{"id":"alj-H306913-2025-02-10","awcc_number":"H306913","decision_date":"2025-02-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"John Adams","employer_name":"Butterball, LLC","title":"ADAMS VS. BUTTERBALL, LLC AWCC# H306913 February 10, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","shoulder","neck","back","carpal tunnel"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ADAMS_JOHN_H306913_20250210.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ADAMS_JOHN_H306913_20250210.pdf","text_length":23768,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H306913 \n \nJOHN ADAMS, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nBUTTERBALL, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nCCMSI, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in Russellville, Pope \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by MICHAEL E. RYBURN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On November 14, 2024, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Russellville, \nArkansas.      A  pre-hearing  conference  was  conducted  on August  26,  2024,  and  a  Pre-hearing \nOrder  was  filed  on August  27,  2024.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked \nCommission's Exhibit No. 1 and made a part of the record without objection. \n At the pre-hearing conference the parties agreed to the following stipulations: \n 1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n 2. The   relationship   of   employee-employer-carrier   existed   between   the   parties on \nOctober 1, 2022. \n 3. The respondents have controverted the claim in its entirety. \n 4. The claimant’s weekly compensation rates will be determined at a later date.  \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-2- \n 1.  Whether  Claimant  sustained  a  compensable  injury  to  his  cervical  spine  and  left \nshoulder on or about October 1, 2022. \n 2.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  medical  treatment  for  his  cervical  spine  and  left \nshoulder injuries. \n 3.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from  October  2, \n2022, to a date yet to be determined. \n 4. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n 5.  Respondents  raise  lack  of  notice  as  a  defense  in  that  October  25,  2023,  was  the  first \nnotice of the alleged work-related injury sustained on or about October 1, 2022. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“On October 1, 2022, claimant was working on a stack line in the \ncourse and scope of employment when he injured his left shoulder \nand  neck.  He  continued  to  work  the  pain  in  his  neck  and  left \nshoulder  became  unbearable.  Respondents  denied  the  claim  in  its \nentirety  and  claimant  sought  treatment  on  his  own.  Claimant \nunderwent  an  MRI  which  revealed  a  herniation  at  C5-6.  Claimant \nunderwent  a  cervical  spine  surgery  in  December  2023.  Claimant \ncontends  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  injury  in  the  scope  and \ncourse  of  employment  and  that  he  is  entitled  to  medical  benefit, \nTTD  and  that  his  attorney  is  entitled  to  an  attorney  fee.  All  other \nissues are reserved.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“The  claimant  was  not  injured  at  work  on  10-1-22.  He  does  not \nhave a compensable injury.” \n \n The  claimant  in  this  matter  is  a 48-year-old  male who  alleges  to  have  sustained \ncompensable  injuries  to  his  cervical  spine  and  left  shoulder  on  or  about  October  1,  2022.  The \nclaimant was employed in the respondent’s shipping department. That job required the claimant \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-3- \nto move and shrink wrap boxes of product. On direct examination the claimant was asked about \nthe events surrounding his alleged October 1, 2022, injury as follows: \nQ Okay. Tell me what happened on October 1, 2022. \n \nA Well,  when  I  got  to  work,  I  probably  worked  I  would  say \nan  hour  and  a  half  in  my  shipping  area.  And  then  Roger,  my \nsupervisor, had said he wanted me to go over to stacking and work \nwith the scanners on product to help him get the products scanned \nin by pallet because that is how they ship it is by pallet and make \nsure everything was good. \n \n I  had  been  over  there  for  a  few  hours  before  Eder,  the \nsupervisor  over  stacking,  second  shift,  had  put  me  on  the  stack \nline. And within, I don’t know, an hour and a half – somewhere \nbetween  an  hour  and  a  half  and  two  hours  is  when  I  hurt  my \nshoulder. I mean I felt it. So I reported to the supervisor first. \n \nQ To who? \n \nA Eder Sawatsky. He sent me to the nurse, which at the time \nwas  Alfred,  and  Alfred  just  gave  me  pretty  much  a  basic  aspirin \nand said, “Oh you will be fine. Go back to work.” \n \nQ Okay. \n \nA So I went back and, of course, I worked for however many \nhours longer it was. I remember leaving in the early a.m. I was still \nhurting and I told my supervisor Roger about it and he said, “Well, \nwhat do you want to do?” \n \n I said, “I am going to go home.” \n \n And  then  I  also  reported  to  work  the  next  day  like  I  was \nsupposed to, but that is what happened on that day. \n \nQ Okay. Now, you continued to work; correct? \n \nA Yes, I did. \n \nQ And you were back at work on Monday; correct: Well, that \nwas a Monday; correct? \n \nA Yes, that was a Monday. \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-4- \n \nQ And   you   continued   to   work   until   Wednesday;   is   that \ncorrect? \n \nA Yes, when the next incident occurred. \n \nQ What happened on Wednesday? \n \nA Well,  when  I  got  to  work  on  Wednesday,  I  got  sent  back \nover  to  stacking,  which  is  not  normal.  They  usually  rotate  us  out. \nBut  I  got  sent  back  over  there  and  I  was  doing  the  same  thing  I \nnormally  do.  I  would  go  in  and  scan  the  products.  I  would  help \nmake sure the pallets were good. \n \n And then Eder, the supervisor, had put me back on the line \nagain. Of course, I argued with him about it. “I got hurt once. I \ndon’t need to get it again.” \n \n And he said, “You work here and you do whatever you are \ntold to do or you won’t have a job.” \n \n So I went and got on the line and within a couple of hours, \nsure  enough,  I  hurt  my  back  and  my  neck  went  pop.  The  guy \nworking  next  to  me  heard  it.  I  think  his  name  was  Michael,  but  I \ncan’t be for sure. \n \nQ What were you doing when it popped? \n \nA Stacking off the roller lines to the pallets so that is from the \nfloor up. \n \nQ Okay. And other than the gentleman that was working next \nto you, did you tell anybody else that day? \n \nA The supervisor afterwards. \n \nQ And who was your supervisor? \n \nA The supervisor over the position was Eder. \n \nQ Okay. And did he send you to the nurse that day? \n \nA He did. \n \nQ And did you see Nurse Alfred again? \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-5- \n \nA Yes, ma’am. \n \nQ And what did Nurse Alfred do? \n \nA The same outcome as the previous on Monday, give you an \naspirin and send you  back to work. Obviously, it’s an ongoing \nordeal here. I could only do what I am supposed to do, which I did. \nI went to the supervisor first with the predicament and he sent me \nto  the  nurse,  which  I  discussed  with  them  what  happened.  Now \nbeyond that, I felt that my job was done. \n \nQ Did they send you to a doctor? \n \nA No. It wasn’t even suggested. \n \nQ Did they have you fill out any workers’ comp paperwork? \n \nA Not any. \n \nQ Okay. Did you continue to work? \n \nA Yes. \n \nI note that there are no documents in evidence that support or indicate the claimant was seen by \nthe  company  nurse  or  reported  his  alleged workplace injuries  while  in  the  employment  of  the \nrespondent.  The  claimant  continued  to  work  for  the  respondent  until  he  was  terminated  in \nDecember of 2023. \n The first medical record in evidence is a November 2, 2022, record from the Clarksville \nFamily  Medical  Center.  The  claimant  is  seen  by  APRN  Haley  Duff.  Following  is  a  portion  of \nthat medical record:  \nHPI \nNeck Pain \nReported by patient. \nTrauma: no. \nNeurological Complaints: none \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-6- \nPain:  worse  with  movement;  worse  with  activity;  radiates  to  right \nshoulder; pt states he thinks his right shoulder was improved with \nPT \nPain Duration: 3+ months; 5-8/10 pain level \nTreatment:  PT/OT  (PT  has  helped  the  right  shoulder,  has  not \nhelped anything else) \n \n*** \n1. Neck pain –  \nWorsening,  neck  pain  after  6  weeks  of  PT,  celebrex,  Flexeril  and \nsteroid \nM54.2: Cervicalgia \nXR, CERVICAL SPINE – Note to imaging Facility: 2 or 3 views \nMRI: CERVICAL SPINE, W/O CONTRAST \n \nThe claimant’s November 2, 2022, medical record indicates that he had already been receiving \nmedical treatment for his cervical spine in the form of physical therapy at least two weeks prior \nto the date he alleges to have injured his cervical spine and left shoulder at work.  \n The claimant was asked on direct examination about this inconsistency as follows: \nQ Okay. In the very first note in here, it is dated November 2, \n2022,  and  it  notes,  “Worsening  neck  pain  after  six  weeks  of \nphysical therapy.” \n \n So this is approximately one month following that accident \nand  it  shows  that  you’ve  already  done  some  physical  therapy. \nWhat is the discrepancy there? \n \nA That  one  I  woke  up  with  a  crick  in  my  neck.  I  am  sure \npeople know what a crick is. And I couldn’t turn my head, so I \nwent in and they did the heat treatment and stuff and that ended up \nbeing fine. But they wanted to do some other stuff and I did all the \nstuff they wanted me to do prior to getting the MRI. The state’s \nrequirement is to get medical done. There is a process. \n \nQ When was this waking up with the crick in your neck? \n \nA I don’t remember what day. \n \nQ Was it before or after the accident? \n \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-7- \nA I  think  it  was – I  think  it  was  after,  but  I  can’t  recall \nexactly. \n \nQ Okay.  Okay.  So  after  the  accident,  how  sold  are  you  that \nyou know for a fact this was October 1, ’22? Do you think it could \nbe a different date? \n \nA There  is  no  way.  When  I  first  started  working  for  them,  I \nfelt great. It was not the first time I have done a shipping job where \nyou  had  to  put  a  product – except  when  I  worked  at  Zero \nMountain, we had to floor load out trucks. \n \nQ Now, Mr. Adams, let me ask you this question. \n \nA Yes. \n \nQ According  to  this  medical  report,  you  were  treating  for \nneck pain two weeks prior to October 1, 2022. \n \nA Right, but it was only for the crick. \n \nQ So the crick was prior to your work injury, then? \n \nA I  would  have  to  guess  so  because – yeah,  I  would  have  to \nguess  so  because  I  remember  going  in  and  having  the  procedures \ndone for the heat treat. \n \nQ Okay.  So  you  were  already  treating  for  some  neck  pain \nprior to this injury at work? \n \nA I would guess. I mean, yes. \n \nQ Okay.  Did  this  incident  at  work  make  your  pain  better, \nworse, or did it gradually get worse over time? \n \nA It  was  pretty  much  gradually.  I  mean  I  would  start  feeling \nnumbness, tingling. You know, it is hard to tell if you are having a \nstroke, but it pretty much comes down to had some nerve damage \nthat goes with associated with it, so... \n \nQ Okay. So the pain after October 1\nst\n, was it different than the \npain that you had experienced following the crick in your neck? \n \nA Yes. \n \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-8- \nQ Okay. tell me how it was different. \n \nA Because with a crick, I just couldn’t move. With the other, \nit  was  constant  pain  as  if  like  somebody  were  either  stabbing, \njabbing,  or  you  know,  poking  around,  so  I  was  in  pain.  That  was \nthe only thing I could do was just do what I had to to get my MRI \nto see what was wrong with my neck. \n \n The  claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  the  cervical  spine  on  November  28,  2022,  at \nClarksville Family Medical Center. Following is a portion of that diagnostic report: \nImpression:  Moderate  canal  stenosis  with  right-sided  foraminal \nnarrowing secondary to disc osteophyte complex at C5-6 \n \n On February 16, 2023, the claimant is seen at Mercy Clinic Neurosurgery in Fort Smith. \nFollowing is a portion of that medical record: \nHISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: \nJohn  C.  Adams  is  a  46  y.o.  male  who  works  at  local  Butterball \nfactory  being  seen  in  the  office  today  for  midline  neck  pain  x  1 \nyear.   States   his   pain   radiates   to   R   shoulder,   occasionally   L \nshoulder,  but  does  not  go  into  either  arm.  He  has  tried  PT  with \nminimal  relief.  He  does  IM  steroid  injections  q  3  months.  States \nFlexeril  and  Gabapentin  help  him  sleep  but  he  does  not  take  it \nduring  the  day  to  drowsiness.  He  does  not  have  numbness  or \ntingling but he does have finger pain in all 10 fingers that he thinks \nis  due  to  arthritis.  Denies  falls,  decr  hand  dexterity  or  changes  in \nhandwriting. He reports that he has been told his R hand is weaker \nthan L but he is R hand dominant. \n \n*** \nEncounter Diagnoses \nCervicalgia \nCervical Radiculopathy \nOsteoarthritis of spine with radiculopathy, cervical region \n \nOrders Placed This Encounter \nCeleboxib (Celebrex) 200 mg capsule \n \nPlan: \n1. Celebrex  200  mg  daily  x  5  days  for  osteoarthritis  pain.  Given \none refill. \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-9- \n2.  Pain  management  referral  for  evaluation  of  possible  epidural \nsteroid injections. \n \nPt  discussed  with  Dr.  Lee  and  he  is  in  agreement  with  the  plan.  I \nwould  like  to  see  John  back  here  in  the  clinic  in  3  month(s)  to \nfollow  up  after  ESI.  Should  he  have  any  questions  before  then  I \nhave encouraged him to give us a call. \n \n On  February  23,  2023,  the  claimant  is  again  seen  at  Clarksville  Family Medical  Center. \nThe medical report from that visit, in part, states: \nHPI \nNeck Pain \nReported by patient. \nTrauma: no. \nNeurological Complaints: none \nPain: arching; worse with movement; worse with activity \nPain Duration: 6-8 months \nTreatment: steroids \n \n*** \nAssessment/Plan \n1. Neck pain –  \nNote may return to work without restrictions \nM54.2 Cervicalgia \nDexamethasone  sodium  phosphate  4mg/mL  injection  solution – \nInject 2 mL by intramuscular route. Quantity: (2) mL \nRoute: Injection \nKetorolac  60  mg/2  mL  intramuscular  solution – Inject  2  mL  by \nintramuscular route. Quantity: (2) mL. Route: Intramuscular \n \n On  March  14,  2023,  the  claimant  is  seen  by  Dr. Brian Goodman  at  Mercy  Clinic \nDepartment of Pain Medicine. Following is a portion of that medical report: \nChief Complaint: \nNeck Pain \n \nHistory of Present Illness \nMr.  Adam  is  a  46  y.o.  male  who  presents  to  the  pain  clinic  with \nneck pain which has been gradually worsening over time. \nThe  pain  has  been  occurring  for  sev  mo  and  is  described  as  a \nconstant aching/throbbing in the right neck and shoulder. \nRadiation: right shoulder and arm. \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-10- \nPossible accident or event leading to this pain: no. \nThe  pain  is  worsened  by  looking  up  while  rest  helps  to  ease  the \npain. \n \nThe  claimant  again  saw  Dr.  Goodman  on  March  27,  2023,  for  a  cervical  epidural  steroid \ninjection. The claimant reports to Dr. Goodman  on May 8, 2023, that the steroid injection gave \nhim significant relief. \n On  August  1,  2023,  the  claimant  underwent  a  second  cervical  MRI.  Following  is  a \nportion of that diagnostic report: \nIMPRESSION: \n1. Central  disc  protrusion  C5-6  level  which  may  contact  and  have \nslight  mass  effect  anterior  aspect  of  the  cord  with  mild  central \ncanal narrowing unchanged. \n \nThis MRI shows a central disc protrusion that was not present in the claimant’s November 28, \n2022, cervical MRI. \n On  December  7,  2023,  the  claimant  is  seen  by  Dr.  Arthur  Johnson  and  Dr.  Johnson \nperformed  surgery  on  the  claimant’s  cervical  spine  in  the  form  of  an  anterior  L5-6 \ndecompression  with  discectomy  and  removal  of  osteophyte  and  an  anterior  C5-6  Mobi-C  total \ndisc replacement. Medical records from that same day also, in part, state: \nChief Complaint \nPatient presents with \n* Neck Pain \nCervical disk herniation C5-6 \n \nSubjective: \nJohn  C.  Adams  is  a  47  y.o.  year-old  male  admitted  for  Mobi-C \nTDR  C5-6  with  a  history  of  Pt  states  has  had  pain  for  years,  no \ninjury.  Radiates  down  BIL  shoulders  into  arms  to  fingers,  seems \nworse  on  the  right.  Has  numbness  and  tingling  at  times.  PT  with \ncervical  traction  in  7/2022.  He  states  the  relief  did  not  really  last \nmore  than  2-3  days.  he  has  had  CESI  by  Dr.  Goodman  and  he \nstates first one lasted 4-6 weeks but the 3\nrd\n one only lasted 7 days. \nHe  states  that  Dr.  Goodman  told  him  more  injections  were  not \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-11- \ngoing to help. He has had NCV/EMG on 5/24/2023 by Dr. Phillips \nwhich noted mild carpal tunnel on the left and no evidence of any \nother   entrapment   neuropathy.   He   has   tried   NSAIDS,   muscle \nrelaxants, opioids, Gabapentin and Cymbalta but he states that his \npain   level   stays   at   about   a   7/10.   He   has   seen   Dr.   Gardon, \nneurosurgery  at  Mercy,  who  gave  patient  a  Medrol  Dosepak  for \ninflammation of the cervical joints which pt states helped some but \ndid  not  last.  Patient  was  notified  of  NCV/EMG  results  by  Dr. \nGardon’s nurse. Dr. Gardon felt that surgery would not benefit him \nand  patient  asked  his  PCP  for  a  referral  to  BH  neuroscience  for  a \nsecond opinion. \n \n10/4/2023:  has  had  neck  pain  for  several  years  on  and  off  this \nepisode  started  last  year.  The  pin  is  on  the  posterior  aspect  of  his \nneck,  bil.  Shoulder  and  upper  arms,  they  ache  constantly  without \nnumbness, tingling or burning sensation. Has difficulty looking up \nat  times  and  also  reaching  above  his  head.  Has  had  physical \ntherapy,  no  chiropractor,  or  neck  brace.  Had  CESI  #3  injections \nand did not help. \n \nIn  order  to  prove  a  compensable  injury  as  the  result  of  a  specific  incident  that  is \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the \nevidence  (1)  an  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment;  (2)  the  injury  caused \ninternal or external harm to the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath;  (3)  medical  evidence  supported  by  objective  findings  establishing  an  injury;  and  (4)  the \ninjury was caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence. Odd Jobs \nand More v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450, 384 S.W. 3d 630. \n The claimant alleges injury to his left shoulder and cervical spine on or about October 1, \n2022.  In  considering  the  claimant’s  allegation  of  left  shoulder  injury  the  medical  evidence \npresented  is  found  lacking.  There  are  no  medical  records  in  evidence  that  show  any type of \nobjective medical findings regarding the claimant’s left shoulder. Without objective evidence of \na left shoulder injury the claimant is unable to prove a compensable left shoulder injury.  \nThe  credibility  of  witnesses  and  the  weight  to  be  given  to  their  testimony  are  matters \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-12- \nsolely within the province of the Commission.  Ringier America v. Combs, 41 Ark. App. 47, 849 \nS.W.2d 1 (1993). \n In considering the claimant’s alleged cervical spine injury, I note the conflict that exists \nbetween the claimant’s hearing testimony and the medical evidence. Clearly, the claimant was \nreceiving  medical  treatment  for  his  cervical  spine  in  the  form  of  physical  therapy  at  least  two \nweeks  before  his  alleged  cervical  spine  incident.  The  claimant  attempts  to  frame  his  need  for \nmedical treatment prior to his alleged injury date as simply waking up with a crick in his neck. I \nfind it unreasonable that medical providers or any individual would order or undergo six weeks \nof physical therapy for a simple morning crick in someone’s neck. \n The claimant alleges the medical treatment for his cervical spine, including surgery, is a \nresult of his alleged October 1, 2022, cervical spine injury. However, not one medical record in \nevidence discusses or talks about any type of injury to the claimant’s cervical spine. In the first \nmedical record dated November 2, 2022, the claimant reported no trauma. At the claimant’s \nFebruary 16, 2023, Mercy Clinic Neurosurgery visit the claimant states, “midline neck pain x \none year”, and reports no injury. At his March 14, 2023, visit with Dr. Goodman the claimant \nreports, “neck pain which has been gradually worsening over time.” The claimant also reports no \npossible accident or event leading to this pain at that time. On October 4, 2023, the claimant tells \nDr. Johnson, “has had neck pain for several years on and off, this episode started last year.” On \nthe day of his December 7, 2023, surgery with Dr. Johnson, the claimant, “states he has had pain \nfor years, no injury.” \n The  claimant  certainly  does  have  objective  medical  findings  of  derangement  in  his \ncervical  spine  given  his  November  28,  2022,  cervical spine MRI,  his  August  1,  2023,  cervical \nspine MRI, and Dr. Johnson’s December 7, 2023, operative report. I note a disc protrusion in his \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-13- \nsecond  MRI  that  was  not  present  at  his  first  MRI.  Although  the  claimant  can  show  objective \nmedical  findings  of  cervical spine derangement, he  is  unable  to  prove  a  causal  connection \nbetween  those  objective  medical  findings  and  the  incident  on  October  1,  2022,  he  alleges.  The \nclaimant  began  treating  at  least  two  weeks  prior  to  his  alleged  injury  date  and  medical  records \nconsistently show he had no injury by his own accounts to medical providers. The claimant has \nfailed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  a  compensable  cervical \nspine injury on or about October 1, 2022. \n From a review of the record as a whole, to include medical reports, documents, and other \nmatters properly before the Commission, and having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of \nthe  witness and  to  observe his demeanor,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law \nare made in accordance with A.C.A. §11-9-704: \n FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n 1.  The  stipulations  agreed  to  by  the  parties  at  the  pre-hearing  conference  conducted  on \nAugust  26,  2024, and  contained  in  a  Pre-hearing  Order  filed August  27,  2024,  are  hereby \naccepted as fact. \n 2. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \ncompensable injuries to his cervical spine and left shoulder on or about October 1, 2022. \n 3. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto medical treatment for his cervical spine and left shoulder. \n 4. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled \nto temporary total disability benefits. \n 5. The claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his attorney is \nentitled to an attorney’s fee. \n\nAdams – H306913 \n \n-14- \n 6. The respondents lack of notice defense is moot. \n ORDER \nPursuant  to  the  above  findings  and  conclusions,  I  have  no  alternative  but  to  deny  this \nclaim in its entirety. \nIf  they  have  not  already  done  so,  the  respondents  are  directed  to  pay  the  court  reporter, \nVeronica Lane, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H306913 JOHN ADAMS, Employee CLAIMANT BUTTERBALL, LLC, Employer RESPONDENT CCMSI, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Russellville, Pope County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by LAURA ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:43:27.216Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H306913-2025-02-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ADAMS_JOHN_H306913_20250210.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}