{"id":"alj-G500916-2023-09-12","awcc_number":"G500916","decision_date":"2023-09-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Laquita Ferris","employer_name":"Baxter County Regional Hospital","title":"FERRIS VS. BAXTER COUNTY REGIONAL HOSPITAL AWCC# G500916 SEPTEMBER 12, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FERRIS_LAQUITA_G500916_20230912.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"FERRIS_LAQUITA_G500916_20230912.pdf","text_length":24144,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G500916 \n \nLAQUITA I. FERRIS, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nvs. \n \nBAXTER COUNTY REGIONAL HOSPITAL,  \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER          RESPONDENT #1 \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES,TPA         RESPONDENT   #1 \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT DISABILILTY  \nTRUST FUND        RESPONDENT #2 \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the  19\nth\n day of July, \n2023, in Mountain Home, Baxter County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant  is  represented  by Mr.  Frederick  S.  “Rick”  Spencer,  Attorney-at-Law,  of  \nMountain Home, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents #1 are represented by Mr. Walter A. Murray, Attorney-at-Law, of Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondent  #2  is  represented  by  Ms.  Christy L.  King,  Attorney-at-Law, of  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n A hearing was conducted on the 19th day of July, 2023, to determine the claimant’s \nentitlement to additional  medical treatment under the direction of Dr. Chris Arnold,  and \nadditionally,  whether  the  claimant  is  entitled  to  permanent  and  total  disability,  plus \nattorney fees.  Respondent #2 waived its right of appearance.  A copy of the Prehearing \nOrder dated February 14, 2023, was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made part of \nthe  record  without  objection.    The  Order  provided  that  the  parties  stipulated  that  the \nArkansas  Workers’  Compensation has  jurisdiction  of  the  case and  that  there  was  an \nemployer/employee relationship which existed on February 1, 2015, when the claimant \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n2 \n \nsustained  a  compensable  injury  to  her  left  knee  arising  out  of  her  employment.    The \nclaimant earned an average weekly wage of $398.36, entitling her to compensation rates \nof $266.00 for temporary total disability and $200.00 for permanent partial disability per \nweek.  Further, the Court of Appeals decision dated December 12, 2018, was the law of \nthe case.  Both parties’ response to the prehearing questionnaire were made a part of the \nrecord without objection.  The  initial witness to testify was the claimant,  Laquita Ferris.  \nHer  friend,  Cheryl  Edwards,  also  testified.  The  claimant  submitted  one  exhibit  which \nconsisted of thirty-one (31) pages of medical reports with an index which was admitted \nwithout objection.  From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports and \nother matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to observe \nthe  testimony  and  demeanor  of  the  witnesses,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law are made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction \nover this claim. \n \n2.  That an employer/employee  relationship existed on  February  1,  2015, \nwhen the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right knee. \n  \n3.  Claimant  earned  an  average  weekly  wage  of  $398.36,  entitling  her  to \ncompensation rates of $266.00 for temporary total disability and $200.00 \nfor permanent partial disability. \n \n4.  That  the  claimant  has  proven,  by  a  preponderance  of  the  credible \nevidence,  that  she  is  entitled  to  additional  reasonable  and  necessary \nmedical    treatment    consisting    of    conservative    treatment    and \nmanagement   under   the   direction   of   Dr.   Chris   Arnold and   the \nconservative   treatment   and   management is   causally   related   and \nreasonably  necessary  for  the  treatment  of  the  work-related  left  knee \ninjury. \n \n5.  The  claimant  has  failed  to  satisfy  the  burden  of  proof  that  she  is \npermanently and totally disabled. \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n3 \n \n \n   \n6.  All other issues are moot. \n  \n7.  I  f not already paid, the respondents  are ordered to pay for the cost of \nthe transcript forthwith. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n \n The  claimant,  testified  that  she  was  sixty-one  (61)  years  old  at  the  time  of  the \nhearing and was born on March 12, 1962.  She graduated the eleventh grade, obtained \nher GED, and then obtained her CNA certification.  She worked for the respondent for \napproximately thirteen (13) years and was working there when she was hurt on February \n1, 2015.  She was originally treated by Dr. Rauls, an orthopedic surgeon in Mt. Home, \nwho performed a scope on her left knee, and who then performed a reconstruction of the \nknee.    Neither  was  successful.   She  testified  she  then  obtained a change of  physician \nand was treated by Dr. Chris Arnold, who performed a total knee replacement on February \n27, 2020, and that procedure was unsuccessful.  