{"id":"alj-H304343-2024-10-08","awcc_number":"H304343","decision_date":"2024-10-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Diana Coleman","employer_name":"Youth Home, Inc","title":"COLEMAN VS. YOUTH HOME, INC. AWCC# H304343 October 08, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:3","denied:8"],"injury_keywords":["hip","knee","back","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/COLEMAN_DIANA_H304343_20241008.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"COLEMAN_DIANA_H304343_20241008.pdf","text_length":24937,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H304343 \n \nDIANA COLEMAN, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nYOUTH HOME, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER           RESPONDENT \n    \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA               RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED 8 OCTOBER 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 10 July 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nProctor & Malone, Mr. Willard Proctor, for the claimant. \n \nWorley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., Ms. Melissa Wood, for the respondents. \n \nI.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe above-captioned case was heard on 10 July 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas. The \nparties participated in a pre-hearing telephone conference on 23 April 2024. A Prehearing \nOrder, admitted to the record without objection as Commission’s Exhibit No 1, was entered \non 25 April 2024. \nThe parties agreed to the following STIPULATIONS: \n1.  The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim. \n2.  The employee/self-insured employer/TPA relationship existed at all relevant \ntimes, including on 19 June 2023, the date of the alleged compensable injury. \n3.  The claimant’s average weekly wage at the time of the work incident would \nentitle her to the maximum compensation amounts for temporary total disability \n(TTD) benefits and partial permanent disability (PPD) benefits.  \n4.  The respondents have controverted this claim for any additional benefits. \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n2 \n \nThe parties agreed on the following ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED\n1\n: \n1.  Whether the claimant suffered a compensable injury. \n2.  Whether the claimant is entitled to the benefits associated with a compensable \ninjury to her right hip, knee, and thigh by specific incident. \n3.  Whether the claimant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \nAll other issues were reserved. \nThe parties’ CONTENTIONS, as set forth in their Prehearing Questionnaire \nResponses, were incorporated into the Prehearing Order.  \nPer the claimant’s CONTENTIONS, she is entitled to temporary total benefits from \nthe date of the injury to the end of her healing period. \nPer the respondents’ CONTENTIONS, the claimant did not suffer a compensable \ninjury on 19 June 2023. There are no objective findings of a work-related injury.\n2\n The \nmedical documentation does not support entitlement to additional medical benefits or \nindemnity benefits associated with the 19 June 2023 incident. \nThe following WITNESSES testifying at the hearing: the claimant testified on her \nown behalf, and the respondents called Ms. Kelly Destafano, who worked in Human \nResources at the time of the incident.  \nThe EVIDENCE presented consisted of the testimony along with Commission’s \nExhibit No 1 (the 25 April 2024 Prehearing Order), Claimant’s Exhibit No 1 (seven pages of \n \n1\n The Prehearing Order reflects whether the claimant’s healing period had ended as an \nIssue. At the hearing, however, the claimant acknowledged an end to her healing period \nand asserted that the period ran from 26 June 2023 to 15 September 2023. See TR at 95. \n2\n The Respondents’ Prehearing information denied compensable injuries to the claimant’s \nright thigh and hip. At the hearing, they made clear that any claim(s) related to a \ncompensable right knee injury were also denied. The claimant concurred with that \nclarification. [TR at 9.] \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n3 \n \nmedical records), and Respondents’ Exhibit Nos 1 (7 pages of medical records) and 2 (nine \npages of non-medical records). \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole and having heard testimony from the \nwitnesses, observing their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions \nof law under 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 suffered a \ncompensable injury. \n \n4.  The claimant is, therefore, not entitled to the benefits sought, and she is not entitled \nto an attorney’s fee. \n \nIII.  