{"id":"alj-H208296-2024-06-11","awcc_number":"H208296","decision_date":"2024-06-11","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Laura Treadwell","employer_name":"Pope County Judge","title":"TREADWELL VS. POPE COUNTY JUDGE AWCC# H208296 June 11, 2024","outcome":"unknown","outcome_keywords":[],"injury_keywords":["back","thoracic","repetitive","lumbar","strain","sprain","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TREADWELL_LAURA_H208296_20240611.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TREADWELL_LAURA_H208296_20240611.pdf","text_length":27746,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H208296 \n \nLAURA TREADWELL, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nPOPE COUNTY JUDGE, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nAAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED JUNE 11, 2024 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Russellville, Pope \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by DANIEL E. WREN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by JASON M. RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On March 14, 2024, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Russellville, \nArkansas. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on January 22, 2024, and a Pre-hearing \nOrder was filed on January 23, 2024. A copy of the Pre-hearing Order has been marked \nCommission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The relationship of employee-employer-carrier existed between the parties on April 15, \n2022. \n 3. The claimant sustained a compensable injury to her back on or about April 15, 2022. \n 4. The claimant’s weekly compensation rates will be determined at a later date. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-2- \n 1. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment in the form of an FCE as \nrecommended by Dr. Beavers, or whether Claimant is entitled to referral from Dr. Beavers to Dr. \nBrad Thomas or a similar neurosurgeon. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“Dr. Beavers has ordered a functional capacity exam for the \nClaimant which the Respondents refuse to approve.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“All appropriate benefits have been paid. The claimant has been \nreleased at MMI with a 0% impairment rating. An FCE is not \nmedical treatment, nor is it necessary. The respondents have paid \nfor all reasonable and necessary medical treatment and the \nrequested treatment is not reasonable or necessary.” \n \n The claimant in this matter is a 46-year-old female who worked for the respondent on \nApril 15, 2022, when she sustained a compensable back injury. At that time the claimant was \nemployed as a paramedic for the respondent. On direct examination the claimant described the \nApril 15, 2022, incident in which she sustained a compensable back injury as follows: \nQ All right. But just for a little bit of background for the \nJudge, a two-minute summary of how you got hurt. \n \nA Me and my female partner were on a call in Hector about a \n275-pound man with breathing problems that needed to be \ntransported. When we put him on our cot, out cots are manual lift. \nThey did not have power cots. When we picked the cot up, my \npartner did not release the handle on the cot. It did not lock the legs \nin place and when the weight was put back down, the cot slammed \nto the ground and I was still holding it. I bent at the waist. \n \nQ And, essentially, you were touching your toes with your \nhands? \n \nA My head was close to my toes. \n \nQ Okay. Did you feel immediate pain? \n \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-3- \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ All right. Did you seek treatment, file a workers’ comp \nclaim, let your supervisor know and get treatment for that claim? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \n The claimant began to see Dr. Edward Saer at Ortho Arkansas in Little Rock on \nSeptember 9, 2022. Dr. Saer provided the claimant with conservative medical treatment for her \ncompensable back injury until November 29, 2022, when he released her at MMI and found no \npermanent impairment associated with her compensable injury. Following is a portion of Dr. \nSaer’s November 29, 2022, medical record: \nAssessment/Plan \n \nMs. Treadwell is back in follow-up. She is an EMT and had a \nwork-related injury on April 15, 2022 lifting a patient on a cot. She \nhas had pain in her lower back as well as tightness in the lower \nthoracic area since then. She continues to complain of the tightness \nin her back especially if she overdoes things. She is taking a \nFlexen, usually in the afternoon, although not every day. She gets \nrelief if she takes the Flexeril and lies down to rest. She has \navoided doing any heavy lifting and continues to work on a light-\nduty basis. \nShe continues to take naproxen twice daily. She is using OTC \nnaproxen now. She is continue with some exercising and stretching \nthat she learned in physical therapy. \nExam: \nShe gets up and down easily and walks normally. She has good \nforward pending and good extension although extension is a little \nuncomfortable. Forward bending is her position of comfort. There \nis no muscle spasm. She has no localized tenderness. \nHer prior imaging did not show any significant focal abnormalities \nno new x-rays were obtained today. \nAssessment: \nI had recommended an FCE but that was not approved. Therefore I \nthink she should continue with light duty level work with a lifting \nlimit of 25 pounds, and no repetitive bending twisting or lifting. \nThese restrictions should be considered permanent. \nShe is at MMI. There is no permanent impairment associated with \nthis injury. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-4- \n \nDr. Saer also authored a letter to the respondent regarding the claimant’s medical treatment on \nNovember 29, 2022. The body of that letter follows: \nI saw Laura Treadwell in the office today. She has been treated for \nback pain following an injury at work. As far as I can determine \nshe had a lumbar strain or sprain. \n \nTreatment was based on the recent injury, not on pre-existing \nchanges. There are no objective findings to warrant permanent \nimpairment rating. Work restrictions are based primarily on the \ninjury, not any pre-existing conditions. \n \nAs far as I can tell, this was an acute injury, although I did not see \nher until 3 months after the date of injury. \n \nI do not think any further treatment is needed at this time. \n \n After being released by Dr. Saer, the claimant admittedly began unauthorized treatment \nfor her compensable back injury with her PCP, Dr. Homer Beavers at Millard Henry Clinic, \nunder her regular healthcare insurance. Dr. Beavers referred the claimant to Dr. Brad Thomas of \nLittle Rock Neurosurgery. \n On March 15, 2023, the claimant was seen by Dr. Thomas. Following is a portion of that \nvisit note: \nHPI: This is a 45 year old female who is being seen for a chief \ncomplaint of chronic low back pain involving the spine. Context: \nan injury at work on 4/15/2022. Details: She was working as a \nparamedic. She and her partner were lifting a manual cot with a \n275+ pound man on it. She was lifting the head. Her partner started \nto put the legs down but did not release the lock mechanism, so the \ncot slammed to the ground. She was still holding the cot and \nbasically folded in half. She had an immediate pain in her low back \nand got sick on the scene. She reported it to her employer who sent \nher to urgent care where she got x-rays. They sent her home with a \nmuscle relaxer and an anti-inflammatory. She was off work until \nshe could follow up with occupational medicine. When she saw \nthem they had her start PT. About a week into PT they started \nadding exercises that made her pain worse and she had to stop PT. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-5- \nEventually they ordered an MRI. She saw Dr. Saer who put her on \na permanent 35 pound restriction. He said there was a disc \nherniation and had her continue PT. She felt like she could not \nhold herself up. She started having weakness in her thighs. Dr. \nSaer ordered a myelogram, but work comp refused it. He tried to \norder it again and it was refused again. The patient then found out \nthat Dr. Saer was a deacon and friends with her boss. Once she \nfound that out she felt like things changed. He ordered an FCE, but \nwork comp refused it. In the meantime she was working light duty \nin the courthouse. In December she got a letter from the judge \nstating he was terminating her position because she was on a 35 \npound lift restriction and could no longer perform the duties of her \njob. Then she got a letter from work comp telling her she should \nget representation. She did not have any follow ups scheduled with \nDr. Saer. She got one check from worker’s comp. In January she \nbent over to look at a label on a shelf in CVS and her left leg went \nnumb. She fell into the shelf. She went home and sat down. Later \nthat night she noticed her rumba was not working properly and she \nbent over to check it out. She had the same symptoms again at that \ntime. She contacted her lawyer who told her to see her PCP, so she \nsaw Dr. Beavers and he referred her to us. A week after she started \nhaving symptoms in January she had an episode of urinary \nincontinence. This has happened several times, but is not \nconsistent. It seems to happen on days when her back pain is at its \nworst. She has been transferred by the county and is now working \nat the Assessor’s office where she makes significantly less. She \nreports the following pertinent positives: urinary incontinence. \n \n*** \nImpression/Plan: \n1. Low back Pain (new Dx) \n \nLocated on the lumbar spine \nAssociated diagnoses: Intervertebral Disc Degeneration, Lumbar, \nLeg Pain, and Numbness \n \nPlan: Other \nShe has been having low back pain since an injury at work in April \nof 2022. She started having symptoms again in January that she \nbelieves is related to her work injury. She and her lawyer need to \nget the notes from Dr. Saer then contact worker’s comp and tell \nthem she wants to re-open her case and change physicians. We are \ngoing to order a new MRI and have her follow up. \n \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-6- \nThere is a worker’s comp rep present in clinic today, but since this \nis not technically a worker’s comp visit, we did not speak with the \nrep. The rep was not in the room with the patient during the visit. \n \nPlan: Order MRI – Spine \nProtocol – Lumbar – Spine – Lumbar MRI WC, contrast (CPT: \n72149) \nIndication: Low Back Pain – M54.50, M51.36, M79.605, R20.0 \n \n The claimant was again seen by Dr. Thomas on April 7, 2023. Following is a portion of \nthat visit note: \nHPI: This is a 45 year old female who is following up for Low \nBack Pain (low back pain, unspecified) on the lumbar spine. She \nwas seen on March 15, 2023, at which time MRI Interpretation \nLumbar Spine was performed and \n \nShe has been having low back pain since an injury at work in April \nof 2022. She started having symptoms again in January that she \nbelieves is related to her work injury. She and her lawyer need to \nget the notes from Dr. Saer then contact worker’s comp and tell \nthem she wants to re-open her case and change physicians. We are \ngoing to order a new MRI and have her follow up. \n \nThere was a worker’s comp rep present in clinic today, but since \nthis is not technically a worker’s comp visit, we did not speak with \nthe rep. The rep was not in the room with the patient during the \nvisit. \n \nOrder MRI – Spine was performed. \n \nThe patient presents for imaging results and she is doing about the \nsame with back pain, she can manage as long as she doesn’t do any \nreal activity. She is unsure if workers comp has been reopened but \nthis is all going on from work accident in April 2022. \n \n*** \nTests \nMRI Interpretation Lumbar Spine \n \nMRI Data: \nDate: 04/07/2023 MRI L-spine without gadolinium \n \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-7- \nMRI of the lumbar spine was obtained, demonstrating the \nfollowing findings: mild degenerative changes, no sig canal \nstenosis or impingement. \n \nImpression/Plan: \n1. Low Back Pain \n \nLocated on the lumbar spine \nAssociated diagnoses: Intervertebral Disc Degeneration, Lumbar, \nLeg Pain, and Numbness \n \nPlan: Other \nThere is no surgery recommended for her low back, she does still \nhave numbness in her left leg with certain positions. She has been \navoiding those positions, we are going to get EMG/NCV of the left \nand f/u after. We did discuss pain management and trying some of \ntheir treatments to help with her pain. We will get the EMG and \nthen can discuss further options. \n \nPlan: Consult \nI counseled the patient regarding the following need to see the \nspecialist: \nOther Details: Refer to pain management for eval/treat \nWe discussed the need to see another medical specialist to assist in \nthe current diagnosis and treatment. The patient was advised to call \nthe office of the specialist to set up an appointment for \nconsultation. Delay in this may lead to poor outcomes. \n \n The claimant was again seen by Dr. Thomas on June 7, 2023. Following is a portion of \nthat visit note: \nHPI: This is a 45 year old female who is following up for Low \nBack Pain (low back pain, unspecified) on the lumbar spine. She \nwas seen on April 27, 2023, at which time MRI Interpretation \nLumbar Spine was performed and \n \nThere is no surgery recommended for her low back, she does still \nhave numbness in her left leg with certain positions. She has been \navoiding those positions, we are going to get EMC/NCV of the left \nand f/u after. We did discuss pain management and trying some of \ntheir treatments to help with her pain. We will get the EMG and \nthen can discuss further options. \n \nConsult was performed. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-8- \n \nOrder EMG/NCV was performed. \n \nThe patient presents for EMG results and she has left leg \nnumbness. This is related to a work accident April 2022 as a \nparamedic. Her symptoms are weakness and pain in the low back \nmore on the left, since January she will have incontinence and the \nleft foot/leg numbness with increased activity. \n \n*** \nImpression/Plan: \n1. Low Back Pain \n \nLocated on the lumbar spine \nAssociated diagnoses: Intervertebral Disc Degenerations, Lumbar, \nLeg Pain, and Numbness. \n \nPlan: Other \nThere is no surgery recommended for her low back based on the \nMRI and the EMG. She does have some mild left radicular \nneuropathy. She is unable to do her job as a paramedic and is doing \na light duty job. She will continue her current work status. She is a \nyear out from the work accident and we do feel her continued \nsymptoms are related to the work accident. We are going to get an \nFCE to evaluate her long term work status. We will order this and \nf/u after to determine her impairment rating. \n \nPlan: Order Tests. \nLabs: \n46634-2 – Functional capacity assessment (RFC) \n \n On September 13, 2023, the claimant requested a change of physician from the \nCommission to Dr. Beavers. That change of physician was granted by the Commission on \nSeptember 22, 2023. \nOn October 5, 2023, the claimant returned to see her PCP, Dr. Beavers. Following is a \nportion of the medical records from that visit: \nHPI \nLaura presents today from the standpoint to address workman’s \ncomp issues. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-9- \nShe was injured in April of 2022 in a lifting incident while \nworking as an EMT. She presents in years previous with left hip \npain, and there was some question of whether her symptoms were \nradicular or not. At that time she did undergo an MRI and in the \nbody of the interpretation of that MRI was noted that at L4-5 she \nhad a small right sided disc protrusion. \nThe ligamentous pain that she was experiencing in her left hip at \nthat time resolved. \nFrom 2018 to 2022 I have not had any visits with her where there \nwas any complaint of back pain. \n \nAssessment/Plan \n1. Backache \nVariable in intensity of daily...she has daily pain and takes nsaids \ndaily but still has pain related as a 3-6/10...she is no longer able to \ndo her prior job as an EMT that was significantly physically \ndemanding...she now is working in the court house as a clerical \nposition which