{"id":"alj-G106990-2026-02-17","awcc_number":"G106990","decision_date":"2026-02-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Linda Michael","employer_name":"Booneville School District","title":"MICHAEL VS. BOONEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# G106990 February 17, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","knee","ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MICHAEL_LINDA_G106990_20260217.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MICHAEL_LINDA_G106990_20260217.pdf","text_length":19855,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. G106990 \n \nLINDA MICHAEL, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nBOONEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \n \n OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in  Fort  Smith, \nSebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by MELISSA WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondent No. 2 represented by CHRISTY L. KING, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On November 20, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort Smith, \nArkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on August  25,  2025,  and  a  Pre-hearing \nOrder  was  filed  on August  26,  2025.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked \nCommission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties on June 28, \n2011. \n 3. The  claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  low  back  on  or  about  June  28, \n2011. \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-2- \n 4. The claimant was earning sufficient wages to entitle her to compensation at the weekly \nrates  of  $252.00  for  temporary  total  disability  benefits  and  $189.00  for  permanent  partial \ndisability benefits. \n 5. All prior opinions are final and the law of the case. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from February  28, \n2025, to August 19, 2025. \n 2. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“a.  The  Claimant  contends  that  subsequent  to  a  hearing  that  was \nheld in which the claimant contended entitlement to permanent and \ntotal   disability   there   has   been   a   material   worsening   in   the \nclaimant’s  condition  that  has  not  only  resulted  in  her  need  for \ntreatment but has also caused her to currently be unable to return to \nwork  in  any  capacity.  Specifically,  on  February  28,  2025,  Dr. \nRachel Fiori opined that the claimant is ‘currently unable to return \nto  work  in  any  capacity’.  Further  Dr.  Danny  Silver  opined  on \nMarch  7,  2025,  that  the  claimant  is  experiencing  a  new  disc \nherniation  at  the  L1-L2 level and that ‘Ms. Michael’s current L1-\nL2   disc   herniation   is   a   direct   result   of   her   prior   lumbar \nlaminectomy’. Finally a report from Dr. Miles Johnson indicates \nthat  on  July  14,  2025,  the  claimant  was  evaluated  and  that  knee \njerks and ankle jerks were both absent. The claimant contends that \nfindings  regarding  absent  knee  jerks  and  ankle  jerks  noted  by  Dr. \nJohnson, are objective findings, not within the claimant’s control, \nthat are indicative of a back injury and that those findings were not \npresent at the time of the prior hearing. \n \nb. The Claimant contends her attorney is entitled to an appropriate \nattorney’s fee.” \n \n Respondents No. 1 contentions are as follows: \n“Respondents  contend  that  all  appropriate  benefits  are  being  paid \nwith regard to Claimant’s compensable lower back injury sustained \non  6/28/11.  Claimant  is  not  entitled  to  additional  temporary  total \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-3- \ndisability benefits. Her condition is permanent, and she has already \ntried the issue of permanent total disability.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 54-year-old  female who  sustained  a  compensable  injury \nto her lumbar spine on June 28, 2011. The parties entered into an Agreed Order on September 2, \n2014, stipulating wage loss at 42% above the 14% permanent partial impairment rating. On June \n26,  2025,  the  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  a  decision  that  the  claimant  was  not  permanently  and \ntotally disabled. The claimant is currently asking the Commission to determine if she is entitled \nto  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  February  28,  2025,  to  August  19,  2025,  for  her  June \n28, 2011, compensable lumbar spine injury. \n On  February  28,  2025,  medical  director  Dr.  Rachel  Fiori  of  the  Center  for  Psychiatric \nWellness authored a letter “To Whom It May Concern.” Following is a portion of that letter: \n1.  