{"id":"alj-H103080-2025-12-23","awcc_number":"H103080","decision_date":"2025-12-23","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jimmy Foster","employer_name":"Booneville Human Development Center","title":"FOSTER VS. BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER AWCC# H103080 December 23, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FOSTER_JIMMY_H103080_20251223.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"FOSTER_JIMMY_H103080_20251223.pdf","text_length":27518,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H103080 \n \nJIMMY FOSTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \nBOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 23, 2025 \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Sebastian \nCounty, Arkansas. \nClaimant represented by JARID M. KINDER, Attorney,  Fayetteville, Arkansas. \nRespondents represented by CHARLES H. MCLEMORE, Attorney,  Little Rock, Arkansas. \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n On  September 29, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort Smith, \nArkansas.  A pre-hearing conference was conducted on June 2, 2025, and a pre-hearing order was filed \non that same date.  A copy of the pre-hearing order has been marked as Commission’s Exhibit #1 \nand made a 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. All prior Opinions are res judicata. \n3. The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on July 31, 2020.   \n4. Claimant sustained an occupational disease on July 31, 2020. \nBy agreement of the parties, the issues to be litigated and resolved at the forthcoming hearing were \nlimited to the following: \n\nFoster-H103080 \n2 \n \n1. Whether claimant is entitled to permanent total disability or, alternatively, wage loss \ndisability. \n2. Can claimant establish whether his compensable injury is a major cause for his permanent \ndisability regarding COVID 19. \n3. Did claimant refuse a bona fide offer of employment. \n4. Attorney’s fee.  \nAll other issues are reserved by the parties. \nThe claimant contends that:  “The claimant, Jimmy Foster, sustained compensable injuries \nfollowing a COVID-19 injury on August 6, 2020, while working for Booneville Development Center \nin Booneville, Arkansas. Said injuries, include, but are not limited to: a respiratory disorder, sacral \nwound, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, dyspnea on exertion, essential hypertension, hypertensive heart \ndisease, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, left ventricular dilation, trivial \nnonrheumatic mitral  insufficiency  trivial  nonrheumatic  tricuspid  insufficiency,  a  subarachnoid \nhemorrhage, and hemiparesis.  Sara L. Roberson has taken the claimant off work indefinitely due to \nhis severe COVID-pneumonia and subsequent deterioration of health.  The claimant was evaluated \nby a vocational expert, Tonya Owen, PHD, and she determined that due to his workplace injuries, the \nclaimant “would be unemployable and sustained, as a result of his condition, a total loss of earnings \ncapacity.”  A summary of her report is attached as Exhibit 1.   The claimant contends that he is permanently \nand totally disabled as a result of his workplace injury and is owed benefits for said total disability.  In \nthe alternative, the claimant contends he is owed wage loss benefits.  Due to the controversion of \nentitled benefits, the respondents are obligated to pay one half of the claimant’s attorney’s fees.  \nClaimant reserves the right to raise additional contentions at the hearing of this matter.” \n\nFoster-H103080 \n3 \n \nThe respondents contend that “The claimant tested positive for COVID, and that respondent \ndid accept this claim as compensable pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601 [Effective from March \n11, 2020, and until May 1, 2023] and respondent has provided benefits to or on behalf of the claimant \nfor this claim.  The claimant was paid his salary by his employer until January 8, 2021, at which point \nthe claimant was paid temporary total disability benefits by the respondent from January 9, 2021, until \nMay 6, 2022, when the claimant was released at maximum medical improvement by his treating \nphysician, Dr. Terry Clark.  The claimant tested unreliably in the sedentary classification of work at a \nFunctional Capacity Evaluation on April 26, 2022, with 13 of 53 consistency measures, and Dr. Clark \nwas unable to determine work restrictions due to the claimant’s inconsistent/submaximal effort on \nthe FCE.  The claimant was assigned permanent anatomical impairment of 10% to the whole person \nwhich has been accepted by respondent and permanent partial disability benefits were paid to the \nclaimant for this impairment rating.  The claimant would not return to work and would not complete \nhis mandatory background checks for his job.  The claimant’s employment ended November 30, 2021.  \nThe claimant testified at the December 6, 2022, hearing that he is not looking for work.  The claimant \nhas, in fact, retired and collects his pension in addition to his Social Security retirement.  The claimant \nhad a bona fide and reasonably obtainable offer to be employed at wages equal to or greater than his \naverage weekly wage at the time of the accident, therefore, he is not entitled to permanent partial \ndisability benefits in excess of the percentage of permanent physical impairment pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-522(b)(2).  The Full Commission found that the claimant did not prove a right ulnar \nnerve neuropathic condition was a natural consequence of the compensable injury and that he did not \nprove that he remained within a healing period or was totally incapacitated from earning wages at any \ntime after April 26, 2022.  The claimant demanded additional permanent impairment ratings but was \nnot awarded any additional impairment rating beyond the 10% already accepted and paid by the \nrespondent.  These decisions are now res judicata and the law of the case.  Respondents contends that \n\nFoster-H103080 \n4 \n \nthe claimant cannot meet his burden of proving that he is permanently and totally disabled or unable \nto earn any meaningful wages at the same or other employment.  Respondent further contends that \nthe claimant lacks motivation to return to the workforce and cannot meet his burden of proving that \nhe is entitled to disability benefits in excess of his anatomical impairment rating for wage loss.  The \nrespondents also contend that the claimant cannot meet his burden of proving that a compensable \ninjury is the major cause of his permanent disability.  Respondent also contends that if the claimant \nestablishes that he is disabled, his compensation should be reduced and limited to the proportion only \nof the compensation that would be payable if the occupational disease were the sole cause of the \ndisability as the occupational disease as a causative factor bears to all the causes of the disability, \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-601(c) (1) [Effective from March 11, 2020 and until May 1, 2023]. \nThe respondents reserve the right to raise additional contentions, or to modify those stated herein, \npending the completion of discovery.” \n           From a review of the entire record including medical reports, documents, a deposition \nand other matters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the \ntestimony of the claimant and to observe his demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions \nof law are 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 a pre-hearing conference conducted on June 2, \n2025, and contained in a pre-hearing order filed on that same date are hereby accepted as fact. \n 2.  Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \npermanent total disability benefits pursuant to A.C.A. § 11-9-519. \n\nFoster-H103080 \n5 \n \n 3. Claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \npermanent partial disability benefits as a result of his compensable injury for loss in wage earning \ncapacity. \nFACTUAL BACKGROUND \nThis claim has substantial procedural history. Following a hearing before me on December 6, \n2022, I issued an Opinion on February 9, 2023, finding claimant was not entitled to impairment ratings \nfor his heart condition or right ulnar nerve neuropathy because he had failed to prove his compensable \nCOVID-19 illness was the major cause of those conditions. I awarded temporary total disability \nbenefits from May 7, 2022, through September 26, 2022. \nThe Full Commission, in its Opinion filed August 9, 2023, reversed in part and affirmed in \npart. The Commission agreed that the right ulnar nerve neuropathy was not compensable, but reversed \nmy decision regarding the heart condition, holding claimant's atrial fibrillation was a compensable \nnatural consequence of his COVID-19 illness and awarded a 10% permanent anatomical impairment \nrating. The Commission also reversed my TTD award, finding claimant reached maximum medical \nimprovement on April 26, 2022, rather than September 26, 2022. The Commission further found that \n\"the claimant did not prove he remained within a healing period or was totally incapacitated from \nearning any wages at any time after April 26, 2022.\" The Commission determined that claimant \"is \nasymptomatic during daily activities\" and able to \"drive a vehicle, shop, and occasionally preach and \nlead music at his local church.\" \nRespondents appealed  to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, which  issued  its Opinion on \nDecember  11,  2024.  The  Court  affirmed  that  claimant's  atrial  fibrillation  was  a  compensable \nconsequence for purposes of medical treatment. However, the Court reversed the 10% impairment \nrating for atrial fibrillation, holding that proving a causal connection is not the same as proving \"major \n\nFoster-H103080 \n6 \n \ncause\" for purposes of a permanent impairment rating. The Court of Appeals stated: \"Evidence \nsupporting a major-cause determination is required. In this case, no lay witness or doctor has opined \nthat Foster's COVID-19 illness was the major cause of his atrial fibrillation. Moreover, the medical \nrecords show that Foster has a preexisting history of hypertension and obesity that could have caused \nhis atrial fibrillation.\" \nHEARING TESTIMONY \nClaimant was the only witness to testify at the hearing. He was 70 years old at the time of the \nhearing. He worked for Booneville Human Development Center (hereinafter BHDC or respondent) \nfor approximately 13 years as a dorm officer, which involved supervising residents of the center, \nensuring their safety, documenting incidents, and keeping count of clients. His job duties included \ngiving baths, brushing teeth, washing clothes, and making beds for clients who couldn't do these things \nthemselves. \nClaimant contracted COVID-19 at work on or about July 31, 2020, and was hospitalized for \napproximately eight days. Since recovering from the acute illness, claimant testified that he experienced \nongoing respiratory problems, heart problems, and other complications. He recounted that he has \ndifficulty breathing, particularly with any physical exertion, has shortness of breath when walking, \nstanding for extended periods, or performing household tasks. Claimant said his heart \"tends to run \naway with itself\" and he experiences irregular heartbeat. Claimant testified he experiences memory \nproblems that he attributes to COVID-19. \nClaimant sleeps in a recliner most nights because lying flat causes breathing difficulties. He \npositions a fan to blow air on his face to help with breathing. He can stand for approximately 10 to \n15 minutes before needing to sit down. He cannot lift more than 10 to 15 pounds due to his shoulder \npain and breathing problems. \n\nFoster-H103080 \n7 \n \nWhen asked about his education and past work experience, claimant said he was a high school \ngraduate. He had worked in detention centers and as a bouncer at a casino before working at BHDC. \nHe also had done sandblasting and welding work. Claimant professed to be unable to do computer \nwork; he said he didn't know how to send an email, because his wife did that for him. \nClaimant said before he contracted COVID-19, he did not have any health complications that \nprevented him from working, nor has he developed any new conditions after he was released from \nhis doctor's care for COVID-19. \nClaimant said he was terminated from BHDC on November 30, 2021 for failing to complete \nmandatory FBI background check fingerprinting. He has not worked since that time, and has not \napplied for any jobs since that time. Claimant spoke to a deputy sheriff about potential employment \nat the Sheriff's Office, but did not fill out an application. He has made no contact with BHDC about \navailable positions. He explained that he has not looked for work because he does not believe he is \nphysically capable of working. \nOn cross-examination, claimant testified he has had no medical treatment since April 26, 2022, \nwhen his treating physicians released him. He stated he has only the basic Medicare coverage that \naccompanies Social Security and cannot afford additional coverage or private insurance. He takes a \ndaily low-dose aspirin and occasional Tylenol for pain but no prescription medications.  Claimant has \nhigh blood pressure but cannot afford medication. At the hearing, he weighed 235 pounds, down \nfrom 250. He continues to experience pain in his right shoulder that now extends into his left. The \nshoulder pain, along with his lung problems, causes sleep disturbance. Claimant reported he lacks \nhand strength and can no longer open jars or grip strongly with two fingers of his right hand since \nreceiving a spinal injection. He estimated he can lift only 10 to 15 pounds, depending on position. \nClaimant performs light household tasks such as sweeping, dishwashing, and limited cooking primarily \n\nFoster-H103080 \n8 \n \nto keep his mind active. His wife handles the laundry. He described himself as a Louisiana-style cook \nand explained the sink in his home is high enough that he can do dishes without stooping. \nClaimant and his wife have custody of their seven-year-old great niece, who