{"id":"alj-H208296-2025-07-22","awcc_number":"H208296","decision_date":"2025-07-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Laura Treadwell","employer_name":"Pope County Judge","title":"TREADWELL VS. POPE COUNTY JUDGE AWCC# H208296 July 22, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:5"],"injury_keywords":["back","repetitive","thoracic","lumbar","strain","sprain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TREADWELL_LAURA_H208296_20250722.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TREADWELL_LAURA_H208296_20250722.pdf","text_length":30812,"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, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n \n OPINION FILED JULY 22, 2025 \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 April  24,  2025,  the  above  captioned  claim  came  on  for  a  hearing  at Russellville, \nArkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on February  24,  2025,  and  a  Pre-hearing \nOrder  was  filed  on February  25,  2025.      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 \n15, 2022. \n 3. The claimant sustained a compensable injury to her back on or about April 15, 2022. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-2- \n 4. The claimant was earning sufficient wages to entitle her to compensation at the weekly \nrates  of  $790.00  for  temporary  total  disability  benefits  and  $593.00  for  permanent  partial \ndisability benefits. \n 5. All prior opinions are res judicata and the law of the case. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1. Whether Claimant is entitled to payment of 5% impairment rating issued by Dr. Brad \nThomas. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to wage loss. \n 3. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“On  November  29,  2023,  Dr.  Saer  released  the  Claimant  at  MMI \nand  recommended  an  FCE,  but  the  test  was  denied  by  Workers \nCompensation.  He  released  her  with  light  duty  level  work  with  a \nlifting  limit  of  25  lbs.  and  no  repetitive  bending,  twisting,  or \nlifting. Restrictions should be considered permanent. \n \nOn February 7, 2023, Claimant sought treatment  for injury on her \nown insurance. Dr. Beavers referred Claimant to Dr. Brad Thomas. \n \nOn  March  15,  2023,  Dr.  Brad  Thomas  ordered  an  MRI  and  on \nApril 7, 2023 Dr. Thomas ordered an EMG and referred her to pain \nmanagement. \n \nOn  April  24,  2023,  Dr.  Thomas  opined  that  no  surgery  was \nrecommended  based  on  the  MRI  and  EMG.  He  also  opined  that \nClaimant  is  unable  to  do  her  current  job  as  a  paramedic  and  is \ndoing a light duty job. Claimant will continue current work status. \nI  feel  her  symptoms  are  related  to  the  work  accident.  Dr.  Thomas \nstated  that  we  are  going  to  get  an  FCE  to  evaluate  her  long-term \nwork status. \n \nOn May 19, 2023, the EMG/NCV test was performed. \n \nOn  July  8,  2024,  the  FCE  test  was  performed  with  reliable  and \nconsistent measures. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-3- \n \nOn  November  20,  2024,  Dr.  Thomas  issued  Claimant  a  5% \nimpairment rating. \n \nSince  the  accident,  the  Claimant  has  been  unable  to  return  to  her \njob  as  a  paramedic.  The  Claimant  is  entitled  to  her  impairment \nrating and a wage loss claim.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“This  is  an  accepted  claim  and  all  appropriate  benefits  have  been \npaid.  Dr.  Saer  released  the  claimant  with  a  0%  on  11/29/22.  The \nclaimant suffers from degenerative issues. The 5% by Dr. Thomas \nis  invalid  as  the  work  in  injury  was  not  the  major  cause.  The \nclaimant is not entitled to wage loss.” \n \n The claimant in this matter is a 47-year-old female who suffered a compensable injury to \nher back on April 15, 2022. The claimant was employed by the respondent as an EMT paramedic \nfrom 2003-2022, including the date of her compensable back injury. During testimony on direct \nexamination the claimant described her job duties, which in addition to providing medical care to \npatients, included  assessing  patients  and  bringing  them  back  to  an  ambulance.  It  was  the \nclaimant’s testimony that sometimes this could be difficult due to the area or terrain the patient \nwas located in, and sometimes it could be quite simple when a flat area was present to work in. \nThe claimant’s work as an EMT paramedic also required lifting of individuals of all sizes which \ncould also be difficult with larger patients.  \n The  claimant  on  direct  examination  described  the  April  15,  2022,  incident  in  which  she \nsustained a compensable back injury as follows: \nQ And again, just a thumbnail sketch, back on  April the 22\nnd\n \n– April the 15\nth\n, I’m sorry, tax day, 2022; what happened? They’ve \nagreed on this but just so the judge has some – \n \nA A respiratory stress in Hector, (indiscernible) come out. We \nwent in the house. The guy was short of breath. My partner and the \nfirst responder got the cot in the door, we got him on it. When we \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-4- \nwent  to  lift  him,  my  partner  failed  to  lock  the  legs  which  resulted \nfrom  a  full  standing  position  of  the  cot  to  the  ground  in  about  a \nsplit second, and I was still holding it. \n \nQ When  the  cot  was  up,  before  the – it – the  cot  collapsed \ndown to the ground? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Where were your hands hung in relationship to your waist? \n \nA Right here. \n \nQ Right  at  the  belt – maybe  right  at  the  belt  line,  maybe  a \nlittle bit above? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And  when  the  cot  went  all  the  way  to  the  ground,  how  far \nwere your hands from your feet? \n \nA There were touching my boots. \n \nQ Okay, and did you have any pain? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \n On  direct  examination  the  claimant  described  medical  treatment  and  restrictions  she \nreceived after her April 15, 2022, compensable back injury as follows: \nQ Have  you  undergone  a  bunch  of  different  treatment  from \ndifferent doctors? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ At some point did you use your own insurance and see Dr. \nThomas? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Did he do a nerve conduction test on you? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-5- \nQ Did he recommend a functional capacity exam? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Even  before  that,  when  you  were  being  treated  by  the \northopedic provided by workers’ comp, did they put restrictions on \nyou? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And  what  were  those  restrictions,  did  it  keep  you  from \nworking as a paramedic? \n \nA Yes, sir. I had lifting instructions/restrictions, and I don’t \nremember the exact – it was 25 pounds. \n \nQ But certainly way less than what you – \n \nA Way less – \n \nQ -- than what you would have to do as a paramedic? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ To give the county credit, did they find you a new job? \n \nA Yes, they did. \n \nQ And  what  is  that  job  and  then  do  you  still  have  the  same \njob? \n \nA Yes, sir. I transferred to the assessor’s office here in the \ncourthouse. \n \nQ And is that a sedentary job? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Were any other jobs offered to you in the county? \n \nA No, sir. \n \n On November 29, 2022, the claimant was seen by Dr. Edward Saer at Ortho Arkansas in \nLittle Rock. Following is a portion of that medical record: \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-6- \nSubjective: \nLaura  Treadwell  is  a  45  year  old  Female  who  presents  to  discuss \nconcerns  about  their  Low  Back  Pain,  Mid  Back  Pain.  Since  their \nlast visit, patient report feeling Same. \n \n*** \nAssessment/Plan \nMs.  Treadwell  is  back  in  follow-up.  She  is  an  EMT  and  had  a \nwork-related injury on April 25, 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 \nFlexeril, 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  is  continuing  to  work  on  a \nlight-duty 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  bending  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 have recommended an FCE but that was not approved. Therefore \nI  think  she  should  continue  with  light  duty  level  work,  with  a \nlifting  limit  of  25  pounds,  and  no  repetitive  bending  twisting  or \nlifting. These restrictions should be considered permanent. \nShe is at MMI. There is no permanent impairment associated with \nthis injury. \n \nOn that same day, Dr. Saer authored a letter to the respondent regarding the claimant. Following \nis the body of that letter: \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 \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-7- \nimpairment rating. Work restricts are based primarily on the injury, \nnot 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 the claimant was found at maximum medical improvement by Dr. Saer, she began \nto  see  Dr.  Brad  Thomas  at  Little  Rock  Neurosurgery  Clinic.  Dr.  Thomas  ordered  a  nerve \nconduction study of the claimant’s lower extremities. Following is the Impression section of that \ndiagnostic report: \nIMPRESSION: \nMild  left  proximal  sciatic  neuropathy;  peroneal  greater  than  post \ntibial division. \n \n As  previously  noted,  Dr.  Saer  had  ordered  an  FCE  for  the  claimant  but  that  was  not \napproved by the respondent. Dr. Thomas also ordered an FCE which the claimant underwent on \nJuly  8,  2024.  