{"id":"alj-H303428-2025-02-26","awcc_number":"H303428","decision_date":"2025-02-26","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Joyce Johnson","employer_name":"Booker T. Washington Elem. School","title":"JOHNSON VS. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON ELEM. SCHOOL AWCC# H303428 February 26, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip","knee","lumbar","sprain","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Johnson_Joyce_H303428_20250226.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Johnson_Joyce_H303428_20250226.pdf","text_length":23580,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H303428 \n \nJOYCE JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nBOOKER T. WASHINGTON ELEM. SCHOOL, \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARD ASSN., \nCARRIER/THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge,  Steven  Porch,  on January 14,  2025,  in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant was represented by Mr. Gregory R. Giles, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents were represented by Ms. Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  full  hearing  was  held  on  this  claim  on January  14,  2025.    A  prehearing  telephone \nconference  took  place  on July 2,  2024.  A  prehearing  order  was  entered  on  that  date  and \nsubsequently  entered  into  evidence,  with  amendments  by  the  parties,  as Commission  Exhibit  1. \nThe parties’ stipulations are set forth. \nSTIPULATIONS \n By agreement of the parties, the stipulations applicable to this claim are as follows: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the \nwithin claim. \n \n2. The employer/employee/carrier  relationship  existed  among  the  parties  on \nMay 2, 2023,  when  Claimant allegedly sustained  compensable injuries to \nher back. \n \n3. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n4. The parties stipulate to Claimant receiving max rates meaning a temporary \ntotal  disability  rate  of  $835.00  and  a  permanent  partial  disability  rate  of \n$626.00 per week. \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n2 \n \n \nISSUES \n The parties have identified the following issues\n1\n to be adjudicated: \n1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable aggravation of a pre-existing injury to her \nback.\n2\n  \n \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment from May \n3, 2023, to July 5, 2024. \n \n3. Whether Claimant is entitled to Temporary Total Disability benefits from September \n1, 2023, to April 23, 2024. \n \n4. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  Temporary  Partial  Disability  benefits  from  June  1, \n2023, to August 30, 2023. \n \n5. Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  Permanent Partial  Disability  benefits,  specifically  a \n10% impairment rating to the body as a whole associated with the injuries sustained to \nher back. \n \n6. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n \nAll other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nClaimant’s Contentions: The Claimant contends that she sustained compensable injuries. \nThe  primary  injury  is  the  aggravation  of  a  pre-existing  condition  of  her  low  back  which  has \nsubsequently required surgery. Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from the \ndate she began missing work. Claimant also contends that Respondents should be ordered to pay \nthe  medical  treatment  received  to  date  and  additional  medical  treatment.  Claimant  is  entitled  to \n \n1\n The Claimant had motioned for modification of issue 1 to include only the aggravation \nof the back injury as the only alleged compensable injury, issue 2 to include the dates May 3, \n2023, to July 5, 2024, issue 3 changed the February 20, 2024, date to April 23, 2024, and the \ninclusion of issue 4 on Temporary Partial Disability benefits. Claimant’s oral motion was \ngranted. \n2\n The primary issue, based on testimony, involves the specific injury to Claimant’s lower \nback. More specifically, the L4-L5 region. \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n3 \n \n \nattorney fees as provided by law.  \nRespondents’ Contentions: Respondents   contend that   Claimant did   not   suffer   a \ncompensable injury on or about May 2, 2023. Considering this, it is Respondents’ position that \nClaimant is not entitled to benefits associated with her alleged injury.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and the \nevidentiary record, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):   \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The Claimant has not proven that she has sustained an aggravated compensable spinal \ninjury with objective findings.  \n \n4. Based  on  my  findings  of  no  compensability,  the  remaining  issues  of  reasonable  and \nnecessary  medical  treatment,  temporary  total  disability  benefits,  temporary  partial \ndisability benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, and a controverted attorney’s \nfee are moot and will not be addressed in this opinion.  \n \n \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n The record is made up of Claimant’s Exhibit 1, Medical Records, that consists of 75 pages, \nRespondents’ Exhibit 1, medical records, that consist of 91 pages, and Commission Exhibit 1, Pre-\nHearing Order filed July 2, 2024, that consists of 5 pages. Forms AR-C, AR-2, AR-1, Claimant’s \npost-hearing brief, and Respondents’ post-hearing brief are all blue-backed and made a part of this \nrecord. The Claimant was the only witness testifying in the full hearing.  \nClaimant was employed as a music teacher for the Respondent/Employer. On May 2, 2023, \nClaimant was pushed into a classroom door, that she was holding open for other students to exit, \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n4 \n \n \nby a disgruntled third-grade student who was just disciplined by her. The student pushed Claimant \nin her back causing the left side of her body to hit the door. The Claimant did not fall to the ground \nwhen pushed into the door by the student. The Claimant testified that she felt pain in her left hip \nand down her left leg. Claimant stated that she had to resume using her cane once she got off work \non the day of the incident.  \nThe  Claimant  has  a long history  of  back issues  with  associated pain.  According  to  the \nClaimant, in 1992-93 she was involved in a car accident and injured her upper back. Trans. p. 43, \nlines  24-25 – p.  44  lines  1-21. The  Claimant  also testified  that  she fell  out  of  a  chair  while \ndecorating her classroom thus again injuring her back in the year 2011. Id. The Claimant had an \nMRI on November 9, 2011, that shown some mild degenerative changes, but no significant disc \nherniation at the L4-L5 level. See CL Ex. 1, p. 341.  \nOn November 17, 2022,  Claimant met with Dr. Eric Joseph at CHI St. Vincent Primary \nCare University for tingling in her back. CL Ex. 1, p. 2.  According to her history, the Claimant \nwas present for an evaluation concerning a diffuse paresthesia in both of her legs. Id. The Claimant \nreported that  she  continued to  have  diffuse  pain  and  tingling  and  wants  treatment. Id. She also \nreported no  recent  injury,  trauma, or  change  in  her  symptoms  during  her  visit  with  Dr.  Joseph. \nClaimant also has a diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome in her right upper extremity. CL \nex. 1, pp. 8-9. This syndrome was responding well to medical management. Id.  \nOn February 23, 2023, Claimant met with Dr. Adam Smith at OrthoArkansas complaining \nabout right side hip pain. CL Ex. 1, p. 22. The pain was in the buttocks and would radiate down \nthe  back  of  the  leg. Id. Claimant  stated  that  the  pain  was  made  worse  by  prolonged  walking  or \nstanding,  as  well  as,  getting  in  and  out  of  chairs, and  walking  up  and  down  stairs. Id. Claimant \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n5 \n \n \nfurther stated that she would occasionally get electrical shock type of pain in her leg. Id. Dr. Smith \nreferred her to an orthopedic surgeon. Id.  \nClaimant saw Dr. Stephen Paulus on March 8, 2023, at OrthoArkansas. CL Ex. 1, pp. 23-\n28. Dr. Paulus referred the Claimant to a physical therapist to assist her with mechanical support \nand stabilization of her spine. Id. Claimant was instructed to contact the clinic after one week if \nthe Claimant is not experiencing appropriate symptomatic benefits. Id.  \nThe Claimant next visited Rebekah Long, a Physical Therapist at OrthoArkansas, on March \n17,  2023. CL  Ex.  1,  32-34.  The  Claimant  reported  low  back pain with  activity. Id.  She  further \nreported  radicular  symptoms  down  both  legs  to  the  knee  and  occasionally  the  foot. Id. The \nClaimant  stated  that  she  has  been  experiencing  her  symptoms  consistently  for  about  six  weeks \nprior to her visit with the physical therapist; and randomly over the past two years. Id. Claimant \nhad a follow-up visit with Dr. Paulos on April 11, 2023. CL Ex. 1, pp. 53-58. Dr. Paulos ordered \nClaimant an MRI of her lumbar spine since she reported radicular leg pain during two sessions of \nher physical therapy. Id. Claimant next had an MRI of her lumbar spine on April 12, 2023, twenty \ndays before her alleged work-related incident. CL Ex. 1, p. 59. \nThe April 12, 2023, MRI was done at OrthoArkansas and reviewed by Dr. Jay Martin, of \nKanis-Reader, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Dr. Martin’s impression of the MRI is as follows: \n1. Multilevel degenerative disc disease. \n2. A broad-based central protrusion of the L4-5 disc is superimposed on generalize bulging \nof  the  disc.  Central  spine  canal  stenosis  at  the  L4-5  level  due  to  abnormal  disc  facet \narthropathy  and thickening  of  the  ligamentum  flavum.  