{"id":"alj-G900188-2023-07-05","awcc_number":"G900188","decision_date":"2023-07-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Clayton Mcwilliams","employer_name":"Arkansas State Police","title":"MCWILLIAMS VS. ARKANSAS STATE POLICE AWCC# G900188 JULY 5, 2023","outcome":"affirmed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MCWILLIAMS_CLAYTON_G900188_20230705.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MCWILLIAMS_CLAYTON_G900188_20230705.pdf","text_length":24522,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G900188 \n \nCLAYTON MCWILLIAMS,   \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nARKANSAS STATE POLICE, \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nSTATE OF ARKANSAS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE \nCLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA   RESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \nSTATE OF ARKANSAS \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY \nTRUST FUND RESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \n \nOPINION AND ORDER FILED JULY 5, 2023 \n \nHearing conducted on April 6, 2023, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \n(AWCC), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens in El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. \nThe  claimant  was  represented  by  the  Honorable  Gregory  R.  Giles,  Moore,  Giles  &  Matteson, \nTexarkana, Miller County, Arkansas.   \n \nRespondent No. 1 was represented by the Honorable Charles  H. McLemore, State of  Arkansas, \nArkansas Insurance Department, Public Employee Claims Division (PECD), Little Rock, Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nRespondent  No.  2,  is  represented  by  the  Honorable  David  L.  Pake,  State  of  Arkansas,  AWCC, \nDeath  and  Permanent  Total  Disability  Trust  Fund  (the  Fund),  Little  Rock,  Pulaski  County, \nArkansas, who waived appearance at the hearing. \n \nINTRODUCTION \nIn the prehearing order filed June 24, 2022, the parties agreed to the following \nstipulations, as modified, which they affirmed on the record: \n   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) has   \n jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed at all relevant times,   \n including January 3, 2019, when the claimant sustained compensable injuries to his \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n2 \n \npelvis, both legs, and brain in a motor vehicle accident (MVA). \n \n3. The claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) was $950.29, which is sufficient to \n      entitle him to weekly compensation rates of $634.00 for temporary total disability \n      (TTD), and $476.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. \n \n4. Respondent No. 1 accepted the immediately aforementioned injuries and have paid \nall appropriate medical and TTD benefits to date. \n \n5. Respondent No. 1 has accepted and paid (or is in the process of paying) a 49% to \nthe body-as-a-whole (BAW) permanent anatomical impairment rating based on all \nthe claimant’s compensable injuries.   \n \n6. Respondent No. 1 controverts the payment of any additional PPD benefits for wage \nloss, and/or permanent and total disability (PTD). \n \n7. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination   \nand/or hearing. \n \n(Commission Exhibit 1 at 2; Hearing Transcript at 5). Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement \n \nthe issues litigated at the hearing were: \n \n1. Whether, and if so to what extent, the claimant is entitled to wage loss disability, \nor is PTD as a result of his admittedly compensable injuries.   \n \n2.       Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on these \nfacts. \n \n3. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation and/or \ndetermination. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. at 5).  \nThe claimant contends he is permanently and totally disabled (PTD) or, alternatively, is \nentitled  to  substantial  wage  loss  disability  benefits.  The  claimant  further  contends  Respondent \nNo.  1 should be ordered to pay attorney’s fees as provided by law.  The  claimant  specifically \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n3 \n \nreserves any and all other issues for future determination and/or hearing. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. \n5).   \nRespondent No. 1 contends the claimant has the burden of proving he is in fact PTD and \nincapable  of  performing  any  gainful  employment  whatsoever  or,  alternatively,  is  entitled  to \nadditional  PPD  benefits  for  wage  loss  disability  in  excess  of  his  49%  BAW  impairment  rating \nassigned for his traumatic brain injury. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 contends that, pursuant to \nArk.  Code  Ann.  Section  11-9-411  (2023  Lexis  Replacement),  if  the  Commission  awards  the \nclaimant additional disability benefits they are entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit/off-set for any \nand all disability benefits the claimant’s employer, or any and all third-party payor(s) has paid, is \npaying, or will pay in the future based on his compensable injury. Respondent No. 1 reserves any \nand all other issues for future determination and/or hearing. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3-4; T. 5). \nRespondent No. 2 defers to the outcome of the litigation on the subject issues and waived \nits  appearance  at  the  subject  hearing.  Respondent  No.  2  specifically  reserves  any  and  all  other \nissues for future litigation and/or determinations. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 4; T. 5). \nThe  record  consists  of  the  hearing  transcript,  and  any  and  all  exhibits  contained  therein \nand/or attached thereto. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \nThe claimant, Mr. Clayton McWilliams (the claimant), was 36 years old at the time of the \nhearing, and he turned 37 years old on June 10, 2023. On January 3, 2019, he was working as an \nArkansas State Trooper responding to a call when he was involved in an MVA in which he injured \nhis pelvis and legs and sustained a traumatic brain injury. Respondent No. 1 accepted these injuries \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n4 \n \nas compensable and provided, paid for, and continues to provide and pay for all related, reasonably \nnecessary medical treatment, including but not limited to the pelvic surgery Dr. Richard Garrison \nperformed;  physical  therapy  (PT),  and in-patient  treatment;  as  well  as  treatment  at  the  Timber \nRidge neurological rehabilitation facility in Benton, and treatment from Dr. Barry Baskin for his \ntraumatic brain injury. Dr. Barry Baskin saw the claimant for an independent medical evaluation \n(IME) and issued his IME report on October 7, 2020, and an addendum to this report on October \n15, 2020, which provide a thorough explanation of the claimant’s injuries, including but not limited \nto  his  traumatic  brain  injury.  The  claimant  also  spent  a  period  of  time  at  the  Timber  Ridge \nneurological rehabilitation facility in Benton, Arkansas. (Claimant’s Exhibit 1 at 1-90C; T. 13-33). \n        The claimant underwent two (2) separate Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs), the first \non August 28, 2020, and the second May 6, 2021, the results of which were “reliable”. The FCEs \nultimately  revealed  the  claimant  was  physically  capable  of  performing “Light” work consistent \nwith the United States Department of Labor’s standards’ (USDOL standards). (CX1 at 3-21, 59-\n57).   \n        In  addition,  Respondent  No.  1  provided  the  claimant  vocational  rehabilitation  and  job \nsearch assistance, initially via Ms. Heather Taylor, and later via Ms. Keondra Hampton, both of \nSystemedic.  Ms.  Taylor  conducted  her  initial  evaluation  of  the  claimant  on  May  24,  2021.  In  a \nvocational rehabilitation report dated November 23, 2021, Ms. Taylor opined: \n               After working with Mr. Williams, communicating with both volunteer places,   \n               and observing Mr. McWilliams doing his volunteer work, it is my professional \n               opinion that he is not able to return to competitive employment at this time... \n               If his independence increases over time, he may eventually be able to return   \n               to competitive employment, but in my opinion, it would only be in an unskilled \n               occupation.   \n \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n5 \n \n(CX1 at 85; 84-85). Thereafter, Ms. Taylor, and then Ms. Keondra Hampton also with Systemedic, \ncontinued to follow the claimant’s progress through March 21, 2021. In her final report of April \n25, 2022, Ms. Taylor stated: \n               In my professional opinion, I am still not ruling out the possibility that \n               Mr. McWilliams could eventually return to an unskilled/semi-skilled job. \n               his vocational/return-to-work outlook remains guarded and this is based on \n               my experience in working with Mr. McWilliams and also having worked with \n               other clients, in the past, with brain injuries.   \n                \n(CX1 at 94; 93-94).   \n        Ms.  Taylor  left  her  job  with  Systemedic  and  the  claimant’s vocational rehabilitation \nprogram was transitioned to Ms. Hampton, a vocational rehabilitation consultant wo worked with \nthe claimant in trying to help him find a wage-paying job. In her last report dated March 21, 2023, \nMs.  Hampton  listed  a  number  of  employers  who  had  unskilled/semi-skilled  job  openings.  She \nreported the claimant told her that although he had submitted applications for these jobs, “he did \nnot receive any responses from employers regarding his applications.” (CX1 at 120). Ms. Hampton \nalso noted in this report that she was helping the claimant complete job applications and that he \nwas, “eager for employment and will continue to work with me and his newly assigned job coach.” \n(CX1 at 12; 119-120). While the claimant was working a part-time, non-paying volunteer job, as \nof the hearing date he did not have a wage-paying job or any offers for a wage-paying job.   \n        Dr.  