{"id":"alj-H204211-2023-07-19","awcc_number":"H204211","decision_date":"2023-07-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Erwin Ezell","employer_name":"H.W. Tucker Co. Inc","title":"EZELL VS. H.W. TUCKER Co. INC. AWCC# H204211 JULY 19, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","thoracic","strain","lumbar","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/EZELL_ERWIN_H204211_20230719.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"EZELL_ERWIN_H204211_20230719.pdf","text_length":24030,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H204211 \n \nERWIN EZELL, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nH.W. TUCKER Co. INC., EMPLOYER           RESPONDENT \n \nNATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE Co., CARRIER         RESPONDENT \n \nFCCI INSURANCE GROUP, TPA           RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 19 JULY 2023 \n \n \nOn  hearing  before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative \nLaw Judge JayO. Howe, 8 February 2023, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nMs. Laura Beth York, Attorney-at-Law of Little Rock, Arkansas, appeared for the claimant. \n \nMr. James  A.  Arnold,  II, Attorney-at-Law  of  Fort  Smith,  Arkansas, appeared for  the \nrespondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 8 February 2023 in Little Rock, Arkansas, after \nthe parties  participated  in  a prehearing telephone  conference  on 22  November 2022.  A \nPrehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as “Commission’s Exhibit No 1,” \nwas entered on that same day.  The Order stated the following ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: \n1. Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury to his back by specific incident \nor, in the alternative, by gradual onset. \n \n2.  Whether the claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment. \n3.  Whether the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. \n4.  Whether the claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \nAll other issues were reserved. \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their pre-hearing questionnaire responses, \nwere incorporate by reference into the Prehearing Order. The CLAIMANT CONTENDS: \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n2 \n \n1. That he suffered a compensable back injury in the scope and course of employment \nand that he is entitled to medical benefits and TTD from 3 May 2022 to an unknown \ndate and that he is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n \nThe RESPONDENTS CONTEND: \n1. That the claimant’s injuries do not meet the requirements for compensability under \nthe applicable law. \n \n2. That the  claimant  failed  to  notify  the  respondents  of  a  work-related  injury  that  he \nalleges occurred on 29 April 2022. \n \nThat Order also set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2. An employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on 21 April 2022 and at all other \ntimes relevant to this claim. \n \n3.  The respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n4.  The parties would further stipulate to average weekly wage and compensation rates. \nIn  addition  to the  Commission’s previously  mentioned Exhibit No 1,  three (3) more \nEXHIBITS were entered into the record.  “Claimant’s Exhibit No 1” consisted of a three-page \nindex of medical records and sixty-five (65) subsequent pages.  “Respondents’ Exhibit No 1” \nconsisted  of  one (1) index  page of  medical  records and eighty (80) subsequent  pages. \n“Respondents’ Exhibit No 2” consisted  of  one (1) index  page of  non-medical  records and \ntwenty-two (22) subsequent pages. \nThree  (3) WITNESSES provided sworn testimony—the claimant spoke on his own behalf \nand the respondents called Mr. Eric Jackson and Ms. Julie Sanders. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the witnesses, \nobserving their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law under \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n3 \n \n2. The previously noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n3. The claimant failed to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that he suffered a work-\nrelated injury by either specific incident or gradual onset. \n \n4. Because he failed to prove a compensable injury, the claimant’s request for reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment and TTD benefits are moot and will not be addressed \nbelow. \n \n5. Consistent with the above, the claimant’s attorney is not entitled to a fee. \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY and MEDICAL EVIDENCE                                                                                                        \nA. Claimant on direct-examination by Ms. York: \nClaimant, Ervin  Ezell, is  a sixty-two (62) year  old male  with  a  high  school diploma \nand approximately a year and a half of college credit.  He has worked pouring concrete since \n1987,  and  his  testimony  evidences  knowledge  around  the  many  different  roles  or  tasks \nassociated with installing concrete surfaces.  