{"id":"alj-H401671-2026-04-01","awcc_number":"H401671","decision_date":"2026-04-01","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Betty Mueller","employer_name":"Flippin School District","title":"MUELLER VS. FLIPPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H401671 & H402846 April 01, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MUELLER_BETTY_H401671-H402846_20260401.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MUELLER_BETTY_H401671-H402846_20260401.pdf","text_length":32289,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H401671 & H402846 \n \nBETTY MUELLER, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nVS. \n \nFLIPPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER    RESPONDENT  \n \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION,     \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA      RESPONDENT  \n      \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 1, 2026 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge, Gregory  K.  Stewart on  the 19\nTH\n day  of \nFebruary 2026,  in Harrison,  Arkansas. Opinion  issued  by  Administrative  Law  Judge \nJames D. Kennedy who was reassigned to this matter. \n \nClaimant  is represented  by Frederick  Rick  Spencer,  Attorney  at  Law, Mountain  Home, \nArkansas. \n \nRespondents are represented by James A. Arnold, Attorney at Law, Ft. Smith, Arkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \nThe hearing was originally heard by Administrative Law Judge Gregory K. Stewart, \nbut  the  decision  and  opinion  were reassigned  to  Administrative  Law  Judge  James  D. \nKennedy, after the well-earned retirement of Judge Stewart. The hearing was conducted \non the 19\nth\n day of February 2026, to determine the issue of temporary total disability (TTD) \nfrom July 23, 2025, through February 11, 2026, along with the issues of penalty, interest, \nand attorney fees. All additional issues were reserved. The parties stipulated and agreed \nthat the Claimant suffered a compensable injury to her right shoulder on December 14, \n2023,  and  April  2,  2024, and  earned a  sufficient  wage  entitling  her  to  a  weekly \ncompensation rate of $372.00 for TTD benefits. \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n2 \n \n The claimant contends that she was released to return to work by Dr. Kirk Reynolds \non August 25, 2025, with light duty restrictions, and the respondent employer was able to \nprovide  light  duty  to  the claimant  if  she  was  still  an  employee.  Since  she  was  not  an \nemployee, the respondents denied additional TTD benefits since they would have been \nable to provide light duty. The claimant contends she is entitled to TTD since she had not \nreached MMI, is still under the care of Dr. Kirk Reynolds, and is not employed and entitled \nto this benefit.  Additionally, the claimant contends that since the Respondent is denying \nTTD benefits, she is entitled to penalties, interest, and attorney fees. \n The respondents contend “without waiving other defenses” that the claimant is not \nentitled to TTD after the date she was released to return to work with restrictions.  \nA copy of  the  Pre-hearing order was marked “Commission Exhibit 1” and made \npart of the record without objection. Two witnesses testified, Diane Mueller, the claimant, \nand Kelvin Hudson, for the respondent. From a review of the record as a whole, to include \nmedical reports and other matters properly before the Commission, the following findings \nof fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-704. \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSSIONS OF LAW \n1.  The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this \nclaim. \n2. That an employer/employee relationship existed on December 14, 2023, and \non April 2, 2024, when the Claimant sustained compensable injuries to her right \nshoulder. \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n3 \n \n3. That the Claimant earned sufficient wages to entitle her to compensation at the \nweekly rate of $372.00 for TTD.    \n4. That the claimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to prove by \na preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to TTD from July 23, 2025, \nthrough February 11, 2026. \n5. That, consequently, all other remaining issues are moot. \n6. If  not  already  paid,  the  respondents are ordered  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the \ntranscript forthwith. \n \nREVIEW OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE \n The  Pre-hearing  Order was admitted  into  the  record  without  objection.   The \nclamant submitted two exhibits with the first exhibit of medical records consisted of return-\nto-work slips. The claimant’s second exhibit consisted of non-medical records consisting \nof a check register report. Both exhibits were admitted into the record without objection. \nThe respondents  also  submitted  two  exhibits  with  the  first  exhibit  consisting  of  twenty \npages  of  medical  records.  