{"id":"alj-H303954-2024-06-25","awcc_number":"H303954","decision_date":"2024-06-25","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Myia Woods","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock","title":"WOODS VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# H303954 June 25, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:2","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back","lumbar","sprain","strain","cervical","thoracic"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WOODS_MYIA_H303954_20240625.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WOODS_MYIA_H303954_20240625.pdf","text_length":26825,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H303954 \n \nMYIA M. WOODS, EMPLOYEE         CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK, EMPLOYER               RESPONDENT \n    \nCADENCE INSURANCE CO./RISK MANAGEMENT \nSERVICES, CARRIER/TPA                      RESPONDENT \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED 25 JUNE 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 27 March 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nMr. Gary Davis, of the Davis Law Firm, appeared for the claimant. \n \nMs. Melissa Wood, of Worley, Wood & Parrish, appeared for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 27 March 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas, after \nthe parties participated in a prehearing telephone conference on 5 December 2023. The \nsubsequent Prehearing Order, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s \nExhibit No 1, was entered on the same day as the conference. The Order stated the \nfollowing ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED: \n1.  Whether the claimant is entitled to Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits. \n2.  Controversion and applicable attorney’s fee on benefits. \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their Prehearing Questionnaire Responses, \nwere incorporated into the Prehearing Order.  \nThe claimant CONTENDS:\n1\n \n \n1\n As listed in her prehearing filings and the Prehearing Order, the claimant originally \ncontended that she sustained compensable injuries on 22 March 2022 and that she is \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n2 \n \nThat she is entitled to TTD benefits from her last date worked, 13 July 2023, to a date \nyet to be determined. She further contends that after 10 November 2023, she began \nreceiving “salary continuation” while her long-term disability application was pending and \nthat she is entitled to the difference in her applicable TTD amount and the amount received \nin salary continuation from that date going forward. See TR at 10-11. \nThe respondents CONTEND: \nThat all appropriate benefits have been paid on the 22 March 2022 injury. The claim \nwas accepted as medical-only, and the claimant was released at maximum medical \nimprovement (MMI) with no impairment on 15 April 2022. The claimant’s authorized \nproviders are at Concentra, but she obtained unauthorized care from Dr. Viviana Suarez \nand Arkansas Spine & Pain. \nThat Order also set forth the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  An employee/employer/carrier relationship existed on or about 22 March 2022 when \nthe claimant sustained compensable injuries to her left knee and lower back. \n \n3.  The average weekly wage was $706.73, which entitled the claimant to weekly \ncompensation rates of $354.00 for Temporary Total Disability (TTD) and $266.00 for \nPermanent Partial Disability (PPD). \n \nThe following WITNESSES testified at the hearing: \nThe claimant testified on her own behalf; the respondents called Ms. Kayla Jo Dixon \nand Ms. Shawanda Craig. \n \nThe EVIDENCE presented consisted of the testimony along with Commission’s Exhibit \nNo 1 (the 5 December 2023 Prehearing Order), Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (an index page and \n109 pages of medical records), Claimant’s Exhibit No 2 (an index page and additional 11 \n \nentitled to temporary total disability benefits between 12 May 2023 and 30 May 2023 and \nthen again from 30 June 2023 to a date yet to be determined. Those contentions were \namended without objection at the hearing. \n \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n3 \n \npages of medical records), Claimant’s Exhibit No 3 (an index page and 41 pages of additional \nrecords), Respondent's Exhibit No 1 (an index page and 29 pages of medical records), and \nRespondent’s Exhibit No 2 (an index page and 7 additional pages of records). \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the witnesses, \nobserving their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nunder ACA § 11-9-704: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The previously noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nto TTD benefits for any period. \n \n4. Absent an award of benefits, the claimant is not entitled to attorney’s fees. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY & MEDICAL EVIDENCE \nClaimant Myia Woods \nThe claimant is a forty-three-year-old female who was working for the City of Little \nRock as a Recreation Programmer at the time of her stipulated compensable injuries to her \nleft knee\n2\n and lower back. According to the claimant, her job involved coordinating \ncommunity programs, like team athletics, for park facilities and doing administrative work \nin support of those programs. [TR at 19-20.] On the day she was injured, she slipped in a \nhallway and fell at the city’s West Central Community Center. She testified that she was \nfirst seen at the Baptist Hospital emergency department, was off work for a week, and then \nfollowed up through Concentra Health Centers at the direction of her employer. [TR at 21-\n22.] \n \n2\n The claimant is not seeking benefits associated with her knee injury. The unscheduled \ninjury to her back is the only injury at issue in this litigation. \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n4 \n \nAccording to her testimony, the claimant was returned to work at light duty and \neventually sought treatment from Dr. Viviana Suarez and Arkansas Spine and Pain. She \nreceived medication and some injection therapy at Arkansas Spine and Pain and \nOrthoArkansas. This later treatment was not authorized, but sought on her own. \nQ:  You’ve used your health insurance to pay for these things? \nA:  Yes. \nQ:  And, apparently, you – in your deposition you said that you were \nhaving trouble getting ahold of the insurance people, that’s why you went to \nDr. Suarez? \nA:  Yes. \nQ:  But again, thereafter, you’ve continued with Dr. Suarez and she’s \nreferred you to these various doctors, is that right? \nA:  Yes. \n \n[TR at 24.] \n The claimant was asked, “why is July the 13\nth\n of 2023 the last day you worked?” She \ntestified, “Because I had to go in and have a procedure done. I had got worse to where it \nwas – it was just getting to where I couldn’t sit or hardly walk or anything; so I had to have \nthat procedure done, and then, I was like – they had me on, like – on some strict bed-type \nrest, and then, they started me back with the therapy and I was going, like, two or three \ntimes a week.” [TR at 24-25.] She clarified that the “procedure” was an epidural injection \nand confirmed that she had not returned to work since the first injection.  \n In November of 2023, the claimant began receiving some disability benefits under a \npolicy offered through the city. She believed that she made the application for those \nbenefits after someone from the city contacted her about potential eligibility for coverage. \n[TR at 26-27.] She testified that she is still treating with Dr. Paulus at OrthoArkansas and \nthat she is attempting to get approval for another procedure through her group health \ninsurance. [TR at 28.] \n The claimant stated that she is currently prescribed pain medication, muscle \nrelaxers, and steroids, and that she takes those medications on a daily basis or as otherwise \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n5 \n \ninstructed. She denied any injuries or accidents since the workplace incident, but for one \nepisode where she was in such pain related to her injuries that she described being on the \nfloor at her home and presented to urgent care for some pain intervention. [TR at 31-32.] \nShe stated that she experiences low back pain, stiffness, and muscle spasms, with difficulty \nstaying seated for long periods of time. [TR at 34-35.] \n On cross examination, the claimant confirmed that the respondents instructed her to \npresent to Concentra “the next week” after her fall.  \n Q:  Okay. Were you working at all between that time? \n A:  No, I was at home. I was, actually, at home on bed rest. \n \n[TR at 38.] She also confirmed that she no longer experiences trouble with her knee, so far \nas it relates to this claim. Her treatment with Concentra consisted of various physical \nexaminations, exercises, hot and cold therapies, and medications; but she discontinued the \nmedications prescribed by them on her own. The claimant acknowledged that she was \nreleased on light duty from Concentra’s care by Dr. Scott Carle on 15 April 2022. She \nreturned to work and continued working with light duty restrictions until July of 2023. [TR \nat 39-41.] \n The claimant’s testimony concluded after she confirmed her signature on the Form \nAR-N dated 23 March 2022. [TR at 42; Resp. Ex. No 2.] \nRespondents’ Witness Kayla Jo Dixon \n Ms. Dixon works for the City of Little Rock and oversees, among other things, city \nemployee workers’ compensation cases. She recalled that the claimant stopped showing up \nfor work in July of 2023, which led to a conference call with other administrators to discuss \nthe claimant’s leave status. Ms. Dixon stated that she was not aware of the claimant \ncontinuing any authorized treatment at the time and that last notice she received was \nregarding the claimant’s release at MMI in April of 2022. [TR at 44-45.] \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n6 \n \n Ms. Dixon described difficulty getting in contact with the claimant to sort out which \ninjury or illness with which her absenteeism was associated, as she had more than one open \nFMLA matter. When she eventually spoke with the claimant, who relayed that her absence \nwas for surgery related to her workplace injury, Ms. Dixon explained that no treatment was \nauthorized at the time and that the claimant should report to Concentra for covered \ntreatment. She also testified that the claimant was currently receiving some salary \ncontinuation while a disability claim was pending with the city’s vendor for that coverage. \n[TR at 46-48.] \n On cross examination, Ms. Dixon stated that she was not aware of any condition the \nprevented the claimant from performing work. She further testified that she did not contact \nthe claimant to suggest or discuss her filing a claim with the city’s disability insurance \nvendor. [TR at 49-50.] The witness verified that records indicated 13 July 2023 as the \nclaimant’s last work day and that she had been receiving salary continuation since, while \nthe claim for long-term disability was pending. [TR at 51-52.] When asked why the \nrespondents would continue to pay employees (outside of the Workers’ Compensation \nstructure) for not working during a time where they were claiming to be disabled, Ms. \nDixon acknowledged that the practice could be seen as “lenient,” but that they make good \nfaith efforts to keep employees in a paid status whenever possible. [TR at 53.] \nRespondents’ Witness Shawanda Craig  \nMs. Craig testified that she is the city’s Deputy Director for Recreation Services and \nthat she has been in the respondent’s employ for twenty-five years. The claimant reported \nup to her through the chain of command, with two supervisors in between. Ms. Craig stated \nthat the claimant would have received a Form AR-N from her and verified that the record \nin evidence [Resp. Ex. No 2 at 1-2] was an accurate copy of that form. [TR at 58-60.] \nMedical Evidence \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n7 \n \n The emergency department records from immediately after the claimant’s fall \nindicate that a “fall occurred while walking. She landed on a hard floor. The point of impact \nwas the left knee. The pain is present in the left knee. The pain is mild.” Pain and \ntenderness were noted for her knee and lumbar back. The Assessment/Plan section noted \nknee sprain and lumbosacral strain and directed follow-up care if symptoms persisted. [Cl. \nEx. No 1 at 1-4.]  \nThe records from her first Concentra visit two days later (on 24 March 2022) \nsimilarly note a left knee injury and lumbar sprain. Medication and physical therapy were \nprescribed. She was returned to work that same day with the following restrictions: no \nstanding for more than half an hour, no lifting more than 20 pounds, no squatting, and no \nkneeling. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 5-10.] Her return-to-work note also restricted running and using \nstairs without a handrail, and it allowed for her to be off for the rest of that day. It further \nprovided that she could return for re-evaluation the following day or at the next scheduled \nvisit on 28 March 2022. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 11.] \nThe claimant returned to Concentra’s clinic on 28 March 2022 for follow up. Ongoing \nlumbar pain without radiculopathy was noted. She was returned to work that day with \nsquatting and kneeling restrictions and in the “sedentary” work class. Another appointment \nwas set for 1 April 2022. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 12-16.] The records from that next visit reflect \nsome improvement, with a recommendation for continued physical therapy and her \nrestrictions revised to include “may push/pull up to 30 lbs up to or > 8 hrs/day.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 \nat 17-21.] Her “Functional Restoration and Status of Healing” was noted as “Roughly 50% \nof anticipated healing,” and a subsequent appointment was set for 7 April 2022. \nAt the 7 April 2022 appointment, she was noted as “much better” and her \n“Functional Restoration and Status of Healing” was “approximately 75% of the way toward \nmeeting the physical requirements of her job.” Her lumbrosacral exam noted no tenderness \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n8 \n \nand a full range of motion. Physical therapy was to continue, and she was expected to be at \nmaximum medical improvement (MMI) at her next follow-up, which was set for 15 April \n2022. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 22-26.] \nUpon her next presentation to the Concentra clinic, the notes reflect that, “[she is] \nhere today for evaluation and release from her 22 Mar 2022 7:18 AM slip and fall injury \nwhere she injured her knee and lumbar. After nine formal sessions of PT as well as a week \nof Home PT, she is ready for release.” No tenderness and a normal range of motion were \nagain noted for her lumbrosacral exam. The claimant was prescribed seven tablets of \nCyclobenzaprine to take as needed at bedtime and 10 tablets of Meloxicam to take once \ndaily. She was noted, otherwise, as ready for release. Her return-to-work note listed: \nTreatment Status: Released from Care. \nWork Status:  The claimant can return to work with no restrictions on Apr 15, 2022. \nThe claimant has suffered no permanent impairment due to his/her work-related \ninjury. The maximum medical improvement date (end of healing period date is): Apr \n15, 2022. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 27-31.] \n The next treatment note provided by the claimant is from her New Patient Consult \nfor low back pain at Arkansas Spine and Pain on 5 July 2022. That note reflects a report of \n“onset of pain gradually over time,” with “LBP since 1/2022.” It also states, “h/o fall at her \njob on 3/2022, case not open. Patient works full time, recreating programmer.” The \nexamination of the claimant’s cervical and thoracic spine were not remarkable, but the \n“Inspection of the lumbar spine reveals scoliosis. Lordosis Palpation of the lumbar facet \nreveals tenderness on both sides at L3-S1 region.” She was assessed with scoliosis and \ndiscogenic low back pain, prescribed naproxen and physical therapy, and set to follow-up in \none month. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 32-37.] \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n9 \n \n The claimant followed up on 3 August 2022. She stated some significant \nimprovement with the physical therapy, but some stiffness in the morning. She was \nencouraged to complete her scheduled physical therapy sessions and set for a follow-up \nafter six weeks. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 42-44.] Another four weeks of physical therapy, at three \ntimes per week, were ordered. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 45.] \n She was seen again in October and December and then again in February of 2023, \nwhen she reported “still having stiffness to LB most severe in the morning and after a \nprolonged sitting at work.” Physical therapy was continued for lower back spondylosis and \nstrengthening. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 61.]   \n The claimant was referred to Dr. Rodrigo Cayme at OrthoArkansas on 7 June 2023 \nfor further evaluation and was assessed with (1) being overweight, (2) low back pain, (3) \nlumbosacral spondylosis without myelopathy, and (4) degeneration of lumbar intervertebral \ndisc. An MRI was ordered for the following week. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 71-75.] The MRI scan \nshowed: \n1. Disc Disease at L4-L5 with prominent endplate change. Diffuse mild disc bulging \nand facet degenerative change produces moderate compromise of both neural \nforamina. No significant central canal stenosis. \n2. Mild disc bulging as L5-S1 producing some slight compromise of the right lateral \nrecess, minimal to left. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1 at 80.] \n Following the MRI scan, she followed up with OrthoArkansas, and Bilateral L5/S1, \nL4/5 Facet Joint Injections were planned. The record notes that if she did not feel relief, \nradiofrequency ablations would follow. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 88.] The injections were performed \non 10 July 2023 [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 89-90], and at her 27 July 2023 follow-up appointment, she \nreported no improvement in her mobility. The claimant was then referred to Dr. Paulus for \nconsultation on a nerve ablation procedure. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 97.] \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n10 \n \n The claimant submitted a letter from a UAMS Neighborhood Clinic, signed by Dr. \nViviana Suarez and dated 31 July 2023, that recommended she “remain out of work.” [Cl. \nEx. No 1 at 98-99.] She does not provide any clinic notes associated with a visit for that \nletter. She also submitted a “Return to Work/School” note from OrthoArkansas, dated 7 \nAugust 2023, which references her 27 July visit and her referral to Dr. Paulus, but makes \nno mention of any ordered time off from work or any work restrictions. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 100.] \n A letter from Dr. Paulus states that she was seen on 22 August 2023 to discuss a \nnerve ablation procedure that usually takes some time to authorize through insurance. It \nfurther states that “there are no restrictions following this procedure.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 107.] \nThere is no mention of any restrictions while the approval for the procedure was pending. \nAnother letter, dated 18 September 2023, appears to advocate for her group health \ninsurance approving coverage for the ablation procedure to address “vertebrogenic pain due \nto Modic changes at L4 and L5.” [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 108-109.] \n The claimant also submitted some clinic records from 2024. The OrthoArkansas \nnotes reflect that she was counseled that, “back pain is not an inherently disabling \ncondition, and that the degenerative changes at L4-5 may certainly be painful but should \nnot affect work safety, so I do not have specific work restrictions to recommend at this \ntime.” [Cl. Ex. No 2 at 3.] They discussed again the nerve ablation procedure, which her \nprimary insurance denied, but her secondary insurance approved; and she voiced interest \nin moving forward with that procedure. [Cl. Ex. No 2 at 10.] \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts, as agreed during the pre-hearing conference, are outlined above \nand accepted. It is settled that the Commission, with the benefit of being in the presence of \nthe witness and observing his or her demeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n11 \n \nappropriate weight to accord their statements. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, \n337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999).  \nAs an initial matter, I find the claimant’s credibility to be limited, as her testimony \naround significant events is contradicted by the medical records. First, she claims that after \nher fall and visit to the emergency department, “I was off work that whole week, and then, I \nguess, like, that Friday Ms. Shawanda Robinson, she called me and told me to go over to \nConcentra.” [TR at 22.] Her medical records, however, show that she fell and was seen at \nthe emergency department on March 22\nnd\n and was then seen at Concentra two days later, \nwith her notes from that appointment indicating that the provider signed off on the note at \n9:27 AM.\n 3\n There is no off-work note, for any amount of time, accompanying the emergency \ndepartment records; but at most there was one day between her emergency department and \nConcentra visits. Still, she testified on cross examination that she was at home on bed rest \nafter the fall and was directed to Concentra “the next week.” [TR at 38.] \nSimilarly, she stated that her last day of work was 13 July 2023 “because I had to go \nin and have a procedure done.” [TR at 24.] The medical records, however, clearly show that \nthe procedure was performed on 10 July 2023. Given her misstatements of those clearly \nidentifiable dates, and the certainty with which she relayed them at the hearing, I find her \ncredibility as an accurate historian to be very limited. \nA.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO TTD BENEFITS. \n \n For an unscheduled injury such as the one to the claimant’s lower back, temporary \ntotal disability (TTD) is a period within the healing period in which the employee suffers a \ntotal incapacity to earn any wages. Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 \n \n3\n A review of the calendar shows that 22 March 2022 was a Tuesday and that 24 March \n2022 was a Thursday. See Buxton v. City of Nashville, 132 Ark. 511, 201 S.W. 512 (1918) \n(courts may take judicial notice of the days of the week for particular dates). \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n12 \n \nS.W.2d 392 (1981). A “healing period” is “that period for healing of an injury resulting from \nan accident.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(12). The healing period ends when the underlying \ncondition has become stable and nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that \ncondition. Mad Butcher, Inc. v. Partker, 4 Ark. App. 124, 628 S.W.2d 582 (1982).  Whether a \nhealing period has ended is a question of fact for the Commission. Dallas County Hospital v. \nDaniels, 74 Ark. App. 177, 47 S.W.3d 283 (2001). \n Here, the claimant seeks TTD for a period beginning more than a year after her \nrelease from authorized care for a strained muscle. There is no question that she returned \nto work after the fall and that she continued working after her 15 April 2022 release from \ncare. Her healing period ended at that time. The question turns then to whether she can \nprove by a preponderance of the evidence that she reentered a healing period, beginning on \n13 July 2023, associated with her compensable back injury and in which she was unable to \nearn wages. On this record she falls short of meeting that burden. \n The claimant began unauthorized treatment with Arkansas Spine and Pain months \nafter her release from care and noted, at the time, that her symptoms existed prior to her \nfall in March of 2022, dating the onset as January of 2022. She similarly reported an onset \nof symptoms predating her fall in the FMLA paperwork provided by the respondents, which \nwere dated in June of 2023, and noted an onset of a chronic condition in January of 2022. \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 7-9.]  \nThere is no evidence that she sought authorized care for her workplace injury after \nher release and that such a request was actually denied. Conversely, Kayla Jo Dixon \ntestified that when she eventually became aware that the claimant was not showing up for \nwork, she directed her to Concentra for any necessary treatment related to her compensable \ninjury. The claimant did not follow that direction. Ms. Dixon testified credibly that she was \nnot aware of any condition that prevented the claimant from working. \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n13 \n \n The claimant does not attempt to assert that she reentered a healing period during \nher several visits to Arkansas Spine and Pain in the year following her release; and the \nrecords from OrthoArkansas do not clearly indicate that she re-entered a healing period in \nJuly of 2023 for a compensable injury or that she was unable to work. It is clear from the \nnotes\n4\n that she was pursuing treatment during that time under her group health coverage \nand not under Workers’ Compensation benefits. The medical records after her release from \nauthorized care evidence treatment for a chronic condition likely attributable to scoliosis \nand degenerative disc problems. As stated in the opinion letter from Dr. Ryan Fitzgerald, \nwhich I find credible,\n5\n “imaging obtained in June 2023... was negative for any evidence of \nan acute traumatic injury... [and] revealed multiple potential degenerative pain generators \nindependent of the [workplace fall]. [Resp. Ex. No 1 at 27.] Indeed, her later records from \nOrthoArkansas relate her back pain to degenerative changes and state, “back pain is not an \ninherently disabling condition, and that the degenerative changes at L4-5 may certainly be \npainful but should not affect work safety, so I do not have specific work restrictions to \nrecommend at this time.” \n The lone work note from Dr. Suarez at the end of July 2023 (more than a year after \nher authorized care ended) vaguely states that the claimant should not work. It does not \nreference her compensable back injury or a treatment plan or a timeframe or relate to any \nother supporting documentation and is, therefore, simply not enough to meet her burden \nthat she cannot earn any wages due to her workplace injury. The claimant failed to produce \npersuasive evidence making a causal connection between her time out of work for the \n \n4\n See the insurance information listed above her 18 August 2023 OrthoArkansas letter. \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 21.] \n5\n See Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002) (the Commission may \naccept or reject a medical opinion and determine its probative value). \n\nWOODS- H303954 \n14 \n \nunauthorized treatment (both past treatment and potential future treatment) and her \ncompensable injury.  \n The thrust of the claimant’s argument appears that because she might qualify for \nlong-term disability under a plan offered by the respondents, she must also be entitled to \nTTD benefits under Arkansas Workers' Compensation laws at the same time. The statutes \nand cases relating to the availability of TTD benefits, however, do not support such a \nfinding. \n Because the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she re-\nentered a healing period for her workplace injury that precluded her ability to work, her \nclaim for TTD benefits must fail.  \nB.   THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A CONTROVERTED ATTORNEY’S FEE. \n \n Because her claim for TTD benefits fails, her claim for associated attorney’s fees \nmust also fail. \nV.  ORDER \n      Consistent with the Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law above, this claim is \ndenied and dismissed.  \nSO ORDERED. \n \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H303954 MYIA M. WOODS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CADENCE INSURANCE CO./RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 25 JUNE 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrati...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:17.736Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303954-2024-06-25","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WOODS_MYIA_H303954_20240625.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}