{"id":"alj-H305860-2024-07-19","awcc_number":"H305860","decision_date":"2024-07-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Brenda Arnold","employer_name":"Osceola Sch. Dist","title":"ARNOLD VS. OSCEOLA SCH. DIST. AWCC# H305860 July 19, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","neck","hip","knee","back","thoracic","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Arnold_Brenda_H305860_20240719.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Arnold_Brenda_H305860_20240719.pdf","text_length":22951,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H305860 \n \n \nBRENDA J. ARNOLD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nOSCEOLA SCH. DIST., \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nARK. SCH. BDS. ASSN., \n THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 19, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on June  21,  2024,  in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Daniel E. Wren, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents   represented   by   Ms. Melissa   Wood,   Attorney   at   Law,   Little   Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On June   21,   2024,   the   above-captioned   claim   was   heard   in Jonesboro, \nArkansas.    A  prehearing  conference  took  place  on  April  29,  2024.   The  Prehearing \nOrder  entered  on  that  date  pursuant  to  the  conference  was  admitted  without  objection \nas  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the  stipulations, \nissue, and respective contentions were properly set forth in the order. \nStipulations \n At  the  hearing,  the  parties  discussed  the  stipulations  set  forth  in  Commission \nExhibit 1.  They are the following, which I accept: \n1. The  Arkansas Workers’  Compensation  Commission (the  “Commission”) \nhas jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n2 \n2. The  employee/self-insured employer/third-party  administrator relationship \nexisted among the parties on August 30, 2023, when Claimant suffered a \ncompensable injury to her cervical spine. \nIssue \n The parties discussed the issue set forth in Commission Exhibit 1.  The following \nwas litigated: \n1. Whether Claimant  must  submit  to an  independent  medical  evaluation \nunder Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-511 (Repl. 2012). \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are the following: \n Claimant: \n1. Respondents   have   no   standing   under § 11-9-511   to   request   an \nindependent medical evaluation.  That section of the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Act is reserved specifically for the Commission sua sponte \nto require Claimant to submit to an evaluation. \n2. Respondents    are    requesting    that    Claimant    undergo    a    physical \nexamination  by  Dr.  Wayne  Bruffett,  who  was  specifically  chosen  by  an \nadjustor   for Respondents   and   thus   is   not   an   independent   qualified \nphysician  as  required  under § 11-9-811.    The  adjustor  never  discussed \nwith Claimant’s counsel the need for any further evaluation of Claimant \nprior  to  arranging  the  evaluation  in  question.    Moreover,  the  adjustor \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n3 \nalready   had   the   surgical   recommendation   by   Dr.   James   Adametz \nreviewed by an outside physician. \n3. Claimant  has  been  examined  by  doctors  authorized  by  Respondents  just \nover  six  months  ago.    It  is  her  position  that  there  are  no  reasonable  and \nnecessary circumstances requiring another examination by any physician, \nmuch less one chosen by Respondents. \n4. Since Respondents are asking for a specific evaluation by Dr. Bruffett, and \nnot by an authorized doctor chose by the Commission, this matter should \nbe denied as a matter of law; no hearing thereon is necessary. \n Respondents: \n1. Respondents  contend  that all  appropriate  benefits  are  being  paid  with \nregard to Claimant’s injuries sustained on August 30, 2023.  At issue is \nher  entitlement  to  cervical  surgery  recommended  by  Dr.  Adametz.    The \nsurgery  did  not  pass  pre-certification;  and  Claimant  has  medical  records \nshowing pre-existing problems with her cervical spine. \n2. Respondents request an independent medical evaluation pursuant to Ark. \nCode  Ann. §§  11-9-511  &  11-9-811  (Repl.  2012).    In  addition  to  Dr. \nAdametz,  Claimant  has  also  treated  at  Ortho  Arkansas.   Respondents \nrequested and set up an independent medical evaluation with Dr. Bruffett \nat  the  University  of  Arkansas  for  Medical  Sciences  (“UAMS”),  and  he \nagreed  to  perform  the  evaluation.    Claimant’s  counsel  has  objected.  \nRespondents   contend   that   an   independent   medical   evaluation   is \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n4 \nreasonable  and  necessary,  and  are  requesting  an  order  for  Claimant  to \nattend the same with Dr. Bruffett. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  including  medical  reports,  deposition \ntestimony,  documents,  and  other  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having \nhad  an  opportunity  to  hear  the  testimony  of  Claimant  and  to  observe  her  demeanor,  I \nhereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. A preponderance  of  the credible evidence establishes that  Claimant \nshould submit to an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Wayne Bruffett \nunder  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-511(a) (Repl.  2012)  because  such  is \nreasonable and necessary.  The parties will work together to expedite this \nevaluation.  The  evaluation  shall  be  at  the  expense  of  Respondents.  \nClaimant  will  be  entitled  to  mileage  reimbursement  for  travel  to  and  from \nDr. Bruffett’s office in accordance with AWCC Advisory 89-2. \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n5 \nCASE IN CHIEF \nSummary of Evidence \n Claimant was the sole witness. \n Along  with  the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  the  exhibits  admitted  into \nevidence  in  this  case  consist  of  the  following:   Joint  Exhibit  1,  a  compilation  of \nClaimant’s  medical  records,  consisting  of  one  index  page  and  26  numbered  pages \nthereafter; and Respondents’ Exhibit 1, non-medical  records,  consisting  of  one  index \npage  and  ten  numbered  pages  thereafter  (including  a  disc  containing  surveillance \nfootage of Claimant). \nADJUDICATION \nWhether  Respondents  are  entitled  to  have  Claimant  undergo  an  independent \nmedical evaluation by Dr. Wayne Bruffett. \n Introduction.  As the parties have stipulated, Claimant sustained a compensable \ninjury to her cervical spine on August 30, 2023, while working for Respondent Osceola \nSchool  District.    In  this  action, Respondents  are seeking to  have  her undergo  an \nindependent medical evaluation by Dr. Bruffett. \n Standards.  Only by a preponderance of the evidence can it be established that \nshe must submit to the evaluation.  See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2012).  \nThe  standard  “preponderance  of  the  evidence”  means  the  evidence  having  greater \nweight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. \nMagnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n6 \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879 S.W.2d  457 (1994).    The determination  of a  witness’ \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  \nThe  Commission  must  sort  through  conflicting  evidence  and  determine  the  true  facts.  \nId.  In so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant \nor  any  other  witness,  but  may  accept  and  translate  into  findings  of  fact  only  those \nportions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n Testimony.  Claimant testified that she injured her neck previously.  In 1991, she \njumped from a vehicle to get away from her husband, who was beating her.  As a result, \nshe wore a neck brace for three-and-a-half months.  Ten years ago, her neck was hurt \nagain  when  her  vehicle  was  struck  from  the  rear.    In  that  instance, she  was  again \nplaced in a neck brace for a time. \n As for the incident at issue, Claimant related that she fell at work.  She continued: \nWhen I fell, I landed on—I landed—well, I landed on the hip and my head \nwas on the ground.  Ms. Lee was in there, who’s my assistant principal.  \nAnd my neck—well, the hip hurt and the knee hurt.  This right here on my \nneck was just like immediately started hurting, and I told Ms. Lee.  And my \nback was hurting and she told me to be still, and I could not get up at all, \ncould not et up at all.  And I did ask, you know, what student, and she was \nmy girl I had been working with to help, you know.  But, anyway, my girl, \nshe’s the one that went and got the principal, so I appreciated that from \nher, but you know, I did tell Ms. Lee that I hurt my neck . . . . \n \nTrent  Tappan,  PA-C,  recommended  on  September  19,  2023,  that  she  undergo  an \ninjection in her neck.  He also recommended that she have a CT scan, which took place \nthat next day. \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n7 \n Questioned  by  her  attorney,  it was Claimant’s testimony that she was unhappy \nwith  the  treatment  rendered  by  Tappan.    For  that  reason,  she  requested  and  was \ngranted  a  one-time  change  of  physician  to  Dr.  James  Adametz.    The  following \nexchange took place: \nQ. Are  you  happy  with  the  treatment  that  you’re  getting  with  Dr. \nAdametz? \n \nA. I love Dr. Adametz.  He knows what he’s doing.  