Approximately three  (3) months after \nthe knee replacement, a manipulation was performed to break up the scar tissue and this \nwas the  last  procedure  performed  by  Dr.  Arnold.    “Since  my  total  knee  replacement,  I \nhave not been able to do basically pretty much anything long term.  Hiking, I used to love \nhiking.    That’s  pretty  much  out  of  the  question.    Riding  bikes,  gardening,  pretty  much \nanything that I used to enjoy is pretty much gone.” (Tr. 7-10)  “I do not have a day that I \nam not in pain.”  \nIn  regard  to  her  use  of  a cane,  she  stated  “My  knee  is  very  weak.    I  would  fall \nwithout it.  My knee locks up.  When I’m walking, it’s not unusual for my knee to lock up \nand for me to fall.  Short distances, I would probably be okay just walking a short distance \nwithout it, but I don’t take a chance.” (Tr. 11)   She also stated that she wore a knee brace \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n4 \n \nninety-five percent (95%) of the time.  The claimant then took her knee brace off to show \nhow the left knee had atrophied. (Tr. 12-13)  She went on to say that she spends most of \nthe day in bed due to excruciating pain.  (Tr. 14)   “Laying down is where I get most of my \nrelief, with it propped up.”   \nI  take  Hydrocodone,  10  milligrams,  three  (3)  times  a  day and  admitted  that  she \nsuffered no side effects from the medication. (Tr. 15)   She also stated that she takes over \nthe counter Tylenol and also Flexeril and suffers from leg cramps.  The injury has led to \ndepression and she’s taking 50 milligrams of Lexapro, once a day, along with Lorazepam \nat night.  She admitted to driving, but not long distances.  She calls her groceries in to \nWalmart and they load it.  “I cannot go walk around the store and do my grocery shopping \nany longer.”  (Tr. 16-17) \n In regard to sleep, she testified her sleep habits were terrible and she wakes up \nmultiple  times  a  night.    The  nerves  on  the  right  side  of  her  knee  where  Dr.  Rauls \nperformed the surgery were damaged.  On a good night, she stated she could get six (6) \nhours of sleep and there were ten (10)  or eleven (11) good nights a month.  On a bad \nnight she would only get three (3) or four (4) hours of sleep. (Tr. 18-19)  She went on to \ntestify that she never feels rested in the morning.  (Tr. 31) \n Under cross-examination, the claimant testified that she was in bed off and on all \nday, and admitted that although she did not get eight (8) hours of sleep a night, she would \nget some sleep during the day.  “I might sleep an hour or so and I might be awake.  And \nI might be awake a couple of hours or so and then I might be asleep again.” (Tr. 24)  She \nadmitted that she did not wear the knee brace all of the time.  She also admitted that she \nhad ridden a motorcycle with her fiance two (2) years ago, but stated they had sold the \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n5 \n \nmotorcycle.   She denied a trip to Sturgis or Little Rock on the motorcycle and stated her \nlongest trip on it was only about eight (8) miles. (Tr. 26-27)  In regard to household chores, \nthe claimant testified that she did the dishes but did not vacuum and  that she does the \nlaundry, if she feels like it. (Tr. 31) \n Cheryl Edwards was called as a witness and testified that she sees the claimant \n“probably weekly, every other week.”  She stated she works as a travel nurse so she is \nnot home as much.  “But when I do see her, it’s, I go to her house and she’s either like \nsitting in her recliner with her leg up or sitting on her patio.  She has came to some of the \nsoftball games, but she’s you know, with her cane.  It scares me to death;  I’m afraid she’s \ngonna fall.  But you can tell she’s in pain.  She’s grimacing, she’s hurting.”  “She doesn’t \nget out and do things with us like she used to also.” (Tr. 34-35)  Ms. Edwards went on to \nstate that as an ICU nurse, she will go on facial looks and the claimant is not one who will \nsay I am hurting but with her grimaces and such, I would rate her flat score a ten (10), for \nsevere pain.  She also felt that there was severe atrophy of the left knee. (Tr. 36-37) \n Under  cross-examination,  Ms.  Edwards  was  asked  about  muscle  tension  and \ncould it be faked.  She responded that it could be faked but she did not see “why they  \nwould.”  (Tr. 39) \n In regard to the medical that was admitted without objection, a report dated July 6, \n2015,  a  follow-up  report  by  Dr.  Rauls,  provided  for  an  assessment  of  left  knee  pain \nfollowing a patellofemoral ligament reconstruction on May 5 and recommended beginning \nphysical  therapy  and  to  remain  off  work  with  no  duty  for  another  four  (4)  weeks. \n(Cl. Ex. 1, P. 1) \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n6 \n \n The next medical report dated October 15, 2015, was provided by Dr. Arnold and \nstated that in regard to the left knee pain, following MPFL reconstruction, he observed \ntwo (2) issues, severe arthrofibrosis and would recommend injections, and if not better in \na month, he would recommend lysis of adhesions, arthroscopically, and in addition felt \nthat she had a neuroma about the media condyle.  