{"id":"alj-H404600-2026-02-06","awcc_number":"H404600","decision_date":"2026-02-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Dena Mclevain","employer_name":"Spring Creek Health & Rehab","title":"MCLEVAIN VS. SPRING CREEK HEALTH & REHAB AWCC# H404600 February 06, 2026","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:4"],"injury_keywords":["ankle","back","fracture","sprain","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MCLEVAIN_DENA_H404600_20260206.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MCLEVAIN_DENA_H404600_20260206.pdf","text_length":42227,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n                                                         CLAIM NO.: H404600 \n  \nDENA S. MCLEVAIN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nSPRING CREEK HEALTH & REHAB,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT    \n                                        \nARKANSAS SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND/ \nCANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,  \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                          RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRARY 6, 2026 \n             \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented  by the Honorable Melissa  Wood, Attorney at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n          STATEMENT OF THE CASE \nOn November 12, 2025, the above-captioned claim came on for a hearing in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Previously, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held on this matter on August 27, \n2025.   That same day, I entered a Pre-hearing Order following my telephone conference with the \nparties.  Said  order was admitted into evidence along with the parties’ respective pre-hearing \ninformation filings as well as Commission’s Exhibit 1 without objection. \nStipulations \nDuring the pre-hearing telephone conference, and/or at the time of the hearing, the parties \nagreed to the following stipulations, which I found to be reasonable and applicable in this case: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the within \n claim. \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n2 \n \n 2.  The employee-employer-insurance carrier relationship existed on or about April 7,                       \n  2024, when the Claimant sustained a compensable work injury to her left ankle.  \n           3.           The  Respondents  accepted  this  claim  as  compensable  and  have  paid  appropriate \n medical benefits. \n          4.        The Claimant’s average weekly wage on the day of her injury was $417.25.  Her  \n \n            compensation rates are $278.00 and $209.00.       \n           \n5.        The Respondents have controverted this claim for additional benefits in the form of  \n \n           temporary total disability compensation. \n \n6.        Therefore, all issues not litigated herein are reserved under the Arkansas Workers’  \n \n           Compensation Act.  \nIssues \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to additional temporary total disability from May \n  \n1, 2024, until November 21, 2024 (with the exception of the period she worked \n \nat Dollar General).    \n \n2. Whether the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n \nContentions \n \n The Claimant’s and Respondents’ contentions are set forth in their respective response to \nthe Pre-hearing Questionnaire.  Said contentions are as follows: \nClaimant: \nThe  Claimant  contends  that  she  sustained an admittedly compensable  left  ankle/foot \ninjuries on April 7, 2024.  The Claimant contends entitlement to payment of temporary disability \nbenefits beginning May 1, 2024, through November 21, 2024, (except for a short period of time \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n3 \n \nwhen  she  worked  for  Dollar  General  in  a  part-time  capacity).   These  benefits  have  been \ncontroverted for purposes of attorney’s fees.  \nThe  Claimant’s  attorney  respectfully  requests  that  any  attorney’s fees  owed  by  the \nClaimant on controverted benefits paid by award or otherwise be deducted from the Claimant’s \nbenefits and paid directly to the Claimant’s attorney by separate check, and that any Commission \nOrder direct the Respondents to make payment of attorney’s fees in this manner. \nRespondents: \nThe Respondents contend that all appropriate benefits have been and are continuing to be \npaid with regard to this matter.  As indicated above, the Claimant was released as having reached \nmaximum medical improvement with Dr. Martin on November 21, 2024.  The Respondents have \nno medical documentation taking the Claimant off work subsequent to her full duty release and, \nas such, deny her entitlement to ongoing temporary disability benefits.  