Severity  of  Depression:  Linda  exhibits  symptoms  including \npersistent  sadness,  lack  of  motivation,  cognitive  impairments,  and \nsevere  fatigue,  which  interfere  with  daily  functioning  and  the \ncapacity to sustain employment. Linda’s depression worsened to \nthe  extent  that  she  developed  paranoid  delusions  and  psychotic \nfeatures. These psychotic symptoms have continued to progress in \nspite of treatment. \n \n2. Impact of Chronic Pain: The ongoing pain from the back injury \ncontributes  to  the  severity  of  the  depression,  creating  a  cycle  that \nfurther  diminishes  Linda’s  ability  to  engage  in  work-related \nactivities. \n \n3.  Functional  Limitations:  Linda  is  unable  to  sit  or  stand  for \nextended  periods,  perform  physical  tasks,  or  manage  the  mental \ndemands of their position due to the combined effects of the back \ninjury and depression. \n \n4.   Treatment    History:   Linda   has   diligently   adhered   to   a \ncomprehensive  treatment  plan,  including  medication  adjustments, \nphysicals  therapy,  and  counseling,  with  limited  improvement  in \nfunctional   capacity.   Linda   now   requires   medication   including \nantipsychotic   medication   and   anti-anxiety   medication.   These \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-4- \nmedically  necessary  treatments  produce  side   effects  including \nsedation that further limit Linda’s functional capacity. \n \n On  October  9,  2025,  Dr.  Luke  Knox  saw  the  claimant  at  the  respondents’  request. \nFollowing is a portion of that medical record: \nHPI \nLinda Michael is a 53 y.o. female who presents to follow up after \nnew   imaging   performed.   Patient   comes   in   with   multitude   of \ncomplaints of bilateral leg pain her feet drawl up she has cramping \nat night lower extremity discomfort etc. She comes in to review the \nMRI scan that we reviewed together today in clinic. She was found \nto have an L1-2 disc herniation on the right side with a significant \nL2-3  disc  bulge  centrally.  The  axial  views  actually  do  not  look  as \nif they cause significant compression of the thecal sac. She appears \nto have a well-healed fusion L3-L4 and L5-S1. \n \nPast Medical History: \nShe has a past medical history of Anemia, Chronic kidney disease, \nDeep vein thrombosis (CMS/HCC), Hyperlipidemia, \nHypertension, Low back pain, and Memory loss of. \n \n*** \nAssessment & Plan \n1. Lumbar spondylosis (Primary) \n2. S/P spinal fusion \n3. Accident at workplace \n \nWe  discussed  in  detail  the  patient’s  condition,  symptoms,  and \nmanagement.  We  discussed  post-op  care,  expected  length  of  stay, \nand  goals  to  transition  home  versus  the  need  for  in-patient  rehab. \nPatient verbalized home environment supports a safe and effective \nrecovery.   We   discussed   the   use   of   Autograft,   Allograft,   and \nplanned  spinal  instruments.  Patient  verbalized  understanding  and \nwas able to repeat back key information of planned procedure and \nlevels  of  spinal  surgery.  Shared  decision  making  was  utilized \nduring  the  discussion  with  the  patient,  family  members,  and/or \ncaregiver concerning care, treatment, and services. \n \nWeight  Loss  Counseling:  We  discussed  the  increased  BMI  is \nassociated  with  higher  risk  of  surgical  complications  as  well  as \nfailed   back   surgery.   Discussed   options   including   increased \nphysical  activity,  portion  control,  dietician  referral,  prescription \nand  surgical  weight  loss  tools  that  are  available.  We  discussed \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-5- \nfollow  up  with  primary  care  physician  to  further  discuss  these \noptions or referral was offered. \n \nPatient  comes  in  with  exacerbation  and  progression  of  multiple \nmultiple   complaints   of   her   chronic   illness.   I   independently \ninterpreted  her  MRI  scan  demonstrating  well-healed  fusion  from \nL3-S1 with significant disc herniation L1-2 on the right as well as \na   central   disc   bulge   at   L2-3.   Axial   views   at   L2-3   did   not \ndemonstrate significant compressive pathology. And the L1-2 level \ndemonstrated mild compression on the right. I do not believe they \nare  bad  enough  to  warrant  surgical  intervention.  They  were  quite \ninterested in consideration of surgical stabilization. I assured them \nthat  surgery  would  not  afford  any  benefits  to  her  continuing \ncomplaints  as  I  believe  a  major  component  of  her  complaints  are \ndue to her weight and not the findings on MRI scan. We had a long \ndiscussion  concerning  the  need  to  get  down  on  her  weight.  We \nmade  a  decision  regarding  elective  major  surgery  as  I  would \nstrongly  discouraged  this  due  to  the  extensive  risks  due  to  her \nmorbid  obesity.  I  also  discussed  her  care  and  management  with \nanother  qualified  health  healthcare  person  specifically  her  nurse \ncase  manager.  And  informed  her  of  the  above  decisions.  She  has \nreached    that    point    of    maximum    medical    improvement.    