{"id":"alj-H303132-2024-02-21","awcc_number":"H303132","decision_date":"2024-02-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Mikel Miller","employer_name":"Spurlock, Inc","title":"MILLER VS. SPURLOCK, INC AWCC# H303132 FEBRUARY 21, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["wrist","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MILLER_MIKEL_H303132_20240221.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MILLER_MIKEL_H303132_20240221.pdf","text_length":24343,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.  H303132 \n \nMIKEL MILLER, EMPLOYEE                    CLAIMANT \n \nvs. \n \nSPURLOCK, INC,  EMPLOYER                 RESPONDENT  \n \nBITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                        RESPONDENT \n        \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2024 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 9\nTH\n day of January 2024, \nin Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant is represented by Mr. Gregory R. Giles, Attorney-at-Law, Texarkana, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents are represented by Mr. Michael E. Ryburn, Attorney-at-Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  hearing  was  conducted  on  the  9\nth\n  day  of  January,  2024,  to  determine  the  issues of \ncompensability for an alleged work-related injury to the claimant’s left wrist; medical benefits and \ntreatment;  temporary  total  disability;  and  attorney  fees,  with  permanent  partial  disability \nreserved.  The parties stipulated at the time of the hearing that the claimant earned an average \nweekly  wage  sufficient  for  a  TTD/PPD  rate  of  $380.00/$285.00,  respectively.    A  copy  of  the \nPrehearing  Order  was  marked  “Commission  Exhibit  1”  and  made  part  of  the  record  without \nobjection.    The  Order  provided  that  the  parties  stipulated  that  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within claim and that an employer/employee \nrelationship existed on May 10, 2023, the date of the claimed injury in question.  There was no \nobjection to these stipulations and the Prehearing Order was admitted.   \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n2 \n \n The  claimant  contended  he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  left  wrist while \nperforming  employment  services  for  the  respondent  employer  and  that  he was  not  under  the \ninfluence of any illegal substance which caused or contributed to the accident.  \n The  respondents  contended  compensability  for  any  injury  the  claimant  may  have \nsustained  was  barred  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-102(B)(iv),  because  the  accident  was \nsubstantially occasioned by the use of illegal drugs.    \n The claimant’s and respondents’ contentions are all set out in their respective responses \nto the prehearing questionnaire and made a part of the record without objection.  The witnesses \nconsisted  of  Mikel  Miller,  the  claimant,  and  Mason  Garner,  who  was  still  employed  by  the \nrespondents at the time of the hearing and also a friend of the claimant.  From a review of the \nrecord as a whole, to include medical reports and other matters properly before the Commission, \nand having  had an opportunity  to  observe  the  testimony  and demeanor  of  the  witnesses,  the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-704. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.  That  an  employer/employee  relationship  existed  on  May  10, 2023,  the  date  of  the \nclaimed injury.  At the time, the claimant earned an average weekly wage sufficient \nfor a TTD/PPD rate of $380.00/$285.00, respectively, per week. \n \n3.  That  the  claimant has  satisfied  the  burden  of  proof,  by  a  preponderance  of  the \nevidence,  to  overcome  the  rebuttable  presumption  of  Ark.  Code Ann.  §11-9-\n102(4)(B)(iv) and has proven he suffered a compensable left wrist injury on May 10, \n2023.  Additionally, the claimant has satisfied the burden of proof that he is entitled to \nreasonable   and   necessary   medical   treatment,   including   the   reasonable   and \nnecessary medical treatment that has already occurred, plus the unreimbursed travel \nexpenses that were introduced into the record. \n \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n3 \n \n4.  That  the  claimant  has  satisfied  the  burden  of  proof,  by  a  preponderance of  the \nevidence, that he is entitled to TTD from the day following his injury through the date \nof July 9, 2023. \n \n5.  The claimant is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715.  This \nAward shall bear interest at the legal rate pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809. \n \n6.  That all other issues are reserved. \n \n7.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay for the cost of the transcript \nforthwith. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n \n The  Prehearing  Order,  along  with  the  prehearing  questionnaires  of  the  parties  were \nadmitted    into  the  record  without  objection.    The  claimant  submitted one  exhibit  consisting  of \nfifty-one (51) pages, of medical and documentary evidence, that was admitted without objection.  \nThe respondents submitted two (2) exhibits with exhibit one consisting of a drug testing form, \nalong with the results; and exhibit two consisting of case law and both were admitted without \nobjection. \n The first witness to testify was the claimant, Mikel Miller.  He testified he had dropped out \nof the eleventh grade and attempted to obtain his GED and then went on to work construction.  \nHe felt that he went to work for the respondent around October of 2022, as a general-labor hand.  \nThe respondent employer performed a little bit of pipelining, plumbing, electrical, construction, \nwater irrigation, and some demolition.  On May 10, 2023, his first day at the job site in Cabot, \nthey were demolishing an old strip mall that had a couple of stores in it.  He stated that he would \ndrive from Beebe, where he lived, to Searcy and  they would meet at the shop every morning \nand then leave from the shop around seven and go where instructed.  He rode with Larry Walker \nin his personal vehicle from the Searcy shop to the job site in Cabot where there were four (4) \nworkers  which  included  Larry,  Mason,  Tim,  and  himself.    He  thought  that  Mason  rode  with \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n4 \n \nSammy who was the foreman and that they started to work sometime between 7:30 to 8:00. (Tr. \n7-  10) \n They were told to cut down a canvas on the front of the building to tear down the metal \nframing that was holding up the canvas.  To do this, claimant was instructed to get one piece of \nmetal off the slanted metal roof, which was about 13 to 15 feet up, and Larry and the claimant \nused a ladder to get up there.  A lot of the screws were missing off the roof and some spots were \nkind  of  rusty.    An  impact  gun  was  used  to  unscrew  the  metal  and  when he  picked  it  up,  the \nclaimant guessed that it made the metal where he was standing weak, and it folded and he fell \nthrough, falling on debris that had been tore down before. (Tr. 11-14)  He went on to state that \nhe nearly fell on top of Mason, and that after the fall, he was in pain in his left wrist that swelled \nup like a balloon, and also his back.   An ambulance was called which arrived in 25 to 30 minutes.   \nHe was drug tested upon arriving at the hospital and admitted he was concerned about \nthe test because he had in fact smoked marijuana two (2) weeks before at his cousin’s wedding, \nwhere  he  had  taken  a  couple  of  puffs  or  hits,  and  it  consisted  of  a  half  gram  to  a  gram.    He \nadmitted to using marijuana, “probably twice every two months” and further stated that it made \nhim feel calm, relaxed, and that it gets rid of his anxiety.  He denied he was under the influence \nof  marijuana  at  the  time  of  the  work-related  accident  and  denied  using  marijuana  at  anytime \nsince the wedding.  He was not aware of a drug policy at his employer.  He also testified that he \ndid  not  believe  he  was  under  the  influence  of  marijuana  at  the  time  of  the  accident.    No  one \nquestioned his state of mind or asked him if he was under the influence of anything the morning \nof  the  accident  and  there  was  no  discussion  about  who  was  at  fault  or  what  happened  that \ncaused the fall.  He agreed with the hospital medical records which indicated he was oriented to \nperson, place, and time.  He received pain medicine, IV’s, and a splint while at the hospital, and \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n5 \n \nwas taken off work at that time.  He also testified that he was left hand dominate.  He was advised \nto  see  Dr.  Ethan  Shock  and  saw  him  on  May  11.    Dr.  Schock  gave  the  claimant  some  pain \nmedications, took him off work, and set him up for surgery. His first post-op visit after the surgery \nwas June 7.  The cast was removed on a follow-up visit on July 5, where the claimant received \na wrist splint. (Tr. 15-21)  After about five or six days, the claimant started looking for work and \nfound employment around July 10 at Hurst Audio and ATV in Lonoke, where he worked as a \nsmall-engine technician.  He went on to state that his wrist has gradually gotten stronger and \nbetter.  He is no longer required to go to a physical therapy location but is currently doing the \nexercises at home. (Tr. 22-24) \nThe claimant testified he felt that the marijuana had nothing to do with his injury, he was \nthere to do his job, was instructed to get on the roof, and he did what he was told to do.  He also \nadmitted knowing his witness Mason Garner outside of work, lived with him at the time of the \naccident, and continued to live with him. (Tr. 26-27) \nUnder cross-examination, the claimant admitted smoking marijuana two (2) weeks prior \nto the accident and further admitted that he was not disputing anything about the drug test.  He \ndenied ever having meetings about the use of drugs on the job and was not aware of a policy in \nregard to drugs by his employer.  