According to the record, the claimant treated at St. Vincent Health \nSystem on June 25, 2022: \nPt restrained driver involved in MVA around 1530.  Reports \ngetting t-boned.  Pt reports hitting head.  Denies any \nLOC....Pt reports pain left hip, left knee, chest, upper back, \nneck.  Diffuse pain throughout.  Was not seen post[.]... \nThe patient presents following motor vehicle collision.  The \nonset was 1 days ago.  The Collision was moderate speed \nand rollover.  The patient was the driver. \n \n A musculoskeletal examination showed “No swelling, no deformity.”   \nA CT of the claimant’s head was taken on June 25, 2022 with the \nfollowing impression: \n1. No acute intracranial process visualized. \n2. Bilateral ethmoid and maxillary sinus disease.   \n \nA CT of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on June 25, 2022 \nwith the impression, “Negative study.”  A CT of the claimant’s chest was \ntaken on June 25, 2022 with the impression, “1.  No acute pulmonary \nfinding.  2.  No fracture or other acute posttraumatic process.”  A CT of the \n\nCOOPER - H404010  7\n  \n \n \nclaimant’s abdomen and pelvis was taken on June 25, 2022 with the \nimpression, “No acute posttraumatic process of the abdomen or pelvis.”   \nThe claimant was discharged in stable condition on June 25, 2022.  \nIt was noted on June 25, 2022, “Did not fully assess this pt.  Pt was \nassessed and discharged from waiting room per medical provider.  Trauma \nsheet completed and turned into charge nurse.” \nThe claimant treated at Dodd Family Practice on or about June 28, \n2022: \nPATIENT IS HERE TO FOLLOW UP HE WAS T-BONED IN \nDRASCO FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND HAD TO BE CUT OUT \nOF HIS VEHICLE HE IS HAVING PAIN IN HIS NECK HIS \nHANDS ARE NUMB AND HIS RIGHT THUMB IS HURTING \nHIS EQUILIBRIUM IS OFF AND HE IS HAVING VISUAL \nDISTURBANCE....HE IS HAVING PAIN IN HIS RIGHT \nANKLE AND LEFT HIP HE IS HURTING REALLY BAD....HE \nIS A HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR AND WAS ON HIS \nWAY HOME IN A COMPANY TRUCK WHEN HE GOT T-\nBONED.  HE IS HAVING PANIC ATTACKS EVERYTIME HE \nGETS IN A VEHICLE FEELING LIKE SOMEONE IS GOING \nTO HIT HIS VEHICLE HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DRIVE \nSINCE HIS ACCIDENT.... \nPT IS HAVING DECREASED ROM OF CERVICAL SPINE \nAND PAIN WITH PALPATION TO CERVICAL SPINE \nMUSCLE SPASMS ACROSS BILATERAL \nNECK/SHOULDER WITH ROM.     \n \n The assessment of Angela Dodd, APRN included “Pain in cervical \nspine.”   \n An x-ray of the claimant’s hip was taken on July 5, 2022 with the \nimpression, “Negative.”  An x-ray of the claimant’s right ankle was taken on \n\nCOOPER - H404010  8\n  \n \n \nJuly 5, 2022 with the impression, “No acute findings.  Haglund deformity.  \nTiny calcaneal spur.”  An x-ray of the claimant’s right foot was taken on July \n5, 2022 with the findings, “No fracture is identified.  No dislocation is \nidentified.  No arthritis is noted.  No periosteal reaction or unexpected \nopaque foreign body is seen.”   \n The claimant began a series of visits with Robert Yerton, LCSW on \nJuly 14, 2022.  Mr. Yerton’s initial diagnosis was “Post-traumatic stress \ndisorder,” “Major depressive disorder, single episode, severe without \npsychotic features,” and “Other situational type phobia.” \n Robert Yerton noted on July 21, 2022, “Ricky reported that he was \nfired from his job this week due to his doctor filing his treatment from his \naccident as workman’s comp.  ‘I have worked for that company for 9 years, \nthey took care of my (sic) for 12 weeks after my heart bypass and now this.’  \nHe says that he has been having nightmares before but they increased \nsince getting fired.”   \n The claimant was examined at Legacy Spine & Neurological \nSpecialists on or about October 7, 2022: \nMr. Cooper is a 47 year old male who presents with neck pain \nand low back pain.  He reports that his neck pain began 4 \nmonths ago following an MVA to which [he] was T-boned in \nthe car flipped multiple times.  He states that the pain in his \nneck will radiate into both shoulders and anteriorly down both \narms to both hands.  He also reports pain that radiates into \nboth shoulder blade areas....He is experiencing significant \nheadaches primarily to the base of his skull however this may \n\nCOOPER - H404010  9\n  \n \n \nintermittently wraparound anteriorly toward his temples.  He is \nexperiencing slight dizziness and having trouble focusing with \nsevere pain.  He reports numbness, weakness, and tingling to \nhis arms bilaterally. \nHe is also experiencing low back pain that will radiate into \nboth hips and anteriorly down to both feet.... \n \n It was subsequently noted, “Cervical spine MRI from 10/19/22 \ndemonstrates no evidence of central canal or neural paraspinal stenosis.  \nNo spondylolisthesis.  There is normal cervical lordosis.”   \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on October 26, \n2022 with the following conclusion: \nDominant findings are noted at the L5-S1 level with disc \nheight loss, retrolisthesis, a broad-based disc bulge with \ncentral protrusion and facet hypertrophy contributing to \nabutment of bilateral exiting L5 nerves and abutment of \nbilateral descending S1 nerves.   \n \n The claimant underwent a sacroiliac joint injection on November 3, \n2022 and a selective nerve root block on November 21, 2022.  The claimant \nunderwent a sacroiliac joint injection on December 12, 2022.  The claimant \nunderwent cervical medial branch blocks on February 13, 2023 and March \n16, 2023.  The claimant underwent a cervical rhizotomy on April 6, 2023.   \n Dr. Dominic Maggio performed procedures on April 11, 2023:  “1)  \nSacroiliac joint arthrodesis with instrumentation with iFuse Implant System-\nS1 bone, Left.  2)  Use of intraoperative fluoroscopy.”  The pre- and post-\noperative diagnosis was “Left sacroiliac joint dysfunction.”     \n\nCOOPER - H404010  10\n  \n \n \nA pre-hearing order was filed on March 20, 2025.  The claimant \ncontended, “Claimant contends that he sustained compensable injuries, \n06/24/22.  Claimant contends entitlement to payment of temporary total \ndisability benefits continuing through a date yet to be determined.  Medical \nexpenses have been incurred.  This claim has been controverted for \npurposes of attorney fees.  Claimant’s attorney respectfully requests that \nany attorney’s fees owed by the claimant on controverted benefits paid by \naward or otherwise be deducted from claimant’s benefits and paid directly \nto the claimant’s attorney by separate check, and that any Commission \nOrder direct the respondent to make payment of attorney’s fees in this \nmanner.”   \n The respondents contended, “Respondents will assert the following \ndefenses:  The claimant did not sustain a compensable injury.  He \nterminated his employment prior to the time of the accident.  He was on his \nway home and not performing employment services at the time of the \naccident.”   \n According to the text of the pre-hearing order, the parties agreed to \nlitigate the following issues: \n1. Did an employee/employer relationship exist on June 24, \n2022, at the time of the injury, and if one did exist, was the \ninjury compensable. \n2. Medical. \n3. TTD from the date of the injury to a date to be determined.   \n4. Attorney fees. \n\nCOOPER - H404010  11\n  \n \n \n5. All other issues are reserved.   \n \nOn May 21, 2025, the respondents presented additional contentions: \n “Respondents contend that: \n1. The claimant does not have a compensable mental or \nPTSD injury.  His condition is not verified, as required by \nlaw, by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. \n2. The claimant does not have a compensable SI joint injury \nas it is not corroborated by objective medical; findings. \n3. The claimants (sic) lumbar condition is attributable to \ndegenerative findings and was not caused by the accident.  \nThe major cause of any PPD is not the accident.   \n4. The claimants (sic) cervical condition is degenerative and \nwas not caused by the accident. \n5. No doctor has opined that the accident is the cause of any \nof the claimant’s medical conditions.”   \n \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on July \n22, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to \nprove an employment relationship existed on June 24, 2022.  The claimant \nappeals to the Full Commission.      \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. \n2012), provides, in pertinent part: \n(A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external \nphysical harm to the body ... arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment and which requires medical \nservices or results in disability or death.  An injury is \n“accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident \nand is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]   \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\nCOOPER - H404010  12\n  \n \n \nor before the employee was hired or after the \nemployment relationship was terminated[.]     \n \n  An employee is performing employment services when he is doing \nsomething that is generally required by his employer.  Dairy Farmers of \nAmerica v. Coker, 98 Ark. App. 400, 255 S.W.3d 905.  The Arkansas \nSupreme Court uses the same test to determine whether an employee is \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. \nA 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)(Repl. 2012). \n The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he 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\nCOOPER - H404010  13\n  \n \n \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  That the \nclaimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that an \nemployer/employee carrier relationship existed on June 24\nth\n, 2022, 2025 \n(sic), the date of the claimed injury involving a motor vehicle accident.”  The \nFull Commission finds that the claimant did not prove by a preponderance \nof the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury.   \n The claimant testified that he had been employed with the \nrespondents as a “Finish Operator.”  The claimant testified that he was \n“running a bulldozer” for the respondents on June 24, 2022.  Warren D. \nRobinson, Jr., the respondent-employer’s Project Manager, testified that he \ndrove past the respondents’ work site on June 24, 2022 and “I saw the \ndozer that he was in parked.”  Mr. Robinson testified that he called the \nclaimant and “He said some – said that he was quitting, he was going \nhome, that we could come pick up the truck from his house....