This will be re-evaluated \nin the event the Claimant’s counsel is able to  produce  medical  documentation  supporting  his \nassertion regarding temporary total disability/TTD entitlement. \nPursuant to the Respondents’ letter to my office on October 8, 2025, they amended their \ncontentions  to  state,  in  relevant part: ... Claimant is seeking TTD from May 1, 2024, through \nNovember  21,  2024.    Respondents  were  providing  light  duty  work  to  Claimant,  but  she  was \nterminated for cause.  As such, it is our position that she would not be entitled to TTD during the \ntimeframe sought.”  \n                     FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nAfter  reviewing  the record  as  a  whole, including  the  medical  reports, the documentary \nevidence, and other matters properly before the Commission, and after having had an opportunity \nto listen to the testimony of each witness and observe their demeanor, I hereby make the following \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n4 \n \nfindings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-704  (Repl. \n2012): \n1.     The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2.     The proposed stipulations set forth above are hereby accepted. \n \n          3.         The Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence her entitlement to  \n \n           temporary total disability compensation from May 1, 2024, through November 21,  \n   \n           2024 (except for the days she returned to work).  \n               \n          4.          The parties stipulated that the Respondents have controverted this claim for additional \n \n                      temporary total disability benefits.  Therefore, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a  \n \n           controverted attorney’s fee. \n  \n         5.         All issues not litigated herein or addressed in this Opinion are reserved under the Act.    \n                \nSummary of Evidence \nThe hearing witnesses were the Claimant, Dena S. McLevain, and Tommi Kirkland.  \n            The record consists of the hearing transcript of November 12, 2025, and the exhibits held \ntherein.  In addition to the Pre-hearing Order discussed above, the exhibits admitted into evidence \nin  this  case consisting  of Claimant’s  Exhibit 1which  includes the  Claimant’s documentary \nevidence of medical records and  the non-medical documents consisting of 99 numbered pages, \nexclusive of two index pages; Respondents ‘Exhibit 1 consisting of 14 numbered pages of medical \nrecords; and Respondents’ Exhibit 2 comprising of 10 numbered pages of non-medical records, \nexclusive of the cover sheet.      \nTestimony  \n As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant was 47 years of age.  She has some technical \ncollege  and holds other  assistive  medical certification.    According  to  the Claimant,  on  April  7, \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n5 \n \n2024, she was working for the respondent employer, Spring Creek Health and Rehab, when she \nsustained  injuries to  her  left  leg, ankle, and  foot area.   At  that  time,  she  had  worked  for  Spring \nCreek since March 8, 2024, as a certified nursing assistant/CNA.  \n The Claimant’s employment duties entailed direct care for the residents.  Specifically, she \nassisted patients with their activities of daily living and hygiene care, such as showers, brushing \ntheir  hair  and  teeth, nail  care,  and  with their meals, and  other  personal  hygiene needs.    She \nconfirmed  that  she  had  to  help  with  the  physical handling  and  mobility  of the  patients.    The \nClaimant testified that they had to do a lot of transferring patients back and forth between their \nbeds, wheelchairs, and other assistive devices.  \n On  the  day  of  her work-related injury,  the  Claimant testified  that  she hurt  herself  while \nmoving a resident up in the bed.  She testified her work injury occurred as she and another aide \nwere  trying  to move  a resident  to  a  comfortable  position  in  the  bed.    The  Claimant  explained \nprecisely how her ankle injury happened: “When I stepped – because you step when you move – \nyou have to lift them off of the bed where they’re no longer making contact, and then slide them \nup towards the pillow, and you step in that process, and when I stepped, my ankle popped seven \ntimes.”   \n The Claimant received  medical treatment after her injury took place.  She was taken off \nwork beginning May1.  According to the Claimant, she tried to go back to work after checking \nwith her workers’ compensation doctor.  Per the Claimant, she was told not to lift another person \nor do any heavy lifting, which amounts to light duty work.  The Claimant confirmed that she made \nmanagement aware of her restrictions and they worked with her for a while.   According to the \nClaimant, during this period of time, she had to be careful not to put undue weight on her ankle.  \nShe confirmed that Spring Creek allowed her to perform her employment duties from a wheelchair.  \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n6 \n \nThe Claimant testified that the HR manager and her supervisor both said she needed to perform \nher  work  duties  from  a wheelchair.    She explained that during  that  time, management had  her \nmaking beds, doing nail care, which she was unable to do successfully.  The Claimant claimed that \nher list of duties included chasing patients down to get their blood pressure before a certain time \nin  the  morning.   She essentially testified  that  this  made  it  difficult  for  her  to  achieve her  work \nresponsibilities from a wheelchair.   \n She was asked to describe what happened during the meeting regarding her termination.  \nSpecifically, per the Claimant, she was called into the HR manager’s office, which is very small \nroom.  The Claimant explained: \nA.  ... and there were five or six people.  There was the Director, the Administrator, \nDirector of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, the HR Manager, and my supervisor \nwere all in this room, and I believe it was the Administrator was telling me I had a write-\nup from two months ago  -- two months before that time frame; another write-up from three \nmonths  before  that  time frame;  another  write-up  from  three  weeks  before  that  time;  and \nthen one from that very day. \n \n The Claimant testified that she was told for those reasons she was going to be terminated.  \nShe testified that management told her she needed to sign the documentation.  According to the \nClaimant, she has worked in management previously, and her experience has taught her that when \nyou write someone up, you have a conversation with them when the event occurs.  The Claimant \nessentially testified  that  you  do  not  wait  two  months  after the  alleged  incident to  bring  up  the \nreason for writing them up because you need for the person to correct their behavior of what they \nare  doing  incorrectly.  She  testified  that  only  one  of  these  write  ups  were  relevant  because  the \nother  two  were  outdated.    Although  the  Claimant  has gained a  lot  of  experience  working  in \nmanagement,  she  confirmed  that  she  was  not  working  in  management  at that  time of  her \ntermination.  However, the Claimant testified that she managed a martial arts school for four years \nand a Smoothie King for two years.   \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n7 \n \n Counsel asked the  Claimant  to  explain how her  termination meeting with  management \nended.  The Claimant answered: \nThe  meeting  was  concluded  when  it  was  clear  that  I  was  definitely  terminated.  \nThere  was  no  discussion.   They weren’t open to hearing any explanation, right?  \nThere was no guidance.  There wasn’t any counseling, you know, “Dena’s, this is \nwhat you are doing wrong.  This is what we do we need you to do better.  We’ll \nfollow-up with you in a certain timeframe.”  There wasn’t-- none of that done.  I \nwas just fired, and so I got up to dismiss myself and when I did, I was told that I \nhad to sign those three, and I said, “I’m fired and those are outdated.”  \n \nShe confirmed that on page 99 of her exhibit, the document is entitled “Termination of  \n \nEmployment” which has a checkmark indicating  that  she  was  discharged  due  to “Inability to \nPerform.” She confirmed that after she was terminated, she applied for jobs at various places.  The \nClaimant  confirmed  that she had  some stints  of  employment at McDonald’s.   However,  the \nClaimant confirmed  that  she had some difficulty  with  that  job  physically.   Specifically,  she \ntestified, “When they wanted me to reach up and grab the boxes off of the top shelf -- sometimes \nsomeone would help me but this one particular day one of the managers had an issue with it.” She \nadmitted  that  during  this  period  of  time  and  even  continuing  now,  she  has  continued  to  receive \nmedical treatment for her injury.  The Claimant admitted that she was aware that she was found to \nbe  at  maximum  medical recovery  for  her  injury in  November  2024  by  her  treating  physician.  \nAccording to the Claimant, she continues to receive medical treatment for her injury.  However, \nthe Claimant confirmed she is paying for her current medical care with her own personal insurance \nbecause the insurance people would not authorize her for additional treatment.  \n On cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that the Respondents took her deposition \non August 8, 2025.  The Claimant confirmed that on April 7, 2024, the day of her injury, she was \nmoving a patient from the bottom of the bed up toward the top of it.  Her injury happened when \nshe picked up her right foot to step and felt a pop in her left foot.  The Claimant explained that it \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n8 \n \nbegan  before  that,  but in  moving the  patient  from  the  foot  to the head  of the  bed, her “ankle \npopped.”  