has been in their \ncare since age two through a court order. He watches her while she plays outside, although he cannot \nplay ball or engage in strenuous activity. He and his family attend services at Apostolic Lighthouse \nPentecostal Church in Waldron, about nine miles from his home on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday \nmorning and evening. Claimant serves as assistant pastor and is able to drive to and from the church \nbuilding. \nClaimant acknowledged BHDC required an FBI background check. He testified that he either \nnever received the form or could not remember receiving. However, he maintained that if he had \nreceived it, he would have completed it. At that time, COVID-19 concerns prevented him from \ntraveling to the facility for fingerprinting. Claimant was unaware he could complete the process at a \npolice station. He understood he was terminated for failure to complete the background check. \nClaimant then filed for state retirement benefits and receives approximately $475 per month from the \nState of Arkansas and $1,300 per month in Social Security retirement. His wife receives retirement \nincome from the school district and plans to begin drawing Social Security. His great niece receives \nsurvivor's benefits from her deceased father, held in an account managed by claimant and his wife. \nRegarding his physical condition, claimant added to his previous testimony that he sometimes \nexperiences  throbbing  headaches,  a  rupture  around  his  navel  that  causes  occasional  pain,  and \ncontinuing difficulty swallowing since  hospitalization. He  no longer uses a cane  or walker but \nexplained he sometimes has balance problems and must sit on the bed or lean against a wall to dress \nor remove shoes. \n\nFoster-H103080 \n9 \n \nClaimant recognized all treating physicians released him from care in April 2022. The only \nwritten opinion restricting him from work was provided by his family physician, Dr. Sara Roberson, \nwho prepared a letter on June 17, 2022, that opined claimant would not be able to return to work and \nshould consider retiring. \nDr. Tanya Owen, a certified rehabilitation counselor and vocational expert, testified by \ndeposition  on  behalf  of  claimant. She reviewed  claimant's  medical  records,  functional  capacity \nevaluation, and conducted a telephone interview with claimant. She then prepared a vocational analysis \nbased on two conflicting medical opinions. Using Dr. Terry Clark's September 26, 2022, opinion \nwhich released claimant to regular duty with no restrictions, she determined claimant could return to \nhis past work with no loss of earning capacity.  However, if she accepted Dr. Roberson's June 17, \n2022, opinion that claimant cannot sustain competitive employment combined with the April 26, \n2022, functional capacity evaluation indicating sedentary capacity, then claimant would have no \ntransferable skills to sedentary work and would be unemployable with total loss of earning capacity. \nDr. Owen identified several barriers to claimant's employability: age (70), time out of the \nworkforce (over four years), lack of computer skills, no sedentary work experience, and lack of \ntransferable skills. She cited studies showing disability leads to faster decline in employment starting \nin workers' 40s, with 50% employment reduction by age 60 for individuals with disabilities. She noted \nthe probability of returning to work decreases with time out of the workforce: 50% probability after \nsix months, 25% after one year, and 1% after two years.  Dr. Owen opined claimant would not return \nto competitive employment based on the barriers she identified. \nOn  cross-examination, Dr.  Owen  confirmed  she does  not issue  medical  opinions.  She \nconducted no in-person observation of claimant. She recognized claimant has demonstrated capacity \n\nFoster-H103080 \n10 \n \nfor church attendance, childcare, cooking, and household tasks. She was aware that claimant has made \nno job search efforts since his termination. \nOn redirect examination, Dr. Owen clarified that activities of daily living do not necessarily \ntranslate to ability to work eight hours per day, five days per week in competitive employment. \nDr. Owen acknowledged on recross-examination that her analysis did not distinguish between \nclaimant's compensable and non-compensable medical conditions.  \nEXHIBITS \nIn addition to the inclusion by reference to the exhibits and testimony from the first hearing, \nclaimant submitted 38 pages of non-medical records, the bulk of which were the deposition of Dr. \nOwen and her report.  Respondent’s only exhibit was its second amended pre-hearing information \nsheet, the relevant contents of which are outlined above.  \nADJUDICATION \nThe parties stipulated that all prior decisions are res judicata. In reviewing the decision of the \nCourt of Appeals, these facts are established: \nClaimant's atrial fibrillation is compensable as a natural consequence for medical treatment, \nbut claimant failed to establish COVID-19 was the major cause of any permanent impairment related \nto his heart condition.  Claimant has preexisting obesity and hypertension, which the Court of Appeals \nidentified as alternative causes for his atrial fibrillation. \nThe following findings from the Full Commission opinion were not appealed and are final: \n\nFoster-H103080 \n11 \n \nClaimant's right ulnar nerve neuropathy is not compensable. He reached maximum medical \nimprovement on April 26, 2022, and did not prove he remained within a healing period or was totally \nincapacitated from earning any wages at any time after that date. \nClaimant  is asymptomatic  during  daily  activities and  able  to  drive  a  vehicle,  shop,  and \noccasionally preach and lead music at his local church. \nThe only permanent impairment rating that remains in effect is 10% to the whole person for \nclaimant's respiratory condition, assessed on April 26, 2022, accepted by respondents, and never \ndisputed. \nIt is against that background that the two principal issues in this case must be decided: Whether \nclaimant is permanently and totally disabled and if not, whether he is entitled to wage loss benefits in \nexcess of his permanent physical impairment.   \nIs claimant permanently and totally disabled? \nPermanent total disability (PTD) is defined as the \"inability, because of compensable injury or \noccupational disease, to earn any meaningful wages in the same or other employment.\" Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-519(e)(1). The burden of proof is on the employee. A.C.A. § 11-9-519(e)(2). Permanent \nbenefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that the compensable injury was the major cause \nof the disability or impairment. A.C.A. § 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii)(a). \"Major cause\" means more than 50% \nof the cause. A.C.A. § 11-9-102(14). \nThe Court of Appeals held claimant failed to establish major cause for his heart condition, \nstating: \"Evidence supporting a major-cause determination is required. And in this case, no lay witness \nor doctor has opined that Foster's COVID-19 illness was the major cause of his atrial fibrillation. \n\nFoster-H103080 \n12 \n \nMoreover, the medical records show that Foster has a preexisting history of hypertension and obesity \nthat could have caused his atrial fibrillation.\"  \nClaimant presented no new medical evidence at the 2025 hearing. Dr. Tanya Owen, a \nvocational expert, opined claimant is not employable, but she is not a medical provider and cannot \nestablish the medical basis for permanent total disability. As noted above, her analysis did not \ndistinguish between claimant's compensable and non-compensable medical conditions.  \nClaimant argues that because respondents accepted the 10% respiratory impairment rating, \nmajor cause is established for permanent total disability. I disagree. Respondents' acceptance of the \n10% respiratory impairment established that COVID-19 was the major cause of that particular \nanatomical impairment, but not that the respiratory condition is the major cause of claimant's inability \nto earn meaningful wages. A 10% impairment rating reflects measurable anatomical loss; permanent \ntotal disability requires proof of complete inability to work.   \nDr. Roberson's June 17, 2022, letter states claimant cannot return to work but attributes his \ndecline to multiple conditions: \"diastolic heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, paroxysmal A. fib and \nrespiratory failure.\" She did not state the compensable respiratory condition is the major cause of his \ninability to work. The Full Commission's finding that claimant was not totally incapacitated from \nearning wages after April 26, 2022, is res judicata. Without new proof that the respiratory impairment \nitself has caused claimant to now become totally incapacitated from earning wages, the finding of the \nFull Commission remains the law of this case, and the claim for permanent total disability is denied.  \nIs claimant entitled to wage loss disability benefits? \nArkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-522(b)(1) provides that in claims for permanent partial \ndisability benefits exceeding permanent physical impairment, the Commission may consider age, \neducation, work experience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect future earning capacity.   \n\nFoster-H103080 \n13 \n \nClaimant contends he is entitled to wage loss benefits based on his age (70), limited education \n(high  school),  lack  of  transferable  skills,  significant  physical  limitations  from  his  compensable \nCOVID-19 occupational disease, and Dr. Owen's opinion that he is not employable. Claimant argues \nthat respondents' acceptance of the 10% respiratory impairment rating establishes major cause, and \nhis testimony combined with Dr. Owen's vocational analysis proves wage loss disability. \nRespondents contend claimant is not entitled to wage loss benefits because they extended a \nbona fide offer of employment at wages equal to or greater than claimant's average weekly wage, which \nclaimant refused. Respondents further contend claimant has demonstrated no motivation to return to \nwork, having made no job search efforts since his termination nearly four years ago despite his \ndemonstrated activities including church attendance four times weekly, caring for a child, cooking, \nand performing household tasks. \nIt is unnecessary for me to reach a decision on whether a bona fide job offer was extended or \nwhether this claim would fail due to claimant's lack of motivation to return to the job market, because \nclaimant  has  failed  to  meet  the  threshold  requirement  of  proving  his  compensable  respiratory \ncondition is the major cause of any wage loss disability, Thompson  v.  Mountain  Home  Good  Samaritan \nVillage, 2014 Ark. App. 493.   \nArkansas law requires that a compensable injury and any permanent anatomical impairment \nbe established by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102; § 11-\n9-704(c)(1). Respondents accepted a 10% whole-person respiratory impairment on that basis, and \nthose  benefits have been paid. Claimant presented  no new medical records, no new physician \nopinions, and no additional impairment evidence beyond this 10% respiratory rating. \nThe Court of Appeals determined claimant failed to establish major cause for any impairment \nrelated to his heart condition, noting obesity and hypertension as alternative causes. As with the claim \n\nFoster-H103080 \n14 \n \nfor PTD, claimant presented no new medical records, no new physician opinions, and no additional \nimpairment evidence to establish the respiratory impairment as the major cause of claimant's alleged \ninability to work.  Even if the Commission were to accept Dr. Roberson's opinion that claimant cannot \nreturn to work, as noted in the previous section of this opinion, Dr. Roberson attributed claimant's \ndecline to multiple conditions—\"diastolic heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, paroxysmal A. fib \nand respiratory failure\"—without stating the compensable respiratory condition is the major cause of \nhis inability to earn wages. \nWhile it is not necessary for me to decide claimant's motivation to return to work, I note that \nthe report from Dr. Owen lists several causes for her finding that claimant is unlikely to reenter the \njob market, most of which are due to non-compensable factors. That further undercuts the claimant's \nposition that his 10% respiratory impairment is the major cause of his inability to work.  \nWithout medical evidence establishing that the compensable respiratory condition is the major \ncause of claimant's inability to earn wages, any award would rest on speculation and conjecture, which \ncannot be substituted for proof. Ark. Dep't of Career Ed. v. Glover, 35 Ark. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 \n(1991). \nORDER \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is permanently and \ntotally disabled as a result of his compensable occupational disease. \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to wage \nloss disability benefits in excess of his permanent physical impairment. \nAs no indemnity benefits have been awarded, no attorney's fee is awarded. \n\nFoster-H103080 \n15 \n \nRespondent is responsible for paying the court reporter's charges for preparation of the \nhearing transcript. \nAll issues not addressed herein are expressly reserved under the Act. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n_________________________________________                                                        \n JOSEPH C. SELF \n      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H103080 JIMMY FOSTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BOONEVILLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 23, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JOSEPH C. SELF in Fort Smith, Se...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:34:02.050Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H103080-2025-12-23","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FOSTER_JIMMY_H103080_20251223.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}