William Cyrus vs. City Of Little Rock

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208417 WILLIAM CYRUS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 20, 2026 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by the HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed. OPINION AND ORDER The claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed October 21, 2025. The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove he was entitled to “a permanent partial disability rating.” After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained permanent anatomical impairment in the amount of 2%. I. HISTORY William Charles Cyrus, now age 61, testified that he became employed with the respondents, City of Little Rock, in about April 2019.

CYRUS - H208417 2 The parties stipulated that an employment relationship existed on November 25, 2022. The claimant testified on direct examination: Q. And on this date, were you injured on the job? A. I was. Q. Just briefly tell the judge what happened. A. Well, we had pulled up to an address that we needed to clean, and I jumped out of the truck before the guy that was driving did. And as I jumped out of the truck, a black Charger drove up behind us and kind of pulled a little bit further to the side of us, and a guy come out and talked out the window and sat on top of the hood and start firing with a gun with a silencer on it, and that’s why I was shot because I never heard a sound. Q. And so what were you there to do? Were y’all cleaning off this lot? A. We was cleaning debris off of it getting ready to cut it. According to the record, the claimant was treated at UAMS on November 25, 2022: Cyrus R. William is a 58 y.o. male brought in by EMS following gsw x2 to the torso. Patient denies LOC. Unaware of attacked. Handgun ballistics at close range.... CT Chest Abdomen and Pelvis -IMPRESSION. 1. Comminuted fracture on the right 8 th rib as well as the right transverse process and spinous process of T8 vertebra. 2. Bilateral pulmonary contusions are seen, greater on the right with right-sided hemothorax. 3. Active hemorrhage seen along the posterolateral 9 th rib superficially, likely coming from the 9 th intercostal artery. 4. No acute findings within the abdomen or pelvis. Dr. Sydney M. Hodgeson noted on November 25, 2022: [M]ale presenting with T6-T7 spinous process fractures and R T8 transverse process fracture s/p GSW that occurred around 11:00 today. Other injuries: hemothorax, rib fractures....

CYRUS - H208417 3 Back: Ballistic wound over R lateral back and L lateral back. TTP over mid-lower thoracic spine. There are no palpable deformities appreciated.... Imaging: CT c/a/p were independently reviewed which demonstrated T6-T7 spinous process fractures and R T8 transverse process fracture. Dr. Hodgeson assessed “58 y.o. male T6-T7 spinous process fractures and R T8 transverse process fracture s/p GSW to the back with no neuro deficits.” Dr. Hodgeson planned “No acute orthopaedic spine intervention” and “Non-operative management.” Dr. David B. Bumpass co- signed Dr. Hodgeson’s report. The claimant was discharged from UAMS on November 26, 2022 with the diagnosis, “GSW, stable T spine fracture.” The parties stipulated that “the claim was accepted as compensable and certain benefits have been paid.” An x-ray of the claimant’s thoracic spine was taken on December 13, 2022 with the following findings: Comparison is made with prior examination dated 11/26/2022. The vertebral body heights are maintained. The alignment is intact. Mild degenerative changes are stable. Known right T8 transverse and spinous process fractures are in very difficult to visualize. No interval abnormalities are noted. Impression: Unremarkable thoracic spine. Known right T8 transverse and spinous process fractures are difficult to visualized (sic). An APRN returned the claimant to light duty on December 13, 2022. An APRN noted on January 5, 2023:

CYRUS - H208417 4 Mr. Cyrus is a 58 y.o. male who presents to surgery clinic for follow up after GSW to back (11/25/22) with R. rib fx, T spine, fx, R. hemothorax and pulm contusion. He states that he is doing well overall. Improved ROM, breathing and pain managed adequately with PO medications. Mild throbbing soreness preset (sic) toward the end of the day, but feel he is able to perform daily functions without difficulties....Able to take deep inspiration without any pain/difficulties.... CT Chest with contrast 1/4/2022 No acute process within the chest. Healing 7 right rib fracture and unchanged appearance of T8 spinous process fracture. The APRN assessed, “Mr. Cyrus is a 58 y.o. male who presents to surgery clinic for follow up after GSW to back with R. rib fx, T spine fx, R. hemothorax and pulm contusion. Plan: No need for followup at this time....Ok to return to full activity per trauma perspective.” An x-ray of the claimant’s thoracic spine was taken on January 23, 2023 with the following findings: The known right T8 transverse process and spinous process fractures are again not confidently visualized on the plain radiographs. The alignment and curvature of the thoracic spine remains stable with no interval acute vertebral body collapse/compression. Pedicles appear intact. Visualized lungs are clear. The cardiomediastinal silhouette is within normal limits. Impression No significant interval change since the prior radiograph. The known right T8 transverse and spinous process fractures are again not confidently identified on the plain films. Dr. Bumpass reported on January 23, 2023: Patient presents today for follow-up of T8 spinous process fracture and transverse process fracture secondary to gunshot injury. This is a worker’s compensation injury. It occurred