He agreed that as a reasonable individual, he knew that it was \nnot a good thing to test positive for drugs after an accident.  He also stated he accepted the test \nwhich occurred at the time of the accident while at the hospital.  He also admitted Medicaid had \npaid all of his bills. (Tr. 29-30)  He also admitted he was aware that if you removed the screws \nfrom one side of a metal roof panel, it would affect another panel because he had worked on \nroofs before.  (Tr. 32)  The claimant also admitted that the witness that he had called was his \nfriend (Tr. 34) \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n6 \n \nMr. Mason Garner was then called to testify.  He stated he was a high school graduate, \nwas  currently  employed  by  the  respondent,  and  was  on  the  job  site  on  May  10,  2023.    The \nsupervisor on the job site was Sammy Thacker. He saw the claimant in the middle of his fall and \n“turned around and he was on the floor” landing on insulation and a debris pile. He thought the \nclaimant probably fell fifteen to seventeen feet. (Tr. 38-40)  Mr. Garner thought that he had been \nwith the claimant all day until he got on the roof.  He had not noticed anything unusual about the \nclaimant.  He heard the supervisor say, “I need you to go up there and start taking off the roof.”  \nHe also denied that the claimant was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, \nbased upon his actions and demeanor.  (Tr. 41-42)  He also admitted signing a written statement \nthat provided his coworker was not under the influence of any illegal substance of any kind on \nMay 10, 2023. (Tr. 44)  “He - - he - - Like I said, he acted normal as me and you are right now, \nyou know.  Didn’t seem like he was under any influence of anything, acted normal as anyone \nshould be.” (Tr. 44) \nUnder cross-examination, Mr. Garner admitted he had never seen the claimant under the \ninfluence of drugs.  He also admitted he was not trained to detect if a person was impaired by \ndrugs, and had little medical knowledge.  He also admitted using marijuana before he got out of \nhigh school. (Tr. 45-46)  \n The claimant’s exhibit one consisted of the signed statement which was referred to during \nthe  testimony  of  Mason  Miller.    The  exhibit  also  consisted  of  medical  records.  The  records \nprovided that the claimant was taken by Metro EMS Ambulance on May 10, 2023, from Cabot \nto the ER at Baptist Medical Center in North Little Rock, due to a job-related injury. (Cl.Ex. 1, \nPP. 2-4)   The ER report provided that the date of the injury was May 10, 2023, when the claimant \nfell  through  a  roof  while  working,  falling  approximately  thirteen  (13)  feet.    The  assessment \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n7 \n \nprovided that the claimant was in pain, was alert and cooperative, with a brisk pupil reaction and \npupils of equal size.  Splinting of the left arm occurred, and the claimant’s departure condition \nwas good.  The final diagnosis was a closed intra-articular fracture of the distal end of the left \nradius.  Hydrocodone and acetaminophen were prescribed.  The claimant was advised to follow \nup  with  Dr.  Ethan  Schock.  (Cl.Ex.1,  PP.  5-26)  The  medical  records  also  provided  that  the \nclaimant  was  administered  a  drug  test  at  the  time  of  the  hospital  visit  and  tested  positive  for \nmarijuana metabolites. (Cl.Ex.1, PP. 27-28)   \nThe claimant first presented to Dr. Ethan Schock on May 11, 2023.  The report provided \nthe claimant was alert, oriented, and provided appropriate answers to questions.  Unfortunately, \nthe  claimant  was  left-hand  dominant  and  the  x-rays  showed  he  was  suffering  from  left  distal \nradius fracture with loss of radial length and tilt.  The report went on to provide  the claimant was \nto  remain  off  of  work  until  his  first  post-operative  visit.  (Cl.Ex.1,  PP. 29-32)    Surgery  was \nperformed on the claimant’s left wrist on May 22, 2023.  The report provided that the claimant \nshould  return  for  a  follow-up  in  approximately  one  week.  (Cl.Ex.1,    PP. 33-41)  The  claimant \nreturned to Dr. Schock on June 7, 2023, and a short arm cast was applied and the report further \nprovided  the  claimant  should  return  in  three weeks.  (Cl.  Ex.  1,  P. 42,  43)    The  claimant then \nagain returned to Dr. Schock on July 5, 2023, and rehab exercise was instructed.   A cock-up \nwrist splint was applied and the claimant was instructed to wear this at all times except while \nworking on range of motion type activities. (Cl. Ex.1, PP. 44-45)  The claimant then returned to \nDr. Schock for his final visit on August 16, 2023.  The report provided that he lacked about 5 \ndegrees of full flexion about the wrist and was then released. (Cl.Ex.1, PP. 46-47)  \nThe claimant also submitted a record for mileage in regard to his treatment that resulted \nin  a  total  of  $232.44  for  travel.    In  addition  the  ambulance  bill  was  submitted  for  the  sum  of \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n8 \n \n$1,661.00,  a  bill  for  $595.00  due  to  Baptist  Health  for  anesthesia/endoscopy,  and  bill  for \n$3,024.00 due to OrthoArkansas in regard to the claimant’s left surgery. (Cl. Ex.1, PP. 48-51) \nThe respondents also submitted the drug test with the results, as well as case law.  (Resp. \nEx.1, PP.1-3)    \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \n \nIn regard to the primary issue of compensability, the claimant has the burden of proving, \nby a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled to compensation benefits for the injury of \nhis  left  wrist under  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Law.    In  determining  whether  the \nclaimant has sustained his burden of proof, the Commission shall weigh the evidence impartially, \nwithout giving the benefit of the doubt to either party.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704.  Wade v. Mr. \nCavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d 521 (1989).  Further, the Commission has the duty \nto  translate  evidence  on  all  issues  before  it  into  findings  of  fact.   Weldon  v.  Pierce  Brothers \nConstruction Co., 54 Ark. App. 344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nFrom  the  testimony  and  the  medical  reports,  there  is  little to  no  disagreement  that  the \nclaimant fell thirteen plus (13+)  feet from a roof which partially collapsed when he was instructed \nto get on it by his supervisor during a demolition project.  He suffered injuries to his left wrist, \nwhich required surgery.   \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings and medical opinions addressing compensability and must be stated within a degree of \nmedical  certainty. Smith-Blair,  Inc.  v.  Jones,  77  Ark.  App.  273,  72  S.W.3d  560  (2002).  \nSpeculation and conjecture cannot substitute for credible evidence.  Liaromatis v. Baxter County \nRegional  Hospital,  95  Ark.  App.  296,  236  S.W.3d  524  (2006).    More  specifically,  to  prove  a \ncompensable injury, the claimant must establish,  by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) an \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n9 \n \ninjury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  that  the  injury  caused  internal  or \nexternal harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) \nestablishing the injury; and (4) that the injury was caused by a specific incident and identifiable \nby time and place of occurrence.  If the claimant fails to establish any of the requirements for \nestablishing the compensability of the claim, compensation must be denied.  Mikel v. Engineered \nSpecialty  Plastics,  56  Ark.  App.  126,  938  S.W.2d  876  (1997).  In  the  present  matter,  the \ntestimony of the claimant along with a co-worker who was a friend, as well as the medical records \nfrom  Baptist  Health  in  North  Little  Rock,  and  surgery  records  by  Dr.  Allen  Schock  of  Ortho \nArkansas, satisfy these requirements. \nHowever,  the  ultimate  issue  that  must  be  determined  in  the  present  matter  is  the \napplication of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(B)(iv), as raised by the respondents.  Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-102 provides in pertinent part: \n(B) “Compensable injury” does not include: \n(iv) (a) injury where the accident was substantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, illegal \ndrugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of physician’s orders. \n \n(b) The presence of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in contravention of \na physician’s orders shall create a rebuttable presumption that the injury or accident was \nsubstantially occasioned by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs used in \ncontravention of physician’s orders. \n \n(c) Every employee is deemed by his or her performance of services to have impliedly \nconsented  to  reasonable  and  responsible  testing  by  properly  trained  medical  or  law \nenforcement personnel for the presence of any of the aforementioned substances in the \nemployee’s body. \n \n(d)    An  employee  shall  not  be  entitled  to  compensation  unless  it  is  proved by  a \npreponderance of the evidence that the alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs utilized \nin  contravention  of  the  physician’s  order  did  not  substantially  occasion  the  injury  or \naccident.   \n \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n10 \n \nArkansas   Code  Annotated   §11-9-102(4)(B)(iv)   governs   the   compensability   of  the \nclaimant’s injury under the facts of this case.  Whether the rebuttable presumption is overcome \nby  the  evidence  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  Commission  to  determine.   Woodal  v.  Hunnicut \nConstruction,  340  Ark.  377,  12  S.W.3d  630  (2000).  Here,  the  claimant  admitted  to  using \nmarijuana two (2) weeks prior to the accident at a wedding party.  He did not deny that he was \ndrug  tested on the  day  of the  accident  while  at the  hospital and  that  the test  was positive  for \nmarijuana metabolites.  \nIt is noted in Woodall supra, the Arkansas Supreme Court opinion issued by Chief Justice \nDub Arnold, provided in regard to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iv), that substantial evidence \nis  such  relevant  evidence  as  a  reasonable  mind  might  support  as  adequate to  support  a \nconclusion.    In Woodall,  the  claimant  admitted  to  smoking  crack  cocaine  the night  before  the \ninjury,  and  the  Arkansas  Supreme  Court  reversed  the  Arkansas  Court  of  Appeals  opinion, \nholding that the claimant had in fact not satisfied the rebuttable presumption as spelled out in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(B)(iv). \nIn the present matter, the claimant denied being under the influence of marijuana at the \ntime of the accident.  The claimant had driven from his home in Bebee to the respondent’s shop \nin Searcy and then rode with a coworker to the job site in Cabot.  That a claimant’s testimony is \nself-serving  is  not,  for  that  reason  alone,  insufficient  to  support  a  finding in  his  or  her  favor.  \nBrantley  v.  Tyson  Foods,  Inc.,  48  Ark.  App.  27,  31,  887  S.W.  2d  543,  545  (1994).    More \nimportantly,  in the present matter, the claimant’s co-worker and admitted friend, who still was \nemployed by the respondent at the time of the hearing, testified he knew the claimant well and \nthat the claimant did not show by his actions or speech that he was under the influence of illegal \ndrugs, specifically marijuana.  Based upon the claimant’s own testimony, which was unrebutted, \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n11 \n \nhe was instructed to get on the roof, and obviously, the job supervisor was not concerned about \nthe claimant’s abilities when he instructed him to crawl on the roof, since other employees were \navailable at the time and there was no comment about his abilities or of any intoxication.  T he \nreport  from  Baptist  Health  in  North  Little  Rock  and  from  EMS  Ambulance  provided that  the \nclaimant  was  alert  and  oriented  with  his  pupils  equal,  round,  and  reactive  to  light.    No  report \nmentioned that the claimant was unresponsive or that he appeared to be intoxicated, an issue \nthat is commonly observed and checked in an emergency room.   \nThe claimant admitted to using marijuana two (2) weeks prior to the work-related accident.  \nMason  Garner,  admittedly  claimant’s  friend  and  with  no  medical  background  but  also  still \nemployed  by  the  respondent  employer  at  the  time  of  the  hearing,  testified and  also  signed  a \nhand-written memo that the claimant was not intoxicated at the time of the injury.  There was no \nrebuttal to this testimony.  Additionally, the ambulance crew and the emergency room personal \nmade no mention of the claimant possibly being intoxicated.  Based upon the above evidence, \nthere is no alternative but to find that the claimant has successfully satisfied the burden of proof \nto  rebut  the  presumption  that  the  work-related  injury  of  April  20,  2020,  was  substantially \noccasioned by the use of illegal drugs.  Consequently, the claimant has satisfied the burden of \nproof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a compensable left wrist injury on \nMay 10,  2023,  and is  entitled  to  reasonable  and  necessary  medical  treatment,  including  the \ntreatment that has already occurred, along with reimbursement for the travel admitted into the \nrecord.   \nIn addition, based upon the above finding, the claimant has satisfied the burden of proof \nbeyond a reasonable doubt that he is entitled to TTD from the date following the injury beginning \non May 11, 2023, through July 9, 2023, at the stipulated rate.      \n\nMILLER – H303132 \n \n12 \n \nThe claimant and his attorney are entitled to the appropriate legal fees as spelled out in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-715.  \nAfter weighing the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either \nparty, it is found that the claimant has satisfied his burden of proof that his claim for the injury to \nhis left wrist is compensable, that he is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical including \nthe treatment that has already occurred, reimbursement for the travel submitted, and TTD from \nMay 11, 2023, through July 9, 2023.  The claimant is also entitled to attorney fees as spelled out \nby the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.  This Award shall bear interest at the legal rate \npursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-809.  If not already paid, the respondents are ordered to pay \nthe cost of the transcript forthwith.  All other issues are reserved. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n  \n       ___________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303132 MIKEL MILLER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT vs. SPURLOCK, INC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, James D. Kennedy, on the 9 TH day o...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:57:31.092Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303132-2024-02-21","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MILLER_MIKEL_H303132_20240221.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}