The respondents’ second  exhibit  consisted  of  non-medical \nrecords which consisted of a retirement letter. Both exhibits were also admitted without \nobjection. The parties also submitted a joint exhibit which consisted of the deposition of \nthe claimant.  \n The Claimant, Betty Diane Mueller, testified that she was fifty-nine at the time of \nthe hearing. She had obtained her tenth-grade education, had never obtained her GED, \nand worked in the kitchen for the Flippin School District, where they fed up to 500 “kids” \nduring three different periods. The Claimant further testified that they were understaffed \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n4 \n \nat the time of her initial injury and the injury occurred while she was picking up cartons of \nmilk weighing more than 50 pounds when she injured her right shoulder. She testified that \nshe is right hand dominant. When asked if she was able to currently use her right hand, \nshe responded “Not like I used to; no sir.” “I can’t reach – like high up the cabinets and \nget stuff.  It kind of catches, and I will have to get it back down, you know still.” She went \non and stated she was injured in December of 2023. (Tr. 6 - 11) She was injured while \nlifting the milk for the preschool and the elementary students to send to their classrooms. \nShe felt something at the time and told her supervisor or the person that was over her \nthat she had done something to her arm.  \nShe went on to testify that after returning from the Christmas holidays, they were \nstill short staffed, and she would then pick up the milk with her left arm, with the help of a \nco-worker. Her symptoms became worse. She testified her pain was bad during the day \nbut  worse  during  the  night on  days she  was  working.  She  took medications,  either \nprescription or non-prescription, which caused her to be sleepy and drowsy. (Tr. 12, 14) \nAfter returning in January form the holidays, she stated that the respondent moved a lady \nto move the milk, but she was then told that she would be required to substitute for the \nlady that was now doing her job with the milk. She questioned her supervisor on how she \nwas going to open cans of fruit with her left hand, dump them over into pans, and then \npick up the six-inch and a half pans. She went on to testify that she could not do the new \njob  without  using  her  right  arm  to  get  it  from  the  table  to  the  little  cart and over  to  the \ncooler and place it inside the cooler. The claimant went on to say that she told her first \nand  second  doctor about  her  problems. She  admitted that  the respondent  sent her for \nanother shoulder surgery after her second injury. In regard to her second injury, she was \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n5 \n \nstanding at the computer desk where she would scan the children’s nutrition cards and \nwas asked to get some paper products when her foot caught on something and she fell \non the milk box on her right side, and she instinctively used her right arm to reach out and \nnoticed another injury. She had to wait for a year and a half for the first surgery with Dr. \nRauls. (Tr. 15 – 17) She went on to state that the first surgery was denied and she then \ntalked to another supervisor. She eventually went to MedExpress due to her pain being \nan eight to a ten. She was still trying to work and to keep up with the lines by using her \nleft hand to pick up the “little scanner” if the students had their card, and if they didn’t, she \nwould  have  to  put  their  names  on  the  screen  to  show  that  they  went  through  the  line. \nUsing the screen was a slow process and the meal lines would back up and kids would \nwalk out. Students only had 20 to 25 minutes to eat. (Tr. 18 - 20) She went on to testify \nthat prior to her first injury, there were no backing up of the lines and after the first surgery, \nthere was a long backup of the lines. She felt that the backup was due to her having to \nuse her left hand, which caused frustration with the “school supervision” and the “school \npeople.” She was told to keep the lines going because they were there to feed the kids. \n(Tr. 21) \nAfter her second injury, which reinjured her right shoulder per her testimony, she \nwas told not to go back to Dr. Rauls because she needed a second opinion and was sent \nto  Dr.  Kirk  Reynolds  who  performed  the  second  surgery.  