She agreed that she worked on light duty for Spring Creek from April 7, the date of her \ninjury up  until  May  1.    During  this  time,  the  Claimant  confirmed  that  she underwent a  lot  of \nphysical therapy.  She admitted that some of her physical therapy appointments were taken during \nher work shift.  The Claimant further admitted that during her deposition testimony, she testified \nthat she did well on light duty because she only had to cut the patients’ nails and roll the silverware.  \n Regarding her termination, the Claimant confirmed that Tommi Kirkland, the Director of \nNursing, was present in the office on the day (May 1) of her termination.  She agreed that during \nthis meeting she was told she had three write-ups, and she told them to skip the first two because \nshe wanted the dates.  At that point, the Claimant testified that she wanted to focus on the recent \nwrite-up,  which  was from  that  morning.  She  admitted  that  when  she  testified  during  her \ndeposition, she stated that she did not know what the other two write-ups were for and she did not \nread them.    \n The Claimant admitted that she worked at Dollar General following her termination.  She \nconfirmed  that  she  testified during  her  deposition that  she had  worked there  for a  month,  from \nearly September until early October.  However, the Claimant explained that later that later Dollar \nGeneral confirmed  that she had  worked  there  for only three weeks.   Per  the  Claimant,  she  quit \nworking there because she was being harassed by her manager.  According to the Claimant, her \nmanager was aware that she had reported her to management for stealing from the store.    \n Nevertheless,  under  further  questioning,  the  Claimant  confirmed  that  she  had  difficulty \nwith  the  job  physically  because  she  had  to  stand  at  the  register  and  stock  nearby  shelves.    She \ntestified that she was allowed to handle the small packages.  Her working hours were from noon \nuntil 4:00 p.m., four days a week.  The Claimant confirmed that she continued to apply for jobs at \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n9 \n \nvarious places.  She confirmed that she worked at McDonald’s for a short period of time.  Next, \nthe Claimant started working at Home Instead, in July 2025.  However, the Claimant no longer \nworks at Home Instead.  According to the Claimant, she left that job because her ankle had not \ncompletely healed and she believed the patients were putting her at a fall risk.  Per the Claimant, \nshe was afraid of reinjuring her ankle while all of this was still going on, or in general.  \n As of the date of the hearing, the Claimant was not working.  Counsel for the Respondents \nshowed the Claimant one of Dr. Martin’s medical reports dated September 13, 2024.  Although \nthis report indicated that the Claimant told them that she continued to have some tightness, and \nthat her  pain  had  resolved,  the  Claimant  denied  that  this was  not correct.    Per  this  report,  the \nClaimant was asking to go back to full duty work at that point.  The Claimant explained that she \nalways wanted to go back to full-duty work.  However, the Claimant testified that this was not a \nconversation she had with Dr. Martin and she does not know why this information would be in the \nreport.  The  Claimant  confirmed  that  she  was  aware  that  Dr. Martin released  her  to  full  duty \nwithout any restrictions on September 13, 2024.    \nOn redirect examination, the Claimant again confirmed that she worked for Dollar General \nfor about three months and had to leave because her manager was piling work duties on her, which \nshe  was  unable  perform  after  she  reported  her  for  stealing.   According  to  the Claimant,  she \ninformed upper  management  about  what  was  going  on  because  they  have  a  zero  tolerance  for \nharassment.  Per the Claimant, although management told her they would take care of it, they did \nnot do anything and as a result, she removed herself before hurting herself further.  She worked \n20 hours a week at Dollar General.  Her hourly rate of pay was $11.00 an hour.  The Claimant \ndid not recall her exact pay while working for Spring Creek.  However, she testified that the pay \nwas very similar to what she was making at Dollar General. \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n10 \n \n  Tommi Kirkland  \n \n  Ms. Kirkland testified that she is the Director of Nursing at Spring Creek Health.  She is \nresponsible for the supervision of the entire Nursing Department.  According to Ms. Kirkland, her \njob duties entail supervising the duties of the positions for the nursing/medical staff including the \nregistered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants, and nurse assistants.  Ms. \nKirkland confirmed that in her position, she is involved in work-related injuries for the company \nwhen employees are released to return to work with physical restrictions.  