{"id":"alj-H109984-2024-07-24","awcc_number":"H109984","decision_date":"2024-07-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Shauna Torrence","employer_name":"Lafayette County School District","title":"TORRENCE VS. LAFAYETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H109984 July 24, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["carpal tunnel","wrist","repetitive","strain","ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TORRENCE_SHAUNA_H109984_20240724.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TORRENCE_SHAUNA_H109984_20240724.pdf","text_length":26967,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H109984 \n \nSHAUNA D. TORRENCE,  \nEMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nLAFAYETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,  \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BD. ASS’N WORKERS’ \nCOMPENSATION TRUST/ARKANSAS SCHOOL \nBDS. ASS’N, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA  RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 24, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on April 25, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \n(the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Texarkana, Miller County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by the Honorable Gregory R. Giles, Moore, Giles & Matteson, \nL.L.P., Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas.  \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Melissa Wood, Worley, Wood & Parrish, Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \n \nINTRODUCTION \nIn the prehearing order filed December 11, 2023, the parties agreed to the following \n \nstipulations, which they affirmed on the record at the hearing: \n \n  1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \n   jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n           2. The employer/employee/carrier-TPA relationship existed at all relevant times \n   including October 5, 2021, the date the claimant alleges she became temporarily  \n  totally disabled due to alleged work-related bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), \n  particularly CTS, most notably in her right wrist/hand. \n \n  3. The claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) was $701.46 which is sufficient to  \n  entitle her to weekly compensation rates of $351.00 for temporary total  \n  disability (TTD) and $238.00 for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits  \n  if the claim is deemed compensable. \n\n2 \n \n \n  4. The respondents controvert this claim in its entirety. \n \n5. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination \nand/or litigation. \n \n(Commission Exhibit 1 at 1-2; Hearing Transcript at 4-6). Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement \n \nthe issues litigated at the hearing were: \n \n1. Whether the claim for the claimant’s left wrist CTS is barred by the applicable statute \nof limitations (S/L). \n \n2. Whether the claimant sustained compensable bilateral CTS injuries, particularly in \nher right wrist/hand, within the meaning of the Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation \nAct (the Act) which allegedly culminated in disability on or about October 5, 2021. \n \n3. If the claimant’s alleged bilateral CTS is deemed compensable, the extent to which \nshe is entitled to medical and indemnity benefits, specifically TTD benefits from on \nor about January 18, 2022, through on or about June 30, 2022, for treat related to her \nright wrist/hand; and from on or about January 10, 2023, until at least March 7, 2023, \nwith respect to her left wrist/hand. \n \n4. Whether the claimant's attorney is entitled to a controverted fee on these facts. \n \n5. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for future determination \nand/or litigation. \n \n(Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2; T. 4-6). \n \n In the prehearing order filed December 11, 2023, the parties’ made certain contentions, \nwhich they amended at the hearing as set forth below. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 2-4; T. 5-6). In the \nprehearing order the claimant contends she sustained bilateral CTS injuries which culminated in \ndisability on or about October 5, 2021; or alternatively, as a result of her rapid, repetitive work-\nrelated activities performed at the school district since 2004. She contends the applicable S/L does \nnot barr her claim for CTS in her left wrist/hand. The claimant further contends she is entitled to \nTTD benefits from on or about January 18, 2022, through on or about June 30, 2022, for treatment \nassociated with her right wrist/hand. Furthermore, the claimant contends she is entitled to TTD \n\n3 \n \nbenefits for treatment associated with the left wrist/hand beginning on or about January 10, 2023, \nuntil she was seen by Dr. Cassatt for evaluation on a date certain in 2023 (the claimant has requested \nthese related records). The claimant contends the respondents are responsible for payment of her \nmedical treatment and related out-of-pocket expenses for her bilateral CTS, as such treatment is \nrelated to and reasonably necessary in light of the work-related bilateral CTS injuries. The claimant \ncontends she has sustained permanent anatomical impairment to both her left and right wrist/hand \nas a result of these bilateral CTS injuries; however, she specifically reserves this issue pending the \nCommission’s decision of the threshold compensability issue. The claimant reserves any and all \nother issues for future determination and/or litigation. \n  In the prehearing order the respondents contend the applicable S/L barrs the claimant’s CTS \nclaim with respect to her left wrist/hand. Furthermore, the respondents contend the claimant cannot \nmeet her burden of proof pursuant to the Act in demonstrating she sustained CTS in either her right \nwrist/hand and/or her left wrist/hand, which culminated in alleged disability on or about October \n5, 2021, or at any other time while she was working with the respondents. Significantly, the \nrespondents contend the claimant did not provide them the statutorily required notice of any alleged \nright wrist/hand CTS injury until the Form AR-C was filed on her behalf on January 5, 2022. In \naddition, the respondents contend the claimant also failed and/or refused to provide them the legally \nrequired notice of any alleged left wrist/hand CTS injury until October 26, 2023, the date she filed \nher initial response to the prehearing questionnaire. Alternatively, the respondents contended that \nif the claimant’s alleged CTS injury(ies) is (are) deemed compensable, she received both short and \nlong-term disability (STD, and LTD, respectively) benefits and, therefore, pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn. Section  11-9-411  (2024 Lexis  Replacement), they  are entitled  to  a dollar-for-dollar \noffset/credit. Finally, the respondents contend the claimant's need for medical treatment, if any, is \n\n4 \n \nrelated to her diabetes mellitus and not to any acute or gradual injury. The respondents reserved the \nright to supplement their contentions and assert any and all other applicable defenses and arguments \nupon the completion of necessary investigation and discovery. The respondents reserve any and all \nother issues for future determination and/or litigation. (Comms’n Ex. 1 at 3-4). \n  With respect to their amended contentions made at the hearing, the respondents contend the \nclaimant  cannot  meet  her  burden  of  proof  pursuant  to  the  Act  in  demonstrating  she  sustained \ncompensable CTS for either her left wrist or her right wrist. Furthermore, the respondents contend \nthe claimant did not provide them with the required statutory notice of the alleged right extremity \ninjury until the Form AR-N was filed on January 6, 2022. Moreover, the respondents contend the \nclaimant did not provide them with the required notice of the alleged left extremity injury until the \nForm AR-C was filed on October 3, 2023. (T. 5). Therefore, according to the applicable law even \nif the Commission finds one (1) or both of these alleged injuries to be compensable, the respondents \nwould  not  be  responsible  for  the  payment  of  any  medical  or  TTD  benefits  until  the  date  they \nreceived the required statutory notice of the respective injuries – i.e., the dates set forth above.  \n  In response to the respondents’ amended contentions, the claimant contends the respondents’ \nS/L argument is inapplicable to the claimant’s alleged right wrist injury. With regard to the \nclaimant’s alleged left wrist injury, the claimant agreed with the respondents that she had not made \na claim for a left wrist injury until the Form AR-C was filed on October 3, 2023. (T.5).  \n The record consists of the hearing transcript, and any and all exhibits contained therein and attached \nthereto, as well as the parties’ blue-backed post-hearing briefs.  \n \n \n \n\n5 \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n The claimant’s post-hearing brief contains a fair recitation of the basic facts involved herein. \n(Claimant’s Brief at 1-3). Consequently, I hereby incorporate the aforementioned facts by reference \nas if they were set forth herein. In addition, I will discuss the relevant facts as applied to the \napplicable law in the “Discussion” section of this opinion, infra. \nDISCUSSION \n The 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 \npreponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2) (2024 Lexis Replacement). The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he is entitled to benefits. \nStone v. Patel, 26 Ark. App. 54, 759 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. App. 1998). Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-\n704(c)(3) (2024 Lexis Repl.) states that the ALJ, the Commission, and the courts “shall strictly \nconstrue” the Act, which also requires them to read and construe the Act in its entirety, and to \nharmonize its provisions when necessary. Farmers Coop. v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.2d 899 \n(Ark.  App.  2002).  In  determining  whether  the  claimant  has  met  his  burden  of  proof,  the \nCommission is required to weigh the evidence impartially without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(4) (2024 Lexis Repl.); Gencorp Polymer Products \nv. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, 820 S.W.2d 475 (Ark. App. 1991); Fowler v. McHenry, 22 Ark. App. \n196, 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 \n\n6 \n \nS.W.2d 155 (1979). It is the Commission’s exclusive responsibility to determine the credibility of \nthe witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Whaley v. Hardees, 51 Ark. App. 116, 912 \nS.W.2d 14 (Ark. App. 1995). The Commission is not required to believe either a claimant’s or any \nother witness’s testimony, but may accept and translate into findings of fact those portions of the \ntestimony it deems believable. McClain v. Texaco, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 218, 780 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. \nApp. 1989); Farmers Coop. v. Biles, supra. \n  A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (Ark. App. 1994).  The determination of a witness’s credibility and \nhow much weight to accord that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (Ark. App. 2001).  \n  The Commission has the duty to weigh the medical evidence just as it does any other \nevidence, and its resolution of the medical evidence has the force and effect of a jury verdict. \nWilliams v. Pro Staff Temps., 336 Ark. 510, 988 S.W.2d 1 (1999). It is within the Commission’s \nprovince to weigh the totality of the medical evidence and to determine what evidence is most \ncredible given the totality of the credible evidence of record. Minnesota Mining & Mfg’ing v. Baker, \n337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999). \n The claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof pursuant to the Act in demonstrating \neither  or  both  her  left  or  right  wrist  conditions  is  (are)  compensable  as  either  a  specific \nincident or a gradual onset injury. \n In order to prove a compensable injury as a result of a specific incident the claimant must \nestablish by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained: (1) an injury arising out of and \nin the course of employment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body which \nrequired  medical  services  or  resulted  in  disability  or  death;  (3) there  exists medical  evidence \nsupported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16) (2024 Lexis Repl.), \nestablishing the injury; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and identifiable  by  \n\n7 \n \ntime  and  place  of  occurrence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (2024 Lexis Repl.). \n  Concerning an alleged gradual onset compensable injury Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A) \n(2024 Lexis Repl.) defines “compensable injury” as follows: \n(ii) An injury causing internal or external physical harm to the body and \n  arising out of and in the course of employment if it is not caused by a \n  specific incident is not identifiable by time and place of occurrence, if \n  the injury is: \n \n(a) Caused   by   rapid   repetitive   motion. Carpal   tunnel   syndrome   is \n specifically categorized  as  a  compensable  injury  falling  within  this \n definition[.]  \n \n(Bracketed material, and emphasis added). Our Arkansas courts of appeal have held that CTS is an \ninjury that may be caused by a specific incident, or gradual onset caused by rapid, repetitive motion. \nKildow v. Baldwin Piano & Organ, 333 Ark. 335; 969 S.W.2d 190 (1998); and see, Harper Co. v. \nWoods, 216 Ark. App. 431; 216 Ark. App. 456 (2016 Ark. App. 2016); Sally v. Service Master, 2009 \nArk. App. 209; 309 S.W.3d 7 (Ark. App. 2019). \n  Based on the applicable law as applied to the facts of this case, the claimant has failed to \nmeet her burden of proof that either her right or left wrist condition was the result of either a specific \nincident or a gradual onset compensable injury as defined by the Act, for the following reasons.  \n  First, the claimant’s own sworn testimony at the hearing demonstrates she herself has no \nidea what caused her alleged bilateral CTS. The claimant, Ms. Shauna Torrence (the claimant), is \n43 years old. She started working for Lafayette County School District in August of 2004. (T. 8). She \ninitially worked as a bus driver and later began working a second contract job as a custodian. (Id.). \nConcerning her alleged bilateral wrist injuries and her reporting/providing notice to her employer of \nthe alleged incidents/injuries the claimant testified as follows: \nQ: On  the  day  of  the  alleged  injury,  October  5,  2021,  it’s  my \nunderstanding that you had the cart that you described earlier, and on \n\n8 \n \nthat cart would have been everything you needed to clean.  The mop \nbucket, dust mop, paper towels, etcetera, is that correct? \nA: Yes, ma’am. \nQ: All right. When you were trying to get over the metal door frame, you \ntestified in your deposition that you held onto the cart, and the cart \ndid not fall over, is that right? \nA: Correct. \nQ: You indicated in your deposition that your right elbow hit the floor, \nis that right? \nA: Right. \nQ: And during this is when you twisted your left foot? \nA: Yes. \nQ: You told us earlier that you hopped to the main office that day and \nthat’s where you saw Mr. Crank and the secretary, is that correct? \nA: Correct. \nQ: Did you tell them at that time that you were hurt? \nA: Yes. \nQ: And after that was when you sent to the teacher’s lounge for a while? \nA: Yes. \nQ: And you hopped around the rest of the day, but you did finish your \njob duties that day, correct? \nA: Yes, ma’am. \nQ: And you told  us today that you did not think you  needed treatment \nthat day, is that right? \nA: That’s right. \nQ: I  asked  you  in  your  deposition  did  you  hurt  anything  besides  your \nfoot, and you responded I hurt my arm that day.  I hurt my arm.  Is \nthat correct? \nA: What now? \nQ: I asked you in the deposition did you hurt anything besides your foot, \nand your response was I hurt my arm that day.  I hurt my arm.  Is that \ncorrect? \nA: Yes. \nQ: And I asked you which one, and you said it was the right arm? \n\n9 \n \nA: The right arm. \n(T. 40-42). \n The claimant went on to testify she showed Mr. Crank her swollen right hand on the day of \nthe fall, and she had to wear a house shoe the following day because she could not put a regular \nshoe on her foot. (T. 42-43). Dr. Patel was the first physician she saw for her alleged right hand/wrist \ninjury, and she told both him and Dr. Saldino she fell pushing a cart at work. (T. 43). Concerning \nthe alleged left hand/wrist injury, the following exchange took place between the claimant and the \nrespondents’ attorney: \nQ: We discussed your left hand during the deposition, and you told me \nthat you assumed that you put strain on the left one because you never \nhad problems with your hands or feet before the fall, is that right? \nA: Correct. \nQ: You also went on to say that you thought it was holding the door and \npushing  the  buggy  at  the  same  time  that  put  the  strain  on  your  left \nhand, is that right? \nA: Correct. \n(T. 43). \n The  claimant’s  attorney her   attorney questioned   her   concerning   she   believed   the \nCommission should find her alleged injury(ies) to be compensable: \nQ: So, we’re here today because you are alleging the symptoms with \nregard to your hands, the right that you’ve had surgery on and the left \nthat you didn’t, you believe occurred as a result of your work-related \nactivities there at the School District.  Why do you think the school \nshould be responsible for your hand problems? \nA: Yes, sir.  The reason why I think is if it wasn’t from the fall, it was \nthe day-to-day activity I had to do, the repetitive on my job. \nQ: When you say repetitive activities, what are you talking about? \nA: The  sweeping,  the  mopping,  the  dusting,  the everyday things  that  I \ndid, vacuuming. \n\n10 \n \n(T. 38).  \n  The aforementioned testimony makes it abundantly clear the claimant is essentially guessing \nthat the fall caused her bilateral CTS; or that maybe it was the pressure she put on the cart with her \nleft hand that caused the left wrist injury; or maybe it was the alleged rapid, repetitive job duties of \nher custodial work that caused her bilateral CTS. There exists no evidence the claimant’s job duties \nwere rapid or repetitive. The claimant’s aforementioned testimony is subjective, self-serving, and \nsimply incredible. I had the opportunity to closely observe the claimant as she testified under oath. \nHer demeanor, her manner of testifying, the way she responded to her attorney’s simple, direct \nquestions, and other factors obvious even from a fair and objective reading of the hearing record, \nconclusively demonstrate the claimant’s testimony to be wholly speculative. Speculation and \nconjecture, even if plausible, cannot take the place of proof. Ark. Dep’t of Corrections v. Glover, \n35 Ark. App. 32, 812 S.W.2d 692 (Ark. App. 1991); Deana Constr. Co., supra. It must also be noted \nthe claimant’s obviously speculative testimony concerning how her alleged injury(ies) occurred \nwas both implausible and incredible.    \n  Second,  and  significantly, the  medical  evidence is  insufficient  to  prove  the  claimant \nsustained either a specific incident or a gradual onset injury to either or both her right or left wrist. \nThe claimant’s testimony as compared to the medical evidence in the record is instructive and \nrevealing in this regard. The claimant testified she never told her doctors she had problems with \nher hands (or her feet) before October 5, 2021. (T. 45). She reported to both Drs. Patel and Saldino \nthat she fell pushing a cart at work. (T. 43). When Dr. Saldino examined the claimant one (1) week \nafter  the fall  of October  12,  2021, the  claimant reported  pain in her  left  dorsal  foot – but, \nsignificantly, she made no mention whatsoever of either right or left hand/wrist pain or other \nsymptoms. (Respondents’ Exhibit 1 at 1-4). Then some six (6) days thereafter the claimant saw Dr. \n\n11 \n \nPatel on October 18, 2021, seeking care for “left foot problem, bilateral swelling in hands.” \n(Claimant’s Exhibit 1 at 7). Dr. Patel’s report of this office visit states the claimant, “Has been \nhaving bilateral foot pain. Has seen Dr. Saldino recently. Reports feet swelling. Has been hurting \nfor years.”  (CX1 at 7-8) (Emphasis added).  \n  Moreover, the claimant made no mention of any problems with her hands when she returned \nto see Dr. Saldino on October 26, 2021; November 1, 2021; and December 2, 2021. 12/2/21. (RX1 \nat 5-10). Thereafter, on January 3, 2022, the claimant provided the following history to her treating \nphysician: \nHe [sic] states that she is getting a neurological testing for her hands and feet as she \nis concerned that there may be a carpal tunnel syndrome.  Both the feet and the hands \nare painful and are keeping her up at night.  She states that her feet have become so \npainful  that  she  cannot  do  basic  housework. Apparently, there  is  some  type  of \nWorkers’ Compensation claim.  She indicates she is wearing the boot on a regular \nbasis. As her pain has not improved. \n(RX1 at 11) (Bracketed material added). \n Dr. Saldino completed paperwork for the claimant’s disability claim with American Fidelity, and \nhe documented that her diagnosis was left and right posterior tibial tendonitis, which indicated was \nnot work-related. (RX1 at 13). The medical record is devoid of any evidence, much less sufficient \nevidence, demonstrating the claimant’s bilateral CTS was the result of either a specific or an alleged \ngradual onset injury as the Act defines such an injury(ies).  \n Third, claimant’s failure to provide timely notice of either a right or left wrist injury provides yet \nfurther evidence (if any were needed, which I do not believe it is) the claimant was unsure as to \nwhat cased her bilateral CTS complaints. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-701 (2024 Lexis Repl.) provides: \n(a)(1) Unless an injury either renders the employee physically or mentally unable \n to do so, or is made known to the employer immediately after it occurs, the \n employee  shall  report  the  injury  to  the  employer  on  a  form  prescribed  or \n approved by the Workers' Compensation Commission and to a person or at \n a place specified by the employer, and the employer shall not be responsible \n\n12 \n \n for disability, medical, or other benefits prior to receipt of the employee's \n report of injury. \n(2)  All reporting procedures specified by the employer must be reasonable and \n shall afford each employee reasonable notice of the reporting requirements. \n(3)  The  foregoing  shall  not  apply  when  an  employee  requires  emergency \n medical treatment outside the employer's normal business hours; however, \n in that event, the employee shall cause a report of the injury to be made to \n the employer on the employer's next regular business day. \n(b)(1) Failure to give the notice shall not bar any claim: \n(A) If the employer had knowledge of the injury or death; \n(B) If the employee had no knowledge that the condition or disease arose out of \n and in the course of the employment; or \n(C) If  the  commission  excuses  the  failure  on  the  