Garrison,  who  treated  the  claimant’s  pelvic  injury,  opined  the  claimant  reached \nmaximum  medical  improvement  (MMI)  on  July  24,  2020,  and  released  him  from  his  care  and \ntreatment. Dr. Baskin opined the claimant reached MMI for the effects of his traumatic brain injury \neffective March 29, 2021, and assigned him a 49% BAW permanent anatomical impairment rating, \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n6 \n \nwhich Respondent No. 1 has accepted and is in the process of paying. (CX1 at 29). \n        The claimant and his mother, Mrs. Kay Williams, were the only witnesses who testified at \nthe  hearing.  Both  the  claimant  and  his  mother  testified  concerning  his  physical  limitations  and \nrestrictions, and the adverse effects his traumatic brain injury has had on his cognitive abilities; his \njob search; his inability to find a wage-paying job; and his intention to continue to seek gainful \nemployment. (T. 33-125; 128-171). The claimant has applied, been approved for, and currently is \nreceiving approximately $365 per month in Social Security disability (SSD) benefits. (T. 55). The \nclaimant  is  medically  retired  for  the  Arkansas  State  Police,  and  he  also  receives  approximately \n$1,205.59/month from the Arkansas Public Employees State Retirement System (APERS).   \nDISCUSSION \nBurden of Proof \nWhen deciding any issue, the ALJ and the Commission shall determine, on the basis of the \nrecord as a whole, whether the party having the burden of proof on the issue has established it by \na  preponderance  of  the  evidence. Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-704(c)(2)  (2023  Lexis  Replacement). \nThe claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nbenefits. Stone  v.  Patel, 26  Ark.  App.  54,  759  S.W.2d  579  (Ark.  App.  1998).  In  determining \nwhether  the  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proof,  the  Commission  is  required  to  weigh  the \nevidence impartially without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-\n9-704(c)(4); Gencorp Polymer Products v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. \n1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). The ALJ, the \nCommission, and the courts shall strictly construe the Act, which also requires them to read and \nconstrue the Act in its entirety, and to harmonize its provisions when necessary. Farmers’ Coop. \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n7 \n \nv. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 (Ark. App. 2002). \n   All claims for workers’ compensation benefits must be based on proof. Speculation  and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Correc. v. Glover, 35 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, \n595 S.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility \nof the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardee’s, 51 Ark. App. 116, \n912 S.W.2d 14 (1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any other \nwitness’s testimony but  may  accept  and  translate  into  findings  of  fact  those  portions  of  the \ntestimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. \nApp.  1989);  and Farmers’  Coop., supra.  The  Commission  has  the  duty  to  weigh  the  medical \nevidence  just  as  it  does  any  other  evidence,  to  resolve  conflicting  medical  opinions;  and  its \nresolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Williams v. Pro Staff \nTemps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). \n                   The  Act  specifically  sets  forth  the  requirements  for  wage  loss  disability  findings.  For \nunscheduled  injuries, Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-522 controls an injured worker’s entitlement to \npermanent   disability   benefits.   The   payment   of   compensation   for   permanent   disability \ncompensation is appropriate where the permanent effects of a work-related injury incapacitate the \nworker from earning the wages he was receiving at the time of the injury. Id. \n        The  Commission  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  determining  a  claimant’s  wage  loss \ndisability,  if  any,  based  upon  consideration  of  the  medical  evidence  and  other  matters  affecting \nwage loss. Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, 89 Ark. App. 228, 201 S.W.2d 449 (Ark. App. 2005). When \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n8 \n \nmaking a determination of the degree of disability an injured worker has sustained as the result of \nan unscheduled injury, the Commission must consider evidence demonstrating the degree to which \nthe worker’s physical anatomical impairment adversely affects his earning capacity, as well as \nother factors such as the worker’s age, education, work experience, and other matters which may \nreasonably be expected to affect his future earning ability. Such other matters may include, but are \nnot  limited  to:  motivation,  post-injury  income,  credibility,  and  demeanor. Arkansas  Methodist \nHospital v. Adams, 43 Ark. App. 1, 858 S.W.2d 125 (Ark. App. 1993); Glass v. Edens, 233 Ark. \n786,  346  S.W.2d  685  (1961); City  of  Fayetteville  v.  Guess, 10  Ark.  