{"id":"alj-H301603-2026-01-12","awcc_number":"H301603","decision_date":"2026-01-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Sherri Bass","employer_name":"National Opinion Research Ctr","title":"BASS VS. NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CTR AWCC# H301603 January 12, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","cervical","back","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BASS_SHERRI_H301603_20260112.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BASS_SHERRI_H301603_20260112.pdf","text_length":29737,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H301603 \n \nSHERRI BASS, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nNATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CTR, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nTHE HARTFORD, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED JANUARY 12, 2026 \n \nHearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, \nWashington County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant unrepresented and appearing pro se. \n \nRespondents represented by RANDY P. MURPHY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On October 14, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Springdale, \nArkansas. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on March 31, 2025, and a Pre-hearing \nOrder was filed on March 31, 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 \nFebruary 21, 2023. \n 3. The claimant sustained compensable injuries to her bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, \nand right trigger finger on or about February 21, 2023. \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\nBass – H301603 \n \n-2- \n 1. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional medical treatment for her compensable right \ntrigger finger, left elbow, and left wrist injuries; and to additional medical treatment for her \ncompensable right elbow injury in the form of surgery. \n 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from January 29, \n2024, to a date yet to be determined. \n 3. Respondents raise an independent intervening cause as cause for claimant’s need for \ntreatment under ACA § 11-9-102(F)(b)(III). \n 4. Claimant’s compensation rates. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“The treatment orders were never full-filled. Denied claims. \nClaims they didn’t notify me were denied. They just told me ‘they \nwere working on it.’ Verbally abused by the treating physicians \nwith false diagnosis and accusations, unlawfully. Physically \nabused by the treating doctors, for not giving me proper \nrestrictions and re-injuring and increasing the pain. I never had a \ncase manager. I had to contact The Hartford through Insta-Gram. I \nhave real injuries that have yet to receive any treatment at all. \nVerbal abuse tactics by Randy Murphy, AAL during a 3 way call \nwith the State Attorney. I’ve been begging for treatment for over a \nyear, for a 24 year physical career, that was ruined because of these \ninjuries. Continued injuries for being returned to work without \nrestrictions, over and over. There is a third claim for Cervical with \nan ER visit from 2022, that was denied after it was reported within \nthe time limits. I am in severe pain and need treatment. I can no \nlonger afford to pay out of pocket. \n \nI would like appreciate restrictions for my dx. I would especially \nlike treatment. I would also prefer the Work Comp Commission to \nchoose where I receive my IME. I have requested IME’s, last year, \nso I could get treatment on my own, and be MMI’d. They refused \nto do this, like everything else. Mr. Murphy and his team are \nbadgering me to see THEIR out of town doctor, for an IME, and \nwon’t agree to mediation or a Department Committee approved \nphysician. These records will also show discrimination. Also at the \nadvise of the State Work Comp Legal Department.” \n \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-3- \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“Claimant has received all benefits to which she is entitled for her \ncompensable work-related injury. Claimant medical records \nestablish that she has numerous physical and emotional problems \nwhich are unrelated to the compensable injury. The medical reports \nof Dr. Diemer, Dr. Benafield, and Dr. Kelly establish that her \npsychiatric condition is a non-work related independent, \nintervening cause which has caused and prolongs disability and her \nneeds for treatment. See Ark. Code Ann § 11-9-102(F)(b)(III).” \n \n The claimant in this matter is a 60-year-old female who sustained compensable injuries to \nher bilateral elbows, bilateral wrists, and right trigger finger on February 21, 2023, in a specific \nincident when she was lifting a bag from her car that the claimant has estimated to weigh 19 lbs. \nThe claimant has asked the Commission to determine if she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment for her compensable right trigger finger, left elbow, and left wrist injuries and surgery \nfor her right elbow injury. \n The claimant was originally diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis, Enthesopathy of the \nright elbow, and Paresthesia of the upper limb by Ryan Huet, DO, at MedExpress in Bentonville, \nArkansas, on February 28, 2023. The claimant has been treated or evaluated by several doctors \nsince that time including Dr. George Diemel and Dr. Robert Benafield, both with Ozark \nOrthopedics. She was also seen by Dr. James Kelly with Western Arkansas Plastic and Hand \nSurgery Center and Dr. Tyler Carllee with UAMS Health. Dr. Owen Kelly performed a medical \nrecords review and gave his opinions at the request of the respondent on July 19, 2024. The \nclaimant also underwent an independent medical evaluation by agreement of the parties. This \nadministrative law judge with the assistance of Susan Isaac, RN, with the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission, selected Dr. Christopher Arnold to perform that independent \nmedical evaluation in December of 2024. The claimant has received an assortment of treatment \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-4- \nand evaluations for her compensable injuries; including, but not limited to, MRIs of the elbows \nbilaterally, MRI of the cervical spine, upper body EMG nerve conduction studies, epidural \nsteroid shots, ultrasound guided ulnar nerve blocks, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and \nsplinting. Both Dr. Owen Kelly and Dr. Arnold provided extensive review summaries of the \nmedical treatment and evaluation provided to the claimant. Dr. Owen Kelly’s report, authored at \nthe request of the respondent and dated July 19, 2024, is found at Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pages \n180-185. Dr. Arnold’s independent medical examination through the Commission is found at \nRespondents’ Exhibit 1, pages 187-197. Both of the summaries provided give an accurate and \nfair assessment of the medical treatment and evaluation the claimant has received at least to the \nextent of the medical records provided into evidence by both parties prior to their reports. \n At the hearing in this matter the claimant continued to complain of symptoms and \ndifficulties that she has related to various doctors in the time period after her compensable injury. \nDr. Benafield saw the claimant on August 23, 2023. Following is a portion of that medical \nreport: \nHPI \nThe patient seen in follow-up for her right ulnar neuropathy and \nright trigger digit. She began the interview by engaging in insults \nto me in my treatment of her MI ignoring of suppose it guidelines \nfrom other Administrative bodies. She kept reiterating to me how \nshe could not do her job consisting of typing talking on the phone \nwriting down and carrying a 3 pound laptop. \n \n*** \nAssessment/Plan \nI believe the patient is exhibiting malingering behavior and does \nnot want to get better or go back to work. At the end of the \ninteraction I advised her that I did not feel that she and I were a \ngood fit and that are patient doctor relationship was irretrievable \nbroken and I advised her to utilize the change of physician option \nwithin Arkansas Worker’s Comp. guidelines to find another hand \nsurgeon. As she was leaving she insulted my religious beliefs. \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-5- \n \n1. Ulnar neuropathy of right arm \nG56.21: Lesion of ulnar nerve, right upper limb \n \n2. Trigger finger of right hand \nM65.351: Trigger finger, right little finger \n \n After the claimant was no longer able to see Dr. Benafield, she was seen by Dr. Diemel \non September 26, 2023. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nAssessment: \nMs. Bass returns to clinic today for a follow up. We discussed her \nclinical course. She spent the first 20 minutes of the visit going \nthrough a list of grievances against Ozark Orthopaedics, Dr. \nBenafield, our therapy team and her WC carrier as far as how she \nhas been treated. She states she is frustrated by her care and also \nnoted that she has attempted to get in touch with us on multiple \noccasions in attempts to try to pursue different treatments. During \nthe course of the discussion, she outlined different dates in which \nshe had tried to reach out in hopes that she could get a “Toradol \nshot”. She did state that somewhere in the course of this she \nultimately went to urgent care although it