{"id":"alj-G900272-2024-03-05","awcc_number":"G900272","decision_date":"2024-03-05","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Glenn Davis","employer_name":"Weyerhauser Nr Co","title":"DAVIS VS. WEYERHAUSER NR CO. AWCC# G900272 MARCH 5, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","lumbar","hip","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Davis_Glenn_G900272_20240305.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Davis_Glenn_G900272_20240305.pdf","text_length":48483,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. G900272 \n \n \nGLENN D. DAVIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nWEYERHAUSER NR CO., \n SELF-INUSRED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT. SVCS., INC., \n THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 5, 2024 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on  December 6, 2023, in El \nDorado, Union County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Ms. Laura Beth York, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  Mr.  Guy  Alton  Wade,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On  December  6,  2023,  the  above-captioned  claim  was  heard  in  El  Dorado, \nArkansas.    A  pre-hearing  conference  took  place  on  September 26,   2023.    The \nPrehearing  Order  entered  that  same  day  pursuant  to  the  conference  was admitted \nwithout  objection  as  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that \nthe  stipulations,  issues,  and  respective  contentions,  as  amended,  were  properly  set \nforth in the order. \nStipulations \n At  the  hearing,  the  parties  discussed  the  stipulations  set  forth  in  Commission \nExhibit 1.  Following amendments at the hearing, they are the following, which I accept: \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n2 \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over \nthis claim. \n2. The  employee/self-insured  employer/third  party  administrator  relationship \nexisted  at  all  relevant  times,  including  on  or  about  December  17,  2018, \nwhen Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his back. \n3. Claimant  was  assigned  an  impairment  rating  of  twelve  percent  (12%)  to \nthe  body  as  a  whole  in  connection  with  his  compensable  back  injury.  \nRespondents  accepted  and  paid  this  rating,  along  with  an  attorney’s  fee \nthereon. \n4. Claimant’s    average    weekly    wage of    $1,010.00    entitles    him    to \ncompensation rates of $673.00/$505.00. \n5. Respondents have controverted this claim for additional benefits. \nIssues \n The  parties  discussed  the  issues  set  forth  in  Commission  Exhibit  1.    Following \namendments, the following were litigated: \n1. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to penalties  and  interest  concerning  the \ncircumstances  surrounding  the  payment  of  permanent  partial  disability \nbenefits in connection with the  twelve percent (12%)  impairment rating to \nthe body as a whole that he was assigned for his stipulated compensable \nback injury. \n2. Whether Claimant is permanently and totally disabled or, in the alternative, \nentitled to wage loss disability benefits. \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n3 \n3. Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties read as follows: \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant contends that on December 17, 2018, he fell from a ladder in the \ncourse  and  scope  of  his  employment,  injuring  his  back.    Respondents \naccepted   the   claim  as   compensable.      On   November   25,  2019,   he \nunderwent   a   lumbar   fusion   surgery   at   L5-S1.      Claimant   received \nconservative   treatment   following   surgery;   but   eventually,   Dr.   Scott \nSchlesinger   recommended   a   left   L3-4   decompression   and   fusion \nprocedure.    Respondents  authorized  the  decompression  but  not  the \nfusion.  Schlesinger  opined  that  he  was  concerned  that  Claimant  would \ndevelop  progressive  collapse  of  the  left  L3-4  neural  foramen  without  a \nsimultaneous  lumbar  fusion.    Respondents  sent  Claimant  to  Dr.  Wayne \nBruffett  for  an  independent  medical  evaluation.    He  opined  that  Claimant \ndid  not  need  another  surgery  and  released  him  at  maximum  medical \nimprovement with a twelve percent (12%) impairment rating to the body as \na  whole  on  August  9,  2021.    Bruffett  also  found  that  Claimant  could  not \nwork  an  eight-hour  day,  and  recommended  that  he  apply  for  Social \nSecurity   Disability   benefits.      At   that   point,   Respondents   cut   off   all \ntreatment and ceased payment of indemnity benefits. \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n4 \n2. Claimant requested a change of physician for ongoing pain management. \n3. Claimant   is   56   years   old   and   had   been   employed   by   Respondent \nemployer  for  23  years  at  the  time  the  accident  in  question  took place.  \nClaimant was terminated by his employer following this accident.. \n4. Claimant  further  contends  that  he  is  entitled  to  payment  of  permanent \npartial  disability  benefits  in  connection  with  his  twelve  percent  (12%) \nimpairment rating, along with interest and penalties. \n5. Claimant  also  contends  that  he  is  permanently  and  totally  disabled  or,  in \nthe  alternative,  entitled  to  wage  loss  disability  benefits,  and  that  his \nattorney is entitled to controverted fee. \n6. Claimant reserves all issues not raised herein. \nRespondents: \n1. Respondents   contend   that   Claimant   is   not   permanently   and   totally \ndisabled or entitled to any wage loss disability benefits. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documents, and \nother  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear \nthe  testimony  of  Claimant  and  to observe  his  demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the  following \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-704 \n(Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over \nthis claim. \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n5 \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \nentitled to the payment  under Ark. Code  Ann.  § 11-9-802(b) (Repl. 2012) \nof an additional eighteen (18%) percent of the value of his twelve percent \n(12%) impairment rating to the body as a result of Respondents’ failure to \ninitiate payment of permanent partial disability benefits in a timely manner \nunder this provision. \n4. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \npermanently and totally disabled. \n5. Claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  has \nsustained wage loss disability of thirty-five percent (35%), and is entitled to \nadditional permanent partial disability benefits pursuant thereto. \n6. Claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his \nattorney, the Hon. Laura Beth York, is entitled to a controverted fee under \nArk.  Code  Ann.  § 11-9-715  (Repl.  2012)  on  the  indemnity  benefits \nawarded herein in Findings/Conclusions Nos. 3 and 5 supra. \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n Claimant  was  the  sole  witness.  He  testified  at  the  hearing  and  via  deposition \n(see infra). \n In  addition  to  the  Prehearing  Order  discussed  above,  admitted  into  evidence  in \nthis case were the following:  Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of his medical records, \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n6 \nconsisting   of   five   abstract/index   pages and   120   numbered   pages   thereafter; \nRespondents’ Exhibit 1, the transcript of the deposition\n1\n of Claimant taken October 14, \n2022, consisting of 68 numbered pages; and Joint Exhibit 1, documentation concerning \nthe  payment  of  permanent  partial  disability  benefits  pursuant  to  the  impairment  rating \nand the controverted attorney’s fee thereon, consisting of three pages. \nAdjudication \nA. Penalties and Interest \n Introduction.  As  alluded  to  above,  Claimant  suffered  a  stipulated  compensable \nback  injury.    He  has  argued  that  while,  as  stipulated,  Respondents accepted  and  paid \nthis  rating,  they  did  not  do  so  in  a  timely  fashion.    For  that  reason,  they  are  liable  for \ninterest and penalties.  Respondents deny this. \n Standards.    Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-802 (Repl. 2012): \n(a) The first installment of compensation shall become due on the fifteenth \nday after  the employer has  notice of  the  injury or death, as  provided in  § \n11-9-701, on  which  date  all  compensation  then  accrued  shall be  paid. \nThereafter, compensation shall be paid every two (2) weeks except where \nthe Workers' Compensation Commission directs that installment payments \nbe made at other periods. \n \n(b) If  any  installment of  compensation  payable  without an  award is  not \npaid   within   fifteen   (15)   days   after it   becomes   due, as   provided   in \nsubsection   (a) of   this   section,   there   shall be   added to   the  unpaid \ninstallment an  amount equal  to  eighteen  percent  (18%)  thereof,  which \nshall be paid at the same time as, but in addition to, the installment unless \nnotice of  controversion is  filed or  an  extension is  granted  the  employer \nunder   § 11-9-803   or   unless   such   nonpayment is   excused by   the \ncommission after a showing by the employer that, owing to conditions over \n \n1\nPer Commission policy, this separately-bound transcript has been retained in the \nCommission’s file. \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n7 \nwhich he  or  she  had  no  control,  the  installment  could  not be  paid  within \nthe period prescribed. \n \n. . . \n \n(e) In the event that the commission finds the failure to pay any benefit is \nwillful and  intentional,  the  penalty  shall be  up  to  thirty-six  percent  (36%), \npayable to the claimant. \n \n As the party seeking relief under this provision, Claimant under Ark. Code Ann. § \n11-9-705(a)(3)  (Repl. 2012)  must  prove  his  entitlement  thereto  by  a  preponderance  of \nthe  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or convincing \nforce.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium \nCorp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n Discussion.    Respondents  sent  Claimant  to  an  independent  medical  evaluation \nby  Dr. Wayne  Bruffett on August 9, 2021.   Dr.  Bruffett  on  that date  assigned  Claimant \nan  impairment  rating  of  twelve  percent  (12%)  to  the  body  as  a  whole.    Based  on \nClaimant’s  stipulated  compensation  rate,  he  should  have  received  permanent  partial \ndisability   benefits   totaling   $27,270.00,   payable   over   the   course   of   54   weeks in \naccordance  with  § 11-9-802(a)-(b).    But  instead  of  initiating  payment  of  installments \nwithin 15 days, as provided by the law, Respondents did not pay him anything thereon \nuntil September 22, 2022.  On that date, as shown by Joint Exhibit 1, they sent Claimant \na  lump-sum  check  in  the  amount  of  $23,861.25—which  consists  of  $27,270.00  minus \nClaimant’s portion of the controverted attorney’s fee under § 11-9-715, or $3,408.75. \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n8 \n At  the  hearing,  Claimant  argued  that  the  lengthy  delay  in  payment—almost  13 \nmonths—is “res ipsa loquitor.”\n  2 \n  Respondents countered that the reason for the delay \nwas  that  the  parties  had  been  working toward  an amicable  resolution  of  the  claim,  but \nultimately just paid the value of the rating in a lump sum.  Once that occurred, a pending \nearlier hearing on this claim was taken off the docket. \n My  review  of  the  evidence  shows  that  Respondents  clearly  did  not  comply  with \nthe  15-day  deadline  for  initiating  payments  under  Subsection  (b).    However,  the \ncircumstances  do  not  warrant  a  finding  that  the  failure  to  pay  in  a  timely  manner  was \n“willful and intentional” under Subsection (e).  Consequently, Claimant has proven by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to payment of an additional eighteen \n(18%) percent under § 11-9-802(b). \nB. Permanent and Total Disability \n Introduction.  Claimant has contended that as a result of his compensable injury, \nhe  is  permanently  and  totally  disabled.    