{"id":"alj-G702350-2025-03-21","awcc_number":"G702350","decision_date":"2025-03-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Nancy Heitman","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Correction","title":"HEITMAN VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AWCC# G702350 March 21, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:3","denied:8"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HEITMAN_NANCY_G702350_20250321.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HEITMAN_NANCY_G702350_20250321.pdf","text_length":25546,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM No G702350 \n \nNANCY HEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY), EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \nvs. \n \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION  \n(McPHERSON UNIT), EMPLOYER               RESPONDENT No 1 \n                           \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA            RESPONDENT No 1 \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILTY             RESPONDENT No 2 \nTRUST FUND \n \n \n \nAMENDED OPINION & ORDER FILED 21 MARCH 2025 \n \n \nThis claim was heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the \n“Commission”) Administrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 11 December 2024 in Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by the Caldwell Law Firm, Mr. Andy L. Caldwell. \n \nRespondent No 1 was represented by the Public Employee Claims Division, Mr. Charles \nMcLemore. \n \nRespondent No 2 was excused from participating in the proceeding. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n The claimant and Respondent No 1 participated in a prehearing conference on 30 \nJuly 2024. A Prehearing Order was entered the same day. That Order was entered into the \nhearing record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1. As outlined in the \nPrehearing Order, the parties agreed to the following: \nSTIPULATIONS \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n2 \n \n2. The employee/employer/TPA relationship existed on or about 3 April 2017, \nwhen the claimant sustained an accepted injury to her left knee. \n \n3. At the time relevant to this matter, the claimant was earning an average \nweekly wage of $539.06 per week, which would entitle her to compensation \nrates of $359 and $269 per week for Temporary Total Disability (TTD) and \nPermanent Partial Disability (PPD), respectively. \n \n4. This claim was previously heard before the Commission on 9 September \n2020. An ALJ’s Opinion on the issues litigated at that hearing was entered on \n8 December 2020. The Law of the Case Doctrine applies to that Opinion. \n \nISSUES \n1. Whether the claimant is entitled to PPD benefits. \n \n2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the costs associated with a Functional \nCapacity Evaluation, as she contends that it was reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment.\n1\n \n \n 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n All other issues are reserved.\n2\n \nCONTENTIONS \n According to their prehearing filings: \nThe claimant contends that she suffered compensable injuries to her left knee \nin the course and scope of her employment which resulted in the need for treatment \nbeginning on or about April 3, 2017. Claimant had a total ACL reconstruction and \ndebridement of cyclops lesion of posterior capsular release. Dr. Philip Allan Smith \nreleased the claimant with no impairment despite the two surgical procedures. \nClaimant is entitled to anatomical impairment in accordance with the American \n \n1\n This issue was not included in the Prehearing Order, but it is consistent with the \nclaimant’s amended prehearing information entered into the record without objection as \nCommission’s Exhibit No 3. The respondents did not object to the issue being presented at \nthe hearing. [TR at 10.] \n2\n The Prehearing Order indicated an additional issue of whether the claimant was entitled \nto benefits under ACA § 11-9-505(a)(1). The parties agreed at the beginning of the hearing \nthat that issue would not be presented for litigation. [TR at 9-10.] \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n3 \n \nMedical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4\nth\n \nEdition. Functional Testing Centers, Inc. (FTC) has assigned an 8% rating to the \nclaimant’s lower extremity. The claimant is entitled to 8% impairment for her lower \nextremity or impairment as determined by the Commission in accordance with the \nAct and the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4\nth\n Edition. \nClaimant further contends that the evaluation by FTC was reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment under the Act for which the respondents should be \nresponsible and for which the respondent should reimburse the claimant’s cost. The \nrespondents have controverted the claimant’s entitlement to additional benefits, and \nClaimant is entitled to attorney’s fees on all controverted benefits. \n Respondents No. 1 contend that the claimant did sustain a compensable injury \nto  her  left  knee  on  April  3,  2017, that this  claim  has  been  accepted,  and  that \nappropriate benefits have been or are being paid by Respondent No. 1. The claimant \nhas  been  provided  medical  treatment  reasonable  and  necessary  for  her  injury, \nincluding left anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quad tendon autograft \nsurgery performed by Dr. Smith on May 3, 2017, and a left anterior cruciate ligament \ncyclops debridement and posterior capsular release performed by Dr. Smith on August \n23, 2017. The claimant was released at MMI by Dr. Smith on November 7, 2017, with \nzero percent (0%) permanent impairment and no permanent restrictions, Dr. Smith \nnoted in his report that the Claimant had full extension and good flexion, good \nstrength, was not having any pain at this time, had regained all of her motion, and \nwas ready to go back to work.  \n The claimant was paid TTD benefits during her healing period, from April 4, \n2017, to November 7, 2017. The TTD benefits were suspended on October 6, 2017, \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n4 \n \nwhen the claimant did not appear at a scheduled appointment, and her attorney was \nnotified of this by the adjuster. Subsequently, when it was determined that the \nclaimant had missed the appointment but called to reschedule, TTD benefits were \nreinstated, from October 6; and her attorney was notified of this by the adjuster. \n The claimant made a demand for benefits\n3\n under 11-9-505 on November 22, \n2017. Claimant has since returned to work for her employer at greater wages than at \nthe time of her injury. The claimant, who was hired on March 26, 2017, was not yet \neligible for FMLA protection at the time of her April 3, 2017 injury, and had been \nterminated after being off work with no leave time; but she was rehired and began \nwork on November 27, 2017, at a position with greater pay than what she earned at \nthe time of her injury. \n Respondent No. 1 contends that no additional TTD benefits are owed as the \nclaimant has already been paid TTD for all of the days during her healing period. \nRespondent No. 1 contends that no PPD benefits are owed because the claimant was \nreleased at MMI by her treating physician with a finding that she had no permanent \nimpairment as well as finding she had full extension and good flexion, good strength, \nwas not having any pain at this time, had regained all of her motion, and was ready \nto go back to work. Respondent No.1 contends that the claimant has returned to work \nfor her employer at greater wages than she made at the time of injury. Respondent \nNo. 1 contends that the claimant is not owed benefits under either section of 11-9-505. \nRespondent  No.  1 contends  that  all  appropriate  benefits  have  been  paid  to  this \nClaimant.  \n \n3\n See FN2. \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n5 \n \n At the time of the prehearing conference on December 5, 2017, the claimant \nrequested  a  Change  of  Physician; but  subsequently,  the claimant  withdrew  her \nrequest for a change of physician and requested to see Dr. Smith again. Respondent \nprovided the claimant with another visit with Dr. Smith on February 1, 2018, and \nagain  on  October  2,  2018, at  the claimant’s  request.  Claimant  demanded  an \nIndependent Medical Evaluation (IME) with a different doctor for the sole purpose of \nobtaining  to  Claimant’s  Motion  for  an  Independent  Medical  Examination  and \ncontends  that  the claimant’s  treating  physician  has  already  stated  his  opinion \nregarding  permanent  anatomical  impairment  related  to  compensable  injury.  A \nhearing  was  held  on  the claimant’s  demand,  with  an  Opinion  and  Order  filed \nDecember 8, 2020, denying the claimant’s demand for an IME, no appeal was filed, \nand this decision was final, res judicata, and the law of the case.  \n There has been no activity on the claim since that final December 8, 2020, \ndecision; so Respondent No. 1 filed its Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution on \nJune 3, 2024, which Claimant has now objected to and demanded a hearing. \nRespondent No. 1 contends that the claimant cannot establish her \nentitlement to an impairment rating for her 2017 injury. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized below, \nand having heard testimony from the witness, observing her demeanor, I make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law under ACA § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are accepted. \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to PPD benefits. \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n6 \n \n \n \n4. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to the costs associated with the impairment evaluation. \n \n5. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \n The claimant was the only witness. The record consists of the hearing transcript and \nthe following exhibits: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the Prehearing Order); Commission’s \nExhibit No 2 (the respondent’s prehearing information); Commission’s Exhibit No 3 (the \nclaimant’s amended prehearing information); Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 ( an index page and \n46 pages of medical records); Claimant's Exhibit No 2 (one index page and a one-page bill for \nFTC’s services); Respondents No 1 Exhibit No 1 (correspondence dated 1 October 2024 that \naccompanied their submission of exhibits before the hearing); and Respondents No 1 Exhibit \nNo 2 (one index page and 14 pages of non-medical records). A previous hearing on whether \nthe claimant was entitled to an IME was held on 8 December 2020. The transcript from \nthat proceeding was incorporated by reference. \nTESTIMONY \n  Claimant Nancy Heitman (formerly Cooney) \nThe claimant is a forty-three-year-old female who injured her left knee doing \njumping jacks at the respondent-employer’s training academy on 3 April 2017. She was \ndiagnosed with a torn ACL and ultimately underwent surgical repair with Dr. Smith on 3 \nMay 2017. A follow-up surgery was performed on 23 August 2017 for a debridement of some \nscar tissue. \nThe claimant testified that after some post-operative physical therapy, she was \nreleased by Dr. Smith in November of 2017 despite some continuing difficulties with her \nleft knee. She described experiencing some weakness and decreased muscle volume in her \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n7 \n \nthigh, along with “pain, swelling, [and] popping.” She also described her gait as altered at \nthe time of her release.  \nDr. Smith’s clinic note from the date of her release indicated that the claimant had \n“full extension and good flexion” at the time; but she disagreed with that assessment. She \ncredited his opinion, however, that she needed to “continue working on quad and hamstring \nstrengthening.” According to her testimony, her left thigh and calf muscles were both \nsmaller at the time of her release than they had been prior to her injury. \nThe claimant testified that she continues having pain, swelling, clicking, and \npopping in her left knee. She believes that her knee has not been the same since her injury \nand subsequent treatment. She described her condition as currently worse than at the time \nof her release and stated that she continues to experience weakness and difficulty \nstraightening her leg. \nOn cross-examination the claimant confirmed that her testimony about the reduced \nsize of her thigh muscle related to the time of her release, but that the difference in muscle \nsize was not present at the time of the hearing. She recalled an appointment with Dr. \nSmith after her release where he noted left knee pain after prolonged running. According to \nthe claimant, she stopped seeing Dr. Smith at that time because he would not listen to her. \nThe claimant stated that she began seeing an orthopedic physician at NEA Baptist \naround the time that she started working in security for the facility, sometime around \nSeptember of 2022. In that security role, she said that she avoids taking the stairs, opting \nfor elevators instead, when moving about the facility. The claimant then confirmed that she \nwas not actually examined by the occupational therapist who authored an impairment \nevaluation letter she entered into evidence. She is not currently treating with any provider \nfor her left knee. \n \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n8 \n \n Medical and Documentary Evidence \n The claimant first presented to Central Arkansas Urgent Care with a chief \ncomplaint of left knee pain on 5 April 2017. She was preliminarily diagnosed with a sprain \nand referred to OrthoArkansas. She was soon diagnosed with an ACL tear and scheduled \nfor surgical repair on 3 May 2017. About three months after surgery, Dr. Smith suspected \nthat a cyclops lesion was hindering her recovery and impinging her range of motion. An \narthroscopic debridement procedure was then scheduled after an MRI confirmed the cyclops \nlesion. \n The claimant underwent the debridement procedure on 23 August 2017. She \nfollowed up in clinic on 1 September 2017, when Dr. Smith noted that he wanted her to \ncontinue working on range-of-motion exercises and quad strengthening. A physical therapy \nnote from that same day provided: \nMs. Cooney has been seen in clinic for 3 visits following debridement of L \nknee after ACL [surgery]. Pt has been independent with ambulation since re-\neval. Pt reports more soreness in knee than pain. AROM L knee 2-110 deg. \nPROM 0-115 deg. We have continued to progress strength but have really \nemphasized knee flexion and extension ROM. [sic] \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 42.] \nThe claimant later returned to Dr. Smith’s clinic and was released on 7 November \n2017. At that visit, he noted: \nHPI: Status post left ACL reconstruction. She also had a debridement of a \ncyclops lesion of posterior capsular release for stiffness. She has done very \nwell following her second surgery. She is not having any pain at this time. \nShe has regained all of her motion. She is ready to go back to work. \n \nEXAMINATION: Left knee shows healed incisions. She has full extension \nand good flexion. She is a firm Lachman. She has good strength. \n \n. . .  \n \nPLAN: She may resume all activities as tolerated. She needs to continue \nworking on quad strengthening and hamstring strengthening. I will see her \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n9 \n \nback as needed. She has reached MMI. She will have a 0% permanent \nimpairment rating. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 44.] \n The claimant also introduced a report titled, Impairment Evaluation from Records- \nLower Extremity, authored by Occupational Therapist Casey Garretson of Functional \nTesting Centers, Inc., on 14 November 2024. According to that opinion letter: \nAccording to the medical record, Dr. [Smith] declared this patient at MMI on \n11-07-2017 and indicated in that note, “She needs to continue working on \nquad and hamstring strengthening.” With this information as well as other \nnotes from Dr. Smith reporting that she needs to continue working on quad \nstrengthening, it would be reasonable in my professional opinion that had a \nmoderate girth deficit due to her noted weakness in her thigh at the time of \nMMI. Using Section 3.2c, Table 37 on page 77 of the Guides, Muscle \nAtrophy, this would result in an 8% Lower Extremity, 3 % Whole \nPerson Impairment in this case. There seemed to be a failure to note any \nmeasured atrophy in the medical records. [Emphasis in original.] \n \nAlso, according to the medical record, it is noted at the time of MMI, Dr. \nSmith stated, “She has full extension and good flexion.” Therefore, she did \nnot qualify for impairment based on loss of motion at the time of MMI. \nHowever, in Dr. Smith’s note from 10-02-2018, he stated, “She lacks a few \ndegrees of full extension compared to the opposite side.” Based on the notes \nfrom Dr. Smith, it is unclear the exact amount of degrees of extension that \nMs. Cooney is lacking. \n \n. . .  \n \nSummary Statement: \n \nAlthough Ms. Cooney’s girth was not measured or documented in the medical \nrecords, it is highly likely that she indeed had a muscle atrophy impairment, \nas Dr. Smith made several reports of left quad and/or left hamstring \nweakness. \n \nBased on the muscle atrophy impairment, she would be entitled to a 3% \nwhole person impairment, or 8% lower extremity impairment. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 45-46.] \n The claimant submitted into evidence a bill for the impairment report. [Cl. Ex. No 2 \nat 1.] She argues that the evaluation and report were reasonable and necessary medical \nservices for which the respondents should be liable.  \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n10 \n \nADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). \nA claimant's testimony is never considered uncontroverted. Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994). The determination of a witness' credibility and how \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nA. The Claimant Failed to Prove by a Preponderance of the Evidence That \nShe is Entitled to Permanent Partial Disability Benefits. \n \nPermanent impairment is any permanent functional or anatomical loss remaining \nafter the end of the healing period has been reached. Johnson v. General Dynamics, 46 Ark. \nApp. 188, 878 S.W.2d 411 (1994). Any determination of the existence or extent of physical \nimpairment shall be supported by objective and measurable physical findings. Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-9704(c)(1). Objective findings are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient. Id. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). Medical opinions \naddressing impairment must be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Id. \n§ 11-9102(16)(B). Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the \ncompensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment. Id. § 11-9-\n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n11 \n \n102(f)(ii)(a). \"Major cause\" means more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause. Id. § 11-9-\n102(14). \nThe crux of this claim lies between competing opinions on whether the claimant is \nentitled to an impairment rating and the commensurate PPD benefits. On the one hand \nthere is the opinion from her treating surgeon who supervised her care through two \nsurgical procedures and rehabilitative periods. On the other hand is the opinion of a \nqualified occupational therapist who reviewed the surgeon’s records and then offered his \nown contradictory opinion. Given the record evidence, the claimant has failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to PPD benefits. \nThe evidence shows that Dr. Smith was responsible for managing the claimant’s \ninitial post-surgical care and recovery. After she was not progressing as expected, he sought \nfurther surgical intervention, by way of the debridement procedure, to promote her return \nto function. He monitored and evaluated her gains as she participated in physical therapy. \nWhen he saw the claimant on 1 September 2017, he noted that she had some bruising and \nlacked full extension. He also noted that he wanted her to “continue working on range of \nmotion and quad strengthening.” \nDr. Smith then saw the claimant again on 7 November 2017 and noted what appears \nto be excellent progress. “She is not having any pain at this time. She has regained all of \nher motion. She is ready to go back to work.” He further indicated that she had “full \nextension and good flexion.” Good strength was also noted. He released her at MMI that \nday and found her to have no permanent impairment (0% permanent impairment rating). \nThe record from a previous hearing in this claim shows that the respondents, when \nreviewing the claimant’s status with her attorney, had obtained hand-written confirmation \nfrom Dr. Smith that she had “Full ROM. No Ligamentous laxity. 