If she was not better in a month, he \nrecommended lysis of the adhesions and manipulation. The medical report referred to a \nprior procedure in 1982 and a previous tibial tubercleplasty in 2005 and that she did well \nuntil the recent work-related injury.  He also stated that he wanted her to only perform a \nsit down job. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 2-4)  The claimant returned to Dr. Arnold November 19, 2015, \nwith  left  knee  pain  and  with  severe arthrofibrosis.    The  plan provided that  the  claimant \nhad  a  very  fibrotic  knee.    He  opined  that  the  next  step  would  be  a  scope  with  lysis of \nadhesions and again recommended a sit down job only. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 5-6).   \nSurgery was then performed by Dr. Arnold on December 3, 2015, and the report \nprovided under findings that there was an exuberant amount of fibrotic tissue about the \nsuprapatellar space along with a grade 3 chondral defect patella. The lateral meniscus \nrevealed some calcification. The knee was manipulated after the lysis of adhesions.  He \nopined that if she experienced persistent symptoms, he would recommend exploration of \nthe medial condyle, but he thought that was unlikely. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 7-9)   An AP of the \nlateral  left  knee  dated  December  3,  2015,  provided  for  calcification  about  the  medial \nlateral meniscus. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 10) \n The claimant returned for a follow-up with Dr. Arnold on December 17, 2015, and \nthe  report  provided  she  was  better  than  before  the  surgery  and  that  she  had  to  get \naggressive  with  the  range  of  motion.   He  again  recommended  a  sit  down  job  only. \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n7 \n \n(Cl. Ex. 1, P. 11)  The claimant then again returned to Dr. Arnold on January 14, 2016, \nand  the  report  provided  her  quads  were  weak  with  a  trace  of  effusion,  and she  had \nimproved mobility but still had significant pain.  He felt that she was improving and that \nthey needed to get aggressive with strengthening and she needed to perform a sit down \njob.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 12) \n The claimant presented to Dr. Mark A. Powell on February 3, 2016, with the chief \ncomplaint being left knee swelling.  The report provided her left knee was hyper-sensitive \nto the touch but not warm, and  she was able to perform a straight leg raise without an \nextensor leg.  He recommended that she continue to follow Dr. Arnolds’ protocol and gave \nher  an  off  work  note.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  13)    The  claimant  then  returned  to  Dr.  Arnold  on \nFebruary 11, 2016, and the report provided that her motion was improving, and that there \nwas a little inflammation. He recommended a cortisone shot and she agreed.  He again \nrecommended a sit down job. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 14)  The claimant returned to Dr. Arnold again \non  March  10,  2016,  and  the  report  provided  that  she  was  “doing  great”  and he \nrecommended viscosupplementation into the left knee and if it was not better, a cartilage \nrestoration  procedure  such  as  an  osteoarticular  autograft  and  in  regard  to  work,  again \nrecommended a sit down job. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 15)  The claimant continued to return to Dr. \nArnold with the next visit on April 7, 2016.  The report provided for weak quads of the left \nknee  and  a  recommendation  of  gel  shots  and  if  she  did  not  get  better,  a  cartilage \nrestoration procedure of the patella. (Cl. Ex. 1, P.16)   \n A  report  by  Dr.  Terry  J.  Sites  on  April  22,  27,  2016,  provided  that  the  claimant \nreturned for a second left knee Supartz injection which was tolerated well  and that she \nsuffered  from  osteoarthritis  of  the  left  knee  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.17)    However  the  claimant \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n8 \n \npresented to Dr. Powell on April 27, 2016, for a third Supartz injection, and stated that the \nlast injection caused a rash and fluid built up in a knot.  The claimant wanted to continue \nwith  the  injections.    She  then  presented  to  Dr.  Arnold  on  May  5,  2016,  and  the  report \nprovided there was left knee pain secondary to a grade 3 chondral defect and opined that \nher  current  symptomatology  was  related  to  wear  behind  the  patella.   He  opined \nthat   he   thought     the     next    step   would    be    to   scope   the   knee   and   perform   a  \ncartilage restoration  procedure  of  the  patella  and  recommended  an  osteoarticular  \nautograft-patella.  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 19-20) \n A  Functional  Capacity  Impairment  Evaluation  was  performed  on  November  5, \n2020, and the claimant was rated with a  fifteen percent (15%) impairment rating to the \nbody as a whole and thirty-seven percent (37%) lower extremity impairment as a result \nof  a  work-related  injury  and  the  report  stated  that  the  findings  were  the  result  of \nobjective  findings.   