In  the  alternative,  he  has  asserted  that  he  is \nentitled to wage loss disability benefits over and above his twelve percent (12%) whole-\nbody impairment rating.  Respondents have argued otherwise. \n Standard.  The accident of December 17, 2018, resulted in a compensable injury \nto Claimant’s back.  This injury is an unscheduled one.  Cf. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-521 \n(Repl. 2012).  The term “permanent total disability” is defined in the statute as “inability, \n \n \n2\nThis  is  a  Latin  term  meaning, “The  thing  speaks  for  itself.”    BLACK’S  LAW \nDICTIONARY 678 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983). \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n9 \nbecause of compensable injury or occupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages \nin the same or other employment.”  Id. § 11-9-519(e)(1) (Repl. 2012). \n Claimant’s entitlement to wage loss disability benefits is controlled by Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-522(b)(1) (Repl. 2012), which states: \nIn considering claims for permanent partial disability benefits in excess of \nthe   employee’s   percentage   of   permanent   physical   impairment,   the \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission may take into account, in addition to \nthe  percentage  of  permanent  physical  impairment,  such  factors  as  the \nemployee’s    age,    education,    work    experience,    and   other matters \nreasonably expected to affect his or her future earning capacity. \n \nSee  Curry  v.  Franklin  Elec.,  32  Ark.  App.  168,  798  S.W.2d  130  (1990).    Such  “other \nmatters” include motivation, post-injury income, credibility, demeanor, and a multitude of \nother  factors.   Id.; Glass  v.  Edens,  233  Ark.  786,  346  S.W.2d  685  (1961).    As  the \nArkansas  Court  of  Appeals  noted  in Hixon  v.  Baptist  Health,  2010  Ark.  App.  413,  375 \nS.W.3d 690, “there is no exact formula for determining wage loss . . . .”  Under § 11-9-\n522(b)(1),  when  a  claimant  has  been  assigned  an  impairment  rating  to  the  body  as  a \nwhole, the Commission possesses the authority to increase the rating, and it can find a \nclaimant  totally  and  permanently  disabled  based  upon  wage-loss  factors.   Cross  v. \nCrawford County Memorial Hosp., 54 Ark. App. 130, 923 S.W.2d 886 (1996). \n To  be  entitled  to  any wage-loss disability  in excess of  an  impairment  rating,  the \nclaimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that  he sustained permanent \nphysical  impairment  as  a  result  of  a  compensable  injury.   Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.  v. \nConnell,  340  Ark.  475,  10  S.W.3d  727  (2000).    The  wage  loss  factor  is  the  extent  to \nwhich  a  compensable  injury  has  affected  the  claimant’s  ability  to  earn  a  livelihood.  \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n10 \nEmerson  Elec.  v.  Gaston,  75  Ark.  App.  232,  58  S.W.3d 848  (2001).    In  considering \nfactors that may impact a claimant’s future earning capacity, the Commission considers \nhis  motivation  to  return  to  work,  because  a  lack  of  interest  or  a  negative  attitude \nimpedes the assessment of his loss of earning capacity.  Id.  The Commission may use \nits  own  superior  knowledge  of industrial  demands,  limitations,  and  requirements  in \nconjunction  with  the  evidence  to  determine  wage-loss  disability.   Oller  v.  Champion \nParts  Rebuilders,  5 Ark.  App.  307,  635 S.W.2d  276  (1982).     Finally,  Ark.  Code  Ann.  § \n11-9-102(4)(F)(ii) (Repl. 2012) provides: \n(a) Permanent  benefits  shall  be  awarded  only  upon  a  determination \nthat the compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or \nimpairment. \n \n(b) If  any  compensable  injury  combines  with a  preexisting  disease  or \ncondition  or  the  natural  process  of  aging  to  cause  or  prolong \ndisability  or  a  need  for  treatment,  permanent  benefits  shall  be \npayable for the resultant condition only if the compensable injury is \nthe major cause of the permanent disability or need for treatment. \n \n“Major cause” is more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause, and has to  be established \nby  a  preponderance of  the  evidence.    Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-102(14)  (Repl.  2012).  \n“Disability” is the “incapacity because of compensable injury to earn, in the same or any \nother  employment,  the  wages  which  the  employee  was  receiving  at  the  time  of  the \ncompensable injury.”  Id. § 11-9-102(8). \n The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that \nperson’s testimony are  solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., \n72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through conflicting \nevidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n11 \nto  believe  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness,  but  may  accept  and \ntranslate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of \nbelief.  Id. \n Evidence–Testimony.  Claimant, who is 58 years old and a high school graduate, \nattended Southern Arkansas University, where he played football.  He left college for a \nyear;  and  during  that  period,  he  worked  in  shipping  and  pulpwood  hauling.    While  he \nreturned  to  SAU  thereafter,  he  failed  to  complete  his  studies  there,  accumulating \napproximately  100  credit  hours  toward  a  physical  education  degree.    Thereafter,  in \n1989,  he  joined  the  United  States  Army.    There,  he  worked  in  the  burgeoning  word \nprocessing  area,  performing  MS-DOS  and  JS2  commanding.    This  work  required  that \nhe have Top Secret Clearance. \n After  four  years  in  the  Service,  he  received  an  Honorable  Discharge.   Upon  his \nreturn to civilian life, he worked as a traffic agent for a chemical manufacturer for five to \nsix months.  In this job, he used a computer to dispatch trucks and coordinated the bills \nof lading.  He left for a more lucrative position at International Paper, where he worked \ninside the mill.  Claimant testified that this was a physical job, and lasted for four years.  \nThereafter, for approximately one year, he worked for a steel mill.  There, he strapped \nthe ends of T-posts that had been manufactured there.  