0% according to AMA 4\nth\n \nedition.” See 9 September 2020 TR, Resp. Ex. No 3 at 3-4. An email relaying the same \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n12 \n \ncommunication and information was introduced into the record for this hearing. [Resp. Ex. \nNo 2 at 7.] \nI find Dr. Smith’s opinion on the claimant’s condition and his assignment of a zero \npercent (0%) impairment rating at the time of her 7 November 2017 release at MMI to be \ncredible. The Commission is authorized to accept or reject a medical opinion and is \nauthorized to determine its medical soundness and probative value. Poulan Weed Eater v. \nMarshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002). In the absence of contemporaneous \nobjective, measurable findings conflicting with Dr. Smith’s assessment, I credit his opinion \nas it was initially relayed in the clinic notes and then again confirmed through subsequent \ncommunication with the respondents. \nJust over seven years later, on 14 November 2024, the claimant obtained a contrary \nopinion from Dr. Garretson as to her condition in 2017. That opinion was appropriately \npresented as an evaluation based only on the records that were provided to the reviewer. \nDr. Garretson agrees that because the claimant’s records show that “she has no cruciate \nlaxity and she has good stability in her knee, therefore she does not qualify for a diagnosis-\nbased impairment.” He supposes, however, that because Dr. Smith encouraged continued \nquad and hamstring strengthening, the claimant likely experienced muscle atrophy that \nwould have entitled her to an eight percent (8%) impairment rating to her lower extremity. \nThat is notwithstanding his acknowledgement that the record does not contain any \ncomparative muscle girth measurements to support that determination. I find this opinion \nto be speculative and do not assign it greater weight than Dr. Smith’s contemporaneous \nopinion on the claimant’s condition at the time of her release from care. \nThe claimant, for her part, testified that she recalled having a noticeable muscle \ngirth deficit at the time of her release. She provided no contemporaneous documentary \nevidence, however, to support that recollection. I find her recollection of her own lay \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n13 \n \nassessment of her condition in 2017, which stands apart from the documented medical \nobservations at the time, to be of minimal evidentiary weight. \nAccordingly, I find that the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she is entitled to PPD benefits associated with her compensable left knee \ninjury. \nB. THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE COST OF THE \nIMPAIRMENT EVALUATION LETTER. \n \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment \nas may be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a). The claimant bears the burden of proving that she is entitled \nto additional medical treatment. Dalton v. Allen Eng'g Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d \n543 (1999). What constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment is a question of \nfact for the Commission. White Consolidated Indus. v. Galloway, 74 Ark. App. 13, 45 S.W.3d \n396 (2001); Wackenhut Corp. v. Jones, 73 Ark. App. 158, 40 S.W.3d 333 (2001). \n Here, the claimant sought an opinion from a new provider after already receiving an \nimpairment rating from Dr. Smith, the provider with whom she had maintained a \nrelationship throughout the course of her treatment. The impairment opinion provided by \nFTC in this claim was not based on any actual, in-person evaluation of the claimant. The \nclaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evaluation services \nand the associated costs are reasonable or necessary in relation to the claimant’s condition \nor treatment. Her request for the respondents to be held liable for the costs associated with \nthat report is denied, accordingly. \n C. THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY’S FEE. \n Because the claimant failed to meet her burden on the claims above that might \nprovide for an attorney’s fee, her claim for a fee must also fail. \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY)- G702350 \n14 \n \nCONCLUSION \n Because the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof on any of the issues \npresented in this matter, this claim for additional benefits is DENIED AND DISMISSED. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ______________________________________ \n       JayO. Howe \n       Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM No G702350 NANCY HEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT vs. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (McPHERSON UNIT), EMPLOYER RESPONDENT No 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, TPA RESPONDENT No 1 DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILTY RESPONDENT No 2 TRUST FUND AMEN...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:42:57.988Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G702350-2025-03-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HEITMAN_NANCY_G702350_20250321.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}