HEARING TESTIMONY & MEDICAL EVIDENCE \nClaimant Diana Coleman \n The claimant testified that she has worked for the respondent-employer since 1988. \nHer title at the time of the incident at issue was Residential Treatment Counselor, which \nshe described as a behavioral paraprofessional. According to her testimony, the respondent-\nemployer provides residential programs for male youths who have experienced issues of \nabuse, neglect, abandonment, and the like. \n Part of the claimant’s job involved intervening when clients were upset or \ndisruptive. Physical restraint techniques may be required at times. On Monday, 19 June \n2023, the day of the incident, the claimant described two staff members escorting a client, a \n14 or 15 year old of 100 to 115 pounds and slender build, into the facility from outside with \nother clients. The client began to struggle against the staff as they neared the seclusion \narea. As the struggle moved to the floor, the claimant attempted to assist the other staff. \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n4 \n \n While the client was on his back on the floor, the claimant tried to help remove his \nshoes. “They have shoestrings or what have you that they can harm themselves. They could \nhave something inside the shoes that they could use to harm themselves. So, we try to take \ncare of that ahead of time, before taking them to seclusion.” [TR at 22.] The claimant \ntestified that after getting the shoes off, she tripped over the client, with her left knee \nfalling against him and her right knee on the floor beside him. She stated that she fell from \na standing position. Her right upper torso was against the floor while she leaned over the \nclient to continue assisting in his restraint. The claimant stated that her right shin and \nknee hit the floor, but she did not recall her right thigh hitting the floor. She stayed atop \nthe claimant on the ground until he calmed down enough to move to the seclusion area. \n After the client was escorted to the seclusion area, the claimant helped with serving \nlunch to the other clients. She recalled staying onsite past her usual shift’s end to assist \nwith lunch, but then drove home without incident. She did not report an injury before \nleaving that day. \n According to the claimant, her left knee felt stiff and sore the following day; but she \ndid not observe any bruising or signs of an injury. She worked the next day (a Tuesday) \nwithout incident or complaint, noting, “I fell and I was supposed to be stiff or sore.” [TR at \n38.] The claimant was not scheduled to work for the following few days. She recalled \npossibly taking some Tylenol around that time for soreness. The claimant testified that she \nspoke on the phone with coworker Ms. Sheila Glass on Thursday and complained to her \nabout a burning pain in her thigh. The pain, she said, radiated from her groin down her \nthigh to her left knee and shin.  \n After a short break off the record, the claimant clarified that any testimony about \nher left side being injured or hurting was in error, and that she meant to reference her \nright side. When asked, “And so the testimony that you were giving, you, actually, referring \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n5 \n \nto the right side of your body, is that correct?” she answered, “Yes, sir.” [TR at 42.] The \nclaimant then explained that she had difficulty getting out of bed for work that Friday. She \ndenied any falls or injuries since the incident at work on Monday. The claimant stated that \nshe used a heating pad on her thigh and knee while at work that Friday evening, but she \ndid not make an injury report. She did the same on her shift the following evening.  \n The claimant returned to work again for a shift on Sunday evening. She described \nhaving some difficulty, but making it through her shift with help from a coworker. That \nMonday morning she recalled reporting that she sustained an injury on the previous \nMonday. She was directed to a Concentra clinic for evaluation (on 26 June 2023) and was \nreturned to work that same day with some restrictions. The claimant followed up at \nConcentra on 29 June 2023. She stated that she was complaining of right knee and thigh \npain at that visit. Dr. Scott Carle returned the claimant to work without restrictions that \nday, but ordered some physical therapy sessions. She did not attempt the physical therapy \nand denied in her testimony that she was able to return to work at the time. \n According to the claimant, she should not have gone back to work because she did \nnot believe that she could participate in physically restraining a client. \nQ:  Okay. So in other words, would you or were you in a position that if a \nsimilar thing had happened, where you had to get on the floor to be able to \nhold a child down or to, physically hold them, were you able to, physically, \nable to do that on June 29\nth\n of 2023? \n \nA:  No, sir. \n \nQ:  Okay. And is that part of the issue that you were having with regards to \nbeing able to comply with what Concentra – the doctor from Concentra was \nasking you to do? \n \nA:  That would be the main thing – reason that I couldn’t comply with that. \n \nQ:  Okay. All right. \n \nA:  And plus, that’s Youth Home policy as well. \n \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n6 \n \nQ:  Okay. All right. \n \nA:  To be able to restrain. \n \nQ:  Okay. Now, did you—let’s talk about that. Did you, physically, go back to \nwork on the 29\nth\n? \n \nA:  No, sir. \n \n[TR at 55-56.] \n The claimant testified that she explained her disagreement with the physician’s \nopinion to her employer and that she was offered light duty work, which she refused. \nQ:  But she was offering it? \n \nA:  She offered it. \n \nQ:  Okay. And did you take it? \n \nA:  And at the time I was like, “I’m in pain and what I needed to do is to rest,” \nand I didn’t feel like I could just sit there at the receptionist desk, that’s the \njob that was—and to sit there and be in pain. I might as well sit at home in \npain, that’s what I’m thinking. \n \n[TR at 58.] \n According to the claimant, she sought a Change of Physician through the \nCommission and eventually saw a Dr. Moeller with St. Vincent on the 5\nth\n of July of 2023. \nShe testified that he placed her on work restrictions and recommended physical therapy. \nThe claimant testified that she eventually attempted the physical therapy “sometime later \non.” [TR at 64.]  \n The claimant further testified that she later saw a Dr. Nallur, whom she also \nthought she might have seen on the 5\nth\n of July and then again around July 19\nth\n. At this \npoint in the testimony, the respondents’ counsel offered that their file reflected the care \nwith Concentra being initially authorized, but by the time the claimant sought a Change of \nPhysician, her claim had been denied. \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n7 \n \nMs. Wood:  Judge, if I may. I’ve been able to look up in our file, Ms. Coleman \ndid request a Change of Physician. While the claim may have been initially \naccepted, Concentra was authorized. It [the claim] was denied. By the time \nshe made the request for a Change of Physician, that was denied by the \nCommission. I’m looking at a letter from Susan Isaac dated July 17\nth\n of ’23 \ndenying the Change of Physician. \n \nJudge:  Does that seem to clear it up on your end, Mr. Proctor— \n \nMr. Proctor:  Yes. \n \nJudge:  -- as to what’s happening when and where? \n \nMr. Proctor:  Okay. Yes. \n \n[TR at 67-68.] \n Ms. Coleman then testified that whenever she did attempt to attend the physical \ntherapy ordered by Dr. Nallur, coverage was denied. Around that time of 19 July 2023, the \nclaimant was still not working. She recalled going to the Baptist Hospital emergency \ndepartment on or about 24 July 2023. The claimant did not describe her course or \ntreatment at the emergency department, but said that she followed up sometime \nafterwards with her primary care provider Dr. Rhodora Raghavan. \nQ:  Okay. All right. It looks—we have introduced records that would appear \nthat, that would have been August the 23\nrd\n, of 2023? You’ve seen her for \nissues with our hip and right hip pain? \n \nA:  That could be correct. I mean, that’s probably correct for the time. \n \n[TR at 72-73.] \n Dr. Raghavan referred the claimant to Associate Physical Therapy and to \nOrthoArkansas, where she saw Dr. Victor Vargas for right knee pain. After seeing Dr. \nVargas on September 6\nth\n, the claimant returned to work at full duty without restrictions on \n15 September 2023. She testified that she was still in physical therapy at the time of her \nreturn to work, explaining, “certain things I had not completed or worked on, like how to sit \nand how to get up, how to bend, how to squat, all that, but I was back at work.” [TR at 74.] \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n8 \n \nThe claimant confirmed that she had not worked between 26 June and 15 September 2023. \nDespite her return to work, she explained: \nQ:  Are you still suffering from this injury to the point that it would require \nyou to go to the doctor? \n \nA:  I still suffer from it. \n \nQ:  Have you been required or are you required to go or have there been—is \nthere a requirement in your—for you to seek medical treatment as a result of \nthe injuries that you’re presenting? \n \nA:  Its’ not a requirement if that’s what you’re saying. \n \n. . . \n \nQ:  Okay. So as far as any further medical treatment, are you—I’m asking, do \nyou believe that you’re going to be in need of further medical treatment? \n \nA:  I got a feeling that I will, because I—I mean, I experience a lot of pain. \n \n[TR at 75.] \n On cross examination the claimant recalled her deposition testimony: \nQ:  ... “At any point since June 19\nth\n, have you either seen on your own or had \na doctor tell you about a specific finding or visible sign of injury in your hip, \nleg, or knee?” Your response was, “No. No, sir.” Is that accurate? \n \nA:  Sounds accurate. \n \nQ:  Do you have any doctor visits at all scheduled right now for your right \nleg? \n \nA:  No, ma’am. \n \nQ:  And you testified in your deposition that you had no treatment or testing \nthat had been recommended that you have not received, is that right? \n \nA:  Yes, ma’am. \n \n[TR at 82.] \n The claimant stated that she currently takes over-the-counter medication as needed \nfor pain and that she utilized accumulated paid leave during the time between presenting \nto Concentra on 26 June 2023 and then returning to work on 15 September 2023. \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n9 \n \n On re-direct examination the claimant confirmed that Dr. Nallur prescribed light \nduty at her 6 July 2023 visit. \n      Respondents’ Witness Kelly Destefano, Former HR Officer at Youth Home \n Ms. Destefano verified that she was the author of an email admitted into evidence \nby the respondents. [Resp. Ex. No 2 at 8.] She explained that she was in the process of \nchanging employment while the claimant’s matter was in process with the respondents, so \nshe wrote the email to provide the claimant and an HR coworker with pertinent \ninformation and the then-current status of the