grounds  that  for  some \n satisfactory reason the notice could not be given. \n(2) Objection to failure to give notice must be made at or before the first hearing \n on the claim. \n  The claimant completed three (3) documents acknowledging she was aware of the required \nprocedures concerning how to report an alleged work-related injury. (T. 47; Respondents’ Exhibit \n2 at 1-3). When she completed her application for disability benefits with American Fidelity on \nNovember 1, 2021, she stated her disability was due to “illness” as opposed to “accident.” (T. 47-\n48: RX2 at 5). Thereafter, on January 6, 2022, the claimant completed and signed a Form AR-N \nalleging she had injured her left foot and right hand trying to push a cart. (T. 48; RX2 at 9). At the \nhearing the claimant admitted she would have told the adjuster she hurt her left foot and right hand \nwhen her statement was taken if this were in fact the case.  (RX2 at 18; T. 48). Admittedly, the \nclaimant did not even allege the left CTS injury until she filed her Form AR-C on October 3, 2023, \nwhich states, “carpal tunnel syndrome—bilateral,” and lists a specific injury date of October 5, \n2021. (T. 5; CX1 at 119-120).  \n  Finally, the assistant principal at Lafayette County Elementary School, Mr. Shane Crank, \ntestified at the hearing and explained the procedure an employee is instructed to follow in reporting \n\n13 \n \nan alleged work-related injury. I found Mr. Crank to be an unbiased, articulate, and wholly credible \nwitness. He confirmed the Form AR-P was and is located in the teachers’ lounge. (T. 51-52). Mr. \nCrank further testified he was present on October 5, 2021, and he recalled the claimant telling him \nshe hurt her ankle in the foyer before the kids came in. (T. 53). He testified under oath he did not \nrecall her saying anything about having hurt either her left or right hand. (T. 54). Mr. Crank’s \ntestimony is consistent with all the aforementioned evidence demonstrating the claimant was \nunsure as to what was causing or had caused her bilateral hand/wrist pain/CTS.  \n           Finally, while the S/L issue would have been a threshold issue in this claim, it is clear there \nexists  insufficient  evidence  demonstrating  this  claim  is  barred  by  the  applicable  statute  of \nlimitations set forth in Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702 (2024 Lexis Repl.). Therefore, I have not \nand will not discuss that issue in other than this conclusory manner.  \n  As usual, both of these experienced, credible, well-respected attorneys did an excellent job \npreparing for and trying this case, and in-writing their post-hearing briefs, which this ALJ very \nmuch appreciates. Again, based on the applicable provisions of the Act and other applicable law, \nsupra, as compared to the totality of the evidence of record, I am compelled to find the claimant \nhas failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating she has sustained a compensable injury to \neither her left and/or right wrist(s). \n  Therefore, 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 December 11, \n2023, hereby are accepted as facts.  \n \n2. There exists insufficient evidence this claim is barred by the \napplicable statute of limitations of Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702. \n \n3. The claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof that she has \nsustained either a specific incident or a gradual onset compensable \n\n14 \n \ninjury to either or both her right or left wrist. \n \n4. The claimant’s attorney is not entitled to a fee on these facts.  \n \n Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons this claim hereby is denied and dismissed \nsubject to the parties’ respective statutory appeal rights. If they have not already done so, the \nrespondents shall pay the court reporter’s invoice within 20 days of their receipt of this opinion. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n        \n \n       Mike Pickens \n                  Administrative Law  \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 \n \n \n\n15 \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H109984 SHAUNA D. TORRENCE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LAFAYETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BD. ASS’N WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST/ARKANSAS SCHOOL BDS. ASS’N, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 24, 2024 Hearing conduc...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:51:56.102Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H109984-2024-07-24","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TORRENCE_SHAUNA_H109984_20240724.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}