{"id":"alj-H304579-2025-12-03","awcc_number":"H304579","decision_date":"2025-12-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Glenda Kennedy","employer_name":"University Of Arkansas At Pine Bluff","title":"KENNEDY VS. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF AWCC# H304579 December 03, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","knee","wrist","back","rotator cuff","neck","cervical","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/KENNEDY_GLENDA_H304579_20251203.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"KENNEDY_GLENDA_H304579_20251203.pdf","text_length":25826,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H304579  \n \nGLENDA KENNEDY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF,  \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT \n  \n \nOPINION FILED 3 DECEMBER 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative Law Judge \nJayO. Howe on 9 October 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nMs. Risie Howard appeared on behalf of the claimant. \n \nMr. Robert Montgomery appeared on behalf of the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A Prehearing Order was filed on 14 July 2025 and admitted to the record as \nCommission’s Exhibit No 1. For this litigation, and consistent with that Order, the parties \nagreed to the following at the hearing: \nSTIPULATIONS \n \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) has \n  jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n 2. The employee/employer/carrier-TPA relationship existed at all times relevant \n  to this claim. \n \n 3. On 14 February 2023, the claimant allegedly fell while at work. She alleges  \n  that she sustained compensable injuries by specific incident to her right  \n  shoulder, right knee, right wrist, and back. \n \n 4. The applicable average weekly wage would entitle the claimant to the   \n  maximum available weekly benefit amounts of $835 for Temporary Total  \n  Disability (TTD) and $626 for Partial Permanent Disability (PPD). \n \n 5. The respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \n \n \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n2 \n \nISSUES TO BE LITIGATED \n \n1.  Whether the claimant sustained compensable injuries to her right shoulder, \n right knee, right wrist, and/or back by specific incident on 14 February 2023. \n \n 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical   \n  benefits, including reimbursement for past treatment, mileage, and future  \n  treatment. \n  \n All other issues are reserved. \n \nCONTENTIONS \n \nThe Prehearing Order incorporated the following contentions from the parties’ \nrespective prehearing questionnaire responses: \nClaimant \n The claimant was carrying a box to the back of her classroom when \nshe tripped over an electric socket. She fell against equipment that she \nand her chairperson had asked the University to remove from the \nclassroom. She landed on the floor. Although the claimant may have \nhad preexisting injuries, the “egg-shell plaintiff” rule would apply. “You \ntake your victim as you find her.” Therefore, the employer is liable to \nthe claimant. \n \n Respondent \n \n The claimant alleges that she sustained injuries as the result of \nfalling on February 14, 2023. She contended that she sustained injuries \nto various body parts. The report of injury was investigated by the \nrespondents, and it was determined that the claim did not meet the \nstatutory requirements of a compensable injury. After reviewing \navailable information, the respondents have controverted this claim in \nits entirety. The Claimant’s claim is not supported by objective medical \nfindings of an acute work-related injury.  \n \n The Respondent reserves the right to raise additional contentions, \nor to modify those stated herein, pending the completion of discovery.  \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nHaving reviewed the record as a whole, including the evidence summarized below, \nand having heard testimony from the witness, observing her demeanor, I make the \nfollowing findings of fact and conclusions of law under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704: \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n3 \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The stipulations as set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n \n3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered any compensable injuries by specific incident on or about 14 \nFebruary 2023. \n \n4. Because the claimant has failed to prove a compensable injury, her claims for \nrelated medical benefits are moot and will not be addressed in this Opinion \n \nADJUDICATION \nThe stipulated facts as outlined above are reasonable and accepted. It is settled that \nthe Commission, with the benefit of being in the presence of a witness and observing their \ndemeanor, determines a witness’ credibility and the appropriate weight to accord their \nstatements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. VanWagner, 337 Ark. 443, 990 S.W.2d 522 (1999). A \nclaimant'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 \nmuch weight to accord to that person's testimony are solely up to the Commission. White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). The Commission must \nsort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts. Id. In so doing, the \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any other witness \nbut