I \nrecommend  that  she  close  out  her  work  comp  case  as  there  is \nabsolutely    nothing    to    offer    her    from    the    standpoint    of \nneurosurgical stabilization and/or decompression. \n \n On October 21, 2025, Dr. Silver wrote a letter in response to Dr. Knox’s October 9, 2025, \nreport. Following is a portion of Dr. Silver’s response: \nI have reviewed Dr. Knox’s October 9, 2025 report regarding Ms. \nLinda Michael. \n \nMs.  Michael  has  bene  under  my  care  for  more  than  ten  years. \nDuring   that   time,   she   has   completed   every   treatment   and \nrehabilitation measure authorized through workers’ compensation, \nincluding but not limited to the following: \n \n* multiple lumbar surgeries (x3) \n* wound care with wound vacuum therapy \n* lumbar epidural steroid injections, trigger point injections \n* hydrotherapy \n* physical and occupational therapy \n* dietary and mental health counseling \n* bariatric surgery resulting in over 100 pounds of weight loss \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-6- \n \nShe has also participated in numerous medication adjustments and \nhas remained fully complaint with all treatment recommendations. \n \nOn   her   October   9,   2025   office   visit,   documentation   clearly \nindicates  that  Ms.  Michael  continues  to  have  ongoing  spinal \npathology,  including  disc  herniation  and  disc  protrusion  with \ncompression on the thecal sac. These findings are located adjacent \nto  her  surgically  corrected  levels  at  L3-L4  and  L4-L5  and  are \nconsistent  with  expected  post-surgical  biomechanical  stress   at \nadjacent segments. This pathology and symptomology are a direct \nconsequence  of  the  surgery  necessitated  by  her  original  work-\nrelated injury. Other than being a workers’ compensation case, her \nclinical presentation and objective findings are comparable to other \nchronic   patients   in   my   practice   who   have   not   yet   reached \nmaximum medical benefit. \n \nMs.  Michael  may  have  reached  maximum  surgical  benefit,  as \nfurther   operative   intervention   is   not   indicated   at   this   time. \nHowever, she has not reached maximum medical improvement, as \nshe continues to experience chronic, function-limiting pain related \nto her injury and adjacent level disease. She requires ongoing pain \nand medical management, as well as continued support to maintain \nweight  loss  and  conditioning  activities.  She  is  being  referred  for \naquatic  therapy,  which  should  improve  her  pain  and  mobility \nthrough  low-impact  exercise,  promote  further  weight  reduction, \nand enhance range of motion and function. \n \nDefinition:  Maximum  Medical  Improvement  (MMI),  sometimes \nreferred  to  as  maximum  medical  benefit,  is  the  point  at  which  a \npatient’s  condition  has  stabilized  and  is  unlikely  to  improve \nsubstantially  with  further  medical  treatment.  Reaching  MMI  does \nnot  mean  that  the  patient  is  fully  recovered  or  pain-free;  rather,  it \nsignifies  that  the  individual  has  reached  a  plateau  in  recovery \ndespite appropriate and comprehensive care. \n \nGiven  Ms.  Michael’s  persistent  symptoms,  objective  imaging \nfindings,  and  ongoing  need  for  non-surgical  treatment,  it  is  my \nmedical   opinion   that   she   has   not   reached   maximum   medical \nbenefit.     Continued     multidisciplinary     management     remains \nmedically necessary. \n \nOn March 7, 2025, Dr. Danny Silver authored a letter “To Whom It May Concern” \nregarding the claimant as follows: \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-7- \nI   am   writing   this   letter   regarding   Ms.   Linda   Michael,   who \npreviously  underwent  lumbar  spine  surgery  following  a  work-\nrelated  injury.  As  you  are  aware,  Ms.  Michael  sustained  an  injury \nat  work  that  necessitated  surgical  intervention  in  the  form  of  a \nlumbar laminectomy. \n \nMs. Michael is now experiencing a new disc herniation at the L1-\nL2  level,  which  is  producing  an  impression  upon  the  thecal  sac \nwith  superior  extrusion  of  disc  material.  This  development  is \nconsistent with a known medical condition referred to as “adjacent \nsegment  degeneration.”  This  condition  occurs  when  the \nintervertebral  discs  adjacent  to  a  previously  fused  or  surgically \ntreated  segment   are  subjected  to  increased  mechanical  stress, \nleading to degeneration and potential herniation. The fusion at the \nsurgical  site  restricts  movement,  causing  the  adjacent  discs  to \ncompensate  for  the  lost  mobility,  which  in  turn  accelerates  wear \nand tear. \n \nWith  a  high  degree  of  medical  certainty,  I  conclude  that  Ms. \nMichael’s current L1-L2  disc  herniation  is  a  direct  result  of  her \nprior  lumbar  laminectomy.  