Right  facet  arthropathy  mildly \neffaces the right side of the thecal sac.  \n3. There is a narrowing of the right lateral recess at the L4-5 level, with impingement on the \ndescending right L5 nerve root. \nCL Ex. 1, p. 59. \nOn April  28,  2023,  the  Claimant  received  a  right  and  left  L5-S1  epidural  injection, \napproximately four days before the work-related incident. CL Ex. 1, pp. 70-71. The work-related \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n6 \n \n \nincident occurred May 2, 2023.\n3\n In response to the work-related incident,  the Claimant saw Dr. \nScott Carle on May 3, 2023, and was diagnosed with a pelvic contusion and sprain of a ligament \nin her left knee.\n4\n Cl Ex. 1, pp. 81-82. Dr. Carle also prescribed the Claimant pain medication. Id. \nClaimant followed-up with Dr. Carle to recheck her back on May 19, 2023. CL Ex. 1, pp. 177-\n187. At that time, Dr. Carle assessed Claimant with lumbar radiculopathy and referred her to an \northopedic specialist. Id. Dr. Carle also ordered an MRI on May 19, 2023, at Chenal MRI. CL Ex. \n1, pp. 174-176. The result of this MRI, as it specifically relates to Claimant’s L4-L5, is as follows: \n1. L4-L5:    Mild  disc  bulge  and  right  paracentral  to  right  foraminal  disc herniation  with \nmoderate spinal canal stenosis, severe mass effect on the right lateral recess, severe right \nand moderate left neural foraminal narrowing. \nCL Ex. 1, p. 175 \nThe May 19, 2023, MRI report  also noted, as to Claimant’s L4-L5, a moderate bilateral \nfacet joint arthropathy. Id.  There was also a thickening of the bilateral ligamentum flavum with \nan estimated diameter of approximately three millimeters. Id. Dr. Stephen Paulus did a comparison \nbetween the May 19, 2023, MRI and the April 12, 2023, MRI and found that Claimant’s L4-L5 \nwas “unchanged.” Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 70-71. On June 7, 2023, Dr. Carle was asked by letter from \nLisa  Wigginton, a Workers’  Compensation  Claims Adjuster,  about whether  there  were  any \nobjective findings concerning Claimant’s back injury. Resp. Ex. 1, p. 73. Dr. Carle responded, in \nwriting, by stating “none.” Id. Dr. Carle further opined that there were “negative studies for \n \n3\n Both sides agree that a specific incident occurred involving a third grader pushing the \nClaimant into a door. However, there is disagreement that the episode produced objective \nfindings. \n4\n I was not asked to rule on the compensability and reasonable treatment of these injuries. \nThough the compensability of these injuries, at best, appear clear. I will only be addressing the \nalleged back injury. \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n7 \n \n \nfracture or internal injuries.” Dr. Carle concluded by stating that Claimant had “no measurable \naggravation to pre-existing spine disorder.” Id.  \nThe Claimant next visited Dr. Bernard Crowell, Orthopedic Specialist, on July 27, 2023, \nfor  assistance  with  her  back  pain  when  it  was  decided  that  surgery,  a  hemilaminectomy  and \ndiskectomy  of  the  L4-L5,  would  be  the  best  course  of  treatment.  CL  Ex.  1,  pp.  252-256.  Dr. \nCrowell performed this surgery on August 11, 2023. CL Ex. 1, pp. 264-266. The Claimant testified \nthat the surgery helped her with her pain.  \nAfter some healing time, Claimant underwent another MRI on February 9, 2024, by Chenal \nMRI. CL Ex. 1, pp. 333-334. Dr. William W. Davenport reviewed the results of the MRI scan and \nnoted the following as it relates to Claimant’s L4-L5:  \nL4-L5:    Interval    right    laminectomy.    Interval    right    discectomy.    Enhancing \npostoperative  granulation  tissue  at  the  laminectomy  site  and  in  the  right  lateral  recess. \nResidual bulging annulus and bilateral facet hypertrophy with moderate bilateral foraminal \nstenoses. \n \nCL Ex. 1, pp. 333-334. Dr. Davenport’s impression, in regard to Claimant’s low back injury, post \noperation, was a moderate bilateral foraminal stenoses at her L4-L5-S1. Id.   \nDue to multiple MRI’s being involved  in  this  claim,  an independent  medical  evaluation \nwas obtained, by Respondents, from Dr. Wayne Bruffett on June 21, 2024. CL Ex. 1, pp. 341-346.  \nDr. Bruffett reviewed pre-work-related injury MRIs dated November 9, 2011, and April 12, 2023. \nDr. Bruffett also reviewed post-work-related injury MRIs dated May 19, 2023, and February 9, \n2024. Dr. Bruffett also interviewed the patient and examined her in addition to reviewing all the \npertinent imaging. Id.  \nDr.  