She confirmed that it is \ntheir policy to provide accommodation for workers’ compensation cases.  Ms. Kirkland verified \nthat she is familiar with the Claimant.  She has worked for Spring Creek since September of 2018.   \n Next, Ms. Kirkland was shown a copy of Respondents’ Exhibit No. 2.  She confirmed that \nthis  was  a  list  of  duties  based  off of the Claimant’s restrictions while on light duty work.  Ms. \nKirkland testified that her CNA supervisor modified the Claimant’s job duties based off her \nupdated paperwork.  On June 6, 2024, Dr. Martin indicated that the Claimant’s physical restrictions \nincluded  no  more  than  20  minutes  of  standing  per  hour,  no  climbing  ladders,  or  stairs.    She \nexplained that they had the Claimant’s original paperwork of what her job duties were, and then \nshe went back for an appointment and brought back new restrictions.  According to Ms. Kirkland, \nat first the Claimant was working with crutches, and afterwards they talked about the standing no \nlonger than 20 minutes, and that is when they offered her the wheelchair.  Ms. Kirkland specifically \ndenied that she asked the Claimant to do anything outside of her physical restrictions.    \n She testified that the Claimant was making the same pay while working on light duty.  Ms. \nKirkland  confirmed  that  had  the  Claimant  not  been  terminated, she  would have  been  able  to \ncontinue working on light duty until she was released to full duty.  Although Ms. Kirkland was \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n11 \n \nunable to recall whether the Claimant was terminated on May 1, she confirmed that she was in the \noffice and involved in the termination process.   \n Ms. Kirkland confirmed that page 4 of the exhibit is dated April 30, 2024.  This form says \nthat the Claimant was cited for “poor work performance” because she left snacks in the residents’ \nrooms unopened/and or not offered to them.  She explained that this means the snacks were passed \nbut they were left on the table or near the resident and were not opened or offered to the resident.  \nAccording to Ms. Kirkland, the facility provides snack rotations for the residents showing weight \nloss and/or with diabetes.  She testified that the company violation against the Claimant indicates \nthat when she dispersed the snacks to the residents, she left them on the table or near the resident \nand they were unopened or not offered to the resident. \n Next, Ms. Kirkland was shown page 5 of the exhibit and asked to read over it and explain \nwhy  it  was a violation  of  policy.   Specifically,  she insisted that  the  Claimant  did  not  chart  the \nsnacks that she passed prior to leaving at the end of her shift.  It reads: “States on the 29th  that her \ncharting log-in did not work and that she was told by her supervisor to see HR or HR Director on \nApril 30/4-30 in the morning to fix it, but the employee failed to do so.  States that on April 29/4-\n29 that she had been charting under someone else’s long-in, which is a violation of policy.  Ms. \nKirkland explained that this was a violation of policy in the form of false documentation.   \n On page 6 of the exhibit, again it reads: “Poor work performance.”  She explained that the \nClaimant  violated  company policy because she did  not complete  her  job  duties  of clipping  and \nfiling the nails and  shaving  for  both  the  men  and  women,  and  the non-diabetic  residents.   Ms. \nKirkland explained that older women must be shaved because unfortunately, they tend to grow a \nlittle bit of hair as they get older in age.  She confirmed that she does not dispute that all three of \nthe policy violations are dated the same date, April 30.  Per Ms. Kirkland, a lot of this has to do \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n12 \n \nwith  timing.    According  to  Ms.  Kirkland,  the  Claimant  had  a  lot  of doctors’ appointments  and \nphysical  therapy  treatments,  which  made  it exceedingly  difficult to  sit  down  and  do  this.    She \nclaimed that they normally do not conduct disciplinary actions over the phone.  Per Ms. Kirkland, \ntheir  policy  is  to go  over  policy  violations on  an  in-person  basis  and  there  is  always  a  witness \ninvolved.   \n Ms.  Kirkland  confirmed  that  the  next  page  is  7, and it is  entitled “Termination  of \nEmployment,” and it is checked that it was an involuntary termination and the other check reads, \n“Inability to Perform.”  Ms. Kirkland testified that there was a list of reasons for terminating an \nemployee, and the one that most closely explained why they were terminating the Claimant was \nchecked.  However, she denied that the Claimant was terminated due to her work-related injury, \nbecause they  had  accommodated  her  light  duty  work  restrictions.    Instead,  Ms.  Kirkland \nmaintained that the Claimant was terminated due to her failure to perform her job duties.   \n On cross-examination, Ms. Kirkland again confirmed that all three write-ups were dated \nApril 30, 2024.  