He’s smart, he’s \nintelligent,  explains  everything.    He  is  so  professional,  so  smart.  \nAnd I trust him and he said he could help me, and that’s who I \nwant.  I don’t want nobody else. \n \nDuring her examination by the Commission, the following exchange occurred: \nQ. How many times have you seen Dr. Adametz, Ms. Arnold? \n \nA. Can I ask him [her attorney] to look?  I’ve seen him several, several \ntimes. \n \nQ. You don’t—it’s been multiple times? \n \nA. Oh, yes. \n \nQ. When’s the last time you saw Dr. Adametz, do you know? \n \nA. The  last  time  I  seen  him,  he  wanted  me  to  go  to  pre-op.    He \nwanted—he planned to— \n \nQ. Well, when was it? \n \nA. —do surgery February 21.  I believe it was in January when I saw \nhim last. \n \nQ. January of this year? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. Okay.    And  you  know  the  issue  here  is  supposedly  the—the \nrespondents are wanting you to submit to the short term—the term \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n8 \nfor  it  is  an  IME.    It  stands  for  independent  medical  evaluation,  do \nyou understand that? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. Okay.    And  they  want  to  look  into  a  cervical  surgery  that  Dr. \nAdametz has recommended. \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. You understand that? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. All  right.    Do  you  object  to  undergoing  an  independent  medical \nevaluation?    They’ve  set  it  up  with  Dr.  Wayne  Bruffett  is  my \nunderstanding.  Do you understand that? \n \nA. Yes. \n \nQ. Are you willing to submit to the IME or are you objecting to it? \n \nA. I totally object. \n \nQ. And why do you object to it? \n \nA. There’s no reason to see another doctor whatsoever.  And if that \ndoctor wanted to do surgery, I don’t know that man, I don’t trust that \nman.  I don’t know him, and also he’s—well, he’s a spine surgeon, \nand the neurosurgeon has got more education, etcetera.  And I like \nmy doctor, I trust my doctor, I don’t want to see—I don’t want to see \nthat other guy. \n \n Medical Records.  Claimant’s records in evidence reflect the following: \n On January 22, 2021, following a motor vehicle accident, Claimant presented to \nArkansas Methodist Medical Center and underwent, inter alia, a CT scan of her cervical \nspine.  It showed no acute process, but degenerative changes at multiple levels. \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n9 \n After the work-related incident at issue, on September 19, 2023, she treated with \nTappan.  The report reads in pertinent part: \nHPI: \nMs.  Arnold  is  a  53-year-old  female  who  presents  to  the  clinic  for  a  new \nworker’s  [sic]  compensation  appointment.    She  reports  a  fall  at  work, \nwhere she is a teacher.  She describes the incident as having occurred in \na  room  that  was  not  properly  cleaned,  causing  her  to  trip  and  fall.    She \nlanded  on  her  hip,  which  had  previously  undergone  hip  replacement \nsurgery.  Since the fall, she has been experiencing pain in her spine, back, \nand  hip,  which  has  been  significantly  impacting  her  ability  to  stand  for \nextended  periods.    She  also  reports  that  her  neck  has  been  causing  her \nsignificant discomfort, despite not having experienced any neck pain prior \nto the fall.  She has a history of a broken C6 vertebrae from an incident in \n1991,  and  she  reports  that  her  neck  has  been  hurting  in  the  same  area \nsince  her  recent  fall.    She  has  been  taken  off  work  due  to  her  current \ncondition.  She is currently on Hydro 10/325 and a muscle relaxer for pain \nmanagement,  but  reports  that  these  medications  only  make  the  pain \nmanageable and do not eliminate it completely. \n \nPHYSICAL EXAM: \n+2  symmetric  reflexes  in  her  upper  and  lower  extremities.    Reasonable \ngood strength in her arms and legs bilaterally normal sensation.  Negative \nHoffmann’s.  Negative Spurling’s.  Negative clonus.  Tender to palpate in \nher neck midline.  No frank neurologic deficit. \n \nIMAGING: \nX-rays  of  her  cervical  spine  today  reveal  degenerative  changes  most \npronounced  at  C5-6.    MRI  of  her  cervical  spine  reveals degenerative \nchanges at C5-6 with some broad-based disc protrusion bilateral foraminal \nstenosis severe.  X-rays of her thoracic and lumbar spine reveal multilevel \ndegenerative changes spondylolisthesis at L4-5. \n \nASSESSMENT: \nI  had  a  long  visit  with  Ms.  Arnold  that [sic] her  symptoms  and  images.    I \nreassured her I think neck and back looks stable.  Most of her pain seems \nto   be   in   her   neck.   I   suspect   she  may   be   symptomatic   from   the \ndegenerative  changes  at  C5-6.    There  is  some  disc  protrusion.    I  just  do \nnot  see  any  obvious  acute injury but  she  may  have  been  rendered \nsymptomatic from a C5-6 stenosis and degeneration.  I told her ultimately I \nwould  leave  her  thoracic  and  lumbar  spine  alone.    We  did  discuss  an \ninjection at C5-6.  Ultimately I would not recommend surgery for right now \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n10 \nI  told  her  this  I  think  will  improve  with  time.    I  would  recommend  an \nepidural  injection  at  C5-6.    I  am  going  to  put  her  back  to  work  on \nrestrictions.    No  prolonged  standing  or  sitting no  lifting  over  5  pounds.    I \ntold her I would plan to place her at MMI and release her after her return \nfrom the injection. \n \nThe  CT  scan  referenced  above,  when  compared  to  her  2021  scan,  did  have  new \nobjective  findings  in  the  forms  of  straightening  of  the  lordotic  curvature  and a minimal \ncentral disc protrusion at C4-5. \n Dr. Sumeet Vadera, a board-certified neurosurgeon, conducted a peer review of \nDr. Adametz’s surgical recommendation\n1\n on  February  12,  2024.    It  reads  in  pertinent \npart: \nSummary of Treatment/Case History: \nThis patient is a 53-year (date of birth 09/13/70) female with neck and low \nback pain.  The patient’s exam reveals no focus with deficit.  The MRI \nshows  stenosis  at  C4-5,  moderate  central  stenosis at  C5-6,  and  severe \nforaminal narrowing.  The patient has been recommended to undergo C4-\n5  and  C5-6 anterior  cervical  discectomy and  fusion  (ACDF)  with a  partial \ncorpectomy of C4, C5, and C6. \n \nExplanation of Findings: \n \n1.  Is the proposed Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at C-C5 \nand   C5-C6   with   partial   corpectomies   of   C4,   C5,   and   C6   using \nInstrumentation  placement  and  screws  with  allograft,  indicated  and \nmedically appropriate based on reported pain,  since the latest clinic \nnote  documented  improved  clinical  findings?    Please  explain  and \nprovide supporting rationale. \n \nNo.  The proposed Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at C4-C5 and \nC5-C6 with partial corpectomies at C4, C5, and C6 using Instrumentation \nplacement  and  screws  with  allograft,  is  not  indicated  and  not  medically \nappropriate   based   on   reported   pain,   since   the   latest   clinic   note \ndocumented improved clinical findings. \n \n \n1\nAs discussed at the hearing and more fully infra, Dr. Adametz’s report was not \nintroduced into the evidentiary record. \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n11 \n \nBased  upon  the  standards  of  billing  and  coding,  a  partial  corpectomy \nrequires at least 50% of the vertebral body to be removed.  Therefore, it is \nnot appropriate for this patient, as there is no clear evidence to support a \npartial  corpectomy  in  this  patient.  In  addition,  there  is  only  mild  stenosis \nnoted  at  C  4-5,  Which  would  not  support  surgery.  Therefore,  the  entire \nsurgery  is  not  considered  medically  necessary  due  to  the  components \nlisted above. \n \n2.  If the  proposed Anterior  Cervical  Discectomy  and  Fusion  at  C4-C5  and \nC5-C6  with  partial  corpectomies  of  C4,  C5,  and  C6  using  Instrumentation \nplacement   and   screws   with   allograft is   not indicated or medically \nappropriate, is there an alternate procedure and/or treatment indicated and \nmedically appropriate? \n \nThe  alternate  procedure  and  treatment  that  is  indicated  and  medically \nappropriate  for  this  patient  would  be  a  C5-6  anterior  cervical  discectomy \nand fusion (ACDF), as there is moderate to severe stenosis noted at this \nlevel. \n \n3.  If the  proposed Anterior  Cervical  Discectomy  and  Fusion  at  C4-C5  and \nC5-C6  with  partial  corpectomies  of  C4,  C5,  and  C6  using  Instrumentation \nplacement and screws with allograft is indicated and medically appropriate, \nis  the  need  for  this  treatment  indicated  as  the  direct  result  of  the  08/30/23 \ninjury vs pre-existing degenerative spine disease?  Please explain. \n \nNot applicable. \n \nConclusion: \nThe proposed Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at C4-C5 and C5-\nC6  with  partial  corpectomies  of  C4,  C5,  and  C6  using  Instrumentation \nplacement  and  screws  with  allograft, is not indicated  and not medically \nappropriate based   on   reported   pain,   since   the   latest   clinic   note \ndocumented  improved  clinical  findings.    The alternate  procedure  and \ntreatment that is indicated and medically appropriate for this patient would \nbe a C5-6 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). \n \n Non-medical  Records.   Included in Respondents’ Exhibit 1 is a DVD containing \nsurveillance  footage  of  Claimant  taken  on  January  13  and  February  3,  2024.    The \nJanuary 13 footage depicts Claimant cleaning out a motor vehicle, while Claimant was \nobserved  on  February  3 placing  items  into  and  removing  items  from  her  vehicle,  and \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n12 \nplaying with a dog.  She did not display any difficulty with picking up objects or turning \nher head. \n Discussion.   Per  Dr.  Vadera’s  report,  Dr.  Adametz  has  recommended  that \nClaimant  undergo  a  two-level  anterior  cervical  discectomy  and  fusion  at  C4-6,  along \nwith a partial corpectomy of C4, C5, and C6.  The Commission is authorized to accept \nor  reject  a  medical  opinion  and  is  authorized  to  determine  its  medical  soundness  and \nprobative  value.   Poulan  Weed  Eater  v.  Marshall,  79  Ark.  App.  129,  84  S.W.3d  878 \n(2002); Green  Bay  Packing  v.  Bartlett,  67  Ark.  App.  332,  999  S.W.2d  692  (1999).  \nHowever, none of Dr. Adametz’s records are in evidence, so I am unable to credit his \nopinion.   Speculation  and  conjecture  cannot  serve  as  a  substitute  for  proof.   Dena \nConstruction  Co.  v.  Herndon,  264  Ark.  791,  796,  575  S.W.2d  155  (1979).    I  am  in  the \nsame situation with respect to Dr. Vadera, but for a different reason:  he neglects to cite \nin his report what medical records of Claimant, if any, that he reviewed. \n What  the  Commission  is  left  with  is  a  claimant  with  a  stipulated  compensable \ncervical spine injury who has been recommended to undergo a very extensive surgery, \nwith a peer reviewer asserting that the fusion is not indicated at the C4-5 level, and that \nthe corpectomies are not warranted, either. \n Claimant  has  argued  that  it  is  not  appropriate  for  Respondents  to  seek  an \nindependent  medical  evaluation under Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-511 (Repl.  2012).  \nSubsection (a) reads: \nAn injured employee claiming to be entitled to compensation shall submit \nto such physical examination and treatment by another qualified physician, \ndesignated or approved by the Workers’ Compensation Commission, as \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n13 \nthe   commission   may   require   from   time   to   time   if   reasonable   and \nnecessary. \n \n(Emphasis added)  In sum, Claimant must undergo an independent medical evaluation \nif the Commission finds that such is reasonable and necessary.  See generally Burkett \nv. Exxon Tiger Mart, Inc., 2009 Ark. App.. 93, 304 S.W.3d 2. \n Again, Dr. Adametz has recommended that Claimant undergo, inter alia, a multi-\nlevel cervical fusion.  She has documented extensive pre-existing degenerative findings \nin   her   cervical   spine.      A   peer   review   physician   has   taken   issue   with   this \nrecommendation.    While—again—I  have  not  been  asked  to  determine  whether  the \nproposed surgery by Adametz is reasonable and necessary, I could not do so anyway \nbased on the paucity of evidence that was offered at the hearing.  But what I am able to \ndo—and in fact am compelled to do based on the evidence outlined above—is find that \nthe evaluation by  Bruffett  is  reasonable  and  necessary.  In  so  doing,  I  note  that \nClaimant did not display any problems with her neck in the surveillance footage that is in \nevidence.    Certainly,  that  is  not  dispositive.    But  what  it  does  do  is  raise  a  legitimate \nquestion  about  her  cervical  condition  and  need  for  the  surgery  recommended  by  Dr. \nAdametz that Dr. Bruffett’s evaluation hopefully will put to rest. \n Accordingly,   I   approve   of   an independent   medical   evaluation   of   Claimant \nconducted  by  Dr.  Bruffett  pursuant  to § 11-9-511(a).   The  parties  will  work  together  to \nexpedite this evaluation, which shall be at the expense of Respondents.  Respondents \nwill provide Claimant reimbursement for the mileage for her travel to and from Bruffett’s \noffice in accordance with AWCC Advisory 89-2. \n\nARNOLD – H305860 \n \n14 \n \nCONCLUSION \n Judgment  is  hereby  entered  in  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and \nConclusions of Law set forth above. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H305860 BRENDA J. ARNOLD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT OSCEOLA SCH. DIST., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARK. SCH. BDS. ASSN., THIRD-PARTY ADM’R RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 19, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on June 21, 2024, in Jone...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:51:37.117Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H305860-2024-07-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Arnold_Brenda_H305860_20240719.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}