The  second  surgery  was \nperformed quicker than the first, and she was then given a return to work slip that provided \nthat she should be in a sling at all times. That is when she knew she couldn’t go back to \nwork. “I couldn’t keep up with, you know, trying to get it done.” She felt that the restrictions \nwere not followed, and she could not do the job without her right arm. In regard to her \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n6 \n \nresignation, she stated “The reason I, you know, resigned is because after workmen’s \ncomp denied me and I called my manager and told her and that kind of, you know, put \nme in a state like, ‘Oh, my gosh, what am I going to do now?’” (Tr. 22 – 24)    \nShe went on to testify that the respondent employer sent out the contracts for the \nnext year and she returned to MedExpress who set her up for therapy, but it was never \napproved  by  worker’s  compensation.  She  attempted  to  use  her  personal  insurance \nthrough the school, which was also denied, and she then went to her primary doctor, Dr. \nLance Lincoln, who had originally made the referral to Dr. Rauls. (Tr. 24) \nIn an attempt to clarify the testimony, the claimant testified that after the second \ninjury, she received a contract in the mail in March or May for the following school year \nand was given a return to work by her treating doctor. (Tr. 25) She didn’t attempt to go \nback to work after Dr. Stallings provided a return to work slip that stated she could return \nto work while wearing a sling because she felt that “I Couldn’t do my job” and that was \nwhy  she  resigned. She was  then  specifically  asked  if  she  was  given a  full  release  on \nFebruary  11\nth\n, 2026, that provided “If the employer is unable to accommodate these \nrestrictions, then it is the responsibility of the employer to keep the patient off work” and \nshe responded “Uh-huh.” (Tr. 26) She had talked to her doctor and her nurse practitioner \nabout her frustrations with her work accommodations. (Tr. 27) \nAt this point the Court interjected and attempted to clarify the testimony and asked \nif the Claimant was only asking for benefits up through the date of February 11, 2025, \nand the response from the Claimant’s attorney was yes, but that we would ask for benefits \nlater  if  she was  still  being  treated.  Claimant  then  went  on  to  testify  that  she was \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n7 \n \nexperiencing pain in her right shoulder that was maybe a three or four, “but it’s not like \nevery day, you know. Some days are good, some days are bad.” (Tr. 29, 30) \nClaimant stated that she could still not sleep on her side because she would wake \nup and just holler out at night. After her surgery, her husband would have to wash her \nhair and put her shirt on. She was then asked about the use of her left shoulder and if it \nresulted  in  pain  due  to  over-use  and  she  responded  that  she  had  a  limit  on  the  left \nshoulder and would receive trigger points and her husband would massage her shoulder. \nShe was then specifically asked if she was talking about the left arm as “This Arm” and \nshe responded “Right. Ten times with the left and twenty with the right”. (Tr. 31)      \n Under cross examination, the Claimant admitted that she had a work-related injury \nto her left shoulder while working in Mississippi and that she had surgery for it. As the \nresult of the Mississippi injury, she had a lifting restriction of 20 pounds for her left arm. \n(Tr. 33) She also admitted that when she went to work for the Flippin School District, she \ninformed the people that she had a 20-pound lifting limit for her left arm. She was then \nasked if the Respondent employer was already providing an accommodating restriction \ndue to her prior injury and she responded “What – they unloaded the trucks, I mean, put \nthe stuff up for everybody.” “It wasn’t just what, you know, I had to do.” (Tr. 34) She also \nadmitted working at the school kitchen until the injury in December of 2023, that she was \nlifting the milk, juice, and fruit, and getting it ready for in-classroom breakfast and doing \nthe  computer,  and  she  injured  herself  while  lifting  the  crates  the  first  time.  She  was \nspecifically  asked  after  returning  to  work  after  the  Christmas  break,  and  reporting  her \nproblem, if she didn’t have to go back to lifting the trays anymore, and she responded, \n“Some days I would have to, but I would have someone with me, you know, helping me.” \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n8 \n \n(Tr. 35) She admitted that they were already accommodating her restrictions to her right \narm. She also admitted that she did not have to do the heavier parts of her job and had \nsomeone help her but stated she then had to do their job. In regard to her computer work, \nshe  stated  she  already  was  doing  it.    She  also  agreed  that  in  her  deposition, \napproximately a year and a half to two years earlier, that she had admitted the school had \nworked with her to make her job easier. She admitted she continued to work and was not \nusing her arm at work. She also admitted that she had picked up a skillet of cornbread \nwith her right hand while cooking at home, and realized “Well, that’s why I shouldn’t be \nusing my right arm.” (Tr. 36) The claimant also admitted that she had reported that she \nhad irritated her arm while lifting a skillet of cornbread at home. She also admitted that no \none told her that she had to use her right arm, but stated she would have to use it a little \nbit. She also admitted that she suffered her second injury while working at the computer \nand  that  she  was  slower  because  she  was  unable to  use  her  right arm, and  the \nrespondent was aware of this. She did add however that they were receiving calls from \nthe teachers stating that the line was not moving fast enough. She also admitted that no \none from the respondent instructed her to use her right arm but added “You know, but I \njust had to do, you know, what I could do to accomplish what we needed to get done.” \nClaimant was also asked if she had already resigned when her arm was placed in the \nsling, and she responded “I am not sure when I seen – I think her name was Dr. Peterson \n(sic). She was the nurse practitioner at my primary doctor. I can’t remember when I saw \nher, and she put me in the sling.”  The Claimant did agree that she resigned in May of 24, \nat the end of the school year. She also admitted that she was still working at the school \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n9 \n \nwhen she resigned, and that the Respondent employer was honoring her restriction for \nnot using her right arm. (Tr. 37 – 39) \n In regard to the second surgery when she was released from being completely off \nwork  for  the  surgery  to  being  released  to  one-arm  duty, the claimant  agreed  that \neverything was eventually taken care of by workers’ compensation. (Tr. 40) She  also \nagreed that even after she was released to return to work with the restrictions, her medical \ntreatment continued to be taken care of by workers’ comp as far as she knew. She also \nagreed that she  had  been  released  by  Katherine  Stallings, Dr.  Reynolds  Physician \nAssistant. The Claimant was then asked the following question: \nQ: I am a little – the document says you are “released to full \nduty.” No restrictions effective February 11, 2026.” So what \nrestrictions  is  she  talking  about  it’s  the  employer’s \nresponsibility to keep the patient off work when you don’t have \nany restrictions at all? Do you know what she’s even talking \nabout? \n \nA: I have no idea.    \n \nClaimant went on to state that she was still doing therapy and still weak in the arm. (Tr. \n41) At  this  point,  the  Respondents  stated  that  they  had  no  further  questions  and  the \nClaimant passed the witness. \n The respondents then called  Kevin  Hudson,  who testified that  he was  the \nSuperintendent of the Flippin School District and had been in that position for ten years \nand was  in  his 33\nrd\n year  in  education.  Mr.  Hudson  explained  that  the  policy  of  the \nrespondent employer for providing work for workers’ compensation employees was that \nif someone needed accommodations “yes, we accommodate.” “As a matter of fact, we \nare accommodating someone right now in the same way” and that person works in the \nkitchen and can only use one arm.” (Tr. 43, 44) \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n10 \n \n Under cross examination, Mr. Hudson admitted that he had been in the courtroom \nthe entire time, and that everything the claimant had said was true and correct to the best \nof his knowledge and belief. (Tr. 45)  \nAt this point the hearing was concluded.      \n   The Claimant’s medical exhibits provided a return-to-work slip dated July 23, 2025, \nfrom OrthoArkansas and Katherine Stallings, PA, PASUP. The slip provided that Claimant \ncould  return  to  work/school  on  July  23,  2025,  with  restrictions  and  no  use  of her  right \nextremity, which must be in a sling at all times. (Cl. Ex. 1, P.1) A second return to work \nslip dated August 25, 2025, from OrthoArkansas and signed by Dr. Reynolds, provided \nthat the Claimant could return to work on August 25, 2025, with the following restrictions: \nno lifting, pushing, pulling, and with no work above shoulder level. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 2) A third \nwork slip dated October 27, 2025, and again signed by Dr. Reynolds, provided that the \nclaimant could return to work on October 27, 2025, again with no lifting, pushing, pulling \nand  no  work  above  shoulder  level.  (Cl.  Ex. 1,  P.  3)  A  third  return  to  work  slip  dated \nDecember 8, 2025, and again signed by Dr. Reynolds, provided the claimant could return \nto work on December 8, 2025, with a 15-pound lifting limit. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 4) The fourth \nreturn  to  work  slip  dated  February  11,  2026,  and  signed  by  Katherine  Stallings,  PA, \nPASUP, provided the claimant could return to work full duty with no restrictions, but then \nadded  that if the  employer  is  unable  to  accommodate  these  restrictions,  then  it  is  the \nresponsibility of the employer to keep the patient off of work. (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 5) \n Claimant’s  Non-Medical  Exhibit  consisted  of  the  Temporary  Total  Disability \npayments to the Claimant from the date of October 16, 2024, through the date of July 21, \n2025, for the total payment of $16,716.00. (Cl. Ex. 2, P. 1, 2) \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n11 \n \n The  Respondent’s  Medical  Exhibit  consisted  of 20  pages.    The  report  from \nOrthoArkansas  dated  July  10,  2025,  provided that the  Claimant  was  diagnosed  with  a \nright  rotator  cuff  tear with  right  shoulder  postoperative  arthrofibrosis  and  right  shoulder \nsynovitis and a right shoulder arthroscopy that had been performed. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 1 – \n3) A follow up report from OrthoArkansas dated July 23, 2025, provided it was the first \npostoperative  visit following her right  shoulder arthroscopy  with  a  rotator  cuff  repair. \nRegarding her work, the report provided the claimant would remain on modified duty, with \nher right upper extremity remaining in a sling at all times. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 4 – 7)   \nClaimant  again  returned  to  OrthoArkansas  on  August  25,  2025,  for  a  follow  up \nevaluation. This report provided that she complained of aching, shooting, and throbbing \npain that rated a four out of a ten. She could stop using her sling, continue her physical \ntherapy, and could return to work with modified duty with no lifting, pushing, or pulling of \nthe right extremity and with no work above the shoulder level. (Resp.1, P. 8 -11) \nThe Claimant’s next visit to OrthoArkansas per the record was on October 27, \n2025.  The  report  provided  the  Claimant was  3.5  months  status  post  right  shoulder \narthroscopy. She would continue physical therapy and could return to work on modified \nduty with a five-pound pushing and lifting limit with her right upper extremity and with no \nwork above the right shoulder level. She had not reached MMI. (Resp. 1, P. 12 – 15)  \nThe Claimant again returned to OrthoArkansas on December 8, 2025. This report \nprovided that the Claimant was originally seen for a second opinion. Her original injury \noccurred in April of 2024, with an orthoscopic surgery involving a distal clavicle excision, \na  subacromial  decompression,  and  a  labral  debridement.  Unfortunately,  she  had \npersistent pain and weakness, and an MRI scan demonstrated a full-thickness rotator cuff \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n12 \n \ntear and on July 10, 2025, a right shoulder arthroscopy was performed to repair the rotator \ncuff repair. She was allowed to return to work with a five-pound lifting, pushing, and pulling \nrestriction. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 16 – 19) The final report from OrthoArkansas dated December \n8, 2025, provided that the Claimant could return to work on December 8, 2025, with a 15-\npound lifting limit. (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 20) \nRespondents   Non-Medical  exhibit  consisted  of  Claimant’s  retirement  letter \naddressed to whom it may concern and stating that the Claimant was resigning from the \nFlippin School District at the end of the 2023 – 2024 school year. (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 1) \nThe final Joint Exhibit consisted of the deposition of the Claimant taken on June \n12\nth\n, 2024. The Claimant admitted she had suffered a left shoulder injury that resulted in \na workers’ compensation claim and left shoulder surgery in approximately 2014 and again \nin 2015 on the same shoulder. She also admitted that she had a weight limit of 20 pounds \nregarding her left shoulder. In regard to her current respondent employer, she testified \nshe  suffered  an  injury  in  December  of  2023,  and  again  in  early  April  of  2024, which \ninvolved her right shoulder. She started having right shoulder trouble in the 23 – 24 school \nyear due to having to load a hundred and eight-eight juices, milks, and cups of fruit every \nmorning. She lifted items over 20 pounds and would lift it more with her right arm. She \nwas picking up a crate of milk when she first noticed a problem with her right shoulder \nwhich popped, burned, and happened all at once. She initially did not go to the doctor, \nand returned to work following the Christmas break, but testified she was not lifting. In \nMarch, while at home, she reached to pick up a “little-bitty skillet” and her shoulder started \nhurting. The claimant went on to testify that she had been hurting since December and \nfelt something was wrong and it was gradually getting worse. \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n13 \n \nFrom  December  14\nth\n to  March,  “There  was  no  lifting.  I  was  on  the  nutrition \ncomputer, you know, scanning the kids in, and that’s about all I did, you know.” She \ntestified that  she  did  not ask  the  respondent  to  send  her  to a doctor.  She  went  to \nMedExpress on her own. She talked to her supervisor by text on February 18\nth\n, in regard \nto her right shoulder problems, but the text was overlooked. She told MedExpress she \ninjured her right shoulder while at work and was referred to therapy three times a week. \nShe was then told by the school to contact workers’ compensation and never received \nthe therapy.  \nAfter  MedExpress,  she  saw  Kim  Peters,  the  nurse  practitioner working with  her \nprimary  care  doctor,  Dr.  Lincoln. She  admitted  continuing  to  work  after  going  to \nMedExpress.  Kim  Peterson  placed her  in  a  sling  and  told  her  no  lifting  heavier  than  a \ncoffee cup. “And from there, you know, I just, you know, did the computer and all, because \nMartha told me no lifting, nothing.” \nIn April, her foot caught the nutrition computer at work which caused her to fall over \nthe milk box where she used her right arm to catch herself in the fall, which made her \nproblem worse. She woke on a Thursday morning after the event on a Tuesday with her \narm swollen and she still went to work. When she walked into work, she was told she did \nnot  look good, and  she then told  them  about  her  shoulder.  She  was then sent  to  the \nemergency  room where she  received  an  x-ray.  She  did not receive  a  referral  to  an \northopedic doctor at that time. She testified that Dr. Kim ordered an MRI back in March \nand it was denied by her insurance company. Dr. Lincoln then referred her to Dr. Rauls \nat Twin Lakes Ortho who recommended that she have surgery. (Joint Exhibit)      \n \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n14 \n \nDISCUSSION AND ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES \nIn  determining  whether  the  claimant has  sustained her burden  of  proof,  the \nCommission shall weigh the evidence impartially, without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto either party. A.C.A. 11-9-704. Wade v. Mr. Cavananugh’s, 298 Ark. 364, 768 S.W. 2d \n521  (1989).  Further,  the  Commission  has  the  duty  to  translate  evidence  on  all  issues \nbefore it into findings of fact. Weldon v. Pierce Brothers Construction Co., 54 Ark. App. \n344, 925 S.W.2d 179 (1996). \nIn   the   present  matter, the   parties   stipulated   that   the   claimant   suffered  a \ncompensable injury to her right shoulder on December 14, 2023, and again on April 2, \n2024. Although  the  testimony  was  somewhat  confusing  at  times,  after  a  review  of  the \ntestimony  of  the  witnesses and the evidence entered  into the  record without  objection, \nincluding the  deposition  of  the  claimant,  it  is found that the  evidence  provided that the \nclaimant had previously injured her left shoulder in a work-related accident with a different \nemployer  in  a  different  state  a  few  years prior, and  had  been  restricted  to  lift only 20 \npounds with her left arm. The claimant testified that due to this restriction, which is found \nto be believable, she had a tendency to favor her left arm and predominantly use her right \narm, which also happened to be her predominant hand and arm. These actions would be \ntypical  for  a  right-hand  dominant  person,  prior  to her suffering a right  shoulder work-\nrelated  compensable  injury  with  the  Flippin School  District.  After the occurrence of her \ncompensable right  shoulder injuries while  working  for  the respondent,  the  claimant \ntestified in her deposition that from the dates of December 14\nth\n to March, “There was no \nlifting. I was on the nutrition computer, you know, scanning the kids in, and that’s about \nall I did, you know.” The claimant also testified that after the Christmas holidays she was \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n15 \n \nno longer required to move the milk, juice, and fruit, which appeared to be the cause of \nher  right  shoulder  injury. Another  employee replaced her in performing that activity. \nHowever, claimant stated that she was then required to perform the work of the individual \nthat replaced her, and she felt she was slower than the previous employee at that job, \nwhich caused the meal line to move slower resulting in complaints from the teachers. This \ncaused  her  to  feel that  she  was  creating  issues. However  there  appeared  to  be  no \ncomplaints  or  instructions  directed  at  the  claimant  to  speed  up  her  work  from  her \nsupervisors. The Superintendent of the schools testified that it was the policy of the school \nto accommodate workers, and that the school was accommodating a worker with similar \nissues who was unable to use one arm and was currently working in the cafeteria. Before \nthe  end  of  the  2023-2024  school  year,  and  before  renewing  her  contract,  the  claimant \nprovided an undated letter addressed to “Whom it may concern” that she was resigning \nat  the  end  of  the  2023-2024  school  year. The  first  return  to  work  slip  entered  into  the \nrecord by the claimant and dated July 23, 2025, and the first medical report entered into \nthe record by the respondents dated July 10, 2025, were both dated well after the date of \nclaimant’s resignation from her employment. \nA 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’s \ncredibility and how much weight to accord the person’s testimony is 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 and \nis not required to believe the testimony of any witness. \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n16 \n \nThe compensable injury to the claimant’s left shoulder is an unscheduled injury. \nAn employee who suffers a compensable unscheduled injury is entitled to temporary total \ndisability compensation for that period within the healing period which she suffered a total \nincapacity to earn wages. Ark. State Hwy & Transportation Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. \n244, 613 S.W. 2d 392 (1981). Claimant’s failure to return to work must be causally related \nto  the  injury. Foster  v.  Tyson  Poultry,  213  Ark.  App.  172,  426  S.W.  3d  563  (2006). \n“Disability”  means  incapacity  because  of  injury  to  earn, in the  same or  any  other \nemployment, the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injuries. The \nCommission may consider the claimant’s physical capabilities and evaluate her ability to \nengage in gainful employment. The claimant bears the burden of proving both that she \nremains within her healing period and, in addition, suffers a total incapacity to earn pre-\ninjury wages in the same or other employment. Paalazolo v. Nelms, 46 Ark. App. 130, \n877 S.W.2d 938 (1994) \nTTD benefits  compensate  a  worker  who  cannot  work  during  their  period  of \nrecovery. Here it is found that the claimant voluntarily resigned from her job and position \nat the end of the 2024 school year while being accommodated in her work environment \nfor  her  injuries. Due to these accommodations and the claimant’s work ethic, she was \nclearly engaged in gainful employment at the time of her resignation earning pre-injury \nwages. Although it is not doubted that teachers may have been complaining about slow-\nmoving  lines,  there  was  no  testimony  that  administrators  were making  any  specific \ncomplaints or  demands.  There  appeared  to  be  a  shortage  of  workers  in  the  area. \nAdditionally,   it   is   found   believable   that   the   respondent   employer   is   currently \naccommodating an employee with a similar injury working a similar job. All off work slips \n\nMueller – H401671 & H402846 \n17 \n \nand medical records made part of the record were dated well after the claimant resigned. \nHere,  the  claimant  was  provided  employment  to  earn  the  same  wages that she  was \nearning prior to her work-related injury, when she voluntarily quit her job. TTD benefits \ncompensate  a  worker with  an  unscheduled  injury when  they  cannot  work  at  all  during \ntheir  recovery,  and  here  it  is  clear  that  with  the  accommodations provided  by  the \nrespondent, claimant was able to work at the time of her resignation and it is found that \nthe claimant has failed to satisfy the burden of proof that she is entitled to TTD.    \nAfter reviewing the evidence impartially, and without giving the benefit of the doubt \nto  either  party, it  is found that  the  claimant has failed  to satisfy the  required  burden  of \nproof to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to TTD benefits. \nThat, consequently, all other issues are moot.  If not already paid, the respondents are \nordered to pay for the cost of the transcript forthwith. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n          ______________________________ \n      JAMES D. KENNEDY \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H401671 & H402846 BETTY MUELLER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT VS. FLIPPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 1, 2026 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge, Gregory K. Stewart ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:52.988Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H401671-2026-04-01","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MUELLER_BETTY_H401671-H402846_20260401.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}