App  313,  663  S.W.2d  946 \n(Ark. App. 1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (Ark. App. 1990). \n     The Commission may use its own superior knowledge of industrial demands, limitations, \nand  requirements  in  conjunction  with  the  relevant  evidence  to  determine  whether  a  claimant  is \nentitled to wage loss disability. Henson v. General Electric, 99 Ark. App. 257, 257 S.W.3d 908 \n(Ark. App. 2007). A claimant’s lack of interest in pursuing employment with his employer, and \nnegative attitude in looking for work are impediments to the Commission’s ability to assess wage \nloss disability. Logan County v. McDonald, 90 Ark. App. 409, 206 S.W.3d 258 (Ark. App. 2005).   \nA claimant is not entitled to wage loss disability benefits for a scheduled injury. Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-521; Moser v. Ark. Lime Co., 40 Ark. App. 113, 846 S.W.2d 188 (Ark. App. 1993). \n Specifically with respect to PTD benefits, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-519(e) states: \n \n (1) “Permanent total disability” means inability because \n  of compensable injury or occupational disease, to   \n  earn any meaningful wages in the same or other   \n  employment. \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n9 \n \n (2) The burden of proof shall be on the employee to   \n  prove inability to earn any meaningful wage in the   \n  same or other employment. \nPTD “shall be determined in accordance with the facts.” Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-5-519(c). “In \nconsidering a claim for permanent disability, the commission and the courts shall not consider the \nodd-lot doctrine.” Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-5-519(f);  and  see American  Eagle  Airlines  v.  Donald \nBerndt, 2012 Ark. App. App. 220 (Ark. App. 2012), citing Patterson v. Ark. Dep’t of Health, 70 \nArk. App. 182, 15 S.W.3d 701 (Ark. App. 2000).     \n     As previously cited, supra, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a) requires further that: \n(a) Permanent   benefits   shall   be    awarded   only   upon   a \n determination  that  the  compensable  injury  was  the  major \n cause of the disability or impairment.     \n \n(b) If  any  compensable  injury  combines  with  a  preexisting \n disease or condition or the natural process of aging to cause \n or  prolong  disability  or  a  need  for  treatment,  permanent \n benefits shall be payable for the  resultant condition only if \n the compensable injury is the major cause of the permanent \n disability or need for treatment. \n \n(Emphasis added). The Act specifically defines the term “major cause” to mean more than fifty \npercent (50%) of the cause, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. \nCode. Ann. § 11-9-102(14)(A) and (B).   \n     Respondent No. 1 is to be commended for its hard and diligent work in providing vocational \nrehabilitation and job search assistance to the claimant; however, based on the applicable law as \napplied to the facts of this case I am compelled to find the claimant has met his burden of proof in \ndemonstrating  by  a  preponderance  of  the  credible  evidence  that  he  is  in  fact PTD  within  the \nmeaning of the Act as well as the aforementioned applicable precedents. \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n10 \n \n     The  claimant  was  involved  in  a  serious  MVA while responding to a dispatcher’s call on \nJanuary  3,  2019,  in  which  he  suffered  numerous  admittedly  and  well  documented  compensable \ninjuries, most notably a traumatic brain injury. The claimant also sustained significant injuries to \nhis pelvis and both legs. (CX1 at 1-120). The claimant, while only 36 years old at the time of the \nhearing,  is  now  37  years  old,  and  has  been  assessed  with  a  49%  BAW  permanent  anatomical \nimpairment rating, primarily as a result of his traumatic brain injury. Whether attributable to the \ncompensable incident and his serious permanent injuries in this case or some other reason, after \nthe January 3, 2019, MVA the claimant’s wife left him. Fortunately, he has met and married \nanother woman who provides both physical and emotional care and support. It is also evident from \nthe claimant’s mother’s testimony that both she and the claimant’s dad have provided him care, \nlove, financial, and both physical and emotional support.   \n       The medical records, as well as the claimant’s and his mother’s testimony, were credible \nconcerning  the  serious  nature  of  his  injuries,  and  the  physical  limitations  and  restrictions  these \nserious, debilitating injuries have had on his life. Throughout his testimony the claimant expressed \na desire to do everything possible to return to gainful employment. With the loving and significant \nhelp of his mom the claimant has written a book about his accident and his courageous fight to \novercome  his  significant  disabilities  which  is  available  for  sale  on  Amazon.  He  also  has  given \nmotivational speeches at various churches and other venues. His fellow Arkansas State Troopers \nand  others  have  shown  their  care  and  concern  by  providing  him  some  financial  assistance; \nhowever, charitable assistance, while certainly helpful, does not constitute gainful employment.         \n      Of course, of most concern is the claimant’s traumatic brain injury. Both the medical \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n11 \n \nrecords  and  the  vocational  rehabilitation  reports  of  Ms.  