{"id":"alj-H205903-2024-03-26","awcc_number":"H205903","decision_date":"2024-03-26","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Tracy Decker","employer_name":"White River Health System, Inc","title":"DECKER VS. WHITE RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. AWCC# H205903 MARCH 26, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["ankle","back","neck","fracture","hip","sprain","shoulder","cervical"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DECKER_TRACY_H205903_20240326.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"DECKER_TRACY_H205903_20240326.pdf","text_length":24258,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H205803 \n \nTRACY D. DECKER, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nVS. \n \nWHITE RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYER          RESPONDENT \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES,  \nCARRIER, TPA               RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 26, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  James  D.  Kennedy, on  the 21\nst\n day  of \nFebruary, 2024, in Mountain Home, Baxter County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant  is  represented  by Frederick S.  “Rick” Spencer,  Attorney-at-Law, Mountain \nHome, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents are represented by Kenneth P. “Casey” Castleberry, Attorney-at-Law, Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was conducted on the 21\nst\n day of February, 2024.  At the time of the \nhearing, the parties  agreed  that  the  issues  were  as  follows: (1)  Compensability  of a \ngradual  onset  injury  to claimant’s right  ankle;    (2) Reasonable  and  necessary  medical \ntreatment for her injury; (3)  Attorney fees.  All other issues were reserved.  \nThe respondents contend the claimant’s current problems, if any, are not related \nto an alleged  injury  of  November  15,  2021,  are  not  compensable,  and  the claimant’s \nalleged  injury  was  not  reported  to  the  employer  until  August  15,  2022.  The  claimant \nself-terminated  on  November  19,  2021,  with  no  notice  and  before  her  shift  was  over.  \nFurther,  the  respondents  contend  that  the  claimant  got  into  an  altercation  with  her \nson-in-law and fell off her porch on or about January 15, 2022.  \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n2 \n \nA Prehearing Order dated October 10, 2023, provided that the parties stipulated \nthat the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim \nand  that  an  employer/employee/carrier relationship  existed  on or  about November  15, \n2021, and all relevant times thereto.         \n The Prehearing Order along with the claimant’s and respondent’s contentions are \nall set out in their respective responses to the Prehearing Questionnaire and made a part \nof the record without objection.  The witnesses were Gabriel Don Decker, the husband of \nthe claimant, and the claimant, Tracy Decker.  From a review of the record as a whole, to \ninclude medical reports and other matters properly before the Commission, and having \nhad an opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the demeanor of the witnesses, the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with Arkansas \nCode Annotated §11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n \n2. That  an  employer/employee/carrier relationship  existed  on November  15\nth\n, \n2021, and at all relevant times. \n   \n3. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that \nshe sustained a gradual onset injury to her right ankle that was related to her \nwork. \n \n4. That, consequently, all other issues are moot. \n \n5. If not  already  paid,  the  respondents are ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n \n The Prehearing Order, along with the prehearing questionnaires of the parties and \nthe claimant’s amended response to the prehearing questionnaire were admitted into the \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n3 \n \nrecord  without  objection.   The  claimant  submitted two (2) exhibits  that  were  admitted \nwithout objection.  The respondents submitted six (6) exhibits that were admitted without \nobjection. \n The husband of the claimant, Gabriel Don Decker, was called as the first witness.  \nHe testified that he had been with the claimant for twenty-two (22) years as of June 31.  \nHe testified that when she injured her foot at work, she would initially come home and \nstay off of it as much as possible.  She slowly had gotten worse and he would catch her \nin the driveway crying, before she would come into the house.  “So, you know, she was \nin  pain,  and  I  knew  something  was  wrong.    Sometimes,  she  tried  to  attribute  it  to  her \nfibromyalgia or other, you know things, just a bad day at work, things of that nature.  Now, \nshe’s – we can’t go to the store for long periods of time because she can’t walk around \nWalmart.  Her ankle swells.  She’s having to stay off of it.  She’s in pain more than her \nmedications help.” (Tr.pp. 7-8)  He went on to state that he’s doing about ninety percent \n(90%) of the housework at this point.  She had told him about twisting her ankle when she \nhad to transfer patients sometimes, and she would have to push them in a wheelchair by \nherself, because there was not enough staff to assist her. (Tr.p. 9)  She would have to \npush them across the street up an incline to the ER, where the patient would be admitted.  \n“She was wheezing so bad and just having problems herself” because the patient was so \nheavy that she was trying to get over there.  This happened on more than one occasion \nwhere she was required to push a two to three hundred (200 – 300) pound patient, one \nhundred (100) plus yards. (Tr.pp. 10-11)  \n Under cross-examination, Mr. Decker admitted that he had not worked at White \nRiver Heath Systems and that he was basing his testimony on what he had been told.  \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n4 \n \nHe testified that he had walked up the thirty percent (30%) grade when he had gone to \nhis  doctor.    The  patients  would  go  from  the  outpatient  building  to  the  ER.    He  further \ntestified that there was “not necessarily a specific incident.”  One time she came home \nand was hurting from doing it.  I mean, there’s not, you know, “she didn’t fall per say or \nyou  know,  come home and  state she  twisted  her  ankle  real  hard” or  something  very \nspecific.  There was not a specific single incident in his mind. (Tr.p. 13) \n The claimant, Tracy Decker, was then called.  She testified that she was born on \nMarch 17, 1969, and was fifty-four (54) at the time of the hearing and had been an RN for \ntwenty-four (24) years. (Tr.p. 15)  In regard to her working conditions, she testified that it \nwas normal to push patients in a wheelchair and on stretchers.  “That’s a normal given.  \nHelping from the bed to the wheelchair, whatever.”  She also discussed nurses going \nacross the street to the ER pushing a wheelchair by themselves or if using a stretcher, \nwith the help of another nurse.  She stated that she could not “put down like a specific \ntime” in regard to her injury.  “It was a gradual continual pain that would not go away.  I \nhave a lot of medical conditions, and I’m on a lot of medications, and this pain was still \nnot comforted.”  The pain was different than before going to work at White River.    She \nwent on to testify about the gradual pain in her ankle and “they did say I had a tear which \nI went to physical therapy for it.”  “I went to physical therapy afterwards, because I didn’t \npay attention to myself until I quit work there, and then I’m like, I’ve got to do something \nabout this leg.  It will not stop hurting.  This foot.  This ankle.  And I went to the doctor and \nthey said I had a tear and I went to physical therapy at that time.”  She stated that Doctor \nAgnel told her she had a torn ligament and sent her to physical therapy. (Tr.pp. 16-17)  “It \njust -- it was a gradual thing but there was areas that are not safe in that hospital which \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n5 \n \ncontributed to it not healing, or it getting worse you know.”   She talked about a specific \nincident where she had to push a 350 to 400 pound lady from the outpatient building to \nthe ER.  When I got to the ER with that lady, “I was just worn out, I -- my whole body hurt.  \nMy legs were throbbing.  I was wheezing.  So, I mean, if I hadn’t turned, you know, my \nankle had just gotten worse during a period of months.”  She  went  on  to  say  that  she \ndidn’t take care of it until she left the job. (Tr.pp. 18-19)  She thought that an RN was on \nher feet seventy to eighty percent (70% to 80%) of the time. (Tr.p. 21) \n Under  cross-examination,  the  claimant  testified  that  she  began  working  for  the \nrespondent  in  May  of  2019,  and  her  last  day  of  work  was  November  18,  2021.    The \nclaimant also agreed that she filed her Form C reporting her injury on August 9, 2022.  \nShe also admitted she had not reported the right ankle injury prior to her termination and \nthat when her deposition was taken, she had answered that she could not recall a specific \ninjury.    When questioned about  the  specific  incident  she  testified  to  on  the  day  of the \nhearing in regard to pushing the very heavy women and the fact that she did not mention \nit at the time of her deposition, she stated she did not recall it at the time of her deposition.  \nShe then testified that in regard to remembering the incident, she did not know where to \ntalk about it -- “didn’t know where to bring it up.” (Tr.pp. 22-24) \n She also admitted that she saw Dr. Sidiqui, a pain management doctor, and was \nasked  why  she  did  not disclose her  ankle  pain on  her  December 2021,  visit.    She \nresponded that she had so much pain throughout her body and that he didn’t really deal \nwith “orthopedic natures” and he focused on her back and neck. (Tr.p. 24)  She was also \nquestioned about seeing her primary care provider, Bobbi Tosh, an APRN, on October \n15, 2021, prior to leaving the respondent, and about the medical report making no mention \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n6 \n \nof  muscle  aches,  no  joint  pain,  no  swelling,  and  no  back  pain.    