This, too, was highly physical. \n Claimant’s next place of employment was at Respondent Weyerhauser.  At first, \nhe  was  a  utility  worker,  filling  in  at  various  assignments.   He  became  the  driver  of  a \npiece  of  heavy  equipment  that  loaded  logs.    After  eight  or  nine  years  in  this  position, \nClaimant became a boiler helper at Weyerhauser.  He described this job as follows: \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n12 \nIt’s  your  responsibility  to  make  sure  the  boiler  has  enough  fuel  and \neverything  is  running  right.    It  consists  of  climbing  a  whole  lot  of  stairs, \nturning valves and all that kind of stuff and making sure you’ve got enough \nfuel in the boiler. \n \nThis job entailed use of a computer. \n On the stipulated date of injury, December 17, 2018, the following happened: \nWhat  I did  I  came  in  to  work  at 7:00  that evening,  and  so  we  have  to do \nmaintenance on the machines before  we can operate them, so I took the \nmachine  up  to  the  grease  rack,  and  I  started  doing  maintenance  and \nchecking  everything  to  make  sure  it  was  serviceable,  so  then  on my  way \nback, I was coming back to the boiler, and I noticed that the dry waste bin \nwhere they send the chips off of the plywood, it was running over, so I had \nto get off the Cat to go over there to stop it, so when I was getting off the \nCat, I don’t know if I just lost my balance or slipped or glove or grease or \nwhatever, and I was holding and I fell back. \n \nAs  a  result  of  this  incident,  Claimant  hurt  his  lower  back.    Respondents  accepted the \ninjury as compensable and have paid benefits to him as a result.  He was able to finish \nhis shift at the time of his injury; and he continued working until January 9, 2019. \n In  recounting  the  treatment  he  has  undergone,  Claimant  testified  that  he \nunderwent  six  to  eight  weeks  of  physical  therapy.    Because  this  did  not  help, \nRespondents  sent  him  to  Dr.  Schlesinger.    Initially,  his  treatment  by  Schlesinger \nconsisted  of  injections.    These,  however,  did  not  provide  lasting  relief.    Eventually,  on \nNovember  25,  2019,  he  underwent  a  transforaminal  decompression  and  fusion at  L5-\nS1.  Asked how he fared as a result of these procedures, Claimant responded:  “I had \nsome difficulties and then, after that, I suffer from a whole lot of numbness and pain in \nmy  back.    He  told  me  to  come  back,  so  I  went  back,  and  I  went  on  another  round  of \ninjections in my back.”  Asked whether the injections helped, Claimant’s response was \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n13 \nterse:  “No.”  Claimant related that the surgery did not help, either.  In February of 2021, \nDr.  Schlesinger  recommended  another  operation:    an  L3-4  fusion.    But  Respondents \nrefused to cover it, and instead sent Claimant to Dr. Bruffett for an independent medical \nevaluation.  Although it was Claimant’s testimony that Bruffett never laid his hands upon \nhim to examine him during their ten-minute visit, he later acknowledged that  the doctor \nobserved his gait and asked him to stand and  to bend over.  Dr. Bruffett, as a result of \nthat appointment, found Claimant to be at maximum medical improvement and assigned \nhim an impairment rating of twelve percent (12%) to the body as a whole.  In describing \nhow  he  was  doing  at  the  time  of  this  release,  Claimant  stated:   “About  the  same  as \nwhen  I  went.    I  was  still  having  a  lot  of  pain  in  my  lower  back  and  down  my  hip  and \ndown  my  left  leg.”  Per  Claimant,  Dr.  Schlesinger  did  not  refer  him  elsewhere;  and  he \ndid not return to Schlesinger for additional treatment after going to Bruffett. \n Claimant  requested  and  received  a  change  of  physician  to  Dr.  Krishnappa \nPrasad.    There,  Claimant  underwent  pain  management  in  the  form  of  injections.    He \nunderwent  two  injections  before  being  informed  that  Respondents  would  no  longer \ncover  them.    Asked  whether  the  injections  helped,  Claimant’s  reply  was “[n]ot  really, \nno.”  Since  then,  Claimant  has  been  treating  at  the  Veteran’s  Administration.    This \ntreatment   has   been   comprised   of   prescriptions   of   Gabapentin,   Diclofenac,   and \nCyclobenzaprine.    These  are  taken  three  times  a  day.    An  additional  medication  that \nClaimant  takes  to  address  what  he  termed “severe  pain”  that  occurs  perhaps  twice  a \nweek  is  Hydrocodone,  which  is  prescribed  by  his  primary  care   physician.  His \nmedications make him drowsy.  Regardless, he rates his daily pain as 7/10. \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n14 \n While  Claimant  was  still  treating  for  his  lower  back  injury,  in  2020,  Respondent \nWeyerhauser  terminated  him.    He  had  to  apply  for  leave  under  the  Family  Medical \nLeave  Act;  and  when  that  had  been  exhausted,  he  was  terminated.    Later,  on  cross-\nexamination,   Claimant   added   that he took   early   retirement,   at   age   55,   from \nWeyerhauser  in  May  2022.    He  stated  that  at  the  time  Dr.  Bruffett  released  him  from \ntreatment, he was still unable to perform his old job at Weyerhauser. \n His  testimony  on  direct  examination  was  that  he  has  not  performed  any  work \nsince December 2018.  On cross-examination, however, he agreed that the correct date \nis January 9, 2019.  Claimant successfully applied for Social Security Disability benefits.  \nHe  draws  a  pension  from  Respondent  Weyerhauser.    Claimant  has  not  been offered \nvocational rehabilitation.  While his job in the Army involved computers,  his stint in the \nmilitary  was  long,  long  ago,  and  the  work  primarily  entailed  printing  and  delivering \ndocuments.    He  has  not  kept  up  with  advances  in  technology.    Claimant  did not  use \ncomputers  at  Weyerhauser  other  than  such  tasks  as  entering  his  time.    His  personal \ncomputer is not operational.  He rarely has used email.  But he is able use a laptop for, \ninter alia, performing internet searches and using social media.  