Dr.  Arnold  signed  off  and  agreed  with  the  impairment  evaluation. \n(Cl.  Ex.  1,  P.  21-25)    Another  follow-up  occurred  on  August  3,  2021,  with  Advanced \nOrthopedic Specialists and Dr. Arnold, and the plan provided that the claimant had some \ntendinitis and recommended Mobic home exercises and if no better in six (6) months a \nfurther work up.  The report provided that the knee was better than before the surgery. \n(Cl. Ex. 1, P. 26-28)  The claimant returned on August 18, 2022, the last report of record, \nand the report by Dr. Arnold provided that after counseling with the patient, we decided \non  conservative  management  and  observation.  An  x-ray  of  the  left  knee  provided  for \ngood positioning of the components. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 29-30) \n      DISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \n \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n9 \n \nIn  the  present  matter,  the  parties  stipulated  that  the  claimant  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to her left knee on February 1, 2015.  The claimant is therefore not \nrequired to establish “objective medical findings” in order to prove that she is entitled to \nadditional benefits. Chamber Door Indus., Inc. v Graham, 59 Ark. App. 224, 956 S.W.2d \n196 (1997) \nHowever, when assessing whether medical treatment is reasonably necessary for \nthe treatment of a compensable injury, we must analyze the proposed procedure and the \ncondition  that  it  is  sought  to  remedy.   Deborah  Jones  v.  Seba,  Inc., Full  Workers’ \nCompensation filed December 13, 1989. (Claim No. D512553).  The respondent is only \nresponsible  for  medical  services  which  are  causally  related  to  the  compensable  injury.  \nTreatments  to  reduce  or  alleviate  symptoms  resulting  from  a  compensable  injury,  to \nmaintain the level of healing achieved, or to prevent further deterioration of the damage \nproduced by the compensable injury are considered reasonable medical services.  Foster \nv. Kann Enterprises, 2009 Ark. App. 746, 350 S.W.2d 796 (2009).  Liability for additional \nmedical  treatment  may  extend  beyond  the  treatment  healing  period as  long  as  the \ntreatment is geared toward management of the compensable injury.  Patchell v. Wal-Mart \nStores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 180 S.W.3d 31 (2004). \nThe claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to benefits under \nthe   Arkansas   Workers’   Compensation   Act   and   must   sustain   that   burden,   by   a \npreponderance of the evidence.  Dalton v. Allen Engineering Co., 66 Ark. App 260, 635 \nS.W.2d 543.  Injured employees have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the \nevidence,  that  the  medical  treatment  is  reasonably  necessary  for  the  treatment  of the \ncompensable injury.  Owens Plating Co. v. Graham, 102 Ark. App 299, 284 S.W. 3d 537 \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n10 \n \n(2008).  What constitutes reasonable and necessary treatment is a question of fact for \nthe  Commission.   Anaya v. Newberry’s 3N Mill,  102  Ark.  App.  119,  282  S.W.3d  269 \n(2008).  \nThe  claimant  injured  her  left  knee  in  a  work-related  injury  on  February  1,  2015.  \nThe injury was accepted as compensable and surgery was performed on her left knee by \nDr.  Rauls.    The  claimant  was  not  satisfied  with  the  results  of  her  knee  surgery  and \nobtained a change of physician to Dr. Arnold, who has treated her since the change of \nphysician order was obtained.   Dr. Arnold performed a second surgery on December 3, \n2015, where the knee was manipulated after the lysis of adhesions.   \nOn  March  10,  2016,  Dr.  Arnold  recommended  visocupplementaion  into  the  left \nknee  and  if  the  claimant  did  not  improve,  a  cartilage  restoration  procedure  through  an \nosteoarticular autograft.   Since  that  date,  the  claimant  has been treated  with  injections \nalong with other conservative treatments.  On the claimant’s last visit of record with Dr. \nArnold on August 18, 2022, conservative treatment management was recommended. \nIn workers’ compensation law, the employer takes the employee as he finds him \nand employment circumstances that aggravate pre-existing conditions are compensable. \nHeritage Baptist Temple v. Robinson, 82 Ark. App. 460, 120 S.W. 3d 150 (2003).  Here, \nthe claimant had no doubt suffered from some previous issues involving her left knee.  It \nis well settled that the Commission has the authority to accept or reject medical opinions \nand  the  authority  to  determine  their  medical  soundness  and  probative  force.    In  the \npresent  matter  there  appears  to  be  no  release  for  the  claimant  from  Dr.  Arnold  and \nalthough  he  had  previously  recommended  other  more  aggressive  treatments,  his final \nreport of record on August 18, 2022, provided that the claimant should be treated with \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n11 \n \nconservative  treatment  and  management.    