CYRUS - H208417 5 November 25, 2022. No neurological injury. He has had definite improvement in pain symptoms last visit in December. At this time he reports that his function has returned to normal and he has minimal pain.... Imaging: Unchanged alignment spine AP and lateral views, reviewed and interpreted by myself. Cannot clearly identify fractures on radiographs. Assessment: Healed T8 fractures, secondary to non operative treatment, after gunshot wound sustained November 25, 2022. Plan: This time the patient can follow up with me on an as- needed basis. He has no work restrictions. He has no need for a permanent impairment rating. He is at maximum medical improvement. Dr. Bumpass also stated on January 23, 2023, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. Cyrus may return to work on 1/24/23 with no restrictions.” Casey Garretson, an Occupational Therapist at Functional Testing Centers, Inc., provided an IMPAIRMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY on March 7, 2025: Mr. Cyrus reports an injury at work when he was picking up trash and he reports a car drove up and started shooting at Mr. Cyrus’s co-worker, and he reports one of the bullets shot him through the right side of his torso and the bullet came out of the other side of his torso....He reports the bullet hit his spine and when he full (sic) he broke a rib or two.... According to the “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition”; Mr. Cyrus has a permanent impairment rating of 2% of the Whole Person due to his work related injury. A pre-hearing order was filed on June 17, 2025. The claimant contended, “The Claimant sustained compensable injuries as a result of [a] gunshot wound on or about November 25, 2022, in the course and scope of

CYRUS - H208417 6 his employment. The Respondents accepted the claim and paid medical and indemnity benefits. The Claimant sustained gunshot wounds in the course and scope of his employment. He has permanent anatomical loss as a result of these wounds. The Claimant contends that he is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits for his injuries. The Claimant sought an evaluation with the Functional Testing Centers for his permanent impairment. The Claimant has been assigned a 2% impairment rating which has been controverted by Respondents. The Claimant is either entitled to the 2% rating or the Commission should assess impairment in accordance with Arkansas law. If the Commission finds that [it] is without sufficient information upon which to assess the Claimant’s impairment, it should order an Independent Medical Examination in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-511. Claimant also contends that the cost of the impairment evaluation with Functional Testing Centers is reasonable and necessary medical treatment for which Respondents should be responsible. Claimant’s attorney is entitled to attorney’s fees on all controverted indemnity. All other issues are reserved.” The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that all appropriate benefits are being paid with regard to Claimant’s compensable injuries sustained on 11/25/22. Claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Bumpass, indicated that he reached MMI on 1/23/23 with a 0% impairment rating.

CYRUS - H208417 7 Claimant’s rating evaluation performed by Functional Testing Centers is not medical treatment, and Respondents should not be responsible for the same. Likewise, an IME is not reasonable and necessary, as permanency has already been addressed by Claimant’s treating physician.” According to the text of the pre-hearing order, the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: 1. Average Weekly Wage. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on this issue, they are required to submit a brief seven days prior to the hearing. 2. Underpayment or overpayment of TTD. 3. Entitlement to PPD. 4. Reasonable and necessary medical expenses. 5. Attorney Fees. After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on October 21, 2025. The administrative law judge found, among other things, that there was “insufficient evidence to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that the claimant is entitled to a permanent partial disability rating.” The administrative law judge found that a requested Independent Medical Evaluation was not reasonably necessary. The claimant appeals to the Full Commission. II. ADJUDICATION Permanent impairment is any functional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has been reached. Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994). The Commission has adopted the

CYRUS - H208417 8 American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4 th ed. 1993) to be used in assessing anatomical impairment. See Commission Rule 34; Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(g)(Repl. 2012). It is the Commission’s duty, using the Guides, to determine whether the claimant has proved he is entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment. Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001). Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical findings. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704(c)(1)(Repl. 2012). Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012). Although it is true that the legislature has required medical evidence supported by objective findings to establish a compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is required to establish each and every element of compensability. Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997). All that is required is that the medical evidence be supported by objective medical findings. Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244 S.W.3d 709 (2006). Medical opinions addressing impairment must be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9- 102(16)(B)(Repl. 2012).

CYRUS - H208417 9 Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012). “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of major cause shall be established according to the preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(14)(Repl. 2012). Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “5. That the Claimant is found to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on January 23, 2023, with a 0% impairment rating as assigned by his treating physician and that there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that the claimant is entitled to a permanent partial disability rating.” The Full Commission does not affirm this finding. The parties agreed that the claimant sustained compensable injuries on November 25, 2022. The claimant testified that he was performing clean-up work for the City of Little Rock when he was randomly shot with a handgun. The medical evidence showed that the claimant was shot twice in the back, once under each shoulder. There were a number of objective findings demonstrated following the compensable injury. These objective