Claimant does not think \nthat there is any type of employment that he would be able to do.  He added that if such \na job exists, he is “going to be in pain doing it.”  He admitted that he has not looked for \nwork anywhere since leaving Weyerhauser. \n Notwithstanding   his   assignment   of   a   five-pound   lifting   restriction   by   Dr. \nSchlesinger, it is Claimant’s belief that he is able to lift up to 30 to 40 pounds.  Although \nrecently,  by  necessity,  he  had  to  lift  a  car  battery  in  order  to  place  it  in  the  engine \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n15 \ncompartment of his vehicle, it is not a task that he could do on a daily basis.  Claimant \ncan stand for four to five minutes.  After that point, the pain  in his hip and leg becomes \n“unbearable.”  He  is  able  to  walk  a  quarter  of  mile  before  burning  in  his  legs  and  hip \nprompt him to sit.  Sitting is tolerable for approximately 30 minutes.  Use of a recliner at \nhome helps with this, since it allows him to switch positions, such as leaning to the side \nand  stretching  his  hip.  When  he  attended  the  church  funeral  of  his  sister,  the \nuncomfortable nature of the wooden pews rendered him physically unable to attend the \ngraveside  service  thereafter.    The  furthest  he  has  driven  since  the  accident  is  from \nSouth  Arkansas  to  Little  Rock.    When  making  a  journey  of  this  length,  he  has  to  stop \ntwice  in  order  to  stretch  because  of  back  pain.    In  order  to  ensure  that  he is  lucid \nenough to make this road trip, he has to cease his medications the day prior.  Once he \nhas  returned  home,  however,  he  has  to  take  Hydrocodone  along  with  his  three  other \nmedications  in  order  to  get  his  pain  back  under  control.  His  treatment  with  the  VA \nincludes addressing his hypertension.  However, neither this condition nor his previous \nknee surgery and surgical treatment for prostate cancer forms the basis for his inability \nto return to work; instead, that cause is his back injury. \n Turning  to  the  subject  of  hobbies,  Claimant  related  that  he  likes  gardening  and \ntaking care of his yard.  Unfortunately, due to his condition, this has been impaired.  He \nis unable to garden.  Mowing his half-acre-sized lot on his riding lawn mower takes one \nand one-half  to  two  hours  because  he has  to  take  multiple  breaks.    Even  with  breaks, \nhe  is “laid  up”  for  a  day  or  two  thereafter.    While  he  still  fishes,  he  does  so  less \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n16 \nfrequently than before his back was injured.  Questioned why this is the case, Claimant \nreplied: \nBecause it’s  too  much  pain  and  too  much  trouble  to  get  .  .  .  [u]sually,  I \nhave to try to find somewhere where I can sit down or something like that, \nyou know, or a place where I can just back my truck up to and  sit on the \ntailgate  of my truck or  something,  and  whatever  you do,  you’re  not going \nto do it for long, anyway.  Maybe I might be able to do it for maybe an hour \nor so, not long. \n \nIn describing his daily activities, he stated:  “Really, I’ve been kind of reduced to almost \ndoing nothing.  I piddle around the house.  I hardly ever go anywhere.  I hardly ever do \nanything now.”  He walks for exercise.  Claimant is still able to cook, wash dishes, and \ndo his laundry. \n In  order  to  have  the  boiler  helper  position  at  Weyerhauser,  Claimant  had to \npossess  a  boiler  operator’s  license.    His  license  has  since  lapsed.    Asked  if  he  is \nphysically capable of going back to that line of work, he responded: \nNo . . . [b]ecause the boiler helper job is to keep—you have to keep what \nthey  call  a  fire  box,  that’s  where  you’re  burning  all  of  your  fuel  and  stuff, \nyou,  also,  have  to  keep  that  cleaned  out.    When  you  burn  that  fuel  in \nthere, it’ll build up a big slag on the floor and you have to get this rake that \nweighs  about  a  hundred  pounds and  put  it  in  that  boiler  and  you have to \nbreak—[y]ou’ve  got  to  put  a  fire  suit  on  .  .  .  [a]nd  you  have  to  break, \nphysically  break  that  stuff  up  and  sometimes  if  it  gets  real  bad,  it  could \ntake  you  like  maybe  an  hour  or  so  to  get  it  out  .  .  .  [w]hen  you  monitor \nthem monitors, you still have to run up and down the stairs and go make \nadjustments on those valves and stuff like that, also. \n \n Evidence–Medical  Records.    Claimant’s  Exhibit  1  details  the  treatment  he  has \nundergone in connection with his compensable injury. \n As Claimant outlined in his testimony, he did not first seek treatment for his back \nuntil  approximately  three  weeks  after  the  accident,  on  January  9,  2019.    His initial \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n17 \ntreatment was conservative in nature:  medication and physical therapy.  A lumbar MRI \non March 22, 2019, revealed, per Dr. Elizabeth Sullivan: \nSevere  central  canal  stenosis  at  the  L3-4  from  combination  of  advanced \ndegenerative disc disease with osteophyte as well as epidural lipomatosis.  \nThere  is  swelling  of  the  cauda  equina  proximal  to  this.    Advanced \ndegenerative   disc   disease   with   osteophyte   at   L5-S1   with   bilateral \nforaminal  stenosis.    Moderate  diffuse  disc  bulge  with  acquired  central \ncanal stenosis and epidural lipomatosis at L4-5.  Marrow signal change at \nthe L3 and L4 presumed to be reactive from degenerative disc disease. \n \nSullivan  on  April  17,  2019,  recommended  epidural  steroid  injections  along  with  a \nprescription of Gabapentin. \n When   the   injections   did   not   afford   Claimant   relief,   he   was   seen   by   Dr. \nSchlesinger,  Dr.  Sullivan’s  colleague,  on  June  25,  2019.   Schlesinger’s  report  reads  in \npertinent part: \nMRI \nA[n]  MRI  of  the  Lumbar  Spine  has  been  obtained  prior  to  this  visit.    The \nstudy was performed on 03/22/2019[.] \n \nA decision was made to personally read and interpret the multiple images \nof the studies.  This reading was from the perspective of a Neurosurgeon \nand  not  a  Radiologist.    