may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that \nit deems worthy of belief. Id. \nSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE \nThe claimant was the only witness. The record consists of the hearing transcript and \nthe following exhibits: Commission’s Exhibit No 1 (the 14 July 2025 Prehearing Order); \nClaimant’s Exhibit No 1 (seven pages of medical records);\n1\n [the record does not include a \n \n1\n Several of the records admitted into the record by the claimant contained her counsel’s \nhand-written notations. “Clean” copies of these records were not made available for \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n4 \n \nClaimant’s Exhibit No 2] Claimant’s Exhibit No 3 (three photos); Claimant’s Exhibit No 4 (a \none-page report from an MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder); Claimant’s Exhibit No 5 (a \none-page questionnaire prepared by Claimant’s counsel and completed by Stuart Jones, \nDPT); and Respondents’ Exhibit No 1 (one index page and 32 pages of medical records).\n2\n \nHearing Testimony \n The claimant is a 73-year-old professor at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. \nShe testified that she hurt herself when she tripped and fell in a classroom on 14 February \n2023. According to the claimant, she stumbled over some cords and/or an electrical outlet \nand cover on the classroom floor. “I cannot say exactly how I fell, but I found myself on the \nfloor. I was—when—it’s like when I fell, I guess, I twisted and fell against the wall. There \nwas a display monitor there and I, good as I recall, did fall to the right side.” [TR at 50.] \n She claims that as a result of that alleged fall, she suffered compensable injuries to \nher right shoulder, right wrist, right knee, and back. The claimant acknowledged pre-\nexisting conditions and past treatments related to the same injuries that she is claiming as \n \ninclusion in the record. These writings on the records are not considered to carry relevant \nor additional evidentiary value. \n \nThere was confusion on the claimant’s part before the hearing about what exhibits were \nbeing made part of the record. Discussions about this appear in the hearing transcript. The \nclaimant suggested the impression that any materials exchanged with opposing counsel, \nwith copy to the Commission, before the hearing were, essentially, deemed to be admissible \nevidence and admitted to the record before the hearing began. We discussed that, \nconsistent with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1), the Commission is not bound by the \ntechnical rules of evidence or procedure; but the Commission is informed by those rules in \nits review of what purported evidence should be admitted to the record and what \nevidentiary weight should be afforded to the same. Towards the end of the proceeding, I \nmade clear to the claimant that only evidence offered and admitted into evidence at the \nhearing would be made part of the evidentiary record: \nJudge: So, Ms. Howard, is there any other documentary evidence that you \nhad exchanged before today that you want to make an exhibit? Because, to be \nvery clear, our record today is based on the transcript of this hearing, the \ntestimony that we’ve gotten from our witness, and then the things that are \naccepted into evidence while we’re here. [TR at 55-56.] \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n5 \n \ncompensable. She also acknowledged that she continued working after the date of her \nalleged fall. She offered very little testimony about the nature or extent of her alleged \ninjuries and symptoms. Instead, she intended to rely on the few medical records she \nentered into evidence. \nMedical Evidence \n A clinic note shows that on 5 January 2022 (more than a year before the claimant’s \nalleged workplace fall), she was seen by Dr. Eric Gordon. That note provides, in pertinent \npart: \nCHIEF COMPLAINT: Right shoulder pain \n \nHISTORY: Patient is a 69-year-old female who is right hand dominant and \nworks as an educator for UAPB. Patient presents today for evaluation of \nright shoulder pain which has been present since last summer. She is not \ncertain, but she did have a fall where she stumbled forward and landed on \noutstretched upper arms about 2 months prior to the onset of pain. There was \nnot a direct connection but that is the only thing she could think of as a cause \nof her symptoms. Around June 2021 however she stated to have pain in her \nright shoulder that has been a bit worse lately. \nPain is mainly located lateral shoulder. \nPain is described as a moderate aching, throbbing pain. \nThe pain seems to be worse with lifting overhead, pushing, and pulling. \nThe pain is better with relative rest and limited activities. \nTreatment so far has included occasional use of oral anti-inflammatories and \nactivity modifications. \nPatient also reports some difficulty reaching behind her back. \nThe patient was kind enough today to fill out the patient history \nquestionnaire, which was reviewed and is documented in the EMR. \n \nEXAMINATION: ... \nRight shoulder range of motion testing reveals basically full shoulder range of \nmotion except for mild limitation of internal rotation behind her back. She \ndoes have early trapezial activation with active shoulder range of motion but \nmobility otherwise is full. Shoulder does move with some mild intermittent \ncrepitation. Impingement signs are mildly positive... \n \nASSESSMENT: Right shoulder pain