obviously does not pay as well as her EMT \nposition...since the injury occurred on the job in her EMT position \nshe is seeing compensation through workmans compensation...she \nneeds to have a work physical capacity evaluation...M54.9: \nDorsalgia, unspecified. \n \n On March 1, 2024, Dr. Beavers authored a letter regarding the claimant. Following is the \nbody of that letter: \nI referred Laura Treadwell to Dr. Brad Thomas on February 22, \n2023 for an evaluation of ongoing radicular pain into her left lower \nextremity. Dr. Brad Thomas, a board certified neurosurgeon \nordered an EMG nerve conduction velocity that revealed that she \nhad left proximal sciatic neuropathy. Ms. Treadwell was being \nseen both by me and Dr. Thomas under her health insurance. Her \nhealth insurance would not pay for her continued treatment \nrecommended by Dr. Thomas. I do feel that referral to Dr. Thomas \nfor a radicular type pain with an abnormal MRI was appropriate. \nFurther based upon EMG nerve conduction results I continue to \nbelieve that Ms. Treadwell needs to be able to continue her \ntreatment with Dr. Thomas and/or an equally qualified \nneurosurgeon/orthopedic spine specialist. \n \nThe claimant has asked the Commission to determine whether she is entitled to additional \nmedical treatment in the form of an FCE as recommended by Dr. Beavers, or whether the \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-10- \nclaimant is entitled to the referral from Dr. Beavers to Dr. Brad Thomas, or a similar \nneurosurgeon. The claimant has the burden of proving the additional medical treatment she has \nrequested is reasonable and necessary medical treatment. Employers must promptly provide \nmedical services which are reasonably necessary in connection with the compensable injuries, \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a). However, injured employees have the burden of proving by a \npreponderance of the evidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary. Patchell v. Wal-\nMart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004). What constitutes reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment is a fact question for the Commission, and the resolution of this \nissue depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence. Gansky v. Hi-Tech Engineering, 325 Ark. \n163, 924 S.W.2d 790 (1996). \n The claimant in this matter does continue to work for the respondent but works in a light \nduty, desk type position. Given the permanent restrictions placed on her by Dr. Saer after the \nrespondent refused to pay for an FCE, she was unable to return to work in her former profession \nas a paramedic. “I had recommended an FCE but that was not approved. Therefore I think she \nshould continue with light duty level work with a lifting limit of 25 pounds, and no repetitive \nbending, twisting or lifting. These restrictions should be considered permanent.” From Dr. Saer’s \nmedical records, it is clear that he placed those restrictions himself without the benefit of an FCE \nbecause the respondent denied the FCE that he had recommended. \n The claimant is clearly frustrated by her inability to receive an FCE. Her testimony \nduring cross examination by the respondent attorney shows that frustration as follows: \nQ [BY MR. RYBURN]: And you were released, as you \ntestified earlier, with permanent restrictions; correct? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-11- \nQ Do you believe that you can do more than those \nrestrictions? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ Do you believe that you can do – that those restrictions \nshould be removed? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ What do you think an FCE will accomplish, then? \n \nA My goal is to be compensated for the wage loss that I have \nincurred because of a documented work comp injury. \n \nQ So in fact, you disagree with that 0 percent and the FCE is \nsimply a way to get a different rating? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Okay. You understand that Dr. Thomas stated that you – \nthat is on Page 33 of your Exhibit – suffered from intervertebral \ndisc degeneration? \n \nA Sure. \n \nQ Okay. And you did have a prior low back workers’ comp \ninjury before this one; correct? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Do you know what degeneration means? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Do you understand that my client accepted your claim as an \naggression of that preexisting condition? \n \nA No, sir. \n \nQ Do you understand what an FCE is? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Okay. And you understand that it is not medical treatment? \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-12- \n \n MR. WREN: Objection. Your Honor. \n \n THE COURT: Sustained. I will decide. \n \nQ [BY MR. RYBURN]: Can you explain your understanding \nof an FCE. \n \nA To see what I am capable of doing. \n \nQ Okay. And you are currently working? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And your job falls under your permanent restrictions? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And you don’t think that you can do anything above those \nrestrictions? \n \nA Not full time, no, sir. \n \nQ So if you had an FCE and they said that you could do more \nthan those restrictions, would you return to a heavier duty job? \n \nA I can’t make that decision at this moment. \n \nQ Okay. But it is your testimony and you told me in your \ndeposition that you don’t think you can do anything above those \nrestrictions; correct? \n \nA There is a lot of things I am not able to do, yes, sir. \n \nQ So you agree with the restrictions, but not the impairment \nrating? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And Dr. Thomas has not given you an impairment rating; \ncorrect? \n \nA Not that I am aware of. \n \n It is certain that the claimant has a desire to seek financial compensation for her \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-13- \ncompensable back injury, as I am certain most every injured worker does. That desire, however, \ndoes not change the fact that the respondent’s chosen orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Saer; the \nclaimant’s PCP, Dr. Beaver; and a neurosurgeon, Dr. Thomas, who has treated the claimant, \nhave all recommended an FCE that the respondent has refused to authorize. \n In Gansky, supra, the Supreme Court of Arkansas dealt with a very similar case. The \nclaimant in that matter had some pre-existing back issues, but suffered a compensable injury, as \nis the case at hand. The ALJ had ordered the respondent to provide the FCE that was \nrecommended by his treating physician but was reversed by the Full Commission, which found \nthe FCE was not reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the claimant’s compensable \ninjury. The Arkansas Court of Appeals in a 3-3 decision upheld the Full Commission’s decision. \nThe Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. In the Gansky case the doctor ordered an \nFCE but refrained from releasing him until it was complete. The respondent then refused to pay \nfor the FCE and a final evaluation by the doctor, who was a neurosurgeon, was never made. The \nCourt believed the Full Commission relied upon physical therapist’s reports as opposed to those \nof the doctor. The Court stated, “Under these circumstances when the treating neurosurgeon has \nprescribed a functional capacity assessment and that was not done because Hi-Tech (the \nrespondent) would not pay for it, we cannot agree with the Commission that additional medical \ntreatment was not reasonable, necessary, or that the healing period had ended. We conclude that \nfair-minded persons, viewing the same evidence, could not decide otherwise.” \n In the present case there are no physical therapist reports, but Dr. Saer, an orthopedic \nsurgeon, ordered an FCE that was refused by the respondent. Then after that refusal, he placed \nrestrictions and released the claimant at MMI. Dr. Beavers, the claimant’s PCP, ordered an FCE \nafter the claimant was released by Dr. Saer. Finally, on June 7, 2023, Dr. Thomas, a \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-14- \nneurosurgeon who has treated the claimant, recommended an FCE. Despite all three \nrecommendations, the respondent has refused to provide the FCE. In fact, the respondent makes \nclear in this hearing transcript that it does not believe an FCE is even medical treatment. \nQ Ms. Treadwell, so far both neurosurgeons that have seen \nyou have said that you do not need surgery. Isn’t that true? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ So no one plans to do any surgery or treatment at this time; \nis that correct? \n \nA Not at this time. \n \nQ And you don’t know of any treatment, medical treatment \nthat you need at this time beyond the FCE? \n \nA I am not aware of any. \n \n MR. RYBURN: Okay. And just for the record, I am not \nconceding that an FCE is medical treatment. \n \nCertainly, the Court in Gansky believed an FCE to be medical treatment. Here we have three \nmedical providers, all doctors, all recommending an FCE for the claimant; two of which \nspecialize in the type of compensable back injury the claimant has suffered. \n As previously stated, the Gansky case is similar to this case but admittedly there are \ndifferences, as in all cases. I find that the claimant is able to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that the FCE ordered by Dr. Saer, Dr. Beavers, and Dr. Thomas is reasonable and \nnecessary medical treatment for the claimant’s compensable back injury. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe witness and to observe her demeanor, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-15- \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1. The stipulations agreed to by the parties at the pre-hearing conference conducted on \nJanuary 22, 2024, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed January 23, 2024, are hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to \nadditional medical treatment in the form of an FCE. \n ORDER \nThe respondents in this matter shall pay for the costs associated with the FCE that has \nbeen recommended by the claimant’s current treating physician through a change of physician, \nDr. Beavers. \nIf they have not already done so, the respondents are directed to pay the court reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n ____________________________ \n HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H208296 LAURA TREADWELL, Employee CLAIMANT POPE COUNTY JUDGE, Employer RESPONDENT AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 11, 2024 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. Clai...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:52:40.091Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208296-2024-06-11","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TREADWELL_LAURA_H208296_20240611.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}