was unclear whether she \ndid in fact the get treatment she was looking for. She continued to \nreference her left shoulder and arm as the reason for the need to \ntreatment. Previous complaints had focused on the bilateral elbows \nwhich is what initial WC injury location was indicated as per my \nunderstanding. Our previous workup had included cervical spine x-\nrays, MRI of cervical spine, EMG/NCS of the bilateral upper \nextremities, an injection for the right elbow to assess the \ncontribution of the ulnar nerve at the elbow, referral for orthopedic \nhand consultation and a considerable amount of therapy to address \nher bilateral upper extremity concerns. \n \nClinical correspondence from 8/18/2023 indicates a one time, \napproval from her WC CM regarding evaluation of her left \nshoulder and wrists which prompted today’s appointment. In the \ncorrespondence, it was noted that approval had not been given \npreviously to evaluate these injuries. She states she was not aware \nof when this appointment was going to be made and had to look at \nthe portal. I told her that the appointment was requested by her \nwork-comp case manager which she states she has not spoken to. \nShe states that she only knew about this appointment after \nreferencing the portal. She stated that she didn’t know what she \nwas here but wanted to be sure to show up so “we couldn’t mark \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-6- \nher down as non-compliant.” I told her that I did not have any \nintention of making such a claim nor what “out to get her”. \n \nSo summary of initial discussion regarding this appointment from \nher perspective was questioning why she was here stating she did \nnot request this appointment be made. This was subsequently \nfollowed by the aforementioned outlining of grievances she had \nwith how her care had bene administered. She then went on to say \nthat she had hired an attorney. She also reached out to the Work-\nComp State Commission. They have since sent her up an \nappointment with Dr. Kelley, and she has an appointment on \nMonday, in Fort Smith to see him and establish care. \n \nNear the conclusion of the visit, she asked whether or not I would \nevaluate her left shoulder/arm. This was approximately 40 minutes \ninto her visit. Prior to the visit, I did review records indicating we \nhave done EMG/NCS of the upper extremities, cervical spine xrays \nand cervical spine MRI. We have also sent therapy in to address \nher upper extremities complaints. Per her recollection, therapy did \nnot do anything to address her concerns. Review of discharge \ntherapy records from 9/20/2023 indicated that she was “resistant” \nto recommendations, “argumentative” and requested therapy \nelsewhere. \n \nAt this point given the history of prior interactions, the fact that she \nhas on her own accord attempted to establish care and has a \npending appointment with another provider through the work-\ncomp system which has apparently been orchestrated with her \nnewly acquired legal representation, and made references to taking \nlegal action against my orthopedic hand partner, Dr. Benafield, I \ntold her that I would hold on any further evaluation of her new \npain complaints. Despite my explaining this to her, she also asked \nwither or not she could receive a Toradol shot, which I politely \ndeclined. I did not take a detailed history of injury to the left \nshoulder. I did not inquire about prior injuries not did I address \nwork status related to her shoulder injury. From my prior \nevaluation, there are no functional limitations related to her elbows \n(initial work injury) that would limit her ability to return to her \nprior work tasks which have been outlined previously as computer \nwork, administrative tasks and light duty activities. \n \nAgain, this visit was contentious and centered accusations that she \nhas not been provide the level of care that she expected. From prior \ninteractions, this stems from a differing opinion on whether she is \nable to continue her work activities as outlined. I truly believe she \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-7- \nbelieves that she cannot perform these tasks. Unfortunately, all \nobjective data that we have to make decisions from in the context \nof her initial WC injury does not support her belief that continuing \nthese work activities will result in irreversible and irreparable \nharm. Any attempts at discussing a return to work plan were met \nwith resistance. My interactions seem to be consistent with \ndocumentation from Dr. Benafield and our occupational therapy \nteam about interactions they have also had with Ms. Bass. At this \npoint, I am not sure I have anything else further to add