claim. She explained that the claimant was \nincluded on the message “so that if I had missed anything she could call me.” [TR at 90.] \nMs. Destefano testified that the claimant did not relay any objection or correction to the \nstate of things as described in the email. \n According to Ms. Destefano, she spoke with Sheila Glass and Liz Larsen after the \nclaimant’s report of an injury. She asked each to relay what they recalled of the restraint \nincident and then documented their responses in her email. Ms. Stefano also stated that \nthe claimant declined her offer of light-duty work. She further stated that she discussed \nwith the claimant the process for seeking care beyond her initial authorized provider. \nQ:  Did you talk to her about authorized treatment? \n \nA:  What do you mean? \n \nQ:  Authorized versus unauthorized treatment. \n \nA:  Oh, yes, she told me that she was going to see a different doctor and I was \nconcerned about that, because I knew that if workers’ comp didn’t authorize \nher to go to a different doctor that they wouldn’t pay for it and referred her \nback to the workers’ comp folks to get that worked out. \n \n[TR at 91.] \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n10 \n \n On cross examination, Ms. Destefano noted a video of the incident and that while \nshe had not seen the video, the claimant’s supervisor had reviewed it and relayed to her \nthat the claimant fell over on the floor from a crouched position. \nMedical Evidence \n The claimant’s 26 June 2023 Concentra clinic visit with Physician Assistant Ellen \nCupit noted the following diagnoses: Fall, initial encounter; Knee pain, right; Bursitis of \nhip, right. A follow-up was indicated for two days later, and she was returned to work that \nday with restrictions for sedentary work only. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 1.] \n The radiology reports from that day include the following: \nX-Ray, Right knee, 3 views \n \nFindings: There is no evidence of acute fracture, dislocation or osseous lesion. \nThe femorotibial joint space is narrowed, medially. The adjacent soft tissues \nappear unremarkable, with no join effusion. \n \nImpression:  no acute traumatic osseous abnormality. \n \n. . .  \n \nX-Ray, Right Hip, unilat. with pelvis when performed, 2-3 views \n \nFindings:  There is no evidence of acute fracture, dislocation or osseous \nlesion. The hip joint space is preserved and the femoral head has a normal \ncontour. The adjacent soft tissues appear unremarkable. \n \nImpression:  No acute traumatic osseous injury. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 1-2.] \nThe Form AR-N completed by the claimant on 27 June 2023 complained of “upper right \nthigh, knee, and right below the knee, all the right side, what I have noticed so far.” [Resp. \nEx. No 2 at 5.] \n Her next Concentra appointment, according to the short-form Work Status Activity \nReport provided by the claimant, was on 29 June 2023 with Dr. Scott Carle. That visit was \ncoded for: Knee pain, right; Lateral pain of right hip; Fall, initial encounter. Dr. Carle \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n11 \n \nreleased the claimant to return to work without restrictions that day and ordered three \nphysical therapy appointments and another clinic follow-up. [Cl. Ex. No 1 at 2.] The long-\nform Transcription note from that visit provided the following: \n10 days out from fall at work when trying to restrain patient. C/o some right \nknee and hip pain. Improved. No locking or giving way. Some right lateral \nhip pain with ambulation. \n \n. . .  \n \nMorbidly obese \n \n. . .  \n \nNormal gait. No tenderness or swelling of extremities. Range of motion is \nwithin normal limits. Normal muscle strength and tone. \nRight Hip: No pain with passive rotation right hip joint. No limp. \nRight Knee: No knee effusion. Full ROM.  \nLigamentous Laxity Test(s): negative Anterior Drawer sign, negative \nPosterior Drawer sign, no laxity on valgus stress and no laxity on varus \nstress. \nMeniscal Test(s): negative lateral McMurray test and negative medial \nMcMurray test. \n \n. . .  \n \nFunctional Restoration and Status of Healing: Diana Coleman is at \nfunctional goal, not at end of healing.  \nComments: Severe deconditioning pr[e]ceded case date. \n \n. . . \n \nNO MEDICATIONS WERE PRESCRIBED OR DISPENSED FOR THIS \nENCOUNTER. \n \n. . . \n \nActivity Status and Restrictions \nTreatment Status: Returning for follow-up 5 days \nActivity Status: There are restrictions not related to this injury. The claimant \ncan return to work with no restrictions on 06/29/2023. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 3-5.]  \n On 23 August 2023, Dr. Raghavan referred the claimant to physical therapy for \nthigh and hip pain. [Id. at 3-5.] Then, on 6 September 2023, Dr. Vargas referred the \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n12 \n \nclaimant to physical therapy for right knee joint pain, indicating, “Note to provider: \nhamstring/thigh.” [Id. at 6.] Dr. Vargas wrote a note, also on 6 September 2023, for the \nclaimant’s return to work at full duty without restrictions on 15 September 2023. [Id. at 7.]  \nIV.  ADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts are outlined above and accepted as fact. It is settled that the \nCommission, with the benefit of being in the presence of the witnesses and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 448, 990 S.W.2d 522 \n(1999).   \nA. THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT SHE SUSTAINED A COMPENSABLE INJURY. \n \nUnder Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation laws, a worker has the burden of proving \nby a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury as the result of \na workplace incident. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(E)(i). A compensable injury must be \nestablished by medical evidence supported by objective findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(D). Objective medical findings are those findings that cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(16)(A)(i). Causation does not \nneed to be established by objective findings when the objective medical evidence establishes \nthat an injury exists and other nonmedical evidence shows that it is more likely than not \nthat the injury was caused by an incident in the workplace. Bean v. Reynolds Consumer \nProds., 2022 Ark. App 276, 646 S.W.3d 655, 2022 Ark. App. LEXIS 276 (citing Wal-Mart \nStores, Inc. v. VanWagner, supra). \nThe claimant alleges that her injury occurred by specific incident. The claimant \nmust establish four (4) factors by a preponderance of the evidence to prove a specific \nincident injury: (1) that the injury arouse during the course of employment; (2) that the \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n13 \n \ninjury caused an actual harm that required medical attention; (3) that medical evidence, \nsupported by objective findings, support the existence of the injury; and (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a particular incident, identifiable in time and place. See Cossey v. G. A. \nThomas Racing Stable, 2009 Ark. App. 666, 344 S.W.3d 684, 689. \nThe claimant failed to prove that she suffered a compensable injury under the Act. I \nfind Dr. Carle’s opinion to be credible. Poulan Weed Eater v. Marshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 \nS.W.3d 878 (2002) (the Commission may accept or reject a medical opinion and determine \nits probative value). His examination revealed no objective signs of a compensable injury \nattributable to the restraint incident in the workplace. He does note, however, that the \nclaimant is morbidly obese with “severe deconditioning” preceding and unrelated to the \nworkplace incident. I interpret his statement, “There are restrictions not related to this \ninjury,” as acknowledging some physical limitations, consistent with those entered three \ndays earlier by the PA, but making clear that those restrictions are not attributable to the \nworkplace incident. \nNone of the other medical evidence submitted by the claimant (i.e., physical therapy \nreferrals dated August 23\nrd\n and September 6\nth\n) makes any reference to a workplace injury \nor makes any note as to a mechanism of injury. Those records do not support a finding of a \ncompensable injury. The claimant’s unsupported and generally unspecific complaints of \nfeeling pain, still today as she did in the days eventually following the incident, are not \nenough in the clear absence of substantiating medical evidence, to meet her burden of proof. \nAccordingly, her claim for a compensable injury must fail. \nI do not find it of particular probative value to place concern on whether the \nclaimant fell over from a standing position, which she claims, or from a kneeling position, \nas indicated in the record of her supervisor’s contemporaneous review of the incident. \n\nD. COLEMAN- H304343 \n14 \n \nRegardless of how she came to be on the floor, I do not find it more likely than not that she \nsuffered a compensable injury to her hip, thigh, or knee during the restraining incident.  \nThe subsequent treatment the claimant may have received during the time she \nstayed off of work, of which the records are scant, is thus not the responsibility of the \nrespondents.  \nB.   BECAUSE THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF \nTHE EVIDENCE THAT SHE SUFFERED A COMPENSABLE INJURY, SHE IS \nNOT ENTITLED TO TTD BENEFITS. \n \nA claimant must prove her entitlement to TTD benefits by a preponderance of the \nevidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3). Because the claimant failed to prove a \ncompensable injury, her claim for TTD benefits must fail. \nC.   THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE \nEVIDENCE THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY’S FEE. \n \nBecause the claimant failed to meet her burden on establishing a compensable \ninjury, she is not entitled to an attorney’s fee. \nV.  ORDER \n     Consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, this claim is \ndenied and dismissed.  \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H304343 DIANA COLEMAN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT YOUTH HOME, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 8 OCTOBER 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law Judge JayO...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:47:33.039Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304343-2024-10-08","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/COLEMAN_DIANA_H304343_20241008.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}