After  reviewing  all  of  the  evidence,  without \ngiving the benefit of the doubt to either party, there is no alternative but to find that the \nclaimant has satisfied her burden of proof to prove, by a preponderance of the credible \nevidence,   that   she   is   entitled   to   conservative   treatment   and   management   as \nrecommended by Dr. Arnold. \nIn regard to permanent and total disability, it is noted that the claimant is not entitled \nto wage loss disability for a scheduled injury.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-521.  Moser v. Ark. \nLime  Co.,  40  Ark.  App  113,  896  S.W.2d  188  (1993).    Specifically,  with  respect  to \npermanent and total disability benefits, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-519 (e) provides as follows: \n(1)  “Permanent  total  disability”  means  inability  to  earn  any  meaningful \nwage in the same or other employment. \n \n(2) The burden of proof shall be on the employee to prove inability to earn \nany meaning wage in the same or other employment. \n \nArkansas   Code   Annotated   § 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a)   requires   further   that:   (a) \nPermanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the compensable \ninjury  was  the  major  cause  of  the  disability  or  impairment,  and;    (b)  If  any  pre-existing \ndisease or  condition or  the  natural process of  aging  to  cause  or prolong  disability or  a \nneed for treatment, permanent benefits shall be payable for the resultant condition only if \nthe  compensable  injury  is  the  major  cause  of  the  permanent  disability  or  need  of \ntreatment.  Permanent impairment is any functional or anatomical loss after the healing \nperiod  has  been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 Ark. App. 188, 878 S.W.2d \n411 (1994).  Any  determination  of  the  existence  or  extent  of  a  physical  impairment  \nshall be supported  by  objective  and  measurable  physical  findings.  Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-704(c)(1).  Objective  findings  are  those  that  cannot  come  under  the  voluntary \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n12 \n \ncontrol of the claimant. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i).  Medical opinions addressing \nimpairment must be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  In the present \nmatter, Dr. Arnold has never opined that the claimant was unable to work but has stated \nthat the claimant has gotten better after the surgeries and treatments and opined as early \nas the year 2016, that the claimant could perform sit down jobs, which he continued to \nrecommend.  He has never issued an opinion that provided the claimant  was unable to \nwork.  He agreed with the impairment evaluation provided by Functional Testing Centers, \nInc., of a fifteen percent (15%) whole person rating and a thirty-seven percent (37%) lower \nextremity rating as a result of the work-related injury.  \n It  is  also  noted  that  the  claimant  testified  she  could  drive  short  distances  and \nperform certain household chores, but could not perform them over an extended period \nof time due to pain, and further that the claimant’s friend who was a nurse testified that \nthe  claimant  grimaced  when  performing  certain  actions.    However,  the  friend  agreed \nunder cross-examination that “muscle tension” could be faked, stating “I mean, I guess \nthey could, but I don’t know why they would.”  Based upon the available evidence and the \napplicable law, there is no alternative but to find that the claimant has failed to satisfy her \nburden of proof to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is permanently \nand totally disabled. \n After reviewing all of the evidence without giving the benefit of the doubt to either \nparty, there is no alternative but to find that the claimant has satisfied her burden of proof \nto prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is entitled to additional reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment consisting of conservative treatment and management \nunder  the  direction  of  Dr.  Chris  Arnold  and  that  the  conservative  treatment  and \n\nFERRIS – G500916 \n \n13 \n \nmanagement  is  causally  related  and  reasonably  necessary  for  the  treatment  of  the \nwork-related  left  knee injury.  The  claimant  has  failed  to  satisfy  the  required  burden of \nproof to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is permanently and totally \ndisabled.  All other issues are moot.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to \npay the cost of the transcript forthwith.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED.     \n      ___________________________ \n        JAMES D. KENNEDY  \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G500916 LAQUITA I. FERRIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT vs. BAXTER COUNTY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT #1 RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES,TPA RESPONDENT #1 DEATH & PERMANENT DISABILILTY TRUST FUND RESPONDENT #2 OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 Hearing...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:02:43.826Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G500916-2023-09-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FERRIS_LAQUITA_G500916_20230912.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}