to her care. \n \nSummary \nWill hold on any further evaluation or treatment recommendations \ngiven that the patient has established care with another provider \nthrough work-comp. \n \nNo further work restrictions per my recommendation given \npending care through other provider. \n \nFollow up as needed. \n \n The claimant then began to see Dr. James Kelly, who eventually authored a letter to the \nCommission dated December 18, 2023, and is found at Respondents’ Exhibit 1, page 171. \nFollowing is the body of that letter: \nI am addressing his letter pertaining to Ms. Bass who presented to \nmy office today. This lady is suffering from severe manic \ndepression. She is almost incoherent and unable to really \ncomprehend what I am trying to tell her. There is nothing surgical \nthat I can do for her, as most of her issues I believe are psychiatric. \nShe may very well have issues that may need physical treatment \nbut with her current psychiatric state I am not able to do this, nor \ndo I think anyone else would be able to, as she is totally \ndecompensated. I am addressing his letter to you, basically to \ninform the board, I am not treating her any longer and she really \nneeds to get psychiatric care, which has nothing to do with a \nWorker’s Comp injury. I explained that to the patient as well, but I \nam sure she is not coherent enough to understand what I am trying \nto get across to her. I am also having my staff contact Anna \nMontgomery at Washington Regional who she listed as her \nprimary care doctor. This lady certainly needs intervention and \nneeds it urgently. I will try to get the primary care doctor involved, \nas well as obviously this is not within my practice scope. \n \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-8- \n On July 19, 2024, Dr. Owen Kelly performed a medical records review of the claimant \nthat included the previously discussed medical treatment and evaluation summary at the request \nof the respondent. Dr. Owen Kelly also responded to four questions posed by the respondent as \nfollows: \nQUESTIONS: \n1. What complaints can be objectively related to the reported work \nrelated incident of February 20, 2021 [February 21, 2023]? After \nreviewing the records and the provided physician statements from \nDr. James Kelly and Dr. Robert Benafield, the bilateral lateral \nepicondylitis could be related to her work duties. This was the \ndocumented initial complaint. \n \n2. Has Ms. Bass reached maximum medical improvement for this \nreported work related injury? The provided records indicate that \nMs. Bass last treated in June of 2024 for multiple complaints and \nthe elbows are one of them. Lateral epicondylitis isn’t considered a \none time injury. The records also indicate other non-physical, non-\nwork related issues that are affecting her. Taking into account the \ntwo reputable hand surgeon opinions (Dr. Benafield and Dr. \n(James) Kelly. She appears to be at MMI. \n \n3. Is there any permanent impairment noted pursuant to the AMA \nGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 4\nth\n Edition? \nThere is no of permanent impairment for the bilateral lateral \nepicondylitis. \n \n4. Is there any additional medical treatment recommended for the \nreported work related injury? Other than conservative management \nof the lateral epicondylitis, no further imaging or testing is \nrecommended. \n \n On December 27, 2024, Dr. Arnold issued his independent medical examination. At the \nconclusion of his report, Dr. Arnold gives the following diagnosis and opinion: \nDIAGNOSIS \n1. Bilateral chronic lateral epicondylitis (based on mri/physical \nexam) \n2. No signs of cubital tunnel (based on normal emg/ncv) \n3. No signs of cervical radiculopathy (based on mri/physical exam) \n \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-9- \nOPINION \n1. Claimant shows signs of symptom magnification \n2. No permanent impairment – at MMI \n3. Claimant has failed non-operative treatment – no further \ntreatment/studies necessary \n4. Would recommend sending for FCE \n \n The claimant then sees Dr. Tyler Carllee on January 31, 2025. The claimant indicates in \nhearing testimony that she was able to see Dr. Carllee by obtaining Medicaid benefits. Dr. \nCarllee’s medical report from that visit gives the following assessment/plan: \nAssessment and Plan: \n59-year-old female with right upper extremity symptoms \nconsistent with tennis elbow, cubital tunnel syndrome most \nprevalent on the right elbow without frank instability but subtle \ninstability of the nerve, triggering of the ring finger on the right \nhand at the A1 pulley and subacromial impingement on the right \nshoulder. She would like to proceed today with a repeat \nsubacromial