Taylor  and  Ms.  Hampton  essentially \ndemonstrate the claimant’s prospects of finding a wage-paying job in the competitive marketplace \nare  highly  speculative  at  this  time.  In  fact,  initially  Ms.  Taylor –  a  highly  knowledgeable, \nexperienced,  credible,  and  professional  rehabilitation  specialist  well-known  to  this  ALJ  and  the \nCommission – as well as Ms. Hampton’s thorough, well-written  reports,  paint  a  rather  bleak \npicture of the claimant’s prospects of returning to gainful employment as of the hearing date. (CX1 \nat 85; 94; 120).     \n      The claimant’s January 3, 2019, MVA, resulting serious injuries, and their consequences \nrepresent  the  very  definition  of  a  highly  significant,  tragic,  life-changing  event.  Still,  the \noverwhelming  preponderance  of  the  evidence  demonstrates  the  claimant  is  highly  motivated  to \nstay as active as he possibly can; that he is making and intends to continue to make every effort to \nfind and return to some kind of gainful employment if at all possible. In other words, this claimant \nis, in this ALJ’s humble opinion, a courageous young man who, despite his occasional bouts with \nsituational depression, is eager and highly motivated to attempt to beat the odds and find gainful \nemployment. And if he is unable to do so, he will continue to  find ways to use his tragedy and \nupbeat, positive attitude to try to help others in similar situations deal with their injuries, struggles, \nand depression, and to live the very best life they can live while, “passing it forward” to others. \n      This ALJ and the Commission are well aware that recovery from traumatic brain injuries \nis highly unpredictable: i.e., the claimant’s condition “might” improve and, then again, it “might” \nget worse. As of the hearing date the preponderance of the credible evidence of record conclusively \ndemonstrates that, at this time at least, it would constitute sheer speculation and conjecture to find \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n12 \n \nthe traumatic brain injury will improve to the extent that the claimant will be able to return to work \nand be gainfully employed in a competitive marketplace. Of course, speculation and conjecture, \neven if plausible, do not constitute proof. I pray the claimant’s traumatic brain injury will improve \nwith time; however, as of the hearing date as well as the preponderance of the credible evidence \nof record  and what this ALJ observed at the hearing, the  claimant is unable to return to gainful \nemployment at this time.        \n     Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The stipulations contained in the prehearing order filed June 24, 2022,   \nwhich the parties affirmed on the record at the hearing, hereby are \naccepted as facts.   \n \n2. The claimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating he is PTD \nwithin the meaning of the Act and applicable case law. \n \n3. The claimant has met his burden of proof in demonstrating his \ncompensable injuries are the “major cause” of his permanent disability.  \n \n4. Pursuant  to Ark.  Code  Ann.  Section  11-9-411,  Respondent  No.  1  is \nentitled  to  take  a  dollar-for-dollar  credit/off-set  in  the  amount  of  any \ndisability benefits any and all third-party payor(s) have paid, are paying, \nor will pay to the claimant in the future. \n \n5. The claimant’s attorney  is  entitled  to  a  fee  on  these  facts  based  on  the \nadditional  51%  in  wage  loss  disability  benefits  the  Commission  has \nawarded to the claimant, and which Respondent No. 1 has controverted. \n \n                     AWARD \n \n     The respondents are hereby directed to pay benefits in accordance with the “Findings of Fact \nand Conclusions of Law” set forth above. All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without \ndiscount, and this award shall earn interest at the legal rate until paid pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n\nClayton McWilliams, AWCC No. G900188 \n \n13 \n \nSection 11-9-809, and Couch v. First State Bank of Newport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 \n(Ark. App. 1995); Burlington Indus., et al v. Pickett, 64 Ark. App. 67, 983 S.W.2d 126 (Ark. App. \n1998); and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Sauer, 358 Ark. 89, 186 S.W.3d 229 (2004).   \n      If they have not already done so, Respondent No. 1 shall pay the court reporter’s invoice \nwithin twenty (20) days of their receipt of this opinion and order.   \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \nMike Pickens \nAdministrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G900188 CLAYTON MCWILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 STATE OF ARKANSAS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1 STATE OF ARKANSAS DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND RESPONDE...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:04:59.958Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G900188-2023-07-05","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MCWILLIAMS_CLAYTON_G900188_20230705.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}