She admitted  that  the \nreport was read correctly.  She could not recall if she told Ms. Tosh about her ankle pain \nat  that  time.    She  also  agreed  that  a  medical  report  dated  November  8,  2021,  by  Ms. \nTosh, made no mention of muscle aches, joint pain, swelling, or back pain. (Tr.pp. 25-26)  \nShe went on to state that she did not focus on her ankle pain until December after she \nquit work.  “I had just wrote it off to a bad day at work, several times.  And when I finally \nquit work is when I finally turned and looked at myself to see how I could help myself be \nmore healthy.  And the ankle was one thing that was not going away.” (Tr.p. 27) \n The claimant was also questioned about seeing Dr. Boop, a neurologist, and the \nreport mentioned increased neck pain and headaches along with other issues but made \nno mention of an ankle issue.  The claimant thought that she had probably told him about \nthe  ankle  pain  because  she  would  fill  out  a  chart  in  regard  to  pain  when  seeing \nhim.  (Tr.p. 29)    She  was  also  questioned  about  seeing  Chelsey  Howell,  a  physical \ntherapist  who  saw her  for  treatment  of  her  ankle  pain.    The  claimant  admitted  that the \nreport, dated August 10, 2022, provided she was not currently working at the time of the \nreport due to IBS symptoms and this would have been one day after she had filed her \nclaim  for  compensation.   The  claimant  denied the accuracy  of  the report on  August  3, \n2022,  by  Ms.  Howell,  where  it  stated  that  she  could  walk  2  to  3 hours  without \npain. (Tr.pp. 30-31)  The claimant went on and stated “the right ankle does impact my \nability to do many other things.  So, it does -- to the scope of my whole body of being \ndisabled.” (Tr.p. 32) \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n7 \n \n On redirect, the claimant stated that Dr. Angel had stated her injury was a gradual \ninjury that would happen because the claimant was a nurse working hard and continually \nnot paying attention to herself. (Tr.p. 34) \n       The  claimant  submitted thirty-three  (33) pages  of  medical  records that  were \nadmitted as claimant’s exhibit one, along with the deposition of Gabriel Don Decker, the \nclaimant’s husband, as claimant’s exhibit two, without  objection.    The  medical  records \nprovided a right ankle radiology report dated December 30, 2021, which provided that no \nacute fracture or dislocation was seen.  An ER note dated January 17, 2022, provided the \nclaimant  presented  with  lower  extremity  pain  and also mentioned  right  hip  pain  while \nwalking.    A  CT  of  the  pelvis  occurred  on  the  same  date which provided  no  fracture  or \ndislocation of the pelvis was seen. (Cl. Ex. 1, PP. 2-7) \n The  claimant  presented  to  Bobbi  Tosh,  APRN, on  February  10,  2022,  and  the \nreport mentioned ankle pain, but stated that the onset of the ankle pain was February 13, \n2022.  The report mentioned a previous cough, and further stated that the pain in her right \nfoot had started a few months prior when standing for a long period of time.  (Cl. Ex. 1, \nPP. 8-12) \n The claimant saw Dr. Jeffery Angel on February 16, 2022, and the medical report \nreferred  to  right  ankle  swelling  and  instability.    The  report  went  on  to  mention  weight \nreduction and stated that the radiology exams were normal.  It also mentioned in regard \nto the right ankle that there was no tenderness to palpation and no swelling and no joint \ninstability.  The assessment provided for chronic pain of the right ankle with posterior tibial \ntendinitis of the right lower extremity. (Cl. Ex. 1, PP. 13-16)  An MRI of the right ankle was \ncompleted  on  February  27,  2022.    Under  impression,  the  report  provided  for a  mild \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n8 \n \nmarrow  signal  at  the  neck  of  the  talus  which  could  represent  a  stress  reaction  but  no \nassociated fracture, mild soft tissue edema, a thickening of the superior medical portion \nof  the  spring  ligament  complex  which  could  represent  chronic  sprain,  and  moderate \ntenosynovitis  of  the  peroneal  brevis  and  longus  tendons.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  PP.  17-18)    The \nclaimant  then  returned  to  Dr.  Angel  on  March  2,  2022.    The  report  provided  that  the \nsymptoms from the last visit had not changed and that the right ankle pain symptoms had \ndeveloped spontaneously.  The pain was gradual in onset and was aggravated walking \nand with strenuous activity.  Under assessment, the report provided for a right contusion \nof the bone and a peroneus brevis sprain on the right. (Cl. Ex. 1, PP. 19-23) \n The claimant then returned to Bobbi Tosh, APRN, on March 28, 2022, and ankle \npain  was  mentioned along  with  the review of other  health  related  issues,  including \nhypertension, acid reflux, asthma, and fibromyalgia, among others. (Cl. Ex. 1. PP. 24-26)  \nThe claimant then returned to Ms. Tosh, APRN, on April 1, 2022, with the report again \nmentioning ankle  pain  with an onset  of  February  13, 2022, but  again mentioning other \nissues. (Cl. Ex. 1, PP. 27-28)  The claimant returned to Ms. Tosh, APRN, on May 3, 2022, \nfor another follow-up.  