That  FCE  was  performed  by  Casey  Garretson,  an  occupational  therapist  and \nCharles  Davidson,  a  certified  senior  disability  analyst  from  Functional  Testing  Centers. The \nreport from the claimant’s FCE is found at Claimant’s Exhibit 1, pages 3-20  and  indicates  that \nthe claimant gave a reliable effort “with 50 of 50 consistency measures within expected limits.” \nThe  report  also  indicated  that  the  claimant  demonstrated  the  ability  to  perform  work  in  the \nmedium classification, giving her the ability to lift 50 lbs. occasionally. \n The claimant was seen by Dr. Thomas on August 15, 2024. Following is a portion of the \nmedical report from that visit: \nChief Complaint: F/U Low Back Pain evaluated on June 7, 2023 \n \nHPI:  This  is  a  47  year  old  female  who  is  following  up  for  Low \nBack  Pain  (Low  back  pain,  unspecified)  on  the  lumbar  spine.  She \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-8- \nwas  seen  on  June  7,  2023,  at  which  time  MRI  interpretation \nLumbar Spine was performed and \n \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  a \nFCE to evaluate her long term work status. We will order this and \nf/u after to determine her impairment rating. \n \nEMG  Result  Review  was  performed  and  The  following  labs  were \nordered: Functional capacity assessment (RFC). \n \nThe  patient  presents  for  further  evaluation  and  management  and \nthe   FCE   shows   she   gave   reliable   effort   with   a   medium \nclassification.  She  works  in  the  assessor’s  office  because  she \ncouldn’t go back to her job at EMS as a paramedic. She will not be \nable  to  go  back  to  working  as  a  paramedic  due  to  the  lifting \nrequirements.   We   recommend   disability   from   the   paramedic \nposition based on the lifting restrictions. \n \n*** \nTests \nMRI Interpretation Lumbar Spine \nMRI Data: \nDate: 04/04/2023 MRI L-spine without gadolinium \n \nMRI   of   the   lumbar   spine   was   obtained,   demonstrating   the \nfollowing   findings:   mild   degenerative   changes,   no   sig   canal \nstenosis or impingement. \n \nEMG Result Review \nStudy Data: \nOther Result Details: Mild left neuropathy. \n \nImpression/Plan: \nLow Back Pain \nLow back pain, unspecified  \nLocated on the lumbar spine. \nAssociated  diagnosis:  Intervertebral  Disc  Degeneration,  Lumbar, \nLeg pain, and Numbness \n \nPlan: Other. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-9- \nShe  has  done  the  FCE  testing  and  she  should  not  be  a  paramedic \ndue to her lifting requirements being lowered. She is in a job now \nthat  makes  less  and  is  seeking  compensation  from  her  paramedic \njob.  We  will  send  a  copy  to  the  patient  and  Dr.  Homer  Beavers \nPCP and Miller Henry Clinic in Russellville. \n \n On November 20, 2024, Dr. Thomas authored a letter regarding the claimant. Following \nis the body of that letter: \nMs. Treadwell is a patient of mine. I last saw her on 08/15/2024. I \nam going to place her with an impairment rating based on that date \nwhich  is  the  last  time  I  saw  her.  This  will  give  her  a  5% \nimpairment  rating  for  unoperated  and  continued  lower  back  pain \nafter her work injury. \n \n On  April  14,  2025,  the  claimant’s  attorney  authored  a  letter  to  Dr.  Thomas  for \nclarification  about  the  letter  regarding  the  claimant  dated  November  20,  2024.  Following  is  the \nbody of that letter: \nOn  November  20,  2024,  we  received  the  attached  letter  from  you \nstating   that   you   gave   her   an   impairment   rating   of   5%   for \nunoperated continued lower back pain after her work injury. \n \nIn  order  to  clarify  the  above  impairment  rating  given,  could  you \nplease  state  that  the  impairment  rating  given  to  Laura  Treadwell \nwas based upon the guides to the evaluation of permanent injuries \n4\nth\n edition. \n \nOn April 16, 2025, Dr. Thomas indicated “Yes” to the above question posed by the claimant’s \nattorney. \n The  claimant  has  asked  the  Commission  to  determine  whether  she  is  entitled  to  the  5% \nimpairment rating issued by Dr. Brad Thomas. \nPermanent impairment, which is usually a medical condition, is any permanent functional \nor  anatomical  loss  remaining  after  the  healing  period  has  been  reached.   Ouachita  Marine  v. \nMorrison, 246 Ark. 882, 440 S.W.2d 216 (1969).  Also, in Wilson & Co. v. Christman, 244 Ark. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-10- \n132, 424 S.W.2d 863 (1968), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that physical functional loss may \nbest   be   measured   through   physical   examination   by   competent   medical   specialists.   The \nCommission must first evaluate the medical evidence and determine if the permanent impairment \nis  supported  by  objective  and  measurable  findings.   Reader  v.  Rheem  Mfg.  Co.,  38  Ark.  App. \n248, 832 S.W.2d 505 (1992).  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704(c)(ii)(B) states that any determination \nof the existence or extent of physical impairment shall be supported by objective and measurable \nphysical  or  mental  findings.    In  addition,  permanent  benefits  may  only  be  awarded  upon  a \ndetermination  that  the  compensable  injury  was  the  major  cause  of  the  impairment,  Ark.  Code \nAnn. §11-9-102(4)(F)(ii). \n Dr.  Saer  requested  that  the  claimant  undergo  an  FCE;  however,  that  FCE  was  not \napproved  by  the  respondents.  