injection. I am happy to do that for her. She is an \nindication and candidate for ulnar nerve surgery which I think \ntransposition would be the best option. I do not recommend doing \nany surgery however until she has completed her worker’s comp \nevaluation with a functional capacity evaluation of the upper \nextremities and have that completely settled before having any \nsurgery with me that is not covered by worker’s compensation. I \nthink that if she proceed with surgery prior to this it will be very \ndifficult for her to distinguish symptoms related to her worker’s \ncomp claim verses a postoperative scenario after having had \nsurgery on her elbow. Happy to see her back after the functional \ncapacity evaluation. \n \nRight subacromial injection \nAfter obtaining verbal consent from the patient the right \nsubacromial space with prepped in the standard sterile fashion with \nchlorhexidine. A time out was done confirming the laterality, \nprocedure and correct patient. Utilizing an anterior entry site an \ninjection of 4 cc of 0.25% bupivacaine without epinephrine and 80 \nmg of Depo-Medrol were injected into the subacromial space \nwithout complication. The patient tolerated the procedure well and \na band-aid was placed. Information about the injection was given \nto the patient. \n \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-10- \n The claimant underwent right cubital tunnel syndrome surgery at the hands of Dr. Carllee \non June 9, 2025, at Willow Creek Women’s Hospital. Following is a portion of that operative \nreport: \nPreoperative Diagnosis \nRight cubital tunnel syndrome \n \nPostoperative Diagnosis \nCubital tunnel syndrome \n \n The claimant saw Dr. Carllee for a follow-up appointment on September 3, 2025. \nFollowing is a portion of that medical report: \nHistory of Present Illness \nSherri Lynn Bass is a 60 y.o. year old female patient. \nShe is 12 weeks out from surgery. I had recommended starting \nformal P.T. from the above procedure. She saw Chris Kelsey with \nTRM one time. She was given some home exercises. She is having \na few things going on today. She is having olecranon bursal pain \nwith resting the elbow, she has persistent triggering of the right \nring finger, she has soreness in the thumb and entire hand with \nintrinsic muscle exercises. She was unable to continue these \nbecause of hand soreness. She has some paresthesias over the \nthumb and ulnar long finger. She also feels dullness to sensation \nover the olecranon area and incision. \n \nIn the past I have also evaluated her trigger finger of the right ring \nfinger. She was scheduled to have it injected at the time of her \nright elbow surgery but the day of the surgery did not want to do \nthis because her symptoms were not bothering her enough. \n \nShe has also been evaluated by me and others for the left elbow. \nShe has had cubital tunnel syndrome with this side as well for \nroughly the same length of time as the right side. She has tried \ntaking gabapentin, Cymbalta, and lyrica historically without relief. \nShe has had side effects from this medication that are limiting \nincluding grogginess and cognitive disturbances. \n \nHer shoulder is doing better after her subacromial injection in the \nright shoulder. \n \n*** \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-11- \nAssessment and Plan \nSherri Lynn Bass is a 60 y.o. year old female patient. The patient is \nhere for a Follow up for the right ulnar nerve transposition \nperformed on 6-9-25. \n \nShe is not interested in any surgical treatments for her left arm or \ntrigger finger on the right ring finger at this time. I do think a \ntrigger finger release is something that may benefit her in the \nfuture. We discussed trying to get all the way recovered from her \nulnar nerve transposition on the right before we consider doing \nanything on the left side. She will continue to do home exercises to \nwork on intrinsic hand strengthening. I do think some of her \nsymptoms around the incision with numbness and dull sensation \nare going to improve with time and our products of the surgical \nincision there are within the realm of normal. I do think she has \ncubital tunnel on the left elbow with similar symptoms as the right. \nShe has also had lateral epicondylitis symptoms on both elbows \nthat we have treated nonsurgically. I am happy to see her back in \nfuture as needed. \n \nAn employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical treatment as \nmay be reasonably necessary in connection with the injury received by the employee. Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-508(a)(1). The claimant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to additional \nmedical treatment. Dalton v. Allen Engineering Co., 66 Ark. App. 201, 989 S.W.2d 543 (1999). \nIt is the claimant’s burden to prove that she is entitled to additional medical treatment, \nand I find the claimant is unable to so. I recognize the treatment and surgical intervention that the \nclaimant underwent at the hands of Dr. Carllee after her independent medical evaluation by Dr. \nArnold. However, the greater weight of medical evidence points to the claimant \noverexaggerating her symptoms and difficulties. Given the opinions of Dr. Benafield, Dr. \nDiemel, Dr. James Kelly, Dr. Owen Kelly, and Dr. Arnold, I find the claimant has failed to prove \nthat she is entitled to additional medical treatment. \n The claimant has also asked the Commission to determine if she is entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits from January 29, 2024, to a date yet to be determined. \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-12- \nA claimant who suffers a scheduled injury is entitled to receive temporary total or \ntemporary partial disability benefits during their healing period or until they return to work, \nregardless of whether there is a total incapacity to earn wages. Wheeler Construction Co. v. \nArmstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W. 3d 822 (2001). \n Upon review of the medical evidence submitted by both parties during the period of \nJanuary 29, 2024, and forward, I find no evidence of the claimant being removed from work by a \nmedical provider. Also, I am in agreement with Dr. Arnold, who found the claimant to be at \nmaximum medical improvement in his December 27, 2024, independent medical examination, \nand Dr. Owen Kelly in his report dated July 19, 2024, in which he states, “she appears to be at \nMMI.” \n In an August 3, 2023, visit with Dr. Diemel, his report in part states, “Again, I do not feel \nthere needs to be any further work restrictions as it relates to time. I will defer a final decision to \nDr. Benafield to whether or not she feels she still needs to observe the 10# weight restriction, or \nif any surgical treatment of her elbow needs to be considered. If he does not feel that she is a \nsurgical candidate, I need to finalize her WC case with declaration of MMI and FCE. I would be \nhappy to assist.” \n In her next visit with Dr. Benafield on August 23, 2023, that medical record in part states, \n“She kept reiterating to me how she could not do her job consisting of typing talking on the \nphone writing down and carrying a 3 pound laptop.” ... “I believe the patient is exhibiting \nmalingering behavior and does not want to get better or go back to work.” Dr. Benafield went on \nto end the patient/doctor relationship with the claimant during that visit. \n The claimant again saw Dr. Diemel on September 26, 2023. That medical record in part \nstates, “From my prior evaluation, there are no functional limitations related to her elbows \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-13- \n(initial work injury) that would limit her ability to return to her prior work tasks which have been \noutlined previously as computer work, administrative tasks, and light duty activities.” \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits from January 29, 2024, to a date yet to be determined. \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 \nMarch 31, 2025, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed March 31, 2025, are hereby accepted \nas fact. \n 2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nadditional medical treatment for her compensable right trigger finger, left elbow, and left wrist \ninjuries and to additional medical treatment for her compensable right elbow injury in the form \nof surgery. \n 3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \ntemporary total disability benefits from January 29, 2024, to a date yet to be determined. \n 4. The respondents’ issue raised of independent intervening cause is moot. \n 5. The claimant’s compensation rates issue is moot. \n ORDER \nPursuant to the above findings and conclusions, I have no alternative but to deny this \nclaim in its entirety. \n\nBass – H301603 \n \n-14- \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. H301603 SHERRI BASS, Employee CLAIMANT NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CTR, Employer RESPONDENT THE HARTFORD, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 12, 2026 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claim...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:32:38.489Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301603-2026-01-12","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BASS_SHERRI_H301603_20260112.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}