Tommy Jones vs. Superior Chevrolet Siloam Springs

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205774 TOMMY E. JONES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SUPERIOR CHEVROLET SILOAM SPRINGS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CENTRAL ARKANSAS AUTO DEALERS SIF/ RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 2, 2025 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Respondents represented by the HONORABLE JARROD S. PARRISH, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed and Adopted. OPINION AND ORDER Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law Judge filed November 18, 2024. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre- hearing conference conducted on June 24, 2024, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed June 25, 2024, are hereby accepted as fact. 2. The respondent has successfully raised the Intoxication Defense and the claimant has been unable to overcome the rebuttable presumption that his motor

Jones-H205774 2 vehicle accident was substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. 3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained compensable injuries to his spleen, liver, collar bone, ribs, and left hand on or about August 8, 2022. 4. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to medical treatment in this matter. 5. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits in this matter. 6. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee in this matter. We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record herein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's decision is supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies the law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from a preponderance of the evidence the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law Judge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission. Therefore, we affirm and adopt the November 18, 2024 decision of the Administrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as the decision of the Full Commission on appeal.

Jones-H205774 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman ___________________________________ MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner Commissioner Willhite concurs. CONCURRING OPINION After my de novo review, I concur with the majority opinion finding that Claimant failed to overcome the rebuttable presumption that his motor vehicle accident was substantially occasioned by the use of illegal drugs, but write separately for the benefit of the Claimant. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(B)(iv) a compensable injury does not include: (a) Injury where the accident was substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. (b) The presence of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of a physician’s orders shall create a rebuttable presumption that the injury or accident was substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. (...) (d) An employee shall not be entitled to compensation unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence

Jones-H205774 4 that the alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs utilized in contravention of the physician’s orders did not substantially occasion the injury or accident. On the date of the accident, the medical records from St. Francis Health System indicate that Claimant tested positive for benzodiazepine and cannabinoid. The Claimant denied taking benzodiazepine, and it is not clear if this medication was administered in the emergency room pursuant to a physician’s order. Therefore, I find that the presumption stated in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(B)(iv)(b) was not created by the presences of benzodiazepine in the Claimant’s urine. The positive test for cannabinoid presents a different issue. The Claimant testified that he had a valid medical marijuana card on the date of the accident. However, cannabinoid remains a federally illegal drug pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. Therefore, I must concur with the majority and find that the presence of cannabinoid in the Claimant’s urine does create a rebuttable presumption that the work accident resulted from the use of the illegal substance. I find that the Claimant was unable to overcome this presumption and did not sustain a compensable injury. For the foregoing reasons, I concur with the majority but write separately for the benefit of the Claimant. _______________________________ M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner