{"id":"alj-G908247-2025-11-21","awcc_number":"G908247","decision_date":"2025-11-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Dakota Humphrey-Friend","employer_name":"Best Buy Stores Lp","title":"HUMPHREY-FRIEND VS. BEST BUY STORES LP AWCC# G908247 November 21, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","thoracic","neck","lumbar","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HUMPHREY-FRIEND_DAKOTA_G908247_20251121.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HUMPHREY-FRIEND_DAKOTA_G908247_20251121.pdf","text_length":24944,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. G908247 \n \nDAKOTA J. HUMPHREY-FRIEND, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nBEST BUY STORES LP, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2025 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdale, Washington \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by JASON M. HATFIELD, Attorney,  Springdale, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JARROD S. PARRISH, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n  \n On  August 14, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, Arkansas. \nA pre-hearing conference was conducted on May 19, 2025, and a pre-hearing order was filed on that \nsame date. A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made \na part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.  \n2.   The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on December 3, 2019.  \n3.   The claimant sustained a compensable injury on December 3, 2019. \n4.    The  compensation  rates  are  $626.00  for    temporary  total  disability  and  $470.00  for    \npermanent partial disability.   \n By agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing \nwere limited to the following: \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n2 \n \n \n1 Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from April 21, 2025,  to \na date yet to be determined. \n2 Whether  claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment  as  recommended  by  Dr. \nBlankenship and Dr. Knox. \n3 Attorney’s fee.  \n All other issues are reserved by the parties. \n The claimant contends that “He sustained a compensable injury while working for respondent \non or about December 3, 2019. At that time, claimant was in the course and scope of his employment \nwith respondent, when he injured his back lifting a TV resulting in thoracic spine protrusions at T5-6 \nand  T6-7. Claimant  attempted  conservative  treatment  including  pain  medication,  physical  therapy, \nintramuscular steroid injections, and epidural steroid injections. This conservative treatment initially \noffered claimant temporary pain relief, but injections have become less and less effective. Dr. Jason \nHolt  at  Interventional  Pain  Specialist was the authorized  treating  physician. Dr.  Holt  increased \nclaimant’s pain medication and performed an ultrasound-guided trigger point injection, longissimus \nthoracis left on April 12, 2024, and an ultrasound-guided trigger point injection, longissimus thoracis \nbilateral on May 24, 2024. These offered a short amount of pain relief.  \nClaimant was employed with respondent for more than a decade prior to his work injury, and \nclaimant   had   no   pre-injury   impairments,   restrictions,   or   limitations. Claimant   worked   with \naccommodations  up  to  April  2024  when  his  employment  was  terminated. Claimant  has  not  found \nwork since that time. Claimant was evaluated by Dr. Luke Knox on November 4, 2024, at the request \nof the respondents. Dr. Knox changed claimant’s pain medication and ordered a new thoracic MRI \nscan. Claimant was to return to the office in 1 month for follow-up. To date, respondents have not \napproved the MRI scan ordered by Dr. Knox. Dr. Holt left his practice and is now at the Veterans \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n3 \n \n \nAdministration  and  is  unavailable  to  treat  claimant. Subsequently,  claimant  was  granted  a  second \nchange of physician to Dr. James Blankenship. Dr. Blankenship, like Dr. Knox, has recommended a \nnew  MRI  along  with  physical  therapy  and  a  transforaminal  epidural  steroid  injection. Respondents \nhave denied treatment.”  \n The respondents contend that “All appropriate benefits have been and are continuing to be \npaid with regard to this matter. The claimant recently underwent a change of physician evaluation and \nadditional  diagnostic  testing  was  recommended  and  approved. Respondents  have  no  medical \ndocumentation  indicating  the  claimant  is  in  an  off-work  status  and  entitled  to  temporary  disability \nbenefits.”   \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, and other matters \nproperly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  the \nwitnesses and to observe their demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are \nmade in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.   The stipulations agreed to by the parties at a pre-hearing conference conducted on May \n19, 2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.        Claimant  has  met  his burden  of  proof  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is \nentitled to additional medical benefits as recommended by Dr. James Blankenship for his compensable \nthoracic back injury. \n3.  Claimant  has failed  to  prove by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from April 21, 2025, to the date of the hearing. \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n At the prehearing conference, the parties announced a stipulation that claimant has suffered a \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n4 \n \n \ncompensable injury on December 3, 2019. The stipulation did not specify what part of claimant’s body \nwas involved in the compensable injury. However, claimant’s contentions contained this allegation: \n“He suffered a compensable injury while working for respondent on or about December 3, 2019. At \nthat time, claimant was in the course and scope of his employment for respondent when he injured \nhis back lifting a TV, resulting in thoracic spine protrusions at T5-6 and T6-7. (Commission Exhibit, \npage 2) (Emphasis added). Respondent’s stipulation as to a compensable injury must be read in light \nof claimant’s contention. Respondents  were  entitled  to  rely  upon  the  contentions  set  forth  in  the \nprehearing order in its defense of this claim. As such, I find the parties stipulated only to a thoracic \nspine injury. Claimant’s brief recited what Dr. Blankenship said about neck and low back pain but put \non no testimony about either of those conditions. Any issues regarding any possible injury other than \nto the thoracic spine are neither awarded nor denied but rather are reserved.  \nHEARING TESTIMONY \n \n Claimant was the only witness called by either party. He began working at Best Buy in 2011, \nfirst as a field helper and then as field leader, which consisted of home installations of whatever Best \nBuy  sold. He  sustained  a  mid-back  injury  on  December  3,  2019,  while  removing  a  tube  television \nduring  a  Best  Buy  installation. Claimant estimated  the  television  weighed  at  least  200  pounds  and \nstated that as he carried it down a ladder, he experienced a sharp pain in his back. Following the injury, \nclaimant  received  conservative  treatment,  including  physical  therapy  and  epidural  steroid  injections \nadministered by Dr. David Benson. He remained off work for approximately six months and received \ntemporary total disability (TTD) benefits during that time. He was among the Best Buy employees laid \noff during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.  \n  Claimant returned to work in the summer of 2020 but was having the same problems with his \nmid-back. Best  Buy  accommodated  his  restrictions  by  assigning  additional  personnel  to  assist  with \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n5 \n \n \nphysically  demanding  tasks  and  eventually  transitioning  him  into  a  supervisory  role.  He  continued \nreceiving epidural injections until Dr. Benson determined that sedation should be discontinued, which \nmade the  injections unsafe due to claimant’s muscle spasms and involuntary movement. After  the \nepidural injections were discontinued, claimant obtained a change of physician and began treating with \nDr. Jason Holt.  Dr.  Holt administered  trigger  point  injections,  which  claimant  testified  were  less \neffective than the epidural injections and that his condition worsened. He continued working under \naccommodations until his employment ended in April 2024.  \n Dr. Holt left private practice, and claimant received another change of physician order to Dr. \nJames  Blankenship. Claimant  testified  that  at his  initial  visit on March  31, 2025, Dr.  Blankenship \nrecommended  renewed  epidural  injections,  pool  therapy,  and  prescribed  medications.  Claimant \ntestified that none of the treatment recommended by Dr. Blankenship or Dr. Knox, a prior treating \nneurosurgeon, had been approved or paid for by the workers’ compensation carrier. \n Claimant stated that he attempted to use his workers’ compensation pharmacy card to pay for \nprescriptions  written  by  Dr.  Knox  and  Dr.  Blankenship; the  card  was  denied,  and  he  paid  for  the \nmedications out of pocket. Since his last trigger point injection in late 2024, claimant had received no \nother treatment aside from medication and testified that his condition had worsened. \n Dr.  Blankenship  issued  restrictions  including  a  25-pound  lifting  limit  and  prohibitions  on \nexcessive  climbing,  bending,  crawling,  and  stooping.  Claimant  stated  that  no  physician  had  ever \nremoved  all  restrictions  and  that  these  limitations  were  consistent  with  those  under  which  he  had \nworked for four years at Best Buy. He has not worked or earned income since April 21, 2024, when \nhe was laid off. Claimant testified that he is ready and willing to return to work once medically able. \n        On cross-examination claimant  confirmed  that  he  carried  the  television  down  a  ladder  and \nmaintained that it weighed at least 200 pounds. He acknowledged that he had previously testified in \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n6 \n \n \ndeposition  that  he  had  no  prior  spine-related  symptoms  or  injuries  before  December  3,  2019. \nHowever, chiropractic records from 2017 and 2018 documented low back pain rated at 8 out of 10. \nClaimant stated that he misunderstood the deposition question and believed it referred to a specific \ninjury rather than general symptoms. \n           Claimant   conceded he   did   not   achieve   complete   relief from   physical   therapy. He \nacknowledged that he had informed providers in late 2023 and early 2024 that the effectiveness of \nepidural injections was tapering. \n Claimant  confirmed  that  he  applied  for  unemployment  benefits  after  his  injury  and  before \nreturning to work in 2020. In his application for those benefits, he stated he was being truthful when \nhe represented he had no disabilities preventing him from working and that he was available for full-\ntime  employment.  Claimant  returned  to  work  in  early  summer  2020  and  remained  employed \ncontinually with Best Buy until April 2024, aside from a brief unrelated foot injury. \n Claimant  clarified on  redirect examination that  he  had  previously  received  chiropractic \nadjustments from Dr. Smith, a chiropractor he met while performing installations. Dr. Smith invited \nhim  for  adjustments,  and  claimant  confirmed  that  he  completed  a  pain  index  form  in  April  2018 \nindicating mild, intermittent pain that did not interfere with daily activities. He stated that occasional \nsoreness from physical labor was relieved by adjustments and that he never missed work due to back \npain prior to the December 2019 injury. Claimant reaffirmed that the television involved in his injury \nweighed at least 200 pounds and described that estimate as conservative. \n On recross-examination, claimant acknowledged that the chiropractic records from 2017 and \n2018 reflected pain levels of 8 out of 10. He explained that those ratings represented the worst pain \nhe experienced at the time and that his symptoms varied. He testified that his current pain level related \nto the claim was a 10 out of 10. \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n7 \n \n \n \nREVIEW OF THE EXHIBITS \n \nIn addition to the Prehearing Order discussed above, the exhibits admitted into evidence in \nthis  case  were  Claimant's  Exhibit  1,  a  compilation  of his medical  records,  consisting  of five index \npages and 353 numbered pages thereafter; Claimant’s Exhibit 2, consisting of one index page and 11 \npages of employment evaluations thereafter; Claimant’s Exhibit 3, consisting of one index page and 7 \npages  of itemization  of claimant’s prescriptions thereafter; Claimant’s Exhibit 4, consisting of one \nindex  page  and 8  pages  of chiropractic  records that  predated claimant’s compensable  injury; \nRespondents' Exhibit 1, another compilation of Claimant's medical records, consisting of two index \npages and 32 numbered  pages  thereafter,  including  a  peer  review by  Dr.  Terry  Lictor;  and \nRespondents' Exhibit 2, non-medical records, consisting of one index page and 43 numbered pages \nthereafter, which includes claimant’s severance package from Best Buy and  the  payment  record  of \ntemporary total disability from December 7, 2019, through May 5, 2020. \nThe medical records are too voluminous for a detailed summary, but the course of treatment \nwas recounted adequately by claimant in his testimony. The records from Smith Family Chiropractic \n(Cl. X. 4) are of no relevance to the issue in this matter, as claimant was treated for a neck and low \nback injury by Dr. Smith, with the last date of treatment being April 16, 2018; as recited above, the \ncompensable injury in this case is to claimant’s thoracic spine.  Claimant underwent extensive physical \ntherapy  treatment, received several  epidural  steroid  injections  and  trigger  point injections, and  was \ngiven medication for his pain.  \nThe  most  relevant  records  to  the  issues before  me  are  those  of  Dr. Blankenship,  whom \nclaimant began seeing on March 31, 2025. The chief complaint was “mid back pain,” although as set \nabove, Dr. Blankenship also mentioned claimant’s complaints of neck and low back pain. An MRI for \nthe lumbar spine was ordered, because Dr. Blankenship wanted to see the results of that MRI before \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n8 \n \n \nrecommending  further  TESI  injections. He recommended that  claimant  start  on  pool  therapy,  and \nthen active physical therapy at Trinity Rehabilitation, turned claimant over to Dr. Robert Cannon for \npain management, and prescribed trazodone to aid claimant in sleeping. When claimant returned on \nApril 21, 2025, Dr. Blankenship restated the same recommendations but added to the care plan “(1) \nacute low back pain and (2) cervicalgia/neck pain.” \nOn May 22, 2025, Dr. Blankenship wrote a “to whom it may concern” note,  restricting \nclaimant to “no lifting over  25 pounds,  no  excessive  twisting,  bending,  stooping  and  no  crawling, \nclimbing, pushing or pulling. Patient will need to continue restrictions until he follows up from his \ninjection  and  therapy.”  Dr. Blankenship next saw claimant on July  3,  2025. The  impression in  his \noffice notes of that day expressed his frustration with the workers’ compensation carrier:  \n“Dakota is back in the office today. We saw the patient in April of this year. \nI'd  recommend  starting  the  gentleman  on  Celebrex  and Lyrica and  get  him \ndoing pool therapy with the folks at Trinity. I'd also recommended a TESI. I \nrecommended we start him on Trazodone, we did. He paid out of pocket for \nthis. His workers  comp carrier  would  not  start  any  of  his  treatment  process \nwithout  me  seeing  him  back  and  reviewing  his MRI.  First  of  all,  this  is \nridiculous. Dr. Cannon had agreed to do a TESI under conscious sedation. His \nthoracic  spine  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with lumbar  spine.  Starting  his \nmedications have nothing to do with his lumbar spine. Really, the only thing I \nneeded to review was a lumbar MRI, and they had basically denied treatment.” \n(Cl. X.1, page 350) \n \nRespondent submitted a peer review report prepared by Dr. Terry Lichtor, who reviewed the \nrecords and expressed his opinion that aqua therapy was unlikely to provide much benefit and would \nnot be considered a necessity. (R. X. 1, pages 26-32). \nADJUDICATION \n \n There are two issues to be decided: First, if claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment \nas directed by Dr. Blankenship for his compensable injury, and second, whether claimant is entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits at this time.   \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n9 \n \n \n1.  Did  claimant  prove  he  was entitled  to  additional  medical  treatment for  his  thoracic  spine \ninjury?  \n A  claimant  bears  the  burden  of  proving  entitlement  to  additional  medical  treatment  for  a \ncompensable  injury. LVL,  Inc.  v.  Ragsdale,  2011  Ark.  App.  144,  381  S.W.3d  869.  Once  it  has  been \nestablished that a claimant has sustained a compensable injury, he is not required to offer objective \nmedical evidence to prove entitlement to additional benefits, Ark. Health Ctr. v. Burnett, 2018 Ark. App. \n427,  at  9,  558.  S.W.3d  408,  414. As was  the situation  in Burnett,  the  parties stipulated  that claimant \nsuffered a compensable injury, and as only the thoracic spine injury was the subject of the stipulation, \nI will apply the Burnett standard to that injury. All other claims of physical injury are reserved.  \nIn  his  brief,  claimant specifically  asked  for “additional medical treatment, specifically the \nauthorized treating physician’s prescribed medications, referral for pool therapy, [and] authorization \nof epidural injections...”  While Dr. Blankenship mingled remarks about the treatment of the thoracic \nspine  with  his  proposed  treatment  of claimant’s lumbar  and  cervical spine in  his  notes  for  his \nexamination of claimant in March and April 2025, he clarified in his July 3, 2025, chart entry that the \nmedication,  pool  therapy  and  epidural  injections  had been  recommended  for  the thoracic  spine.  \nRespondent questioned claimant about a notation in his chart that he had told a physician that the \ninjections were not working any more (T.35, Cl.X 1, page 282); claimant testified that he meant the \ntreatment was not working as well. (T.35). That he was willing to go through those injections again is \na clear indication that he believes the pain of the procedure is worth the relief, however limited, he \nexpects to receive.  \nI find Dr. Blankenship’s recommendations to be more  credible  in  light  of  the course  of \ntreatment claimant has received to this time that that of the peer review physician who only spoke to \nthe single issue of the usefulness of pool therapy. As discussed below, there is a question as to whether \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n10 \n \n \nclaimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) at some point in his treatment; that is \nirrelevant  to  his  entitlement  to medical benefits now:  “An  injured  party  can  continue  to  receive \nmedical  treatment  for  a  compensable  injury  after  she  has  been  declared  to  have  reach  maximum \nmedical improvement, Patchell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004). \n Therefore, claimant's proof is sufficient to support his request for continued medical treatment \nas recommended by Dr. Blankenship for his compensable thoracic spine injury. Claimant should be \nreimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses for medications prescribed for treatment of his thoracic \nspine.  \n2.  Did  claimant  prove he  was  entitled  to TTD  benefits from  April 21, 2025, to  a  date  to  be \ndetermined?  \nClaimant’s thoracic spine injury is an unscheduled injury. To be entitled to TTD benefits for \nan  unscheduled  injury,  a claimant  must prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  remains \nwithin his healing period and suffers a total incapacity to earn wages. Allen Canning Co. v. Woodruff, 92 \nArk. App. 237, 212 S.W.3d 25 (2005). Claimant argued in the alternative that claimant was either in \nhis  first  healing  period  or  had  entered  a  second  healing  period  (Cl.  Brief,  page  10). This  injury \nhappened almost six years ago; in my review of the records, I did not see any notation that a medical \nprovider had been asked to express an opinion as to whether claimant had reached MMI.  However, \nI find it unnecessary to determine if claimant remained in his healing period for this length of time or \nhad reached  MMI  and  then  entered  a  second  healing  period,  because  I  do  not  find he  proved  he \nsuffers the necessary incapacity to earn wages.  \nFollowing his injury on December 3, 2019, and several weeks of medical treatment, claimant \nwas given modified duty on February 10, 2020 (Cl. X. 1, page 46). On February 24, 2020, his work \nstatus was changed to “unable to work” (Cl. X. 1, page 68). Respondents began paying TTD benefits \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n11 \n \n \non February 14, 2020, before claimant was deemed to be unable to work, and continued to pay them \nuntil May 7, 2020. Claimant testified, and I accept as true, that he was instructed by his employer to \nfile for unemployment benefits due to the COVID shutdown; the review claim transactions submitted \nby respondent shows he filed for those benefits on April 20, 2020, and received his last payment on \nJune 20, 2020. (R.X 2, pages 10-17). Claimant testified that he returned to work when he was called \nback  by  Best  Buy, which  appears  to  be  in  early  June 2020,  under  the  same  restrictions  that  Dr. \nBlankenship  assessed  in  April  2025  (Tr.  28-29). Claimant  continued  to  work there  for  almost  four \nyears until he was laid off as part of a companywide reduction in force (claimant did not believe there \nwas such a reduction, but there were media reports about such in April 2024).  He signed a severance \nand general release agreement on May 22, 2024, receiving an undisclosed monetary sum as part of the \nseverance agreement (R. X.2, page 19-39).  \nAfter  he  was  terminated  from  his  employment,  he continued  to  see  Dr.  Holt  and  then  Dr. \nJared Ennis at Interventional Pain Specialist for the rest of 2024, neither of whom stated claimant was \ntotally  incapacitated  from  employment. Dr.  Blankenship  did  not say claimant was  totally  unable  to \nwork, but rather gave the physical restrictions listed above, which were consistent with the restrictions \nclaimant said he worked under for Best Buy for years. There was no explanation as what part of those \nrestrictions were for the compensable thoracic injury as opposed to the lumber and neck pain claimant \npresented. Claimant cited McDonald's & AR McDonald's Self-Insured Trust/Risk Mgmt. Res. v. Key, 2023 \nArk. App. 396 for the proposition that if during the period that the body is healing, the employee is \nunable to perform remunerative labor with reasonable consistency and without pain and discomfort, \nhis temporary disability is deemed total. I find McDonald’s is not applicable to this case.  Claimant failed \nto show there has been a change in his condition that caused him now to have a full incapacity to \nwork that he did not have before he was laid off from Best Buy. He alleged in his post-hearing brief \n\nHumphrey-Friend-G908247 \n12 \n \n \nthat he “has been unable to earn any other income” since he was terminated (Cl. Brief, page 8), but \nthere was no testimony that claimant has attempted to find work within his restrictions. I agree with \nrespondent that  claimant failed  to meet  his  burden  of  proof  that he  was  totally  incapacitated  from \nworking due to his compensable injury.  \nORDER \n \nClaimant has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto additional medical treatment as recommended by Dr. Blankenship for his compensable thoracic \nspine injury.  \nClaimant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from April 21, 2025, to the date of the hearing. \nPursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-715(a)(1)(B)(ii), attorney fees are awarded \"only on the amount of \ncompensation for indemnity benefits controverted and awarded.\" Here, no indemnity benefits were  \nawarded; therefore, no attorney fee has been awarded. Instead, claimant's attorney is free to voluntarily \ncontract with the medical providers pursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-715(a)(4). \nRespondent  is  responsible  for  paying  the court  reporter's  charges  for  preparation  of  the \nhearing transcript. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                                              \n_______     \n JOSEPH C. SELF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G908247 DAKOTA J. HUMPHREY-FRIEND, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BEST BUY STORES LP, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Springdal...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:48.190Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G908247-2025-11-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HUMPHREY-FRIEND_DAKOTA_G908247_20251121.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}