{"id":"alj-H007008-2023-05-25","awcc_number":"H007008","decision_date":"2023-05-25","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Magan Osburn","employer_name":"City Of Fayetteville","title":"OSBURN VS. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AWCC# H007008 MAY 25, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","back","cervical","lumbar","hip","concussion","thoracic"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/OSBURN_MAGAN_H007008_20230525.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"OSBURN_MAGAN_H007008_20230525.pdf","text_length":28288,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H007008 \n \nMAGAN OSBURN, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nMUNICIPAL LEAGUE, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED MAY 25, 2023 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MARY K. EDWARDS, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On February 28, 2023, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, \nArkansas. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on January 9, 2023, and a Pre-hearing \nOrder was filed on January 10, 2023. A copy of the Pre-hearing Order has been marked \nCommission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties on June 11, \n2020. \n 3. The claimant sustained a compensable injury to her head, neck, and right shoulder on \nJune 11, 2020. \n 4. All prior opinions are final and res judicata. \n\n \n-2- \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her lower back on June 11, 2020. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for her lower back as recommended \nby Dr. James Blankenship. \n Claimant’s contentions are: \n“Claimant contends she is entitled to treatment for her back, \ndepression and anxiety as recommended by Dr. Blankenship. \nClaimant reserves all other issues.” \n \n Respondents’ contentions are: \n \n“Respondents contend that they accepted claimant’s head, neck, \nand right shoulder and have paid related medical treatment. \nClaimant is continuing to receive medical treatment for her \ncervical injury, and respondents are paying for that treatment. Dr. \nBlankenship has recommended medical treatment for claimant’s \nback. The back was never accepted. Respondents contend claimant \ncannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence she sustained a \ncompensable back injury. Further, the medical evidence is not \nsupported by objective findings of an injury to her back. Please see \nattached Exhibit “A”. In addition, respondents contend that \nclaimant cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nhas sustained a mental injury.” \n \n The claimant in this matter is a 35-year-old female who worked for the respondents in \ntheir waste department. On June 11, 2020, the claimant was on the back of a waste truck when \nshe fell off and hit the ground. The claimant sustained compensable injuries to her head, neck, \nand right shoulder at that time. The claimant has now asked the Commission to consider whether \nshe sustained a compensable lumbar spine injury in that same June 11, 2020, incident. Following \nis a portion of the claimant’s direct examination testimony about her June 11, 2020, incident. \n Q And what happened to you when you were working \n for the City of June 11\nth\n of 2020. \n \n A I was on the back of a yard waste truck and I was \n\n \n-3- \n slung off the side of it and hit the ground. \n \n Q And when you hit the ground, how did you land? \n \n A I landed on my right side, hit my head and my shoulder \n and my hip and all down m leg. \n \n Q Okay. And after this injury occurred, did you have \n bruising anywhere? \n \n A Yes. I had bruising on my shoulder and my hip. \n \n Q On the right-hand side? \n \n A Yes, ma’am. \n \n \n The claimant was seen the day of her June 11, 2020, incident at Arkansas Occupational \nHealth Clinic by Daniel Nicholas, PA-C. Following is a portion of that medical record. \nCHIEF COMPLAINT \nFall injury. \n \nPATIENT DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT \nPatient states she was slung off the back of the yard waste truck \nonto the pavement. She states she is having pain in her neck, right \nshoulder and right hip. She also complains of headache and thrown \nup 4 times. \n \n*** \nDIAGNOSIS \n1. Contusion of unspecified part of head, initial encounter \n(500.93XA). \n \n*** \nMEDICAL CAUSATION \nThe cause of this problem appears to be related to work activities. \n \n The claimant was again seen two days later by PA-C Nicholas. Following is a portion of \nthat medical report. \nCHIEF COMPLAINT \nFall injury. \n\n \n-4- \n \nPATIENT DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT \nPatient states she was slung off back of the yard waste truck onto \nthe pavement. She states is having pain in her neck, right shoulder \nand right hip. She also complains of headache and thrown up 4 \ntimes. \n \n*** \nHISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS \nMagan’s primary problem is pain located in the right shoulder, \nneck. She describes it as numbness, burning. She considers it to be \nminimal/moderate. The problem began on 6/11/2020. Magan says \nthat it seems to be constant, variable – depending on the activity \nlevel. She has noticed that it is made worse by looking down, \nlooking up, lifting, pulling. It is improved with rest. Magan’s \nsecondary problem is pain located in the right hip. She describes it \nas sore. She considers it to be minimal. The problem began on \n6/11/2020. She has noticed that it is made worse by pressure. It is \nimproved with no pressure. She feels it is improving. \n \n On November 9, 2020, the claimant was seen at the Neurosurgery Spine Center by Dr. \nJames Blankenship. Following is a portion of that medical record. \nHPI: \nThe patient has neck pain, mid scapular, and mid back pain. She \nhas intermittent pain in the right upper extremity. She denies any \nbalance problems. She does have decreased strength in the right \narm. She has had no steroid medications. She did 12 visits to \nphysical therapy. She was injured on 6/11/2020 when she was \nthrown off a yard waste truck and hit her head on the right side. \nShe had a concussion. MRI of her brain was normal. She also has \nan MRI of her cervical spine and thoracic spine. Both were read \nout as negative and I have reviewed them and agree that there are \nno disc protrusions although there is a loss of normal cervical \nlordosis so it is not negative. She has continued to work at light \nduty throughout her treatment. At present she only takes Flexeril \non an as-needed basis. \n \n*** \nImpression: \nHer general neurologic examination is unremarkable. She has \nsignificant mechanical neck pain worst in extension. I think that \nher facets are likely the primary etiology with significant \nmyofascial pain. \n\n \n-5- \n \n*** \nRecommendations: \nREFER TO: \nCannon, David (479-582-2800) \nI have recommended we start her on Celebrex and Lyrica. I am \nfine with her working with restrictions but it sounds like she is \ndoing her regular job and not under restrictions so we have written \nout some specific restrictions for her today. I have also \nrecommended that she get started working with Steve in physical \ntherapy and he has examined her today. I have also recommended \nthat we get her to see Dr. David Cannon for consideration of facet \ninjections in her neck. I cannot really guide him as far as what \nfacets based on MRI or x-rays. I will leave it to his wisdom under \nfluoroscopic examination the best idea of where to inject her. I am \ngoing to see her back in eight weeks since she will continue to \nwork. I do not think there is any urgency in seeing her any sooner. \nWe need to give this some time and try to get better with an \naggressive active conservative treatment plan. She is having a \nsignificant amount of right hip pain but she landed on her right hip \nand I think this may very well be local trauma but if it is not \ngetting better we may need to get an MRI of her lumbar spine but \nwe are going to hold on that for a little bit. \n \n The respondent in this matter denied treatment for some of the claimant’s other \ncompensable injuries arising out of her June 11, 2020, incident. As such, those matters entered \ninto litigation and it was not until February 2022 that the claimant was again seen by Dr. \nBlankenship. Following is a portion of the claimant’s visit note from her February 17, 2022, visit \nwith Dr. Blankenship. \nHPI: \nThe patient is in today for follow up after a new MRI. We saw the \npatient last in November of 2020. At that time we made \nrecommendations for physical therapy, medications, and a new \nMRI but unfortunately her workmen’s compensation carrier did \nnot approve that. She is still having neck pain that radiates to the \nbilateral shoulders and mid scapula. She has bilateral upper \nextremity numbness. She describes electrical shock-like pains that \ngo down both arms and around in her chest area. She denies any \nbalance problems but does continue to have occipital headaches. \nThe patient is also having low back pain that has been continuous. \n\n \n-6- \nShe states that it is sharp and is electrical and a shocking-type pain. \nShe is still working at the city. She has not had any injections or \nphysical therapy. She was not able to start the medications. She \nrates her pain about 60 to 70% toward the worse pain imaginable. \n \n*** \nImpression: \nMs. Osburn returns to the office. I have not seen Ms. Osburn since \nNovember of 2020. At that time we recommended an ESI, \nmedication, and physical therapy. Unbeknownst to us, this was all \ndenied almost immediately and she has been fighting with them \never since. The patient has neck pain, mid scapular, and bilateral \nupper extremity numbness. She has electrical shock-like pain down \nboth arms. I have reviewed her MRI in its entirety that shows a \ngross annual fissure at C5-C6 with a small lateral disc protrusion at \nC4-C5. \n \nRecommendations: \nI have recommended basically that we treat her the same way I \nsaid we should treat her a year and a half ago. Her delay in \ntreatment possibly could lead to chronic pain syndrome and I will \nbe more than happy to address that with anyone that wants to know \nthat her delay in care has created this. I still think that since she is a \ngo-getter, we have a chance to make this better. \n \nI have recommended that we get her in to see Dr. David Cannon \nfor a CESI. I recommended that we get her started on Celebrex and \nLyrica at 50 mg b.i.d. We will get her started working with Steve’s \nfolks with an aggressive active physical therapy program. I will \nplan on seeing her back eight weeks after this program is approved \nand started. I will now answer the questions that were forwarded \nby Ms. Dixon who is her case manager I have assumed. \n \n*** \n5. As far as recommendations for work restrictions, Dr. Cannon \nhas already placed work restrictions on her and I agree with them \ncompletely. You can see his note. Also I have recommended a \nlumbar MRI that has not been done. Again, her chronic lumbar \npain has been unaddressed and I do think it is directly work-\nrelated. \n \n The claimant was again seen by Dr. Blankenship on June 23, 2022. Following is a portion \nof that visit note. \n\n \n-7- \nHPI \nThe patient is in today for followup. She has been doing her \nphysical therapy with Steve. She did get a cervical epidural \ninjection that did afford her some relief. She is still having some \nneck pain and bilateral upper extremity paresthesias. Her greatest \npain complaint is low back pain that radiates to the bilateral hips \nand bilateral buttocks. She rates her pain about 60 to 70% toward \nthe worst pain imaginable. Her workers’ compensation carrier \nwould not allow her to get a lumbar MRI. \n \n*** \nImpression \nFirst of all I have requested a lumbar MRI because I do think that \nher back pain is related to her work-related injury but her worker’s \ncomp carrier has denied this. Her neck pain is better and she is \nimproving. She is a year out from her injury and she does have \nannual fissuring at C5-C6 and at C4-C5. I do think that with her \nneck improving, I would not at present offer her surgical \nintervention. I still feel like she needs to have her lumbar spine \nworked up. She has been doing her therapy with Trinity and I \nwould like for her to continue to do that. She got one injection by \nDr. Cannon that helped. \n \nRecommendations \nREFER TO \nCannon, David (479-582-2800) \nI would like her to see Dr. Cannon again to see if he would \nrecommend another injection but I am going to see her back in \neight weeks. If we can get a lumbar MRI approved of her lumbar \nspine, I will see her back sooner and we will go over this with her. \nI have also prescribed Lyrica and Celebrex and her worker’s comp \ncarrier will not authorize this. This was prescribed for her neck. If \nthey do not authorize her MRI or medications, then I am not going \nto be able to treat her because they have basically hamstrung me in \nnot allowing me to treat her as I see fit. \n \n The claimant eventually underwent a lumbar spine MRI recommended by Dr. \nBlankenship at her own expense. Following is a portion of that diagnostic report. \nIMPRESSION: \n1. L5-S1 foraminal narrowing on the right with extreme lateral disc \nprotrusion and midline disc protrusion slightly eccentric off to the \nleft. Severe facet arthropathy is noted at this level. \n\n \n-8- \n2. L4-L5 moderate bilateral lateral recess lateral recess stenosis \nsecondary to facet arthropathy and ligamentous hypertrophy. \n3. Multilevel facet arthropathy as described in the narrative. \n \n On November 28, 2022, the claimant saw Dr. Blankenship. Following is a portion of that \nvisit note. \nHPI: \nThe patient is in today for followup. She states that she is still \nhaving significant neck pain that radiates to the bilateral upper \nextremities. She has pain and numbness in both arms, right worse \nthan left. She has decreased strength in the bilateral upper \nextremities. She has been doing her physical therapy with Steve. \nShe says this does not afford her any significant relief. She tried \nmeloxicam with no relief. She was never able to ger her Lyrica or \ngabapentin filled because her workmen’s compensation carrier did \nnot cover this. She is also having some significant low back pain \nthat radiates to the bilateral hips, bilateral buttocks, and bilateral \nmedial leg numbness. She denies any weakness in the lower \nextremities. Prolonged sitting, standing, walking, and bending all \nsignificantly aggravate her pain. She does have new MRI’s for \nreview today. She had a CESI with Dr. Cannon that only afforded \nher very temporary relief. \n \n*** \nImpression: \nMs. Osburn is back in the office today for followup. We saw her \nlast in June of this year. She is currently on meloxicam even \nthough I recommended Celebrex and they would not approve her \nLyrica or even gabapentin which is amazing because it is dirt \ncheap. I told her we need to again try to get her on those \nmedications, preferably Lyrica at 75 mg twice a day. Her lower \nback is bothering her about as bad as her neck and all of this \nstarted with her on-the-job injury although her worker’s comp \ncarrier is not covering her lower back. \n \n*** \nRecommendations: \nREFER TO: \nCannon, David (479-582-2800) \nI have recommended concerning her lower back that we get her in \nto see Dr. Cannon for an LESI even though she did not get any \nrelief with her CESI. I have recommended that we have Steve start \nworking on her lower back and then follow back up with me in six \n\n \n-9- \nweeks. Concerning her lower back, I have recommended that we \nget her back in to see Dr. Cannon. Her CESI was done almost three \nmonths ago and I have recommended that she get another CESI. I \nhave also recommended that we start her on Lyrica. We had \nrecommended that at her last visit. That and gabapentin were \ndenied which again is somewhat mind-boggling. \n \nAgain, it is my opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical \ncertainty that the patient’s lower back problem along with her neck \nwas created by her on-the-job injury. She had a significant injury \nand what I am seeing on her MRI and her plain radiographs would \nbe consistent with an injury of this degree. \n \n At the request of the respondent, Dr. Theodore Hronas reviewed the following medical \nrecords regarding the claimant and authored a letter regarding them on December 18, 2022. \n At your request, the following films and reports were reviewed: \n MRI of the cervical spine, 08/07/2020. NW Imaging Center \n Fayetteville \n MRI of the thoracic spine, 08/07/2020. NW Imaging Center \n Fayetteville \n Clinic note, 08/27/2020. Michael Calhoun, MD \n MRI of the cervical spine, 02/09/2022. Physicians Specialty \n Hospital \n MRI of the lumbar spine, 10/21/2022. Mana MRI. \n MRI of the cervical spine, 11/16/2022. Mana MRI. \n \n \nI note that while Dr. Hronas reviewed several diagnostic tests and a singular report from Dr. \nCalhoun, he did not review any reports from Dr. Blankenship including those that considered the \nclaimant’s right hip and lumbar spine. Following is a portion of Dr. Hronas’ letter of December \n18, 2022, that discusses the claimant’s lumbar spine. \nThe MRI exam of the lumbar spine, 10/21/2022, was \nperformed approximately two years after the date of \ninjury. The MRI exam of the lumbar spine shows a \nnormal vertebral body alignment with no evidence of \nfracture or subluxation. The T12/L1, L1/2, and L2/3 disc \nlevels are normal. At L3/4, the disc space is preserved. \nThere is mild bilateral facet arthropathy at L3/4 with no \ncentral canal stenosis or foraminal narrowing. At L4/5, \n\n \n-10- \nthere is mild diffuse disc bulging and presence of a central \nannular fissure. There is bilateral mild facet arthropathy. \nThis level demonstrates mild central and lateral recess \nstenosis and bilateral mild foraminal narrowing. At \nL5/S1, there is disc height loss and disc desiccation, \nposterior osseous ridging more prevalent on the right \nextending to the far extraforaminal location, and presence \nof a small central disc protrusion effacing the anterior \nepidural space. There is mild bilateral facet arthropathy. \nThese changes are resulting in mild central canal stenosis, \nmild left and moderate right foraminal narrowing. The \npresence of posterior osseous ridging at the L5/S1 level is \nconsistent with chronic degenerative change. \n \nIn summary, additional imaging studies of the cervical and \nlumbar spine demonstrate chronic degenerative changes \nwith no objective findings of an acute injury as the result \nof the work injury that occurred on 06/11/2020. \n \n The claimant has asked the Commission to determine if she suffered a compensable \ninjury to her lumbar spine on June 11, 2020, in the same incident that she suffered compensable \ninjuries to her head, neck, and right shoulder. It is the claimant’s burden to prove her lumbar \nspine injury compensable. The report from the claimant’s lumbar spine MRI performed on \nOctober 21, 2022, in part states “L5-S1 femoral narrowing on the right with extreme lateral disc \nprotrusion and midline disc protrusion slightly eccentric off to the left.” Through that MRI the \nclaimant is able to show the existence of objective medical findings regarding her lumbar spine. I \ndo note that while Dr. Blankenship’s report reports an L5-S1 “femoral narrowing on the right \nwith extreme lateral disc protrusion and midline disc protrusion,” Dr. Hronas in his December \n18, 2022, letter discusses the claimant’s L5-S1 level and states “presence of a small central disc \nprotrusion effacing the anterior epidural space.” Dr. Hronas does not note any additional \nprotrusion at L5-S1. Here, I give Dr. Blankenship more weight as he has examined and treated \nthe claimant and it appears Dr. Hronas was not provided or did not review medical records from \n\n \n-11- \nthe claimant’s treatment with Dr. Blankenship and only reviewed Dr. Calhoun’s singular report \nand imaging films from the claimant’s diagnostic testing. \n It was the claimant’s credible testimony that she had no prior issues with her low back or \nright hip prior to her June 11, 2020, incident. The respondent does make a point in cross \nexamination testimony from the claimant that documents she signed regarding the June 11, 2020, \nincident and found on pages 1-3 of Respondent’s Exhibit 2 do not mention her right hip or low \nback or lumbar spine. However, the claimant’s initial medical records, including her visit to \nArkansas Occupational Health Clinic on the day of the incident, do mention her right hip \ncomplaints. The claimant’s November 9, 2020, visit considers her right hip pain along with \nlumbar spine implications as follows: “She is having a significant amount of right hip pain but \nshe landed on her right hip and I think this may very well be local trauma but if it is not getting \nbetter we may need to get an MRI of her lumbar spine but we are going to hold off on that for a \nlittle bit.” It seems clear that Dr. Blankenship believes her right hip pain may be a result of a \nlumbar spine injury from her work incident but wants the claimant to have more time before a \nlumbar MRI for her symptoms to ease in the event that they are a result of “local trauma.” \n Many months later at the claimant’s February 17, 2022, visit with Dr. Blankenship, the \nclaimant still has complaints regarding her right hip and Dr. Blankenship recommends an MRI of \nthe lumbar spine. The claimant gave testimony about her symptoms around the time of her \nFebruary 17, 2022, visit with Dr. Blankenship as follows. \n Q Now, when you got back to Dr. Blankenship for the second \n time after that long delay, what were your symptoms like at that \n point? \n \n A They were the same that I had talked about from the very \n beginning. My shoulder was still hurting. My neck was still \n hurting. Above - - sorry. I know I can’t point. Above my - - \n\n \n-12- \n like right at the top of my right butt cheek into like the hip \n area is where it was hurting and it’s continued to be the same \n from the very beginning. \n \n Q And so when you got to see him again, what recommend- \n dations did he make? \n \n A That is when he started pushing for the MRI on my lower \n back because he wasn’t convinced that it was just a hip issue and \n he wanted the MRI done on my lower back and it kept being \n denied. \n \n Q And did he prescribe anything else that was denied? \n \n A He had prescribed a couple of different medications and \n they were all denied at that point. \n \n Q Okay. Now, can you describe the kind of pain that you \n are having in your right hip and your low back? \n \n A It is like a burning poke, needling if you will, I guess, \n sensation that is always there in like the top portion of my \n butt I guess you would say, lower back, right at the top of \n my butt cheek and radiates across my back toward the left \n hip. And it will go down my leg sometimes. It varies on \n what it does, but there is constant radiation that goes across \n my back from my right hip. \n \n Q Okay. And which leg does the pain go down? \n \n A My right leg. \n \n Q Now, those symptoms that you have described, have \n they increased since through when you first had this accident \n or have they remained the same? \n \n A They have been the same, but it feels like it is going \n further over to my left hip than it originally was. \n \n Q And originally did you have pain into your right leg? \n \n A No. That is just slowing happening over time. \n \n \n \n\n \n-13- \nThe claimant is able to prove the existence of objective medical findings regarding her \nlumbar spine, but she must also prove a causal connection between those objective medical \nfindings and the June 11, 2020, incident. I believe the claimant has met her burden of proof. \nWhile the documents she signed after the injury do not reflect a right hip or lumbar injury, the \ninitial medical records do reflect right hip pain. It is that same right hip pain that Dr. Blankenship \nlater suspects to be related to her lumbar spine which shows a clear derangement in the MRI of \nher lumbar spine. \n The claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a \ncompensable lumbar spine injury on June 11, 2020. In review of Dr. Blankenship’s November \n28, 2020, visit note, the treatment he recommends for the claimant’s lumbar spine is reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment for her compensable lumbar spine injury, including treatment \nwith Dr. Cannon and prescription medications. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing conference conducted on \nJanuary 9, 2023, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed January 10, 2023, are hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a \ncompensable injury to her low back on June 11, 2020. \n\n \n-14- \n 3. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to the \nmedical treatment recommended for her lower back by Dr. James Blankenship as it is reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment for her compensable lumbar spine injury. \n ORDER \nThe respondents shall be responsible for payment of the reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment recommended by Dr. James Blankenship for the claimant’s compensable \nlumbar spine 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 indemnity \nbenefits were controverted and awarded; therefore, no attorney fee has been awarded. Instead, \nclaimant’s attorney is free to voluntarily contract with the medical providers pursuant to A.C.A. \n§11-9-715(a)(4). \nIf they have not already done so, the respondents are directed to pay the court reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n ____________________________ \n HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H007008 MAGAN OSBURN, Employee CLAIMANT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, Employer RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 25, 2023 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claimant repr...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:08:01.796Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H007008-2023-05-25","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/OSBURN_MAGAN_H007008_20230525.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}