The report mentioned the assessment of a variety of health-related \nissues, including moderate persistent asthma, ankylosing spondylitis, hypertension, acid \nreflux, seasonal allergic rhinitis, sleep apnea, depressive  disorder, and ankle pain. (Cl. \nEx. 1, PP. 29-33)   \n The  respondents  filed  six (6) exhibits  without  objection.   It was  noted  that  the \nclaimant filed a Form AR- C on August 9, 2022, which stated she was required to be on \nher feet throughout the day to assist the doctor and the patients which caused a gradual \nonset injury. (Resp. Ex. 1)  The First Report of Injury provided that it was prepared on \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n9 \n \nAugust 15, 2022, and stated that it was a gradual onset injury that occurred on November \n15, 2021. (Resp. Ex. 2)  The respondents also submitted wage records. (Resp. Ex. 3) \n The respondents provided additional medical records which were made part of the \nrecord without  objection  as  Respondents  Exhibit  4.    The  first  medical  record  dated \nDecember 1, 2022, provided that the claimant was referred to Dr. Meraj Siddiqui with a \nchief  complaint  of  bilateral  shoulder  pain,  chronic  pain,  neck  pain  and  rib  pain.    No \nmention of ankle pain was made. (Resp. Ex. 4, PP. 2-5)  The respondents records also \nprovided that the claimant presented to Ms. Tosh multiple times from October 15, 2021, \nthrough February 10, 2022. (Resp. Ex. 4, PP. 6-32) \n The records also provided that the claimant presented to Dr. Angel on February \n28, 2022.  The MRI of the right ankle provided the joints aligned normally and no fracture \nwas suggested.  The medial ankle tendons were intact without evidence of tendinosis or \ntear.  There was a circumferential fluid signal that surrounded both the peroneus brevis \nand the peroneus longus tendons, which was likely tenosynovitis.  A partial split tear of \nthe peroneus brevis tendon was also noted at the level of the ankle.  The report further \nprovided that a thickening of the superior medial portion of the spring ligament complex \ncould represent chronic sprain. (Resp. Ex. 4, PP.33-34) \n The claimant presented to the Little Rock Diagnostic Clinic on May 24, 2022, for a \nfollow-up  for  neck  pain  and  migraines.    The  diagnostic description  was  for  cervical \nradiculitis and migraine with aura. The ankle was not mentioned in the report. (Resp. Ex. \n4, PP. 35-40) \n The  respondents  also  introduced  into evidence physical  therapy  records  for  the \nclaimant from July 18, 2022, through August 22, 2022.  The records provided Chelsey \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n10 \n \nHowell, DPT, provided the therapy as a result of a sprain to claimant’s right ankle due to \nthe claimant’s nursing job.  The claimant had been seen earlier in the year but was unable \nto  finish  the  therapy  due  to  taking  care  of  an  ill  family  member.    The  claimant’s \npresentation was consistent with the diagnosis of a right ankle sprain and chronic ankle \nsprain.  The reports provided that the claimant was making progress with her therapy, but \nthen  the  physical  therapist  missed  a  date due to  an  emergency  and  then  the  claimant \nreported  that  she  was  not feeling  well  and was  unable  to attend  the therapy.    The  last \ntherapy record provided that a therapy session was set up for August 30, 2022, and the \nclaimant failed to appear. (Resp. Ex.  4, PP. 41-71) \n The deposition of the claimant was also entered into the record without objection. \nDuring the deposition, the claimant admitted that she had allowed her license to lapse.  \n(Resp. Ex. 5, P. 13)  She testified that she did not recall when the injury occurred but that \nshe first became aware of the ankle injury in the fall of 2021. Her last day of work for the \nrespondent was November 18, 2021, and she thought that the injury to her right ankle \noccurred approximately two (2) months before.  She did not think that she complained to \nanyone at the respondents in regard to her ankle injury. (Resp. Ex 5, PP. 21-22)  She \nwas unable to remember a specific injury in regard to her right ankle. (Resp. Ex. 5, P. 24)  \nShe also admitted that the physical therapy that was ordered helped her. (Resp. Ex. 5, P. \n28)  The claimant also admitted to a cervical fusion in June of 2019, due to degenerative \ndisc disease, which was not related to work.  She also admitted to an incident in January \nof 2022, that involved her son in law where she was pushed off a three-step high porch \nand injured her hip. (Resp. Ex. 5, PP. 47-48)  \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n11 \n \n A copy of the Izard County Sherriff’s report in regard to the incident  was  also \nintroduced into the record without objection which included photographs and mentioned \nan altercation between the claimant and her son-in-law, on January 14, 2022. (Resp. 6) \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \n \nIn regard to the primary issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of \nproving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is entitled to compensation benefits \nfor  the  injury  to her right ankle under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Law.  