My  personal  reading  of  the  multiple  individual \nimages  was  very  thorough  and  detailed  and  was  carried  out  with  the \nclinical  knowledge  of  the  patient  and  comparing  to  the  imaging  data.    I \npersonally read and interpreted the study as abnormal with the finding of: \n \nSevere   degenerative   changes   at   L3-S1   there   is   lumbar   epidural \nlipomatosis  which  is  severe  at  L4-5  and  L3-4.    There  is  significant \nclumping of the lumbar nerve roots.  There is significant disc protrusions at \nL3-S1.    There  is  significant  stenosis  at L3-4 L4-5 and moderate at L5-S1 \nthere  is  severe  neural  foramen  stenosis  at  L5-S1  bilaterally  moderate \nneuroforaminal  stenosis  at  L4-5  bilaterally  and  moderate  least  severe  at \nL3-4  bilaterally.    Most  significant  findings  that  seem  to  correlate  with  the \npatient’s  pain  distribution  include  the  L3-4  level  plus  or  minus  L4-5 \nincluding  the  potential  contribution  of  the  L3-4  neural  foramen  stenosis \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n18 \nbilaterally   but   obvious   that   I   am   still   concerned   about   the   L5-S1 \nneuroforaminal stenosis bilaterally. \n \n. . . \n \nDiagnosis: \nI believe the patient’s diagnosis is: \n1. Low Back Pain (M54.5) \n2. Obesity (E66.9) \n3. Pain in leg (M79.606) \n4. Osseous and subluxation stenosis of intervertebral foramina \nof lumbar region (M99.63) \n5. Spinal stenosis (M48.00) \n6. Intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar region (M51.36) \n7. Lipomatosis (E88) \n \nPlan: \nA  decision  was  made  to  proceed  with  Lumbar  facet  injections—blocks  at \nL3-4, 4-5, and 5-1 on the left. \n \nA  decision  was  made  to  discuss  the  importance  of  obesity  in  their  spinal \ncondition  as  well  as  their  overall  health  and  well-being.    I  feel  that  the \npatient’s  obesity,  BMI  and  body  habitus  are  major  contributing  factors  to \ntheir  spinal  condition.    I  strongly  recommend  that  the  patient  undergo  an \naggressive weight loss program and have advised the patient of this plan. \n \nAlthough  the  accident  or  injury  may  or  may   not  have  caused  any \nradiological changes, I do feel that if the patient history is accurate and the \nsymptoms  all  started  with  the  accident  then  there  is  a  greater  than  51% \nchance  that  the  accident  did  in  fact  cause  the  symptoms  a[nd]  was \ntherefore the cause of the recommended treatment. \n \nWe will have the patient remain off work if there is no light duty available \nuntil after treatment is completed. \n \nSummary: \nThis   54-year-old   male   presents   with   lower   back   pain   is   the   main \ncomplaint.  He does have sciatica involving his L4 nerve root bilaterally left \nworse  than  right  but  the  back  pain  bothers  him  worse.    He  has  multiple \nabnormalities  on  MRI.    I  doubt  any  of  these  were  directly  caused  by the \nwork  injury  but  based on  his  history  the  symptoms  started  so  this  is  very \nlikely an aggravation of an underlying lumbar degenerative process. \n \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n19 \nThis  is  back  pain  is  the  main  problem  we  will  proceed  with  lumbar  facet \nprotocol.  If this fails we will repeat the MRI of the lumbar spine and begin \nserial  selective  nerve  root  block  testing  on  the  left  starting  at  the  L5-S1 \nneuroforamen  but  then  proceeding  to  the  L3-4  neuroforamen  and  then \npossibly  the  L4-5  right  certainly  his  case  is  extremely  complicated.    If \npossible would like to avoid surgery. \n \nClaimant returned to Dr. Sullivan on August 20, 2019, and told her that neither the facet \ninjections  nor  the  Gabapentin  helped.    A  neuroforaminal  block  at  L5-S1,  along  with \nTizanidine  and  continued  Gabapentin,  were  ordered.    The  block,  per  Claimant  on \nOctober  29,  2019,  helped  for  two  days;  but  it  pinpointed  L5-S1  as  the origin  of  his \nproblems.  Dr. Schlesinger recommended an LSO brace and surgery in the forms of a \ndecompression and fusion at L5-S1. \n A  laminectomy,  decompression,  and  fusion  at  this  site  took place  on  November \n25, 2019.  The pre and post-operative diagnoses assigned by Dr. Schlesinger were: \n1.  L5/S1 neuroforaminal stenosis, bilaterally, and spinal cord stenosis \nL5 and S1 \n2.  Segmental instability L5/S1 \n \nClaimant  told  Schlesinger  on  December  19,  2019,  that  while  he  had  experienced \nmoderate  relief  from the  surgery,  he  still  was  having  constant  lower  back pain and  left \nfoot numbness.  An epidural steroid injection at L4-5 was recommended.  He underwent \nanother MRI on February 17, 2020, which showed: \n1. Interval  surgical  intervention  at  the  L5-S1  level  with  left-sided \nhemilaminectomy/facetectomy  defect  and  interbody  fusion.    There \nis retrolisthesis, a broad-based disc displacement, which is mixed in \nthe biforaminal positions and moderate to severe facet hypertrophy \ncontributing  to  the  abutment  of  bilateral  exiting  L5  nerves  with \npossible compression bilaterally. \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n20 \n2. Retrolisthesis,  a  broad-based  disc  displacement  and  moderate \nfacet  hypertrophy  at  the  L4-5  level  contributing  to  the  abutment  of \nbilateral descending L5 nerves. \n3. Disc height loss, a broad-based disc displacement with central and \nright  foraminal  predominance  and  mixed  left  foraminal  protrusion, \nmoderate  facet  hypertrophy  and  epidural  lipomatosis  at  the  L3-4 \nlevel  contributing  to  moderate  canal  stenosis  with  abutment  of \nbilateral exiting L3 nerves and abutment of bilateral descending L4 \nnerves. \n \n Dr.  Schlesinger  saw  Claimant  again  on  February  25,  2020,  and  wrote  that  they \nwould proceed with lumbar medial branch blocks at L3-4 and L4-5 on the left, and then \na rhizotomy.  An EMG was ordered as well to determine the source of lower extremity \nnumbness.  While the nerve conduction study was abnormal, the doctor attributed it to \nmetabolic causes.  The report of June 17, 2020, reads in pertinent part: \nDue to  the  deterioration  of  his  left  leg  pain  that  is  consistent  with  L3-4 \ndistribution,  we  will  obtain  a  new  MRI  of  the  lumbar  spine.    On  the  prior \nstudy,  he  had  moderately  severe  left  sided  neuroforaminal  stenosis.    We \nwill formulate a plan of action after reviewing the new MRI.  If the patient is \nnot  a  surgical  candidate,  he  may  ultimately  need  to  meet  with  pain \nmanagement. \n \nThe MRI took place on July 14, 2020.  It was of poor quality, but reflected unremarkable \nchanges at L5-S1, moderately severe stenosis at  that level and at L3-4, and moderate \nstenosis  at  L4-5.  Because  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  facet  protocol  never \noccurred.  But Dr. Schlesinger opined that Claimant’s increased left leg pain was due to \nabnormalities at L3-4.  On August 4, 2020, the doctor wrote: \nThe  patient  states  that  he  has  been  terminated  from  work.    If  light  duty \nwere available then he could obtain a new job that he could attempt to do.  \nI  have  no  way  of  giving  a  maximum  medical  improvement  date  until  we \nsee what is the underlying treatment plan. \n \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n21 \nSchlesinger  ordered  root  blocks  at  L3-4  and  L4-5.    The L4-5  block  took  place  on \nSeptember 3, 2020.  He reported a twenty percent (20%) decrease in pain thereafter—\nnot enough, in his opinion, to warrant surgery.  The L3-4 block took place on October 8, \n2020.  Claimant reported to Schlesinger on October 15, 2020, that he received no relief \nfrom the injection.  The doctor wrote: \nWhen  he  underwent  a  left  L4-5  SNRB  [selective  nerve  root  block]  on \n9/3/20, he did  feel  a  reproduction of his  typical  leg  pain  but unfortunately \nonly had about 20% relief.  It is possible that not enough local anesthetic \nwas  used  and  we  will  repeat  this  SNRB  at  L4-5  with  a  higher  amount  of \nbupivacaine.    If  the  SNRB  testing  indicates  that  the  left  L4  nerve  root  is \nsignificantly the problem then we can proceed with decompression of L3-\nL4 on the left hopefully without a fusion. \n \n The revision nerve root block of L4-5 happened on November 12, 2020.   In this \ninstance, Claimant reported having seventy percent (70%) relief following the injection—\nenough,  in  his  opinion,  to  justify  surgery.   Another  lumbar  MRI  on  January  14,  2021.  \nAfter  reviewing  everything  and  visiting  with  Claimant  on  February  10,  2021,  Dr. \nSchlesinger  recommended  that  he  undergo  a  left  L3-4  decompression.    However, \nfollowing  another  appointment  on  February  24,  2021,  the  doctor  also recommended  a \nWenzel fusion at that level. \n As  recounted  in  the  testimony  above,  this  surgery  never  took  place.    Instead, \nClaimant  was  sent  to  Dr.  Bruffett  on  August  9,  2021,  for  an  independent  medical \nevaluation.  Bruffett’s report reads in pertinent part: \nI would like to answer the questions posed for this IME[.  T]he diagnosis is \npost   laminectomy   syndrome   status   post   fusion[.      H]e   has   multiple \ndegenerative  changes  and  epidural  lipomatosis  as  described  above.   I \nbelieve as a consequence of his work injury there was an exacerbation of \nthese  degenerative  changes.    I  would  say  that  his  work  injury  and \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n22 \nsubsequent  surgery  accounted  for  greater  than  51%  of  his  ongoing \nproblems  and  pain  and  so  forth.    Disability  is  a  different  question.    That \nhas  to  do  with  one’s  ability  to  work  in  my  opinion  and  there  are  many \ncomplex  components  of  this  including  job  satisfaction,  and  so  forth.    I  do \nbelieve  he  is  at  maximum  medical  improvement.   I  do  not  feel  that \nfurther  treatment  is  indicated.    He  does  not  need  further  surgery[.]  \n[B]ased   on   the   American   Medical   Association   [G]uides   to   the \n[E]valuation   of   [P]ermanent   [I]mpairment   [F]ourth   [A]ddition[,] I \nwould assign him an impairment rating of 12% of the whole person.  I \nwould not place any restrictions upon him.   However, I am sure that \nhe  has  some  limitations.    He  has  not  worked  in  several  years.    The \nmedical literature would say that his likelihood of returning to gainful \nemployment  now  is  slim  to  none.    We  could  obtain  a  functional \ncapacity  evaluation  to  define  his  capabilities,  but  I  do  not  think  that \nwe will change his long term working status.  He does not feel like he \nis  capable  of  working  an  8-hour  day  in  any  capacity  and  he  has  not \nworked in years so I doubt that he returns to the workforce.  He may \njust  want  to  talk  to  his  attorney  about  whether  he  qualifies  for  [Social \nS]ecurity disability or not. \n \n(Emphasis added) \n On May 16, 2022, Claimant began seeing Dr. Prasad for pain management.  He \nwas  prescribed  Norco  and  Gabapentin,  and  recommended  for  an  epidural  steroid \ninjection  at L4-5.    The  doctor  administered  trigger  point  injections  at  three  sites  during \nthe appointment. \n Discussion.  The evidence at bar shows that Claimant is 58 years old.  He has a \nhigh  school  diploma,  and  completed  approximately  100  credit  hours  toward  a  college \ndegree.    Between  stints  at  Southern  Arkansas  University,  he  had  jobs  in  shipping  and \npulpwood hauling.  After leaving school for good, he entered the U.S. Army and served \nin the word processing area.  He had Top Secret Clearance in order to work in this area.  \nFollowing an Honorable Discharge, Claimant was a traffic agent for a chemical plant.  In \nthis capacity, he utilized a computer to coordinate bills of lading and to dispatch trucks.  \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n23 \nThereafter, he worked in various capacities in a paper mill.  Later, he was employed in a \nsteel  mill,  performing  a  heavily  physical  job.    After  leaving  this  position,  he  joined \nRespondent  Weyerhauser.    He  rotated  through  various  positions  before  becoming the \noperator  of  a  piece  of  heavy  equipment  that  loaded  logs.    Eventually,  he  became  a \nboiler helper.  