likely secondary to rotator cuff tear. \n \nPLAN: Diagnosis and treatment options were discussed with her. Discussed \nthat I suspect she has a rotator cuff tear but fortunately is having only some \nmild to moderate symptoms currently. We will try round of physical therapy \nfor strengthening and see how she responds to that. Follow-up 1 month. \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n6 \n \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1.] The claimant returned to clinic on 16 February 2022. The note from that \nvisit includes, in pertinent part: \nPatient returns today for follow-up in regards to her right shoulder. She \nreports overall that physical therapy does seem to be helping with her \nfunction, but she complains of persistent weakness in her shoulder as well as \na constant numb sensation in her hands with is constantly present. She does \ncomplain of occasional neck pain mainly present when she is lying flat. \n \nASSESSMENT: Right shoulder weakness concerning for rotator cuff tear and \nlikely neurologic deficit. \n \n Then, on 27 April 2022, the claimant saw Dr. Edward Saer. She reported abnormal \nfeelings in her fingertips and right leg pain. Recent imaging studies were discussed, and \nshe was assessed with the following: \nCervical stenosis with cord compression at C3-4 and C4-5 with early \nmyelopathy. I had a long talk with her about this. I explained that she is \ngoing to need to have surgery to take the pressure off the spinal cord. If we \nleave this alone she is likely to develop progressive changes. The goal of \nsurgery is to keep that from happening and hopefully she will get some \nimprovement in her symptoms but there is no guarantee of that. \n \n On 8 February 2023, nearly one week before the claimant’s alleged workplace fall, \nthe claimant saw Dr. Michael Cassat at a UAMS Orthopedic Clinic. The note from that visit \nprovides the following: \nHPI: She is a pleasant 70-year-old female who comes today with chronic right \nshoulder pain with loss of motion x2 years after a fall. This has not improved \ndespite physical therapy. She also complains of right low back and lateral hip \ndiscomfort with an antalgic gait. She has no associated sensory change. It is \nnot worse with motion of the hip. \n \nPHYSICAL EXAM: ... Right shoulder with markedly limited range of motion \nin all planes. Strength is preserved with the exception of 4 out of internal \nrotation and 3/5 supraspinatus. Both lower extremities have normal strength, \nsensation, 3+ patellar reflex on the right, 2+ on the left. Straight leg raise is \nnegative. Right hip has full range of motion without reproduction. \n \nX-ray of the right hip shows some cystic change in the femoral head, \npreserved joint space. X-ray of lumbar spine with spondylolisthesis at L4/5, \nmultilevel changes otherwise.  \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n7 \n \nX-ray of the right shoulder shows a high-riding humeral head consistent with \nrotator cuff arthropathy. \n \nWe will get an MRI of her right shoulder to further evaluate her chondral \nsurface and supraspinatus tear, start physical therapy for her low back. \n \n[Id.] \n \n An MRI report of the right shoulder dated 15 February 2023 includes: \n \nIMPRESSION: \n \n1.  Attenuated supraspinatus tendon with high grade oblique tear of the \nbursal surface fibers anteriorly and interstitial tear extending to the \nmyotendinous junction. Interstitial tear of the infraspinatus tendon \nextending to the myotendinous junction. Mild atrophy of the supraspinatus \nand infraspinatus muscles. \n2.  Moderate acromioclavicular osteoarthritis with lateral downsloping \nacromion with chronic subacromial impingement causing rotator cuff tear as \ndescribed resulting in high riding humeral head. \n3.  Completely torn and retracted biceps tendon with nonvisualization of the \ntendon in the bipetal groove. \n4.  Subscapularis tendinopathy. \n5.  Circumferential degenerative changes of the glenoid labrum. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 19; Cl. Ex. No 4.] \n \n A physical therapy evaluation is also dated 15 February 2023. That note includes \nthe following: \nCHIEF COMPLAINT & MECHANISM OF INJURY: Patient presents with \ncomplaints of low back pain. She states that her pain began a couple of years \nago, but has gradually worsened. The right side of her back hurts, but the left \nside is fine. Occasionally, she will feel sharp pain in the R side of her low \nback, and she also has radiating pain down to her knee. Pt reports that \nsometimes just her knee will hurt and not her back. A while ago, she thought \nher pain was getting better and only had stiffness, but then it began to hurt \nworse again. \n \n[Resp. Ex. No 1.] \n \n On 3 April 2023, the claimant returned to the UAMS Orthopedic Clinic reporting a \nworkplace injury. She was seen by Dr. Cassat again. The note from that visit provides, in \npart: \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n8 \n \nHPI: She returns today for a discussion regarding her work[-]related injury. \nWhen she was seen initially, we were evaluating her for a shoulder injury, \nback pain, hip pain, neck pain. She apparently sustained an injury the day \nbefore her MRI to these same areas, and subsequently reports that her injury \nworsened her symptoms... \n \nASSESSMENT: She is here today to discuss her MRI findings. By my \ninterpretation, she has a partial tear of her rotator cuff, these is some \nassociated