{"id":"alj-H108821-2024-01-19","awcc_number":"H108821","decision_date":"2024-01-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Wanda Muldrow","employer_name":"Dep’t Of Workforce Services","title":"MULDROW VS. DEP’T OF WORKFORCE SERVICES AWCC# H108821 JANUARY 19, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","modified:1","dismissed:1","granted:2","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MULDROW_WANDA_H108821_20240119.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MULDROW_WANDA_H108821_20240119.pdf","text_length":27376,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H108821 \n \n \n \nWANDA S. MULDROW,   \nEMPLOYEE                                                  CLAIMANT \n \nDEP’T OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,   \nEMPLOYER                                                    RESPONDENT \n \nSTATE OF ARKANSAS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS                                \nDIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                    RESPONDENT     \n     \n                           \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 19, 2024 \n \nHearing  conducted  before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), \nAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, on October 23, 2023, in Texarkana, Miller County, \nArkansas.   \n \nThe claimant was  represented by the Honorable  Gregory R. Giles, Moore, Giles & Matteson, LLP, \nTexarkana, Miller County, Arkansas.   \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Charles H. McLemore, State of Arkansas, Public \nEmployee Claims Division (PECD), Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nINTRODUCTION \nIn the prehearing order filed September 20, 2023, the parties agreed to the following \nstipulations, which they clarified and affirmed on the record at the hearing: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \njurisdiction over this claim. \n2. The   employer/employee/carrier-TPA   relationship   existed   at   all   relevant   times \nincluding October 4, 2021, when the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her \nleft index finger/hand. The respondents paid medical and indemnity benefits.   \n \n3. The claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) was  $796.21,  which  is  sufficient  to \nentitle  her  to  weekly  compensation  rates  of  $531.00  for  temporary  total  disability \n(TTD), and $398.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.   \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n2 \n \n \n4. The claimant requested, and the commission granted, her one (1)-time-only request for \na change of physician (COP) to Dr. D’Orsay Bryant by order dated November 17, 2021. \n \n5. The  respondents  accepted  and  paid  [or  are  in  the  process  of  paying]  Dr.  Jeanine \nAndersson’s 13% to the left hand [63% to the left index finger] permanent anatomical \nimpairment rating. \n \n6. The  respondents  have  controverted  only the  claimant’s subject  request  for  TTD \nbenefits. \n  \n7. The  parties  specifically  reserve  any  and  all  other  issues  for  future  litigation  and/or \ndetermination. \n \n(Commission  Exhibit  1  at  1-2; Reporter’s Transcript at  4-5; Respondents’ Ex. 3 at 9)  (Bracketed \nmaterial added). Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement the sole issue litigated at the hearing was: \n1. Whether  the  claimant is  entitled  to  additional  TTD  benefits  from  March  8,  2022, \nthrough the date Dr. Andersson determined she reached maximum medical impairment \n(MMI), which is August 14, 2023. \n \n2. Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted fee on these facts. \n \n3. The  parties  specifically  reserve  any  and  all  other  issues  for  future  litigation  and/or \ndetermination. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. at 4-5). \n \n The claimant contends she is entitled to TTD benefits from on or about March 8, 2023, through \nthe date Dr. Andersson determined she reached MMI, which is August 14, 2023. She further contends \nher  attorney  is  entitled  to  an  attorney’s  fee  based  on  any  and  all  additional  TTD  benefits  the \nCommission  may  award  her.  The  claimant  specifically  reserves  the  right  to  amend  her  prehearing \nquestionnaire response upon the completion of appropriate and necessary investigation and discovery. \nIn addition, she specifically reserves any and all other issues for future determination and/or litigation. \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n3 \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 1-2; T. 4-5). \nThe  respondents  contend they accepted the claimant’s injury and as compensable and have \npaid all appropriate medical and indemnity benefits to date. They contend the claimant cannot meet \nher burden of proof pursuant to the Act in demonstrating she is entitled to additional TTD benefits \nsince  she  voluntarily  retired  and  is  not  entitled  to  TTD  benefits  after  the  date  she  retired.  The \nrespondents reserve the right to file an amended response to the prehearing questionnaire and/or any \nand  all  other  appropriate  pleading(s),  and  to  plead  any  further  affirmative  defense(s)  that  may  be \navailable  to  them  upon  the  completion  of  necessary  and  appropriate  discovery,  which  discovery  is \nongoing  at  this  time.  The  respondents  specifically  reserve  any  and  all  other  issues  for  future \ndetermination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3; T. 4-5). \nThe record herein consists of the reporter’s hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained \ntherein or attached thereto, as well as the parties’ blue-backed post-hearing briefs.   \n                          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n       The  claimant,  Ms.  Wanda  Muldrow  (the  claimant)  was  72  years  old  at  the  time  of  the \ncompensable injury to her left index finger on October 4, 2021, and 74 years old as of the hearing date. \nOn October 4, 2021, the date of her compensable left index finger injury, the claimant was working \nwith the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services (Workforce Services) as a case manager. Before \nshe worked as a case manager for Workforce Services, she had worked in another state program, the \nWorkforce  Investment  Act  (WIA)  for  about  ten  (10)  years,  first  in  a  temporary,  then  later  in  a \npermanent, capacity. While she was working with the WIA the claimant took some college courses in \nbusiness, but never actually received her associate degree as she was a few hours short. (T. 7-8; 34-\n37).   \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n4 \n \nWhen she was 62 years old, and while she was working at the WIA and going to college some, \nthe claimant filed for and began drawing Social Security retirement benefits. She started to work with \nWorkforce Services in 2007, and continued to work with them as a case manager until she voluntarily \nresigned and fully retired effective December 31, 2021, at the age of 72 years. After she retired the \nclaimant began drawing her full state retirement benefits, and she was drawing those benefits at the \ntime of the subject hearing. (T. 37-38; 48-50; RX3 at 6).       \nOn  October  4,  2021,  the  claimant  was  working  as  a  case  manager  with  Workforce  Services \nand was walking out of her office on the way to a co-worker’s office when the door closed on her left \nindex finger, “smashing” the top part of the finger. The claimant went back into her own office/work \narea and told her supervisor, Ms. Beverly McEntire, she had caught her finger in the door and injured \nit. The incident occurred at the end of the day, so the claimant did not go to see a doctor at that time, \nbut went home where her finger began hurting worse over the course of the evening. (T. 9-13).   \nThe next day the claimant went back to work and told her supervisor she needed to see a doctor, \nand she went to see her own primary care physician, Dr. Dale Goins, at the Wadley Regional Health \nClinic.  (T.  12-13; Claimant’s Exhibit 2 at 1-6).  Dr.  Goins’s clinic note of 10/5/2021 reveals that, \namong a number of other medications, the claimant had been prescribed and taken Gabapentin in the \npast, and that she had a history of, “Hand pain and gout.” (CX2 at 1; 2). Dr. Goins assessed the claimant \nas having a, “Contusion of left hand”, and ordered an X-ray of her left hand, which included all the \nfingers of her left hand, including her left index finger. (CX2 at 3-6).   \nThe X-ray report of 10/5/2021 notes the claimant’s reported, “History of  crush injury to the \nleft index finger...The left fingers demonstrate an erosive process involving the distal interphalangeal \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n5 \n \njoints. Rounded densities are seen adjacent to the distal interphalangeal   joints of the left index and \nmiddle  fingers,  with  marginal  erosions  in  the  joint.  There  is  a  joint  space  narrowing  with  mild \nosteophytosis noted. No foreign body is noted. No additional injury is identified.” (CX2 at 5). This X-\nray report concludes under the, “Impression” section of the report, and states as follows: \nImpression:  There  appears  to  be  an  arthropathy  involving  the  distal  interphalangeal \njoints.  The  presence  of  periarticular  rounded  densities  are  suggestive  of  tophi,  with \nregions of well-corticated erosions. This could indicate underlying gout. The presence \nof joint space narrowing and osteophytosis, with the distribution in the interphalangeal \njoints  is  more  suggestive  of  erosive  osteoarthritis.  