In \ndetermining  whether  the  claimant has  sustained her burden  of  proof,  the  Commission \nshall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 \n(1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty to translate evidence on all issues before \nit into findings of fact.  Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 \nS.W.2d 179 (1996). \nHere, the claimant asked the Commission to determine if she suffered a gradual \nonset injury to her right ankle on or about November 15, 2021.  Arkansas Code Annotated \n§11-9-102(4)(A)(ii) states, in relevant part, that injuries that occur over a period of time \nand are not the result of a specific incident occurring at an identifiable time and place are \nnot  compensable  unless  they  are  caused  by  rapid  repetitive  motion.  To  be  awarded \nbenefits for a gradual onset injury, the claimant must prove several things: (1) the injury \narose out of and in the course of employment; (2) the injury caused internal or external \nphysical  harm  to  the  body,  which  required  medical  services  or resulted  in  death  or \ndisability; (3) the injury was caused by rapid repetitive motion; (4) the injury was the major \ncause  of  the  disability  or  need  for  treatment;  and  (5)  the  injury  was  established  by \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n12 \n \nobjective  medical  findings.    A.C.A. §11-9-102(4)(D).    Also  see, Malone  v.  Texarkana \nPublic Schools, 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W. 2d 644 (1998) and Hapney v. Rheem Mfg. Co. \n342 Ark. 11, 26 S.W.3d 777 (2000).  Arkansas courts have set out a two-pronged test for \nsuch cases as the matter at bar.  The claimant must engage in tasks that are repetitive \nand  the  repetitive  motion  must  be  rapid.    See Malone, supra.    Arkansas courts  have \nfurther determined that as a threshold issue, the tasks must be repetitive or the rapidity \nissue is not reached.  Certainly, even repetitive tasks and rapid work, taken alone, will not \nsatisfy the definition.  Repetitive tasks must be completed rapidly. It is also noted that a \ncompensable  injury  must  be  established  by  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective \nfindings. A.C.A. §11-9-102(4)(D).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot \ncome under the voluntary control of the patient.  A.C.A. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)  \nIn the present matter, there is no question that the claimant, while working as a \nnurse,  was  required  to  push  patients  (some  who  were  extremely  heavy)  on  multiple \noccasions up a hill from the outpatient center to the ER when the patient would have to \nbe  admitted due  to  complications.    There  is  no  question  that  this  was  a  difficult  task, \nespecially at times when additional staffing would have assisted the situation.  However, \nthe elements of the claimant’s work, however difficult, do not meet the legal standards set \nforth by the Arkansas courts for a finding that the claimant suffered a gradual onset injury.  \nTasks  that  are  repetitive  must  also  be  completed  rapidly  and  this  did  not  occur  in  the \npresent matter before the Commission.  Further there are no specific objective findings \nthat these activities led to the injury of the right ankle.  It is also important to note that the \nclaimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Lambert v.  Gerber  Products \nCo.  14 Ark. App. 88, 684 S.W.2d 842 (1985).  Consequently, there is no alternative but \n\nDECKER – H205903 \n \n13 \n \nto find that the claimant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she \nsuffered a compensable gradual onset injury to her right ankle on November 15, 2021. \nBased upon the available evidence in the case at bar, without giving the benefit of \nthe doubt to either party, there is no alternative but to find that the claimant has failed to \nsatisfy the required burden of proof to show that the claimed right ankle injury is in fact \nwork  related and compensable  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation Act.  \nConsequently, all other issues are moot. If not already paid, the respondents are ordered \nto pay the cost of the transcript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n  \n       ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205803 TRACY D. DECKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT VS. WHITE RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, CARRIER, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 26, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 21 st day of...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:56:51.519Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205903-2024-03-26","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/DECKER_TRACY_H205903_20240326.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}