atrophy. There is not substantial bony edema or effusion present \nthat I would suspect with a 1-day-old injury. She does have degenerative \nchanges at the AC joint. Her biceps is not visualized in her biceps groove on \nher axial sequences. \n \nWe discussed that I could not completely exclude that her injury occurred \nduring her recent work-related problem, however I cannot say greater than \n50% likelihood that this is the case. She would like to attend physical \ntherapy, I think this is quite reasonable. If she fails then she will need to see \nmy partner to discuss possible surgical intervention. Her only restrictions \nrelated to her job need to be limitations in overhead activity. \n \n[Id. at 21-22.] \n \n Then, on 15 July 2023, the claimant saw Dr. Lawrence O’Malley for a review of her \nhistory and an opinion relating to her claimed work-related shoulder injury. He opined: “I \nbelieve that with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that greater than 51% of the \npatient’s current medical problems are related to her chronic shoulder injury prior to her \nwork injury.” \n[Id. at 26.] \n \n A few days later, on 19 July 2023, the claimant saw Dr. Wayne Bruffett for a review \nof her history and an opinion relating to her claimed work-related back injury. He opined: \n“The cause of her low back pain would be degenerative disc disease and a subtle \ndegenerative spondylolisthesis that was existing [and] symptomatic prior to her fall at \nwork. I would say with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her low back \nsymptoms and degenerative changes are pre-existing and not related to her fall of February \n14\nth\n.” \n[Id. at 30.] \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n9 \n \n \n On 28 February 2024, the claimant saw orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jeffrey Hill for a \nnew patient visit. The note from that visit provides, in part: \nCHIEF COMPLAINT: Right shoulder \n \nHISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: Glenda F. Kennedy is a 71 y.o. female \npresenting for evaluation of their right shoulder. She has had some history \ninvolving this shoulder. In February of 2023 she had a fall [while] she was at \nwork. She is a professor at UAPB. She states that prior to this fall she had \nsome occasional pain and discomfort involving the shoulder but nothing \nsignificant. After the fall she had limited motion of the shoulder. She was \nseen by Dr. O’Malley [and] an MRI was completed. She was then referred to \nphysical therapy. She has now had 2 rounds of physical therapy and her last \nround [ended] in October. She has perceived some benefit however has not \nbeen significant. She has not had any injections. She is right-hand dominant. \nShe has medical history of hyperthyroidism. \n \n. . .  \n \nPAST MEDICAL HISTORY: She has a past medical history of Arthritis. \n \n. . .  \n \nREVIEW OF X-RAYS/STUDIES: There is preservation of the glenohumeral \njoint space. There is no inferior humeral head-neck junction osteophyte. \nGlenoid rim osteophytes are not visible. There is subtle superior migration of \nthe humeral head with asymmetric narrowing of the superior glenohumeral \njoint space. There is no acromial osteophyte on scapular Y view. Acromial \nmorphology appears normal. On axillary lateral, the humeral head is \ncentered and the glenoid is without deformity or dysplasia. AC Joint \ndemonstrates no arthritis. There is diffuse mild osteopenia. There are no \nfractures or caseous lesions. \n \nMRI dated February 2023 reviewed. [She] has thinning of the posterior \nsuperior rotator cuff insertions with partial-thickness tearing. Tendinopathy \nof the upper border of the subscapularis. This tendon is not visualized within \nthe groove. Penny degeneration noted within the subscapularis, \nsupraspinatus, infraspinatus. \n \nIMPRESSION/DIAGNOSIS: Glenda F. Kennedy is a 71 y.o. female with right \nrotator cuff deficiency. \n \nTREATMENT PLAN: Long discussion with the patient regarding her \ndiagnosis and treatment options. She feels that she has seen small benefits \nwith therapy once like [sic] to continue this. We did discuss that this is \nreasonable. We did discuss that rotator cuff repair at her age and chronicity \nmay be difficult to have a good outcome. She may end up needing a reverse \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n10 \n \ntotal shoulder arthroplasty. If she decides that therapy is not providing any \nbenefit [...] then she will call us, we would obtain an MRI to better \ncharacterize the status of her rotator cuff. This would help us decide which \nsurgical option would be best for her. \n \n An Attending’s Addendum to the note offers some additional details: \n \n... MRI of the right shoulder from 2/15/23 was reviewed. These images are of \nsuboptimal quality. This shows significant thinning of the posterior superior \nrotator cuff insertion with areas of high-grade partial-thickness tearing and \nsome full-thickness tearing of the anterior crescent/cable. There is bony \nedema in the acromion from humeral head abutment. The subscapularis \ntendon is not visualized in the groove. There is diffuse chondrosis without \nany clear full-thickness chondral defects. There is moderate-severe AC joint \narthrosis. On T1 parasagittal images there is mild atrophy of the upper \nsubscapularis, supraspinatus, and infraspinatus. Fatty degeneration grade 1-\n2 for the subscapularis, grade 1 for the supraspinatus, grade 1-2 for the \ninfraspinatus. Teres minor appears healthy. \n \n[Cl. Ex. No 1.] \n  \n Claimant’s counsel submitted three letters to providers seeking opinions on the \nrelatedness of the claimant’s general “injuries” (the letter was not specific to any particular \ndiagnosis or symptom(s)) and her alleged workplace fall. Drs. Michael Cassat and Jeffery \nHill declined to provide an opinion establishing causation. Stuart Jones, PT, DPT, returned \nthe letter indicating that he believed that there was causal relationship “Based on \nsubjective and objective measurements taken/obtained during initial physical therapy \nevaluation dated 3/14/24.” \n[Resp. Ex. No 1 at 31, 32; Cl. Ex. No 5.] \n \nDISCUSSION \n The claimant alleges that her injuries occurred by specific incident on 14 February \n2023. She must establish four (4) factors by a preponderance of the evidence to prove a \nspecific incident injury: (1) an injury occurred that arose out of and in the course of her \nemployment; (2) the injury caused internal or external harm to the body that required \nmedical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) the injury is established by medical \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n11 \n \nevidence supported by objective findings, which are those findings which cannot come under \nthe voluntary control of the patient; and (4) the injury was caused by a specific incident and \nis identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Mikel v. Engineered Specialty Plastics, 56 \nArk. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997). If a claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of \nthe evidence any of the above elements, compensation must be denied. Id. As explained \nbelow, the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered \nany compensable injury. \n The record simply lacks evidence that the claimant sustained compensable injuries \nto her right knee, right wrist, or her back. She did not testify about these alleged injuries; \nnor did she present objective findings to support these alleged injuries. The record evidence \nshows that any complaints about back pain are attributable to degenerative conditions. In \nthe absence of any record evidence that she suffered compensable injuries to her right knee, \nright wrist, and her back, her claims for the same must fail. \n The claimant was reluctant to testify at all. Respondents’ counsel solicited the \nslightest amount of testimony about the claimant’s alleged right shoulder injury; and in so \ndoing, the claimant essentially acknowledged that she was having problems with her right \nshoulder before the date of her alleged fall. The medical records in evidence clearly \nestablish that the claimant had a history of right shoulder complaints predating her alleged \nfall. As early as January of 2022, she was being seen for complaints of right shoulder pain, \nand she participated in conservative treatment for the same. She only happened to have an \nMRI study the day after her alleged fall because it had been scheduled at a clinic \nappointment before her alleged fall. The X-ray imaging obtained during that appointment \nshowed irregularity that was most likely attributable to rotator cuff degeneration and/or a \ntear. The MRI scan then confirmed a rotator cuff tear and other degenerative changes.  \n\nG. KENNEDY- H304579 \n12 \n \n The medical records address the alleged fall having no likely involvement in her \nshoulder complaints. Dr. Cassat explained, “There is not substantial bony edema or effusion \npresent that I would suspect with a 1-day-old injury. She does have degenerative changes \nat the AC joint.” He went on to decline to relate her alleged fall to the findings from the \nimaging. Dr. Hall also declined to suggest any relation between the two. I find these \nopinions and the other records clearly indicating symptomology relating to preexisting \nconditions credible. The Commission is authorized to accept or reject a medical opinion and \nis authorized to determine its medical soundness and probative value. Poulan Weed Eater v. \nMarshall, 79 Ark. App. 129, 84 S.W.3d 878 (2002). Subsequent records show that Drs. \nBruffett and O’Malley found that the claimant had preexisting complaints and degenerative \nconditions that were not related to her alleged fall. While the record includes a letter from a \nphysical therapist that appears to relate her complaints to the alleged fall, I find it to be \ninconsistent with the weight of the persuasive evidence to the contrary and not credible.  \n Accordingly, the claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she sustained any compensable injury by specific incident on 14 February 2023. Her \nclaims for benefits are therefore moot and are not otherwise being addressed in this \nOpinion.  \nCONCLUSION \n The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered a compensable injury by specific incident. Accordingly, this claim for initial \nbenefits is DENIED and DISMISSED. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H304579 GLENDA KENNEDY, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 3 DECEMBER 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Administrative L...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:16.179Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304579-2025-12-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/KENNEDY_GLENDA_H304579_20251203.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}