His work with respondent, H.W. Tucker, began \non 6 December 2021. \n According to the testimony, he presented to the emergency department in March of \n2022 with complaints of back pain.  He attributed the pain to possible “fatigue” [TR at 15] \nand denied making any report to his employer before or after returning to work.  This was \nnot his first episode of back pain; rather, he noted that he experienced back pain “many times” \nbefore and that “it’s a strenuous job.” Id. \n Before  describing  any  events  in  April  of  2022  or  after,  the  claimant  discussed  an \naccident and injury sustained on another job in 2017, when he was struck by the extended \nconcrete chute of a mixing truck making a sudden turn.  He described being off from work for \nsome  time  while  seeking  treatment  for  the  injuries  sustained  in  that  incident.  Mr.  Ezell \nstated  that  he  eventually  returned  to  full-duty  work,  although  intermittent  back  pains \npersisted.  “That’s every day.  That’s every day.  That’s why they tell you to go home, soak in \nEpsom salt and, you know, get ready for the next day... a few times I have to take a few pain \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n4 \n \npills or whatever, you know, muscle relaxers or something, but...I got a job to do.  I’m fixing \nto go do it.” [TR at 19]  \n Mr. Ezell next described his work shoveling concrete on Friday, 29 April 2022, when \nhe  felt  his  back  pop.  When asked if anything was wrong, he stated “Nothing, I’m good. \nNothing.” [TR at 21]  He says that we worked on and took a muscle relaxer before finishing \nout the day.  Comparing at the hearing the pain he felt in April to the pain he felt in March, \nhe said it felt “sharp.” [TR at 24]  He reiterated that he denied an injury while at the jobsite \nand  when  asked  specifically  if  he  reported  to  his  supervisor  that  he  needed  medical \ntreatment, he said, “No, no. I never told him.” [TR at 25]  Mr. Ezell denied working any other \njobs or  reporting  any  injury to  his  employer over  the  weekend,  saying  that  he  rested  and \ncooked some meals with his family. Id. \n According to his testimony, Mr. Ezell arrived at work the following Monday, 2 May \n2022, “really limping.” [TR at 26]  Mr. Ezell testified that he mentioned hurting himself on \nthe Friday before, but that he was not offered any workers’ compensation paperwork at the \ntime.  He stated that Bubba, the foreman, told him to go home “and get yourself together.” \nMr. Ezell states he went to bed early that night, but woke up in pain and struggled to get out \nof bed the next morning, to the extent that he called his children to get him up and drive him \nto the hospital.  \n He disagreed with the employer’s work records that showed he claimed an injury on \n21 April. Reviewing the records, he was back-and-forth on whether he worked on the Monday \nfollowing the date he claims the injury occurred, before agreeing that he worked a full day on \nMonday,  2  May  2022.  [TR  at  32]  He  stated  again  that  he  did  not  report  an  injury  to  his \nemployer.  Mr. Ezell testified that he hurt all day that Monday and took muscle relaxers to \nease the pain.  He then disagreed with the work records showing that he worked full days on \nTuesday May 3\nrd\n and Wednesday May 4\nth\n, saying that he was sent home that Tuesday and \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n5 \n \nwent to the hospital that night. [TR at 34-35]  He disagreed again with records showing that \nhe worked the following Monday, 9 May 2022, and that he “sat in truck all day, ten hours.” \nHe further disagreed that he was told to stay home on 10 May 2022, reiterating that his last \nday to show up for work was 2 May 2022.  The claimant agreed that he eventually filled out \nsome  workers’ compensation forms, but was unsure of the dates they were received or \nreturned. [TR at 35-36] \n He claimed that he did not perform any work for the respondents between 3 May 2022 \nand his full-duty release on 31 October 2022.  Since his release he claims no problems with \nhis back. [TR at 38]  His direct-examination concluded with Mr. Ezell stating that the pain \nhe  claims  he  felt  on  29  April  2022  was  greater  than  any  past  back  pains.  Relating  to  his \ninjury from 2017, when he was hit by a concrete truck, he said, “[t]hat piece of steel hit me, \nknocked me up in the air, okay.  In no time I was back to work.  A couple of months I was \nback to work, but the pain in the—on the 29\nth\n, that was—that was a greater pain.  That was \na greater pain.” [TR at 39] \nB. Claimant on cross-examination by Mr. Arnold: \n The  claimant  confirmed  on  cross-examination  that  his work  at H.W. Tucker, which \nbegan on 6 December 2021, was not different in the approximate five (5) months he worked \nthere from his work pouring concrete for the previous thirty-five (35) years.  In the five (5) to \nsix (6) years prior to joining H.W. Tucker, Mr. Ezell worked for himself. [TR at 41-42]  He \nalso  confirmed  that  his  2017  injury was  handled  as  a  personal  injury  matter for which  he \nreceived  a  settlement  and  not  through  workers’  compensation.  