CYRUS - H208417 10 findings included a rib fracture, thoracic spine fracture, and pulmonary contusion. The claimant was treated nonoperatively. Dr. Bumpass from UAMS released the claimant on January 23, 2023 and concluded in part, “He has no need for a permanent impairment rating.” The claimant has since returned to full-duty work for the respondents. As we have discussed, the record contains an “IMPAIRMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY – Spine” prepared at Functional Testing Centers, Inc. on March 7, 2025. An occupational therapist opined, “According to the “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition’: Mr. Cyrus has a permanent impairment rating of 2% of the Whole Person due to his work related injury.” A 2% permanent anatomical impairment rating is fully supported by objective medical findings not within the claimant’s voluntary control, including rib fractures, bilateral pulmonary contusions, and hemorrhage. The 2% percent rating is also wholly consistent with the 4 th Edition of the Guides at Table 75, page 3/113. The Full Commission recognizes Dr. Bumpass’ conclusion that that there was “no need for a permanent impairment rating.” Nevertheless, the Commission has the duty of weighing medical evidence and, if the evidence is conflicting, its resolution is a question of fact for the Commission. Green Bay Packaging v. Bartlett, 67 Ark. App. 332, 999 S.W.2d 695 (1999). It is within the Commission’s province to weigh all of the medical evidence and

CYRUS - H208417 11 to determine what is most credible. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). In the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the assessment of a 2% permanent anatomical impairment rating at Functional Testing Centers is entitled to more evidentiary weight than Dr. Bumpass’ conclusion that there was “no need for a permanent impairment rating.” The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained a 2% permanent anatomical impairment rating. We find that the 2% rating is supported by the 4 th Edition of the Guides. The 2% rating is supported by objective medical findings, and evaluation at Functional Testing Centers was stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The claimant also proved that the compensable injury he sustained on November 25, 2022 was the major cause of the 2% permanent anatomical impairment rating. After reviewing the entire record de novo, therefore, the Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained 2% permanent anatomical impairment as a result of the compensable injury he sustained on November 25, 2022. The claimant proved that the evaluation at Functional Testing Centers, Inc. was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012). See Gansky v. Hi-Tech Eng’g, 325 Ark. 163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). The claimant’s attorney is

CYRUS - H208417 12 entitled to fees for legal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9- 715(a)(Repl. 2012). For prevailing on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman ___________________________________ M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner Commissioner Mayton dissents. DISSENTING OPINION I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding that the claimant is entitled to a two percent (2%) permanent impairment rating. "Permanent impairment" has been defined as "any permanent functional or anatomical loss remaining after the healing period has ended." Carrick v. Baptist Health, 2022 Ark. App. 134, 643 S.W.3d 466 (2022). Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment must be supported by objective and measurable physical or mental findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B). "Objective findings" are those findings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. Ark

CYRUS - H208417 13 Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). Complaints of pain are not to be considered objective medical findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9- 102(16)(A)(ii)(a); Reed v. First Step, Inc., 2019 Ark. App. 289, 577 S.W.3d 424 (2019). The Commission is authorized to decide which portions of the medical evidence to credit and to translate this evidence into a finding of permanent impairment using the AMA Guides; thus, the Commission may assess its own impairment rating rather than rely solely on its determination of the validity of ratings assigned by physicians. Carrick, 2022 Ark. App. 134, 643 S.W.3d 466 (2022). In weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness. Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark. App. 459,637 S.W.3d 280 (2021). However, the Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions. Williams v. Ark. Dept. of Community Corrections, 2016 Ark. App. 427, 502 S.W. 3d 530 (2016). Furthermore, it is the Commission's duty to use its experience and expertise in translating the testimony of medical experts into findings of fact and to draw inferences when testimony is open to more than a single interpretation. Id. Here, although the claimant was diagnosed as having a rib fracture, a thoracic spine fracture, hemothorax, and pulmonary contusion, he was released to full duty on January 5, 2023.

CYRUS - H208417 14 A January 23, 2023 thoracic x-ray revealed that “[t]he known right T8 transverse process and spinous process fractures are again not confidently identified on the plain films.” The claimant treated with Dr. David Bumpass on that date. Dr. Bumpass reported “[n]o neurological injury. He has had definite improvement in pain symptoms since last visit in December. At this time he reports that his function has returned to normal and he has minimal pain.” Dr. Bumpass opined that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement on January 23, 2023, and assigned no impairment rating. The claimant has continued to work since the time of his injury, including washing dishes, at Black Bear Diner before returning to work filling potholes for the city of Little Rock. He has had no problems performing either job. The claimant has no restrictions from any doctor and suffers no permanent effects from his injuries. The ALJ was correct in finding that because the claimant underwent a functional capacity evaluation over two years after his injuries, there is insufficient evidence to show that the claimant is entitled to a permanent impairment rating. The claimant’s treating physician did not assign an impairment rating, and the claimant has worked physical jobs with no issues during this time. There is simply no evidence that the claimant suffers any permanent impairment from his injuries. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent.

CYRUS - H208417 15 _______________________________ MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner