{"id":"alj-H001634-2023-01-18","awcc_number":"H001634","decision_date":"2023-01-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Ericka Beeler","employer_name":"City Of Bentonville","title":"BEELER VS. CITY OF BENTONVILLE AWCC# H001634 JANUARY 18, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5"],"injury_keywords":["knee","sprain","ankle","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//BEELER_ERICKA_H001634_20230118.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BEELER_ERICKA_H001634_20230118.pdf","text_length":26253,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n   \n CLAIM NO. H001634 \n \nERICKA WILLIAMS BEELER, Employee                                                        CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF BENTONVILLE, Employer                                                         RESPONDENT                         \n \nARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WCT, Carrier/TPA                            RESPONDENT                         \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JANUARY 18, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, \nWashington County, 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  December  21,  2022,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  hearing  at \nSpringdale, Arkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on September 7, 2022 \nand  a  pre-hearing  order  was  filed  on  September  12,  2022.    A  copy  of  the  pre-hearing \norder has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 and made a part of the record without \nobjection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1.   The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n 2.     The prior Opinion of March 31, 2021 is final. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.     Compensability of injury to claimant’s left knee on February 26, 2020. \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n2 \n \n2.    Claimant’s entitlement to medical treatment as recommended by Dr. \nDougherty. \n3.    Lack of notice. \n4.    Statute of limitations. \n5.    Whether the claim for claimant’s left knee is governed by the Law of the Case  \nDoctrine and whether respondent is in contempt. \n6.    Attorney’s fee. \nThe claimant’s contentions are set forth in her pre-hearing questionnaire which is \nattached to Commission’s Exhibit #1 as Exhibit #1. \nThe respondents contend claimant did not suffer an injury to her left knee in the \ncourse and scope of her employment on February 26, 2020.  Claimant did not give notice \nof any injury to her left knee until July 18, 2022.  The statute of limitations has run on any \nclaim  that  she  suffered  a  left  knee  injury  on  February  26,  2020.    There  is no  basis  for \nclaimant’s assertion that respondents are in contempt of any order or directive from the \nCommission.  Claimant was not claiming entitlement to any benefits associated with her \nleft  knee  at  the  March  3,  2021  hearing  and  she  did  not  mention her  knee  as  being  a \nsource of symptoms or problems when discussing the issues and contentions at the pre-\nhearing conference or hearing.  The body part and/or condition that served as the basis \nfor claimant’s claim at the hearing was an injury to her left calf and her claimed CRPS. \nFrom a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear \nthe testimony of the witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law are made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n3 \n \n \n  FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1.        The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  a  pre-hearing  conference \nconducted on September 7, 2022 and contained in a pre-hearing order filed September \n12, 2022 are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2. Claimant’s claim for her left knee is not governed by the Law of the Case \nDoctrine  and  respondent  is  not  in  contempt  for  failing  to  comply with  the  prior  Opinion \nfiled March 31, 2021.      \n 3. Claimant’s claim for a compensable injury to her left knee is not barred by \nthe Statute of Limitations. \n 4.  Claimant did not fail to give notice of her injury pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-\n701. \n 5. Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she suffered a compensable injury to her left knee on February 26, 2020. \n 6. Respondent is liable for payment of all reasonable and necessary medical \ntreatment provided in connection with claimant’s compensable left knee injury.  This \nincludes surgery performed by Dr. Dougherty. \n \n FACTUAL BACKGROUND \n Claimant is a 37-year-old woman who began working for respondent as a Patrol \nOfficer I on February 15, 2017 before being promoted to Patrol Officer II.  Her job duties \nincluded responding to emergency calls which included domestic violence, child abuse, \narrests, DWIs, and first responder duties at times. \n She is certified as a Women’s Self-Defense Instructor  and was teaching a class \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n4 \n \nat the Bentonville Police Department on February 26, 2020.  She was demonstrating a \nmove when one of the other instructors landed on her left leg, resulting in an injury to the \nleg.  After some initial medical treatment claimant came under the care of Dr. Heim, who \ndiagnosed  claimant’s  condition  as  traumatic  hematoma  that  was  not  resolving.    He \nperformed a surgical procedure to drain the hematoma on March 19, 2020.   \n During a follow-up visit on April 1, 2020, Dr. Heim noted that claimant was having \ndifficulty  putting  pressure  on  her  left  foot  because  of  pain.    Dr.  Heim  believed that \nclaimant’s symptom were consistent with complex regional pain syndrome (“CRPS”) and \nhe ordered physical therapy.   \n On May 13, 2020, claimant received a change of physician to Dr. Dougherty and \nhe diagnosed claimant’s condition as CRPS of the lower limb which he attributed to her \nwork injury.  When physical therapy did not improve claimant’s condition, Dr. Dougherty \nreferred claimant to Dr. Deimel for nerve blocks.  Dr. Deimel performed nerve blocks and \nindicated that claimant would be a candidate for a spinal cord stimulation trial.  He referred \nclaimant to the Mayo Clinic for treatment and Dr. Dougherty also referred claimant to the \nMayo Clinic. \n Physicians at the Mayo Clinic determined that claimant was a candidate for a trial \nstimulator which was successful and a permanent  implantation was recommended.  At \nthat  point  respondent  denied  liability  for  the  continued  treatment  of  CRPS  and  the \npermanent implantation of a stimulator. \n A hearing was conducted on March 3, 2021 on the issue of claimant’s entitlement \nto additional medical treatment as recommended by Dr. Dougherty and the physicians at \nthe Mayo Clinic.  In an opinion filed March 31, 2021, this Administrative Law Judge found \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n5 \n \nthat claimant had met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nwas  entitled  to  the  recommended  treatment,  including  treatment  for  RSD/CRPS.    That \nopinion was not appealed and the parties have stipulated that it is final.   \n Since  the  time  of  the  prior  hearing  claimant  has  undergone  a  procedure  for \npermanent  implantation  of  the  stimulator.  With  respect  to  her  RSD/CRPS, Dr.  Deimel \nopined that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement as of March 16, 2022.  \nClaimant underwent a functional capacities evaluation on March 29, 2022, which found \n50 of 50 consistency measures within expected limits and determined that claimant could \nperform work in the medium classification of work.  Claimant is currently working at home \nfor Tyson Corporate.   \n Claimant testified that prior to her release at maximum medical improvement by \nDr. Deimel she limited her physical activity based on the physicians’ recommendations.   \n  They just continued to monitor my left - - you know, my  \n  left leg from my knee to my toes and monitor it until my \n  scar tissue set in for the battery and the leads, so I was \n  under strict requirements of what I could or could not do \n  for an entire year. \n \n \n Claimant testified that after her release by Dr. Deimel she tried to do more walking \nwhich  included  walking  around  her  neighborhood.    After  walking  about  three  days  she \nstarted having increased pain in her left leg, including her left knee.  Claimant stated that \nafter waking up one morning she could not put her foot on the ground because of knee \npain and she made an appointment to see Dr. Dougherty.  He indicated that her condition \nwas  consistent  with  a  possible  medial  collateral  ligament  sprain  of  the  left  knee  and \nordered an MRI scan. \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n6 \n \n According to Dr. Dougherty’s report of July 18, 2022, the MRI scan revealed an \nACL tear of the left knee which he attributed to her original injury.  He performed surgery \non claimant’s left knee on July 26, 2022, with a post-operative diagnosis of “ACL tear, left \nknee with prior tear sear to PCL and non-functional ligament.”  Following surgery claimant \nhas undergone physical therapy. \n Respondent  did  not  accept  liability  for  the  knee  surgery  performed  by  Dr. \nDougherty.    Claimant  has  filed  this  claim  contending  that  she  suffered  a  compensable \ninjury to her left knee on February 26, 2020. She requests payment of medical treatment \nreceived for that injury. \n \nADJUDICATION \n Initially,  claimant  contends  that  this  claim  is  governed  by  the  Law  of  the  Case \nDoctrine.  At the time of the last hearing the parties had stipulated that claimant suffered \na compensable injury to her left lower extremity.  This stipulation was accepted as fact in \nthe March 31, 2021 Opinion.  In addition, Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law Number \n2 from that Opinion states: \n  Claimant has met her burden of proving by a  \n  preponderance of the evidence that she is \n  entitled to additional medical treatment for \n  her compensable injury as recommended by \n  Dr. Dougherty and her physicians at the Mayo \n  Clinic.  This includes recommended treatment \n  for RSD/CRPS.  \n \n \n Claimant  contends  that  this  stipulation  and  finding  are  the  law  of  the  case  and \nrespondent is precluded from denying compensability for claimant’s left knee.  The Law \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n7 \n \nof  the  Case  Doctrine  provides  that  it  is  conclusive  of  every  question  of  law  and  fact \ndecided previously and also those that could have been raised and decided.  Turner v. \nNW Ark Neurosurgery, 91 Ark. App. 209, 210 S.W. 3d 126 (2005).  The Law of the Case \nis also similar to the doctrine of collateral estoppel which bars re-litigation of issues of law \nor fact previously litigated.  The elements of collateral estoppel are (1) the issue sought \nto be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must \nhave  been  actually  litigated;  (3)  it  must  have  been  determined  by  a  valid and  final \njudgement; (4) the determination must have been essential to the judgement.  Johnson \nv. Union Pac. R.R., 352 Ark. 534, 104 S.W. 3d 745 (2003).   \n Finally,   I   note   that   a   stipulation   is   an   agreement   between   the   attorneys \nrepresenting  the  conduct  of  legal  proceedings.   Dinwiddie  v.  Syler,  230  Ark.  405,  323 \nS.W. 2d 548 (1959).   \n Respondent  did  previously  stipulate  to  a  compensable  injury  to  the  left  lower \nextremity.  However, the parties’ stipulation was generic in nature and did not specify \nwhether it included the claimant’s left knee.  At the time of the original hearing, there was \nno issue regarding the claimant’s left knee.  Although claimant’s left knee had been \nmentioned in some of the medical reports, the issue at the time of the last hearing was \nclaimant’s entitlement to additional medical treatment for her RSD/CRPS.  Accordingly, I \ndo not find that the stipulation of a compensable injury to claimant’s left lower extremity \nconstituted  an  acceptance  by  respondent  of  any  and  all  conditions  relating  to  the \nclaimant’s leg.  Significantly, I note that the requirements for collateral estoppel require \nthat  the  determination  have  been  essential  to  the  judgement.    Here,  there  was  no \ncontemplation by any of the parties at the time of the original hearing that there were any \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n8 \n \nissues regarding claimant’s knee at that time.  To find otherwise would be unjust under \nthe circumstances presented in this case. \n I also find that claimant’s claim for a compensable injury to her left knee is not \nbarred by the Statute of Limitations.  Since the respondent had previously accepted and \npaid compensation benefits for claimant’s left lower extremity injury, her claim for a left \nknee  injury  is  a  claim for  additional  compensation  benefits.   Pursuant to A.C.A.  §11-9-\n702(b)(1),  when  compensation  has  been  paid  a  claim  for  additional  compensation is \nbarred unless filed with the Commission within one year from the date of last payment of \ncompensation  or  two  years  from  the  date  of  injury,  whichever  is  greater.    In  this  case, \nclaimant submitted into evidence payment records from respondent showing that the last \npayment of compensation as of September 12, 2022 was a payment for disability benefits \nto claimant through August 12, 2022.  Obviously, it has not been one year since the date \nof last payment of compensation.  Therefore, claimant’s claim for additional compensation \nbenefits is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. \n Respondent has also raised the issue of notice as a defense to this claim.  Notice \nof the reporting of injuries is codified at A.C.A. §11-9-701.  Subsection (a)(1) states that \nan employee shall report the injury to the employer on a form prescribed or approved by \nthe  Commission  and  to  a  person  or  at  a  place  specified  by  the  employer  and  that  the \nemployer is not responsible for disability, medical, or other benefits prior to receipt of the \nemployee’s report of injury.  Here, respondent was aware of the injury to claimant’s left \nlower extremity.  In fact, respondent was aware of the injury on the day it occurred and it \naccepted claimant’s injury as compensable and began paying benefits for the injury to \nher left lower extremity immediately thereafter.  Accordingly, I find that the provisions of \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n9 \n \nA.C.A. §11-9-701 are not applicable to this claim. \n Turning to  the  primary  issue  in  this  case,  claimant  contends that  she  suffered a \ncompensable injury to her left knee as a result of the accident which occurred on February \n26, 2020.  Claimant’s claim is for a specific injury identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.   In order to prove a compensable injury as the result of a specific incident \nthat  is  identifiable  by  time  and  place  of  occurrence,  a  claimant  must  establish  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of \nemployment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body which required \nmedical  services  or  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific \nincident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Odd Jobs and More v. Reid, 2011 \nArk. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \n After reviewing the evidence in this case impartially, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, I find that claimant has met her burden of proof. \n First, I find that claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment with respondent \nand  that  the  injury  was  caused  by  a  specific  incident  identifiable  by  time  and  place  of \noccurrence.  Claimant began making complaints of left knee pain almost immediately after \nthe  February  26,  2020  injury.    In  a  note  dated  March  18,  2020,  Dr.  Heim noted  that \nclaimant had indicated that her left knee had begun to hurt.  He also stated: \n  After that [draining of hematoma] we can start range \n  of motion of the knee and ankle start weightbearing \n  and get her back to her normal activity level. \n \nThereafter, on April 1, 2020, Dr. Heim stated: \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n10 \n \n I am more concerned about the fact that she has \n symptoms of significant pain in the medial joint \n line of the left knee and that she has an autonomic \n change in the left lower extremity consistent with \n probably early regional pain syndrome. \n \n    *** \n We will have to evaluate her knee again following \n this treatment as it would appear at this time she \n may possibly have a medial meniscus tear which \n was masked by her being on crutches for the last \n several weeks. \n \n \nThereafter, claimant came under the care of Dr. Dougherty who also believed that \nclaimant might suffer from a medial meniscus tear and  he ordered an MRI scan.   The \nMRI scan was read by the radiologist as showing no findings of a meniscal tear, but did \nshow a thinning of the proximal ACL and mild chondromalacia of the medial femoral tibial \ncompartment. \n When  claimant  returned  to  Dr.  Dougherty  on  June  10,  2020,  he  indicated  that \nclaimant’s MRI scan revealed plica syndrome.  Dr. Dougherty indicated that he believed \nthat claimant’s plica was related to her work-related injury. \n  I do believe the plica and her CRPS are due to her \n  work related injury at greater than 51%.   \n \n \n Thereafter, claimant underwent physical therapy which included physical therapy \nfor  her  left  knee.    In  fact,  the  physical  therapist  report  of  July  7,  2020  indicates  that \nclaimant’s signs and symptoms were consistent with left medial knee pain. \n Claimant  subsequently  underwent  a  cortisone  injection  in  her  left  knee  by  Dr. \nDougherty on August 12, 2020.  All of this medical treatment was accepted and paid for \nby the respondent.   \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n11 \n \n At  that  point  in  time  the  focus  primarily   became claimant’s  treatment  for \nRSD/CRPS, a trial stimulator, and eventually the permanent implantation of a stimulator.  \nAs  claimant  testified,  she  was  under  strict  requirements  for  what  she  could  do  activity \nwise for approximately one year. \n It was not until after claimant was released by Dr. Deimel and given permission to \nincrease her activity that she began walking and immediately developed additional pain \nin her left knee resulting in her seeking additional medical treatment from Dr. Dougherty.  \nIn his report of June 27, 2022, Dr. Dougherty stated: \n  Just got released from the spinal cord stimulator \n  operated 3/27/22.  She reports she started to work \n  out again and immediately the knee started aggra- \n  vating her again. \n \n          *** \n  She was seen today for recurrent left knee pain. She \n  reports that she has not been doing any physical \n  activity due to the spinal stimulator that was placed \n  in 2021.  She recently got released and began to \n  feel discomfort again when walking.  The x-rays \n  today showed joint space well maintained soft tissue \n  unremarkable.  After the exam, her pain was consistent \n  with a possible medial collateral ligament sprain of the \n  left knee.  She will be sent for an MRI of the left knee \n  and follow up if the pain persists. \n \n \n Most  significantly  in  Dr.  Dougherty’s  report  of  June  27,  2022,  he  stated  that \nclaimant’s continued left knee problems were related to her original injury. \n  Her injury is directly related to her old injury as she \n  was lax in her knee back on her early exams yet we \n  were dealing with the CRPS and could tolerated [sic] \n  anything for the knee.  I will see her back after the \n  MRI. \n \n \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n12 \n \n Claimant underwent the MRI scan on July 1, 2022, and returned to Dr. Dougherty \non July 18, 2022.  Dr. Dougherty indicated that claimant’s MRI scan showed an ACL tear \nwhich in his opinion was related to the claimant’s original injury. \n  Her ACL is non functioning and the tear is related to \n  her original left knee injury. \n \n \n Dr. Dougherty went on to recommend a left knee arthroscopic procedure with ACL \nconstruction which he performed on July 26, 2022. \n Dr. Dougherty again addressed the relationship between claimant’s current knee \ncomplaints and her original injury in an undated letter which has been submitted as Page \n1 of Claimant’s Exhibit 4.  That letter states in pertinent part: \n  The patient was placed under my care for a lower  \n  leg injury. She suffered a fat fracture of the leg and \n  had developed chronic regional pain syndrome due \n  to this.  At her initial visit, she was diagnosed with a \n  knee injury at the same time as her CRPS.  Her \n  initial MRI on 6/4/20 was significant for thinning of \n  the proximal ACL and her exam was consistent  \n  with the same as an MCL tear.  Due to her pain \n  in the leg no surgical intervention could be offered \n  at that time.  She continued to complain of pain and \n  instability in the knee and after the stimulator continued \n  instability in the knee.  The subsequent MRI 7/1/22 \n  demonstrated a small caliber ACL consistent with \n  prior tear which was evidenced by the thinning on \n  the original study.  She subsequently underwent \n  Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction due to \n  This instability.  It is my opinion based upon the facts \n  presented in the chart, that this is directly related to \n  the original injury, as evidenced on MRI and clinical \n  exam.  (Emphasis added.) \n \n \n In response to Dr. Dougherty’s opinion, respondent had claimant’s MRI scans \nevaluated by Justin H. Long, a radiologist.  Dr. Long authored a report dated November \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n13 \n \n28, 2022 in which he basically opined that the MRI scan from June 4, 2020 showed an \nintact ACL with no findings present to indicate an ACL injury.  Given the fact that the most \nrecent  MRI  scan  does  show  a  torn  ACL,  respondent  contends  that  the  recent  findings \ncannot be related to the original compensable injury.  Dr. Dougherty addressed this issue \nin a subsequent report dated December 5, 2022: \n  I am in receipt of the MRI interpretation from the  \n  outside radiologist, and I am in complete agreement \n  with the interpretation.  The difficulty lies in that \n  there is a larger percentage of error in MRI and \n  the radiologist, without the benefit of the clinical \n  exam, is not able to assess the function of the \n  ligament, but rather only the appearance of the \n  ligament at the time of the study.  A review of the \n  literature reveals a large number of papers docu- \n  menting the MRI vs surgical findings.  This month \n  alone I performed two separate surgeries where \n  the MRI stated the ACL is normal and taught [sic] \n  and yet clinically they are unstable and at the time \n  of the surgery, the ACL is completely torn or the \n  patient has a Type 1 tear.  In this tear subtype the \n  MRI looks intact but is actually detached from the  \n  femoral insertion.  This is the subtype tear the \n  patient in question had and the instability she \n  experienced is the reason for the reconstruction. \n \n \n In short, I find that the opinion of Dr. Dougherty is entitled to greater weight than \nthe opinion of Dr. Long.  Dr. Dougherty is a specialist who evaluated the claimant shortly \nafter her compensable injury and he also performed the surgery.  It is his opinion that this \ncondition existed from the time of claimant’s original injury based not only upon the MRI \nfindings  but  upon his clinical  examination  as  well.  With  respect  to  this  issue, I  likewise \nnote that Dr. Heim in 2020 was of the opinion that claimant had a tear in her left knee.  \nBased on the foregoing, I find that the opinion of Dr. Dougherty is entitled to greater weight \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n14 \n \nthan the opinion of Dr. Long. \n Based upon the opinion of Dr. Dougherty that claimant’s current left knee problems \nare related to the original injury of February 26, 2020, as well as the remaining evidence \npreviously  discussed,  I  find  that  claimant  has  met  her  burden  of  proving  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  her  injury  to  the  left  knee  arose  out  of and  in  the \ncourse of her employment with respondent and that it was caused by a specific incident \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence. \n I  likewise  find  that  claimant  has  proven  that  her  injury  caused  internal  physical \nharm  to  her  body  which  required  medical  services  and  that  she  has  offered  medical \nevidence supported by objective findings establishing an injury. In addition, based upon \nclaimant’s  compensable  injury  she  underwent  surgery  to  repair  a  torn  ACL  by  Dr. \nDougherty. Clearly, this is internal harm to the body that required medical services and it \nis medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an injury. \n In summary, I find that claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance \nof the evidence that she suffered a compensable injury to her left knee on February 26, \n2020.    Respondent  is  liable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment provided in connection with claimant’s compensable left knee injury.  This \nincludes the surgery which has been performed by Dr. Dougherty. \n \nAWARD \n Claimant has met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe suffered a compensable injury to her left knee on February 26, 2020. Respondent is \nliable  for  payment  of  all  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment  provided  in \n\nBeeler – H001634 \n \n15 \n \nconnection with claimant’s compensable injury. \nPursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(1)(B)(ii), attorney fees are awarded “only on the \namount  of  compensation  for  indemnity benefits  controverted and awarded.”   Here, no \nindemnity benefits were controverted and awarded; therefore, no attorney fee has been \nawarded.   Instead, claimant’s attorney is free to voluntarily contract with the medical \nproviders pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-715(a)(4). \n Respondent is liable for payment of the court reporter’s charges for preparation of \nthe hearing transcript in the amount of $564.45. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      _____________________________________ \n       GREGORY K. STEWART \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAWJUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H001634 ERICKA WILLIAMS BEELER, Employee CLAIMANT CITY OF BENTONVILLE, Employer RESPONDENT ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WCT, Carrier/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 18, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washing...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:11:31.679Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H001634-2023-01-18","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//BEELER_ERICKA_H001634_20230118.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}