Mr.  Ezell’s  back  pains \npersisted periodically after the 2017 accident and he took pain medication, muscle relaxers, \nand wore a back belt as needed for help with pain.  “So in order to keep on, you take a muscle \nrelaxer or a pain pill.” [TR at 44] \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n6 \n \n Mr. Ezell testified that despite other incidents or doctor’s visits prior to 29 April 2022, \nhe  was  not  having  any  back  pains  on  that  day,  or  at  least,  “no  more  than  usual.” \n[TR at 48-49]  The  muscle  relaxers  and  pain  pills  he  had  on-hand  the  Friday  he  claims \nhe was  injured  were  prescribed  by  providers  for  earlier-reported  pains.   The  claimant  \nre-asserted  that  he  went  to  the  Baptist  Emergency  Room  on  3  May  2022,  despite  neither \nparty  having  any  records  relating  to  such  a  visit.  As  for the absence  of  medical  records \nsupporting his version of the events, Mr. Ezell only offered, “I have no idea.” [TR at 51] \n The questioning went on as to what medical complaints and treatments were reported \nor provided and when. \nC.  Claimant on re-direct and re-cross: \nAnswering additional questions, Mr. Ezell reiterated that he experienced back pains \nprior to the alleged injury in April of 2022.  “I mean, with this job, everything hurts,” he said. \n[TR  at  59]  He  went  on  to  deny  recalling  earlier  sworn  statements  made  during  his \ndeposition.\n1\n [TR at 60-61] \nD.  Respondent employee, Eric Jackson:  \n The respondents called Mr. Eric Jackson to the stand, and he testified that he worked \nfor H.W. Tucker for approximately twenty (20) years, with about the last six (6) of those being \nin management.  Mr. Jackson recalled telling the claimant in May of 2022 to go home if he \nwas hurting, but denied that the claimant told him that his pain was related to a workplace \ninjury.  According  to  Mr.  Jackson,  the  conversation  occurred  on  the  Tuesday  after  the \n \n1\n Respondents’ counsel provided, and I accepted, the claimant’s deposition transcript as a proffer.  I \nam not relying on any of the sworn testimony found in that transcript in this Opinion.  Rather, I am \nlimiting my consideration to the testimony offered at the hearing.  That said, and the actual specifics \nof  the  deposition  testimony  aside,  I  do  not  discount respondent  counsel’s  use  of  the  deposition \ntestimony and the claimant’s denial of that testimony for impeachment purposes and/or attacking his \ncredibility. \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n7 \n \nclaimant spent the previous day sitting in the truck all day (which is reflected as the 9\nth\n and \n10\nth\n of May in “Respondents’ Exhibit No 2”). \n He further testified that employees are supposed to report workplace injuries to their \nsupervisors, but that he did not recall Mr. Ezell telling him that he was hurting because of \nan injury sustained at work.  Nor did he recall another employee telling him at the time that \nMr. Ezell had hurt himself while working. \n E.  Respondent employee, Julie Sanders:  \n Ms. Julie Sanders testified that she worked in administration, handling “payables, \nreceivables, a lot of HR.” [TR at 73]  She confirmed the accuracy of the work-related records \nprovided  by  the  respondents  and  admitted  into  evidence.  According  to  Ms.  Sanders,  the \nclaimant called her office on 24 May 2022, saying that he had being seeing a doctor and that \nhe might need surgery, so he “needed to get on workers’ comp.” [TR at 74]  She stated that \ncall was the first she heard about a workplace injury.  After some forms were provided to Mr. \nEzell,  another  worker  told  Ms. Sanders  that  he  remembered  the  claimant  mentioning  his \nback  hurting  at  some  point,  but  that  he  denied  that  it  was  anything  that  needed  to  be \nreported. \n F.  Medical Records: \n The parties submitted medical records ranging between October 2017 and November \n2022.   See, “Claimant’s  Exhibit  No  1” and “Respondents’  Exhibit  No  1”.  Mr.   Ezell \nacknowledged that he lived and worked in Chicago for about thirty (30) years before moving \nto  Arkansas  some  six (6) years  or  so  prior  to  the  time  of  the  hearing.  [TR  at  41-42]  He \nacknowledged that his out-of-state medical records were not available. Id.  \n Mr. Ezell discussed at the hearing the injuries he sustained in October of 2017 when \nhe  was  struck  by  the  cement  chute  of  a  moving  mixing  truck  while  working  for  another \nemployer.  He  presented  for  treatment  complaining  of  pain  in  his  back,  right  hip,  and  his \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n8 \n \nside.   The  emergency  department  records  reflect  that  he  was  diagnosed  with  multiple \ncontusions and a thoracic strain after the accident. [Resp. Exhibit No 1 at 6]  The imaging \nreflected no acute fractures, but noted “multilevel degenerative changes.” [Id. at 12-13]  He \nwas prescribed muscle relaxers and pain medication upon discharge. [Id. at 17] \n The medical evidence reflects that the claimant presented to PrimeCare on 15 June \n2019. [Resp. Exhibit No 1 at 21]  He complained of back pain caused by work, coming home \nfrom work with back pain, wearing a back belt, and that the pain gets worse when he takes \nthe back belt off. Mr. Ezell requested muscle relaxers, noting that they had helped before. \nRegarding his back pain, the chart noted that he worked with concrete. [Id. at 22]  He was \nagain prescribed muscle relaxers.  Muscle spasms in the back are noted on another visit dated \n10 December 2019. [Id. at 23]  \nThe  claimant presented again to  PrimeCare  on  4  December  2020,  with  a  primary \ncomplaint of back pain. [Id. at 27]  The chart reflects that Mr. Ezell noted pain the day before \nThanksgiving, but that he had only lifted turkey and ham [for holiday meals].  He reported, \n“I’m talking about pain...if I tried to get up right now, I couldn’t just get up.”  The provider \nassessed lumbar pain, strain of the lumbar region, and midline low back pain.  He received \nan injection for his pain, and imaging was ordered. [Id. at 28]  The x-ray impression from the \nfollowing day revealed “mild lower lumbar spine degenerative change/facet arthropathy.” [Id. \nat 29] \n Mr.  Ezell  later  reported  to  the  Baptist  emergency  department  on  2  March  2022, \ncomplaining of low back pain that started 9 days earlier. [Id. at 33]  He stated, “I was able to \nwalk until today and now the pain is so bad, I can’t even walk to the bathroom.”  He was \ndiagnosed with a strain and provided intramuscular medication. \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n9 \n \n His  next  presentation  to  PrimeCare  was  on  3  May  2022,  where  he noted  some \ncramping on the lower right side of his back for about three days. [Id. at 41]  The entry notes \nthat he lays concrete and thought he had a pulled muscle, but he denied a fall or injury.  He \nwas started on Naproxen, received a Toradol injection, and was told to follow up for continued \nmonitoring of his hypertension, which he stated had improved recently.  \nMr.  Ezell then  presented  to  PrimeCare again  on  9  May  2022,  again  complaining  of \nback pain. [Id. at 43]  He stated that he could not take off from work\n2\n because he had to pay \nbills and requested a note for nonstrenuous activity at work.  Another intramuscular injection \nwas administered.  \nThe claimant was seen again at the Baptist emergency department on 11 May 2022. \nHe complained of persistent low back pain for four weeks. [Id. at 46]  More injections were \nadministered, while x-ray impressions returned no acute findings. \nMr.  Ezell  then  presented  to  a  North  Little  Rock Urgent Care  on  13  May  2022, \ncomplaining  of  right  knee  pain.  [Id. at  51]  According to the note, “on 5/9/2022 he noticed \nsome knee pain while at work.  He noticed some weakness in the right lower extremity.  His \nboss told him to go home and rest up.” [Id. at 53]  He later saw Dr. Tad Pruitt on 8 June 2022 \nfor right knee pain he said began about fifteen (15) years earlier. [Id. at 60] \nThe records reflect numerous other visits over the next few months.  \nV.  ADJUDICATION \n The stipulated facts, as agreed during the prehearing conference, are outlined above.  \n It  is  settled  that  the  Commission,  with  the  benefit  of  being  in  the  presence  of  the \nwitness  and  observing  his  or  her  demeanor,  determines  a  witness’  credibility  and  the \n \n2\n His testimony at the hearing, however, indicated that his last day at work was 2 May 2022. [TR at \n35.] \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n10 \n \nappropriate weight to accord their statements. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 \nArk. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999).   \nA.  The Claimant Failed to Prove by a Preponderance of the Evidence that he Suffered \na Compensable Workplace Injury \n \nUnder Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation laws, a worker has the burden of proving, \nby a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable injury.  Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-102(4)(E)(i).  A compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported \nby objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D).  Here, the claimant alleges that his \ninjury occurred either by specific incident or gradual onset. \nAs noted in the respondents’ hearing brief, the claimant must establish four (4) factors \nby  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  to  prove  a  specific  incident  injury:  (1)  that  the  injury \narouse  during  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  that  the  injury  caused  an  actual  harm  that \nrequired medical attention; (3) that objective findings support the medical evidence; and (4) \nthat the injury was caused by a particular incident, identifiable in time and place. See Cossey \nv. G. A. Thomas Racing Stable, 2009 Ark. App. 666,5, 344 S.W.3d 684, 689. \nShould he fail to prove a specific incident, the claimant also offers that he is entitled \nto compensation under the theory that he sustained a gradual onset injury.  To prevail on \nthat claim, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the injury arose from \nhis employment; (2) the injury caused actual harm that required medical attention; and (3) \nthe injury was a major cause of the need for treatment.  The existence and extent of the injury \nmust be proven by objective medical evidence.  See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra at 446; Ark. \nCode Ann. 11-9-102(4)(E)(ii).  For an injury to be considered a “major cause” for a need for \ntreatment, it must be more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause and it must be established \nby a preponderance of the medical evidence.  Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-102(14)(A-B). \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n11 \n \nAs a threshold matter the claimant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, \nthat he sustained a compensable injury under either theory.  Without the benefit of medical \nrecords  or  imaging  pre-dating the claimant’s time in Arkansas, the records still show a \nhistory  of  degenerative  changes  on  the  imaging  studies  after  his  2017  accident.  The \npresentation and complaints back then were nearly the same as the ones presented here, and \nthe objective medical evidence does not support a finding of a compensable injury.  \nIn July of 2019, well before beginning his work for the respondent, he reported back \npain and requested muscle relaxers for that pain.  He reported back pain again in December \nof 2020, just a year before beginning his work for the respondent.  The imaging associated \nwith that visit again showed lumbar spine degenerative changes and facet arthropathy. \nWhen  he  reported  to  the  emergency  department  on  11  May  2022,  after  his  alleged \nworkplace injury, the physician notes show no relevant report of trauma and “persistent” low \nback pain for four weeks.  The imaging from that visit was compared to the study from 2020, \nand no significant deviations from the previous imaging or acute injuries were reported.  His \n13 May 2022 imaging also revealed degenerative disc disease and retrolisthesis. \nThe  claimant’s  testimony  lacked  credibility.  His  version  of  the  events  was  not \nconsistent as to what happened when, nor was it consistent with the workplace records, nor \nwas it consistent with the medical records presented (beyond the fact that he had before and \ncontinued to have back problems around the date(s) in question).  Rather than attempting to \nsquare  potentially  or  plainly  conflicting  narratives,  he  adopted  an  evasive  demeanor.  For \nexample: \nQ:  And you wore a back belt pretty continuously? \nA:  Not often, but I did wear one occasionally. \nQ:  If the medical records reflect that you found it necessary to wear a back belt, you \nwouldn’t deny that, right? \n \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n12 \n \nA:  Yes. \n \nQ:  And you had muscle spasms pretty consistently from 2017, up to when you went \nto work for H.W. Tucker? \n \nA:  Over a period of time. \n... \n \nQ:  Okay But did you need [pain medication] periodically throughout that period of \ntime? \n \nA:  I don’t know. \n \nQ:  Correct? \n \nA: It depends on what you call periodically... .   [TR at 43-44] \n \nHe  testified  that  he  was  sent  home  on  a  Monday,  2  May  2022  [TR  at  26],  but  then \nagreed that he must have worked all day that Monday, before being sent home the next day \n(Tuesday) [TR at 32], and then denied the accuracy of records showing he worked full days \nthat Tuesday and Wednesday [TR at 34]. \n The claimant did not make any reasonable and timely effort to advise his employer \nthat he sustained a workplace injury, as required by the company’s policy.  Mr. Ezell did not \neven attempt to report an injury until he thought he might need surgery if the treatments \nhe’d earlier begun and continued on his own for his chronic pain were not successful.  He has \nfailed  to  prove, by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence, with  credible  testimony  or  objective \nmedical findings that he suffered a compensable injury. \n B.  Benefits \n Because he failed to prove a compensable injury, the claimant’s request for reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment and TTD benefits are moot. \n C.  Attorney’s Fee \n In accordance with the above, the claimant is not entitled to an attorney’s fee. \nVI.  ORDER \n\nEZELL- H204211  \n13 \n \n Consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim \nis denied and dismissed. \nSO ORDERED. \n \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H204211 ERWIN EZELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT H.W. TUCKER Co. INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE Co., CARRIER RESPONDENT FCCI INSURANCE GROUP, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 19 JULY 2023 On hearing before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:05:29.217Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204211-2023-07-19","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/EZELL_ERWIN_H204211_20230719.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}