Bruffett  opined  although  the  work-related  incident  of  May  2,  2023,  caused  some \nworsening pain for the Claimant, he would say to “a reasonable degree of medical certainty based \non  the  objective  imaging  and  her  history  of  pre-existing  complaints  and  treatments  for  this \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n8 \n \n \nproblem, specifically an injection 4 days prior to the event, the surgery that was performed and the \nsubsequent treatment was more than 51% related to her pre-existing disc herniation stenosis and \nradiculopathy that emanated from the L4-L5 motion segment.” Id. Dr. Bruffett further opined that \nhe saw “no objective evidence of an injury as a consequence of the incident that occurred on May \n2, 2023, at work.” Id. Dr. Bruffett also stated that Claimant is at maximum medical improvement \nand there is no applicable impairment rating that can be linked to her work-related incident. Id. Dr. \nBruffett  concluded  his  opinion  by  stating  that  he  has  not  placed any  restrictions  on  Claimant \nbecause of her work-related injury. Id.    \nOn January 6, 2025, Dr. Ryan Fitzgerald, Radiologist, also gave his findings and opinions \nregarding the provided records and imaging for the Claimant. Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 80-86. Dr. Fitzgerald \nreviewed medical documents and imaging before and after the May 2, 2023, work-related incident. \nId. Dr. Fitzgerald opined that the “MR imaging obtained in May 2023, was negative for any \nobjective  evidence  of  an  acute traumatic injury.” Id. Dr. Fitzgerald concluded that the “lumbar \ntreatments provided subsequent to the subject event were more likely than not attributable to Ms. \nJohnson’s (Claimant) long-standing lumbar degenerative disease and independent of the subject \nevent.” Id. \nAdjudication \nA. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable aggravation of a pre-existing injury to \nher back by specific incident. \n Under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act, the employer takes the employee as the \nemployer  finds  her,  and  employment  circumstances  that  aggravate  pre-existing  conditions  are \ncompensable.   Nashville  Livestock  Comm.  v.  Cox,  302  Ark.  69,  787  S.W.2d  64  (1990).    A  pre-\nexisting  infirmity  does  not  disqualify  a  claim  if  the  employment  aggravated,  accelerated,  or \ncombined  with  the  infirmity  to  produce  the  disability  for  which  compensation  is  sought.   St. \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n9 \n \n \nVincent Med. Ctr. v. Brown, 53 Ark. App. 30, 917 S.W.2d 550 (1996). \n “An  aggravation,  being  a  new  injury  with  an  independent  cause,  must  meet  the \nrequirements for a compensable injury.”  Crudup v. Regal Ware, Inc., 341 Ark. 804, 20 S.W.3d \n900  (2000);   Ford  v.  Chemipulp  Process,  Inc.,  63  Ark.  App.  260,  977  S.W.2d  5  (1998).    This \nincludes  the  prerequisite  that  the  alleged  injury  be  shown  by  medical  evidence  supported  by \nobjective findings.  See Heritage Baptist Temple v. Robison, 82 Ark. App. 460, 120 S.W.3d 150 \n(2003).  Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2012), an aggravation must be proven by \na  preponderance  of  the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or \nconvincing  force.   Barre  v.  Hoffman,  2009  Ark.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415; Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove \nBarium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 \nArk. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much \nweight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White  v.  Gregg \nAgricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through \nconflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \nto  believe  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness  but  may  accept  and  translate  into \nfindings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \nClaimant  has  not  proven  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  she  sustained  an \naggravated  compensable  injury  to  her low back. Claimant  has  undergone  a  series  of  MRIs \nconcerning her back both pre and post work-related incident. Many doctors have compared the pre \nand  post  work  incident  MRI  records  and  have  ultimately  reached  a  united  conclusion  of  no \nobjective findings.  \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n10 \n \n \nFor example, Dr. Stephen Paulus did a comparison between the May 19, 2023, MRI and \nthe April 12, 2023, MRI and found that Claimant’s L4-L5 was “unchanged.” Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 70-\n71. On June 7, 2023, Dr. Carle when asked about objective findings concerning Claimant’s alleged \nlow back injury responded by stating “none.” Resp. Ex. 1, p. 73. Dr. Carle further opined that there \nwere “negative studies for fracture or internal injuries.” Dr. Carle concluded his opinion by stating \nthat Claimant had “no measurable aggravation  to  pre-existing  spine  disorder.” Id. I  credit  Dr. \nPaulus and Dr. Carle’s opinion. \nFurthermore, an independent medical evaluation was obtained, by Respondents, from Dr. \nWayne Bruffett on June 21, 2024. CL Ex. 1, pp. 341-346.  