[H]e said he’s \ntired of the BS, and that was it, and the phone hung up.” \n The claimant testified that he did not terminate his employment \nrelationship with the respondents on June 24, 2022.  The claimant testified \nthat two other supervisory employees “told me to take the rest of the day off \nwith pay.”  The Full Commission is not required to believe the testimony of \nthe claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into findings \nof fact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief.  \n\nCOOPER - H404010  14\n  \n \n \nFarmers Co-op v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002).  The Full \nCommission finds in the present matter that the claimant was not a credible \nwitness.  There was no probative evidence of record corroborating the \nclaimant’s testimony that he was told to “take the rest of the day off with \npay.”  Instead, the evidence corroborated the credible testimony of the \nrespondent-employer’s Project Manager, Warren D. Robinson, Jr..  Warren \nRobinson completed an EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY ACTION FORM on \nJune 24, 2022 which corroborated Mr. Robinson’s testimony.  The \nEMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY ACTION FORM filled out by Warren Robinson \nindicated that the claimant “was quitting and going home.  He also stated \nthat we could come pick up the truck at his house.”   \n The evidence therefore demonstrates that the June 24, 2022 motor \nvehicle accident took place “after the employment relationship was \nterminated,” in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(B)(iii).  \nTherefore, any injuries the claimant allegedly sustained on June 24, 2022, \nafter he terminated his employment and left the work site, were not \ncompensable.   \n Moreover, the Full Commission finds that the claimant was not \nperforming employment services for the respondents at the time of the June \n24, 2022 motor vehicle accident.  We recognize that a claimant may be \nperforming employment services if the employer requires him to travel from \n\nCOOPER - H404010  15\n  \n \n \njobsite to jobsite as part of his work.  See Moncus v. Billingsley Logging, \n366 Ark. 383, 235 S.W.3d 877 (2006).  In the present case, however, the \nrecord does not show that the claimant was performing employment \nservices at the time of the June 24, 2022 motor vehicle accident.  The \ncritical inquiry in accordance with Act 796 of 1993 is whether the claimant \nwas performing employment services when the injury occurred.  See Parker \nv. Comcast Cable Corp., 100 Ark. App. 400, 269 S.W.3d 391 (2007), citing \nMoncus, supra.  The Commission is bound to examine the activity the \nclaimant was engaged in at the time of the accident in determining whether \nor not he was performing employment services.  Hill v. LDA Leasing, 2010 \nArk. App. 271, 374 S.W.3d 268 (2010).   \n In the present matter, the evidence does not demonstrate that the \nclaimant was performing employment services at the time of the motor \nvehicle accident which took place on June 24, 2022.  The evidence does \nnot demonstrate that the claimant was performing his duties for the \nrespondents after he voluntarily left the work site on June 24, 2022, which \nduties primarily involved heavy equipment operation, i.e., driving a \nbulldozer.  Nor does the record corroborate the claimant’s testimony that he \nwas “talking work business” while driving from Jonesboro to Shirley on the \nafternoon on June 24, 2022.  The evidence before the Commission does \nnot demonstrate that the claimant was performing employment services at \n\nCOOPER - H404010  16\n  \n \n \nthe time of the June 24, 2022 motor vehicle accident.  Therefore, the \nclaimant did not prove that he sustained a compensable injury.  See Farler \nv. City of Cabot, 95 Ark. App. 121, 234 S.W.3d 352 (2006).  The record \ndoes not show that the claimant was carrying out the employer’s purpose \ndirectly or indirectly at the time of the accident.  See Pifer, supra.     \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the injuries allegedly sustained by the claimant on June 24, 2022 \noccurred after the claimant voluntarily terminated his employment \nrelationship with the respondents, in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-102(4)(B)(iii)(Repl. 2012).  We also find that the claimant was not \nperforming employment services for the respondents at the time of the June \n24, 2022 motor vehicle accident.  The claimant did not prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury on \nJune 24, 2022.  The Full Commission therefore respectfully denies and \ndismisses this claim. \n IT IS SO ORDERED.           \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H404010 RICKY W. COOPER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ATLAS ASPHALT, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORP., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2026","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.857Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H404010-2026-02-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cooper_Ricky_H404010_20260210.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}