In  a  November  29,  2022,  medical  record  he  discusses the \ndisapproval  of  that  FCE  and  places  work  restrictions  on  the  claimant  of  25  lbs.  lifting  and  no \nrepetitive  bending,  twisting  or  lifting.  Dr.  Saer  also  declares the  claimant  to  be  at  maximum \nmedical improvement at that time.  \n The claimant began to see Dr. Thomas after she was released by Dr. Saer in May of 2023. \nThe claimant   underwent   a   nerve   conduction   study   of   the   lower   extremities   at   the \nrecommendation of Dr. Thomas which showed “mild left proximal sciatic neuropathy; peroneal \ngreater than post tibial division.” \n The claimant requested and received a hearing on the issue on her entitlement to an FCE. \nThat  hearing  was  conducted  by  this  administrative  law  judge  on  March  14,  2024.  An  Opinion \ngranting the claimant’s request for an FCE was filed on June 11, 2024. On July 8, 2024, the \nclaimant   underwent   an   FCE   as   previously   discussed   which   placed   her   in   the   medium \nclassification of work. On November 20, 2024, Dr. Thomas gave the claimant a 5% whole body \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-11- \nimpairment  rating  and  affirmed  on  April  14,  2025,  that  the  rating  was  done  based  upon  the \nAmerican Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 4\nth\n Edition.  \n After a review of the medical records submitted in this matter along with the claimant’s \ntestimony, I agree that the claimant is entitled to a 5% whole body impairment rating due to her \nApril  15,  2022,  compensable  back  injury.  The  respondent  contends  that  Dr.  Saer’s  0% \nimpairment rating on November 29, 2022, is correct and that Dr. Thomas’ 5% whole body rating \nis invalid because the work injury was not the major cause of that rating. As to Dr. Saer’s 0% \nrating, Dr. Saer attempted to have more information regarding the claimant’s condition via an \nFCE. That FCE was denied by the respondent until a hearing determined that she was entitled to \nan  FCE.  Dr.  Thomas  had  the  benefit  of  a  nerve  conduction  study  and an FCE  in  which  the \nclaimant  put  forth  a  reliable  effort  with  50  of  50  consistency  measures  within  expected  limits. \nDr. Thomas was in the better position to consider an impairment rating for the claimant as he had \nmore information.  \n As to the issue of major cause, it is clear that the claimant has previously had a workers’ \ncompensation claim regarding her back. No documentary evidence was put forth by either party \nto  date  that claim, and  the  claimant  was  unable  to  recall  when  the  incident  occurred.  Some \nmedical records dated prior to the claimant’s April 15, 2022, compensable back injury have been \nintroduced  into  evidence.  However,  in  considering  the  medical  evidence  and  the  claimant’s \ntestimony,  which  I  believe  to  be  credible,  the  claimant  had  been  asymptomatic  for  at  least  two \nyears prior to her April 15, 2022, compensable back injury. In fact, the claimant had continued to \nwork,   which   required   her   to   lift   heavy   patients   and   sometimes   do   so   under   difficult \ncircumstances.  On  direct  examination  the  claimant  discussed  her  prior  back  problems  and  her \nmost recent difficulties as follows: \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-12- \nQ Had you ever had any back pain before? \n \nA I hurt my back at work once before. \n \nQ And approximately when was that? \n \nA I don’t know, several years. It was at the nursing home. \n \nQ And who treated you and were you given any restrictions? \n \nA I  was  treated  by  the  occupational    health  clinic  and  I  was \noff for maybe a day. It was just a muscle strain. \n \nQ And  after  that  incident  at  the  nursing  home,  whatever  date \nand  time  that  was,  were  you  able  to  perform  your  job  duties  as  a \nparamedic? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Did that have any bearing whatsoever on your ability to do \nyour job? \n \nA No. \n \nQ After  this  injury,  were  you  left  with  any residual  pain  in \nyour back? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Not this injury, the current injury, yes, I’m sorry. I jumped \naround. \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ From September – from April the 15\nth\n of 2022? \n \n MR. RYBURN: Object to leading. \n \n MR. WREN: I apologize. \n \nA (Witness continues) Yes. \n \n THE COURT: Let’s start over. \n \n MR. WREN: Let me – I’ll ask the question. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-13- \n \nQ (Mr. Wren continues) Were you hurt April 15\nth\n of 2022? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Prior  to  that,  did  you  have  any  residual  pain  or  problems \nwith your back? \n \nA No. \n \nQ After  April  15\nth\n of  2022,  have  you  had  residual  pain  or \nissues with your back? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Describe those ongoing problems with your back. \n \nA So  if  I  do  anything,  any  like,  working  in  the  yard  for  long \nperiods of time, I’ll have significant pain. I get numbness down my \nleft leg. I just know what I can and can’t do how, and I try to avoid \nwhat hurts it consistently. \n \nQ You  mentioned  pain  in  your  back,  but  you  said  you  also \nhave some pain that radiates into your left leg? \n \nA My left leg goes numb. \n \nQ Is it pain or numbness? \n \nA Numbness. \n \nQ And  are  those  the  symptoms  that  you  described  to  Dr. \nThomas. \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ And  have  you  had  problems  with  falling  or  almost  falling \nwith that left leg? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Have you actually fallen? \n \nA I fell into the shelf, yes. \n \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-14- \nQ At the grocery store? \n \nA At CVS. \n \nQ CVS Pharmacy across the street from where we are now? \n \nA Yes, and I fell into the wall of the house the second time. \n \nQ Have  you  had  any  times  where  there  has  been  weakness, \nbut you’ve caught yourself? \n \nA Yeah. \n \n As in Leach v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2011 Ark. App. 571 (2011), the claimant was \nasymptomatic  prior  to  her  April  15,  2022,  compensable  back  injury  and  then  symptomatic \nthereafter,  such  that  the  major-cause  requirement  is  satisfied.  The  claimant  is  entitled  to  a  5% \nwhole body impairment rating due to her April 15, 2022, compensable back injury. \n The claimant has also asked the Commission to determine if she is entitled to wage loss \ndisability. \nWage loss is the degree to which the compensable injury has affected the claimant’s \nearning  capacity.  The  extent  of  disability  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission. Cross  v. \nCrawford   County   Memorial   Hospital,   54   Ark.   App.   130,   923   S.W.2d   886   (1996).   The \nCommission  is  charged  with  assessing  wage  loss  on  a  case  by  case  basis.  Factors  to  be \nconsidered  in  assessing  wage  loss  include  the  claimant’s  age,  education,  work  experience, \nmedical evidence and other matters which may reasonably be expected to affect the worker’s \nfuture earning power such as motivation, post-injury income, bona fide job offers, credibility or \nvoluntary  termination.   Glass  v.  Edens,  233  Ark.  786,  346  S.W.2d  685  (1961); City  of \nFayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 (1984); Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 \nArk. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990);  Oller v. Champion Parts Rebuilders, 5 Ark. App. 307, \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-15- \n635  S.W.2d  276  (1982);  and Hope  School  District    v.  Charles  Wilson,  2011  Ark.  App.  219,  \nS.W.3d  (2011).  The  award  of  wage  loss  is  not  a  mathematical  formula,  but  a  judicial \ndetermination based on the Commission’s knowledge of industrial demands, limitations, and \nrequirements, Henson v. General Electric, 99 Ark. App. 129, 257 S.W.3d 908 (2008). \n Given  the  claimant’s  work  restrictions  provided  by  Dr.  Saer  and  more  recently,  Dr. \nThomas after the claimant’s FCE, it is clear that the claimant is no longer able to work as an \nEMT  paramedic.  The  respondent  has  continued  to  employ  the  claimant  in  a  different  position \nassociated with the county assessor’s office at the courthouse. A Form AR-W  associated  with \nthis claim and a “Pope County Government Direct Deposit Stub” of the claimant’s, both found at \nClaimant’s Exhibit 2, prove the claimant is making less money in her new position than her \nposition with the respondent as an EMT paramedic.  \n At the time of the hearing in this matter, the claimant was 47 years of age. She began to \nwork  for  the  respondent  in  2002,  when  she  was  23  years  old  as  a  basic  EMT.  In  2003  the \nclaimant  became  an  EMT  paramedic  and  worked  for  the  respondent  in  that  capacity  until  her \ncompensable back injury and eventual transfer to the respondent’s county assessor’s office. The \nclaimant testified that before going to work for the respondent, she worked for about three years \nin a food processing plant. The claimant further testified that she holds no other post-high school \ntraining  certificates  or  education  other  than  those  associated  with  an  EMT  paramedic. The \nclaimant did admit to having some basic computer skills but not advanced computer skills.  \n The  claimant  was  asked  on  cross  examination  about  her  ability  and  to  some  degree  her \nmotivation to work as follows: \nQ And Dr. Thomas released you with a five percent for an un-\noperated on lesion to your lumbar spine; is that – do you have any \nunderstanding of that? \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-16- \n \nA He did give me a five percent impairment rating. \n \nQ Okay, and I’m not saying that you should, but do you have \nany  understanding  of  the  medical  guides  that  he  used  to  come  to \nthat? \n \nA No. \n \nQ You  have  a – you  are  currently  working  a  sedentary  job \nwith the county; is that correct? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And that’s working for the clerk, so I imagine that is a lot \nof computers and paper and that sort of thing; is that right? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ With almost no lifting? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ But you, according to the FCE, can do medium duty; is that \ncorrect? \n \nA I can lift. \n \nQ And so there are other jobs that you could do at least within \nyour – according to the FCE’s recommendations; is that fair? \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Is that a “yes?” I’m sorry I spoke over you. \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ Thank  you.  And  part  of  your  motivation  for  staying  at  the \ncounty is your retirement; is that right? \n \nA Yes, I mean this is my hometown, this is my place. \n \nQ How many years do you need to secure your retirement? \n \nA I can retire in 28 years with full retirement. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-17- \n \nQ Okay, and how many years left? \n \nA Five. A little over five. \n \nQ And so part of your motivation for continuing your county \nclerk job is to maintain your retirement? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ And so if a job that paid more but was not with the county \nwas  offered,  you  would  be  reluctant  to  take  it  because  you  would \nbe giving up that retirement; is that correct? \n \nA I can’t answer that. I mean I don’t know if I would take it. \n \nQ So  is  it  fair  to  say  that  you  are  willing  to  work  for  less \nmoney because of your county retirement, state retirement? \n \nA It was the job that was offered to me and it was the only job \nthat was offered to me; yes, sir. \n \nQ Have you applied for any other jobs? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Have you looked to see what other jobs are available within \nthe county? \n \nA Yes, sir. \n \nQ Have you found any? \n \nA No. \n \nQ Have you looked elsewhere outside the county to see what \njobs are available? \n \nA No. \n \nQ And why is that? \n \nA I just haven’t. \n \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-18- \nQ So  currently,  motivationally  speaking,  you  are  motivated \nby your retirement to keep the job that you have now? \n \nA Yes. \n \n Given the factors previously stated when considering wage loss disability along with the \nevidence and the claimant’s testimony, I find the claimant to be entitled to wage loss disability in \nan amount that would be equal to a 10% whole body impairment rating. The claimant’s very \nspecific work experience as an EMT paramedic for such a length of time given her age and her \nmotivation  to  remain  with  the  county  because  of  retirement  prospects  were  both  increasing  and \ndecreasing factors respectively. \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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nFebruary  24,  2025,  and  contained  in  a  Pre-hearing  Order  filed February  25,  2025,  are  hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2. The claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled a 5% \nimpairment rating to the body as a whole.  \n 3. The claimant has proven by preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to wage \nloss  disability  in  an  amount  that  would  be  equal  to  a  10%  impairment  rating  to  the  body  as  a \nwhole. \n\nTreadwell – H208296 \n \n-19- \n 4.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  her  attorney  is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee in this matter. \n ORDER \nThe respondent shall pay the claimant an impairment rating of 5% to the body as whole. \nThe respondent shall pay the claimant wage loss disability in an amount that would be equal to a \n10% impairment rating to the body as a whole. \nThe respondent shall pay to the claimant's attorney the maximum statutory attorney's fee \non the benefits awarded herein, with one half of said attorney's fee to be paid by the respondents \nin addition to such benefits and one half of said attorney's fee to be withheld by the respondents \nfrom such benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715. \n All  benefits  herein  awarded  which  have  heretofore  accrued  are  payable  in  a  lump  sum \nwithout discount. \n This award shall bear the maximum legal rate of interest until paid. \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                                ____________________________                                               \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, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 22, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. Claimant repr...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:44.203Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208296-2025-07-22","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TREADWELL_LAURA_H208296_20250722.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}