As previously mentioned, Dr. Bruffett \nreviewed  pre-work-related  injury  MRIs  dated  November  9,  2011,  and  April  12,  2023. He also \nreviewed the alleged post-work-related injury MRIs dated May 19, 2023, and February 9, 2024. \nDr.  Bruffett  interviewed  the  patient  and  examined  her  in  addition  to  reviewing  all  the  pertinent \nimaging. Id.  \nDr.  Bruffett  opined  although  the  work-related  incident  of  May  2,  2023,  caused  some \nworsening  pain  for  the  Claimant, however, he  would go  on  to say to “a reasonable degree of \nmedical certainty based on the objective imaging and her history of pre-existing complaints and \ntreatments for this problem, specifically an injection 4 days prior to the event, the surgery that was \nperformed  and  the  subsequent  treatment  was  more  than  51%  related  to  her  pre-existing  disc \nherniation  stenosis  and  radiculopathy  that  emanated  from  the  L4-L5 motion segment.” Id. Dr. \nBruffett also opined that he saw “no objective evidence of an injury as a consequence of the \nincident that occurred on May 2, 2023, at work.” Id. He further stated that Claimant is at maximum \nmedical improvement and there is no applicable impairment rating that can be linked to her work-\nrelated  incident. Id. Dr.  Bruffett  concluded  his  opinion  by  stating  that  he  has  not  placed any \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n11 \n \n \nrestrictions  on  Claimant  because  of  her  work-related  incident. Id.  I  credit  Dr.  Bruffett’s \nindependent medical evaluation report.  \nFinally,  on  January  6,  2025,  Dr.  Ryan  Fitzgerald,  Radiologist,  gave  his  findings  and \nopinions  regarding Claimant’s alleged injury.  Resp.  Ex.  1,  pp.  80-86.  Dr.  Fitzgerald  reviewed \nmedical documents and imaging before and after the May 2, 2023, work-related incident. Id. Dr. \nFitzgerald opined that the “MR imaging obtained in May 2023, was negative for any objective \nevidence of an acute traumatic injury.” Id. Dr. Fitzgerald concluded that the “lumbar treatments \nprovided subsequent to the subject event were more likely than not attributable to Ms. Johnson’s \n(Claimant) long-standing lumbar degenerative disease and independent of the subject event.” Id. I \ncredit Dr. Fitzgerald’s report. \nConsidering the above, I do not ignore -rather I find it unpersuasive- Claimants argument \nthat  those  who  reviewed  the  MRIs,  mainly  Dr.  Bruffett, needed  to also look  at  the  clinical \nimpressions  of  Dr.  Carle  along  with Claimant’s operative  report.  When  Dr.  Carle  was  directly \nasked about Claimant’s objective findings of a spinal injury, he concluded there were none. Res. \nEx.  1,  p.  73.  And as  previously  mentioned, Dr.  Carle further  opined  that  Claimant  had “no \nmeasurable aggravation to pre-existing spine disorder.” Id. Thus, his opinion fell in line with Dr. \nBruffett’s opinion. Moreover,  Dr.  Bruffett  had access  to  the  post  operative  MRI  of  February  9, \n2024. If the operative report was critical in his analysis of Claimant’s alleged back injury, he would \nhave  noted  such  in  his  report.  Therefore,  I  find  that  the  operative  report  was  not  critical  to  the \noverall analysis of whether there were objective findings of an aggravated low back injury in this \ncircumstance. \nBased on the reports of Dr. Paulus, Dr. Carle, Dr. Bruffett, and Dr. Fitzgerald, all whom I \nhave credited, I find that Claimant has failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that \n\nJOHNSON H303428 \n \n \n12 \n \n \nshe has objective findings of an aggravated work-related injury to her lower back; thus, her claim \nmust fail. See Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  \nMISCELLANEOUS ISSUES \n Based on my previous findings that Claimant has failed to prove she has objective findings \nof  an  aggravated  work-related injury, the  remaining issues  regarding  reasonable  and  necessary \nmedical  treatment,  temporary  total  disability  benefits, temporary  partial  disability  benefits, \npermanent partial disability benefits, and a controverted attorney’s fee are moot and will not be \naddressed in this opinion.  \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, the parties \nshall act consistent with this opinion.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. Steven Porch \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H303428 JOYCE JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BOOKER T. WASHINGTON ELEM. SCHOOL, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARD ASSN., CARRIER/THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Ste...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:43:58.814Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303428-2025-02-26","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Johnson_Joyce_H303428_20250226.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}