Given  the  nature  of  this  condition  and \nits well-documented occurrence following lumbar spine surgery, it \nis my medical opinion that this new injury is a direct consequence \nof   the   initial   work-related   injury   and   subsequent   surgical \nintervention. \n \n On August 12, 2025, the respondents sent Dr. Fiori a letter regarding the permanency of \nthe claimant’s condition. Following is a portion of the respondent’s letter to Dr. Fiori: \nI  am  in  receipt  of  your  correspondence  dated  2/25/25  concerning \nyour comprehensive overview of your treatment of Ms. Michael. I \nam handling her workers compensation claim and ant to make sure \nall  appropriate  benefits  are  being  paid.  You  have  opined  that  you \nbelieve  that  her  physical  and  psychological  conditions  warrant  a \nperiod of “total disability.” \n \nDo  you  feel  this  is  likely  a  permanent  situation:  Put  another  way, \ndo  you  think  she  is  only  temporarily  unable  to  work  and  will  one \nday be able to do so again? \n \nFor  your  convenience,  I  have  provided  a  space  below  for  you  to \ncheck accordingly. \n \n____ Permanent Situation \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-8- \n \n____ Temporary Situation \n \nOn August 19, 2025, Dr. Fiori responded to the respondent’s letter by placing a “X” in front of \n“Permanent  Situation”  and  handwriting  the  following  response  indicating  the  claimant’s \ncondition had become permanent: \nThis has been going on for years and her condition has worsened in \nspite  of  her  active  participation  in  care.  Her  pain  and  mental \nanguish have greatly impaired her functioning and destroys quality \nof life. We are working toward very simple goals and activities of \ndaily living and I foresee no situation in which she returns to work. \n \nIn order to be  entitled to temporary total disability benefits, the claimant  has the burden \nof proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he remains within his healing period and that \nhe suffers a total incapacity to earn wages as a result of his compensable injury. Arkansas State \nHighway  &  Transportation  Department  v.  Breshears, 272  Ark.  244,  613  S.W.  2d  392  (1981).\n The  claimant  reentered  her  healing  period  on  March  7,  2025,  when  Dr.  Silver  indicated \nthe claimant “is now experiencing a new disc herniation at the L1-L2 level.” Dr. Silver when on \nto say that “with a high degree of medical certainty, I conclude that Ms. Michael’s current L1-L2 \ndisc herniation is a direct result of her prior lumbar laminectomy.” \n Dr.  Fiori  had  declared  the  claimant  was  at  a  total  disability  status  as  of  February  28, \n2025.  However,  her  entitlement  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  would  begin  on  March  7, \n2025, when the claimant reentered her healing period and was totally disabled. \n That period of temporary total disability ends at the time Dr. Fiori determined on August \n19, 2025, that the  claimant’s condition had become permanent in nature thus removing her \ndisability temporary status. \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-9- \n The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  is  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from March 7, 2025, to August 19, 2025. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact  and conclusions of law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nAugust  25,  2025,  and  contained  in  a  Pre-hearing  Order  filed August  26,  2025,  are  hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2. The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  is  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from March 7, 2025, to August 19, 2025. \n 3.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  her  attorney  is \nentitled to an attorney fee. \n ORDER \nThe respondents shall pay for the  claimant’s temporary total disability benefits from \nMarch 7, 2025, to August 19, 2025, at the stipulated rate of $252.00 per week. \nThe respondents shall pay to the claimant's attorney the maximum statutory attorney's fee \non the benefits awarded herein, with one half of said attorney's fee to be paid by the respondents \nin addition to such benefits and one half of said attorney's fee to be withheld by the respondents \nfrom such benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715. \n All  benefits  herein  awarded  which  have  heretofore  accrued  are  payable  in  a  lump  sum \nwithout discount. \n\nMichael – G106990 \n \n-10- \n This award shall bear the maximum legal rate of interest until paid. \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G106990 LINDA MICHAEL, Employee CLAIMANT BOONEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer RESPONDENT NO. 1 ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSN., Carrier RESPONDENT NO. 1 DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO. 2 OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2026 Hearing before...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:09.108Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G106990-2026-02-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MICHAEL_LINDA_G106990_20260217.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}