Not only did this area of work require that he have a boiler’s license, but it \nrequired  physical  activities  such  as  raking  out  a  firebox  and  going  up  and down  steps \nthroughout the shift. \n It  was  in  this  last  job  that  he  sustained  a  stipulated  compensable  injury  to  his \nback  on  December  17,  2018.    For  the  next  11  months,  Claimant  underwent  various \nconservative  measures  to  address  his  symptoms,  from  physical  therapy  to  injections.  \nUltimately,  he  had  to  undergo  surgery  in  the  forms  of  a  laminectomy,  decompression \nand fusion at L5-S1.  Unfortunately, these procedures were only moderately successful.  \nThereafter,  he  continued  to  suffer  from,  inter  alia,  back  pain  and  numbness  in  his  left \nfoot.    After  administering  additional  injections  and  having  Claimant  undergo  other \ndiagnostic  procedures,  his  surgeon,  Dr.  Schlesinger,  recommended  a  decompression \nand  fusion  at  another  level:    L3-4.    However,  Respondents  refused  to  cover this  and \nsent  Claimant  to  Dr.  Bruffett  for  an  independent  medical  evaluation.   Bruffett  assigned \nhim an impairment rating of twelve percent (12%) to the body as a whole. \n While   the   doctor   did   not   give   Claimant   any   permanent   restrictions,   he \nnonetheless  expressed  misgivings  about  whether  he  could  or  at  least  would  return  to \nthe  workforce.    Based  on  the  extended  length  of  time  that  Claimant  had  been  absent \nfrom the working world, Bruffett candidly stated that per “the medical literature \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n24 \n .  .  .  his  likelihood  of  returning  to  gainful  employment  now  is  slim  to  none.”  He  added \nthat  because  of  this,  a  functional  capacity  evaluation  would  not  be  useful,  and \nrecommended  that  Claimant  might  wish  to  pursue  Social  Security  Disability  benefits.  \nDr. Schlesinger, on the other hand, was more optimistic regarding Claimant's prospects.  \nHe wrote in multiple reports that “[i]f light duty were available then he could obtain a new \njob  that  he  could  attempt  to  do.”  Of  course,  this  possibility  was  foreclosed  at \nWeyerhauser when he  was terminated from there.    Regardless of this, Claimant opted \nfor  early  retirement  from  there.  He  acknowledged  that  he  is  able  to  lift  up  to  30  to  40 \npounds, and has demonstrated this by replacing a car battery by himself. \n Claimant’s back condition would keep him from having another job that entailed \nphysical  work  on  a  par  with  what  he  was  performing  at  Weyerhauser  or  any  similar \npositions in his employment history.  He is currently undergoing pain management.  His \nregimen includes medications that make him drowsy.  Despite this protocol, he still has \npain.  Claimant’s condition  requires  him to alternate positions of standing and sitting in \norder to have some level of comfort or tolerance.  He is able to walk some and fish for \nrecreation; and he continues to handle household tasks.  Claimant still operates a riding \nlawn  mower;  but  his  condition  necessitates  more  frequent  breaks.  Claimant’s  less \nphysical jobs have involved the use of a computer.  He is able to operate a laptop. \n I  find,  after  consideration  of  Claimant’s  testimony,  that  he  is  not  motivated  to \nreturn  to  the workforce.    While  he  has  not  met  his  burden  of  proving  that  he  is \npermanently and totally disabled, the preponderance of the evidence does establish that \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n25 \nhe  has  suffered  wage  loss  disability  of  thirty-five  percent  (35%).    Moreover,  his \nstipulated compensable back injury is the major cause of this disability. \nC. Controversion \n Introduction.    Claimant  has  asserted  that  he  is  entitled  to  a  controverted \nattorney’s fee in this matter. \n Standard.    One  of  the  purposes  of  the  attorney's  fee  statute  is  to  put  the \neconomic  burden  of  litigation  on  the  party  who  makes  litigation  necessary.   Brass  v. \nWeller,  23  Ark.  App.  193,  745  S.W.2d  647  (1998).    In  this  case,  the  fee would  be \ntwenty-five  percent  (25%)  of  any  indemnity benefits  awarded  herein,  one-half  of  which \nwould be paid by Claimant and one-half to be paid by Respondents in accordance with \nSee Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715 (Repl. 2012).  See Death & Permanent Total Disability \nTrust Fund v. Brewer, 76 Ark. App. 348, 65 S.W.3d 463 (2002). \n Discussion.    The  evidence  before  me  clearly  shows  that  Respondents  have \ncontroverted   Claimant’s   entitlement  to  additional   indemnity   benefits—included the \neighteen  percent  (18%)  amount  awarded  above  due  to  their  failure to  pay  permanent \npartial disability benefits in a timely manner.  Thus, the evidence preponderates that his \ncounsel, the Hon. Laura Beth York, is entitled to the fee as set out above. \nCONCLUSION AND AWARD \n Respondents are directed to furnish/pay benefits in accordance with the findings \nof fact and conclusions of law set forth above.  All accrued sums shall be paid in a lump \nsum  without  discount,  and  this  award  shall  earn  interest  at  the  legal  rate until  paid, \n\nDAVIS – G900272 \n \n26 \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).  See Couch v. First State Bank of \nNewport, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995). \n Claimant’s  attorney  is  entitled  to  a twenty-five  percent  (25%) attorney’s  fee \nawarded herein, one-half of which is to be paid by Claimant and one-half to be paid by \nRespondents in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715 (Repl. 2012). \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G900272 GLENN D. DAVIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WEYERHAUSER NR CO., SELF-INUSRED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MGMT. SVCS., INC., THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 5, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on Dec...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:55:57.193Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G900272-2024-03-05","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Davis_Glenn_G900272_20240305.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}