No  old  films  are  available  for \ncomparison Correlation with the patient’s history and blood work is necessary There is \na history of a crush injury to the claimant’s left index finger. No definite superimposed \nfracture is noted. Soft tissue swelling in the distal left index finger could indicate soft \ntissue injury. Correlation with physical exam is recommended.   \n \n(CX2 at 5).   \n        Dr. Goins splinted the claimant’s left index finger and immediately released her to return to \nher job, which already was essentially light duty work. Likewise, on October 15, 2021, after his review \nof the 10/5/2021 X-ray and examination of the claimant, Dr. Thomas Fox assessed the claimant with \npain  in  her  left  index  finger,  and  an  abrasion  of  her  left  hand.  He  opined  she  likely  had  gout,  and \nconcluded she could work light duty. (CX2, 19-21; 19-23). Dr. Fox also recommended the claimant \nreturn to see her family physician, Dr. Goins. (CX2 at 24-28).   \nThe claimant testified her job at Workforce Services required her to meet with job applicants, \ninterview them, and perform some typing duties related to documenting the meetings. (T. 18-21; 45-\n46). The claimant is right, not left-hand, dominant. She admitted under oath that Workforce Services \naccommodated her and provided her light duty work, which she initially performed; that none of her \ntreating physicians ever opined she was unable to work; and further that although her left index finger \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n6 \n \nwas  hurting  especially  when  she  tried  to  type,  she  continued  to  work  until  she  voluntarily  retired \neffective December 31, 2021. The claimant submitted her resignation/retirement letter on November \n3,  2021,  and  her  official  retirement  date  was  December  31,  2021.  Again, the claimant’s treating \nphysicians, including her own personal family physician, Dr. Goins, never opined she was disabled \nfrom engaging in gainful employment; and both Drs. Goins and Fox released her to light duty work \nwhich the respondents made available to her until she retired and voluntarily left their employ. (CX2 \nat 1-33; T. 21-22; 48-50).   \nThe  claimant  requested  and  the  Commission  granted  her  one  (1)-time-only  COP  to  Dr. \nD’Orsay Bryant via an order dated November 17, 2021. (CX2 at 30-31). Dr. Bryant first examined the \nclaimant  on  12/2/2021,  which  was  almost  one  (1)  entire  month  before  the  effective  date  of  her \nvoluntary retirement, 12/31/2021. Again, Dr. Bryant did not take the claimant off work, nor did he \nplace any additional physical limitations or restrictions on her ability to perform light duty work. (CX2 \n32-33). \nDr. Bryant ordered an MRI without contrast which was performed on 2/11/2022, after the date \nthe  claimant  retired  on  12/31/2021.  (CX2  at  32-33;  34).  Dr.  Bryant  diagnosed  the  claimant  with  a \nmallet  finger  avulsion  injury  of  the  second  DIP  joint  of  her  left  index  finger.  (CX2  at  34).  This \ndiagnosis is consistent with both Dr. Goins’s and Dr. Fox’s findings, supra. In a clinic/progress note \ndated 4/28/2022 Dr. Bryant noted the claimant told him, “...that she retired on 12-31-21 to help take \ncare of her husband who was on renal dialysis. She stated she wants to go back to work part time in \nsix months.” (CX2 at 35-36). Dr. Bryant followed and monitored the claimant until 11/1/2022, and \nduring this time period prescribed only conservative treatment such as splinting her left index finger, \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n7 \n \nand physical therapy (PT). (CX2 at 35-50). Like Drs. Goins and Fox before him, Dr. Bryant splinted \nthe claimant’s left index finger, treated her conservatively, and never recommended any surgery, nor \ndid he opine she was totally incapacitated from engaging in gainful employment. (CX2 at 1-68).   \nFinally, on May 22, 2023, the claimant was examined by and came under the care and treatment \nof  Dr.  Jeanine  Anderson  of  OrthoArkansas  in  Little  Rock.  Dr.  Andersson  is  an  orthopedic  surgeon \nspecializing in hand treatment and surgery. Dr. Andersson removed the claimant’s splint as she (i.e., \nDr. Andersson) wanted, “her to discontinue full-time immobilization of the [left] index finger”, and \nrecommended  range  of  motion  and  similar  exercises.  (CX2  at  69-72;  69-73)  (Bracketed  material \nadded). Dr. Andersson opined the claimant reached MMI as of August 14, 2023, and – like Drs. Goins, \nFox, and Bryant before her – she did not recommend any surgery on the claimant’s left index finger. \n(CX2  at  74-77;  78).  Finally,  Dr.  Andersson  assigned  the  claimant  a  63%  permanent  anatomical \nimpairment rating to the claimant’s left index finger, which the respondents accepted and have paid, \nor are paying. (CX2 at 79; RX3 at 9).                                          \nDISCUSSION \nThe Burden of Proof \n When  deciding  any  issue,  the  ALJ  and  the  Commission  shall  determine,  on  the  basis  of  the \nrecord as a whole, whether the party having the burden of proof has established it by a preponderance \nof the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2) (2023 Lexis Replacement). The claimant has the \nburden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence  she is entitled to benefits. Stone v. Patel, 26 \nArk. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-704(c)(3) (2023 Lexis \nRepl.) states that the ALJ, the Commission, and the courts “shall strictly construe” the Act, which also \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n8 \n \nrequires  them  to  read  and  construe  the  Act  in  its  entirety,  and  to  harmonize  its  provisions  when \nnecessary. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 (Ark. App. 2002). In determining \nwhether the claimant has met her burden of proof, the Commission is required to weigh the evidence \nimpartially without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(4) \n(2023 Lexis Repl.); Gencorp Polymer Products v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. \nApp. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. 196, 737 S.W.2d 633 (Ark. App. 1987). \n All claims for workers’ compensation benefits must be based on proof. Speculation and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Corrections v. Glover, 35 \nArk. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co. v. Herndon, 264 Ark. 791, 595 \nS.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility of the \nwitnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardees, 51 Ark. App. 116, 912 S.W.2d \n14  (Ark.  App.  1995).  The  Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any other \nwitness’s testimony, but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions of the testimony \nit deems believable. McClain v. Texaco,  Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. App. 1989); \nFarmers Coop. v. Biles, supra.  \nThe Commission has the duty to weigh the medical evidence just as it does any other evidence, \nand its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Williams v. Pro \nStaff Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). It is within the Commission’s province to weigh the \ntotality of the medical evidence and to determine what evidence is most credible given the totality of \nall the credible evidence of record. Minnesota Mining & Mfg’ing v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d \n151 (1999). \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n9 \n \nIn this case both attorneys did an excellent job litigating this claim at the subject hearing, and \nin  writing  their  post-trial  briefs.  As  always,  they  both  made  excellent,  knowledgeable,  articulate \narguments and represented their respective clients well.  However, based  on the applicable statutory \nand case law – which are directly on point on these facts – I am compelled to find the claimant is not \nentitled to any TTD benefits for the reasons set forth below. \nThe  claimant  has  failed  to  meet  her  burden  of proof  in demonstrating  she  is  entitled  to \nTTD  benefits  from  March  8,  2022,  through  the  date  Dr.  Andersson  opined  she  reached \nMMI, August 14, 2023. \n \nPursuant  to  Ark.  Code.  Ann.  §  11-9-521(a)  (2023  Lexis  Replacement)  a  claimant  who  has \nsustained  a  permanent  scheduled  injury  is  entitled  to TTD  or  temporary  partial  disability  (TPD) \nbenefits only during the healing period or until the employee returns to work, whichever occurs first. \n(Emphasis  added).  Moreover, Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-526  (2023  Lexis  Repl.)  prohibits  a  claimant \nfrom receiving either TTD or TPD benefits if they refused “employment suitable to his or her capacity \noffered to or procured for him or her during the continuance of the refusal, unless in the opinion of the \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission, the refusal is justifiable.”  \nThe claimant herein primarily and cleverly relies on Walker v. Cooper Standard Automotive, \nInc., 104 Ark. App. 175, 289 S.W.3d 184 (Ark. App. 2008), a case her attorney had previously tried \nand  in  which  he  had  ultimately  prevailed.  In Walker  the  claimant,  who  was  still  within  his  healing \nperiod,  was  working  light  duty,  but  the  employer  terminated  the  claimant  of  its  own  initiative, \napparently  due  to  a  desired  or  necessary  workforce  reduction.  Since  the  employer  terminated  the \nclaimant  of  its  own  accord  while  the  claimant  was  capable  of  light  duty  work  but  thereafter  failed \nand/or  refused  to  offer  the  claimant  another  suitable  light  duty  job,  the Walker  court  deemed  the \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n10 \n \nprovisions of Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-526 had not been triggered and, thus, were inapplicable. \nSee also, Walker v. Cooper Standard Automotive, Inc., 2009 AWCC 96 (AWCC No. F604949, May \n18, 2009), in the same claim on remand from the court of appeals, the Full Commission awarded the \nclaimant TTD benefits consistent with the court’s holding.   \nAlthough not on point in the case at bar, it is interesting and instructive to consider the case of   \nTyson Poultry, Inc. v. Narvaiz, 2012 Ark. 118, 388 S.W.3d 16 (2012). Narvaiz was a claimant who \nhad  sustained  a  work-related  injury,  and  had  returned  to  his  employment  performing  the  light  duty \nwork  his  employer  had  made  available  to  him, “when he called his female  supervisor  an  insulting, \nderogatory, and vulgar name (‘mother-f- - king bitch’).” Narvaiz, 2012 Ark at 2. Not surprisingly, the \nemployer  suspended  the  claimant,  then  terminated  his  employment  for  subordination  and  gross \nmisconduct. The ALJ found the claimant’s misconduct amounted to the claimant’s refusal to accept \nand perform suitable employment. The  Full Commission reversed the ALJ, finding to the contrary. \nOn appeal to the court of appeals, the court reversed the Full Commission. Thereafter, on appeal to \nour supreme  court, the court noted that pursuant  to a specific provision of Act 796 the Act is to be \n“strictly construed.” Consequently, in applying the legislative mandate of strict construction, the \nArkansas  Supreme  Court  held  that  termination  of  employment  for  misconduct  is not  tantamount  to \nrefusing  suitable  employment  and,  therefore,  since  the  claimant  was  still  within  his  healing  period, \nand was able and willing to work when the employer fired him, he was entitled to TTD benefits until \nhe reached MMI.   \nIn the case at bar, the facts are clearly and obviously distinguishable  from both Walker, and \nNarvaiz, supra. In the instant case the employer did not of its own initiative and choice terminate the \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n11 \n \nclaimant  for  any  reason  whatsoever,  and  certainly  not  for  purposes  of  workforce  reduction  or \nmisconduct.    The  controlling  precedent  on  the  facts  in  the  instant  claim  are  set  forth  in Lybyer  v. \nSpringdale  School  District,  2019  Ark.  App.  77,  568  S.W.3d  805  (Ark.  App.  2019),  and Turcios  v. \nTyson Foods, Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 471, 504 S.W.3d 622 (Ark. App. 2016). \nIn Lybyer, the ALJ, Full Commission, and court of appeals unanimously agreed the claimant \nhad voluntarily resigned her position and, therefore, was not entitled to a period of TTD benefits after \nshe  voluntarily  left  her  employment.  While  the  court  of  appeals  noted  the  claimant may  have  been \nentitled to benefits if she had been terminated, the court reasoned: \nBy holding that appellant was not entitled to TTD benefits, the Commission determined \nas a matter of law that a voluntary resignation is a refusal of employment, which does \nnot entitle her to TTD benefits under the Act. We agree and affirm the Commission’s \ndenial of TTD benefits under these facts.     \n \nLybyer, 2019 Ark. App. at 76. (Emphasis added). \nSimilarly, in Turcios the claimant had sustained a scheduled injury and had in fact returned to \nwork;  however,  his  employer  terminated  him after  he  refused  to  perform  the  light  duty  work  his \nemployer offered him. The Turcios court held the claimant was not entitled to additional TTD benefits \nbecause, although he had returned to work, he then refused an offer of suitable employment that fit \nwithin  his  physical  limitations  and  restrictions.  Therefore, Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-526  barred  the \nclaimant from receiving TTD benefits. Turcios, 504 S.W.3d at 624. \n     In so holding, the Turcios court explained: \nWe  hold  that  under  the  same  analysis  utilized  in Robertson, Roark,  and  the  other \npreviously cited cases, Turcios’s entitlement to TTD ended when he was returned to \nwork with his work restrictions accommodated with light-duty tasks. Pursuant to section \n11-9-521, entitlement to TTD is ended upon a claimant’s return to work or the end of \nhis  healing  period,  whichever  comes  first.  Simply  not  having  reached  maximum-\n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n12 \n \nmedical improvement, in and of itself, is insufficient to entitle Turcios to TTD. He had \nbeen returned to work, which ended his entitlement to TTD. Further, Turcios’s failure \nto  report  to  work  and  to  call  in  as  required  by  the  company  policy  was  a  refusal  of \nsuitable  employment  within  his  capacities,  and  he  is  not  entitled  to  additional  TTD \npursuant to section 11-9-526.   \n \nTurcios, 504 S.W.3d at 624. \n \n       Finally, it is significant to note our court of appeals has followed similar reasoning concerning \nwhether a claimant is entitled to wage loss disability benefits. In Redd v. Blytheville School District, \n2014  Ark.  App.  575,  446  S.W.3d  643  (Ark.  App.  2014),  the  court  of  appeals  affirmed  the  Full \nCommission’s decision finding the claimant was not entitled to wage loss disability benefits after he \nchose  to  retire  even  though  he  admittedly  could  have  returned  to  work  as  his  employer  was  ready, \nwilling,  and  able  to  accommodate  him  by  providing  a  suitable  job  that  fit  within  his  physical \nlimitations and restrictions. Both the Commission and court referred to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522 \n(b)(2)  (2023  Lexis  Repl.)  and  found the claimant’s  employer  had  in  fact  made  a bona  fide  offer  of \nemployment to him.   \nSignificantly – and in fact, dispositively – in this case the overwhelming preponderance of the \nevidence  demonstrates  the  claimant  admittedly  had  a  light  duty  job  where  Workforce  Services  was \naccommodating her with suitable employment duties she had been performing and clearly was capable \nof performing, but she – the claimant herself, of her own initiative and for her own personal reasons \n– chose to retire and end her employment. In this regard, it must be noted the claimant was 72 years \nold, and already had filed for and had been receiving Social Security retirement benefits for some ten \n(10) years. \nMoreover,  after  closing  her  left  hand/index finger in the door, the claimant’s injury  did  not \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n13 \n \nrequire surgery, only required her to wear a splint, and to undergo conservative treatment such as some \nPT and at-home exercises. It is also important to note the claimant’s treating physicians – including \nher own family physician, Dr. Goins – never took her off work or opined she was temporarily totally \ndisabled from performing her already light work duties between 10/4/2021 (the date of her injury) and \n12/31/21 (the date of her voluntary retirement).   \nConsequently,  based  on  the  facts  of  this  case,  the Lybyer  and Turcios  appellate  precedents \nrequire me to deny the claimant’s request for TTD benefits. Indeed, the claimant never requested TTD \nbenefits before she voluntarily retired from her light duty job for her own personal reasons; and her \nclaim for TTD benefits did not even begin until some three (3) months after she voluntarily chose to \nretire from a job the clear preponderance of the evidence reveals she was fully capable of performing. \nOr, put another way, there exists no credible – or at least grossly insufficient – evidence the claimant \nwas  incapable  of  performing  her  job  duties – i.e.,  that  she  was  temporarily  totally  disabled  from \nperforming the light duty job duties with which Workforce Services accommodated her in accordance \nand compliance with the applicable law.    \nTherefore, for all the aforementioned reasons I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n1. The stipulations contained in the prehearing order filed September 20, 2023, which \nthe parties modified and affirmed on the record at the hearing, hereby are accepted as \nfacts. \n \n2. The claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating she is entitled to \nTTD benefits from March 8, 2022, through August 14, 2023.   \n \n 3. The claimant’s attorney is not entitled to a fee on these facts. \n \n\nWanda S. Muldrow, AWCC No. H108821 \n \n14 \n \n      For all the aforementioned reasons, this claim hereby is denied and dismissed, subject to   \nthe parties’ appeal rights. \n      If they have not already done so the respondents shall pay the court reporter’s invoice \n  within ten (10) days of their receipt of this opinion. \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED.   \n \n                                              \n \nMike Pickens \nAdministrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H108821 WANDA S. MULDROW, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DEP’T OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STATE OF ARKANSAS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 19, 2024 Hearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Co...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:58:32.027Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H108821-2024-01-19","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MULDROW_WANDA_H108821_20240119.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}