She confirmed that at least the first items had taken place weeks before April 30.  \nMs. Kirkland also confirmed that the Claimant was not made aware of these things until April 30, \n2024.  She confirmed that although there were a number of reasons given for the Claimant being \nfired, but the singular reason given was inability to perform.  Ms. Kirkland refused to confirm or \ndeny  that  the  Claimant  was  given  the  opportunity  to  explain  the  write-ups  because  it  was \ndocumentation all piled up at one time after the fact. \n Under redirect examination, Ms. Kirkland testified that the Claimant was hired on March \n8, 2024, and the date of the occurrence was April 30; therefore it would have been impossible for \nthe  write-ups  to  be  something  from  two  months  ago as  the  Claimant  had maintained.    She \nconfirmed that the write-ups actually occurred on April 30, 2024, with one of them having occurred \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n13 \n \non April 29.  Ms. Kirkland confirmed that she believes it was well documented about the Claimant \nhaving failed to perform her job duties leading to her termination.  She confirmed that the Claimant \ncould have been terminated for falsifying documentation based solely on this policy violation.  \n  On recross examination, Ms. Kirkland asserted that the Claimant should have been able to \nperform her job duties from her wheelchair within an 8-hour period.  \n  Medical Evidence  \n A review of the medical records shows that on April 7, 2024, the Claimant was seen at the \nCabot Emergency Hospital with a clinical indication of pain, after her left ankle popped at work.  \nThe  Claimant  underwent  an  XR  of  her  left  ankle,  with  an  impression  of:  No  fracture  or \ndislocation.” Notes from this procedure show that this document was electronically signed by Amit \nMittal, MD.  He recommended that if there is continued concern, follow-up with radiographs or \nMRI should be considered for more complete assessment.  The Emergency Department provider \nwas Dr. Brian C. Baird.  He provided the Claimant with special instructions to return if worsening \nor  increasing  symptoms  and  recommended  that  the  Claimant  follow-up  with  her  primary  care \nphysician.  According to these records, Dr. Baird placed the Claimant on light duty work starting \non April 7.  Dr. Baird specifically instructed the Claimant to refrain from weight-bearing in left \nleg/ankle until cleared by a physician or other medical provider.  \n On April 26, 2024, the Claimant sought medical treatment from a clinic at UAMS, in Little \nRock, Arkansas under the care of Dr. Robert Daniel Martin.  At that time, Dr. Martin ordered an \nMRI of the Claimant’s left ankle before making any recommendations. \n An MRI was performed of the Claimant’s left ankle on May 6, 2024, the following \nImpression: \n 1. Chronic tear of the anterior talofibular ligament with scarring. \n 2. Mild tenosynovitis of the tibial posterior and mild sprain of the  \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n14 \n \n            deltoid ligament.  \n 3. Subtle T2 hyperintense single with trace fatty infiltration in the  \n visualized soleus and flexor hallucis longus muscle, suggesting  \n denervation changes. \n 4. Incidentally noted 3.6 x 1.4 cm benign subcutaneous lipoma in \n  the medial aspect of hindfoot.   \n \n The Claimant returned to Dr. Martin’s office for  a  follow-up  visit on  May  6, 2024, for \nevaluation of her left lower extremity following her MRI.  She provided Dr. Martin with a history \nof having injured her ankle on April 7 at work while lifting a patient on her tip toes.  According to \nthis  report,  the Claimant  stated  that  she felt  a  distinct  pop  in  the  posteromedial  ankle  and  had \nimmediate pain and difficulty with bearing weight.  The Claimant further reported that she was in \na wheelchair, and then she went to crutches for several days.  At that time, the Claimant was in \nregular shoes but was experiencing pain with standing and/or walking.  Dr. Martin found that on \nphysical examination the Claimant was able to do a single heel rise, but this produced pain, she \nhad tenderness with deep palpation of the posterior tibial tendon.  She was nontendered laterally.  \nDr. Martin opined that the MRI of the Claimant’s left ankle was reviewed and interpreted by him \nand  was  consistent  with  some  tendinitis,  tenosynovitis  of  the  posterior  tibial  tendon.    No  intra-\narticular  abnormality  noted.   His assessment was “Posterior tibial tendinitis left side workers’ \ncompensation following injury/sprain.” Dr.  Martin  recommended  that  the  Claimant  use  a  boot \nwalker immobilization for a month and placed her on light duty work.  He also gave her physical \nrestrictions of no standing more than 20 minutes of standing per hour, no climbing ladders or stairs, \nand  she  must  be  able  to  wear  her  boot walker.   At  that  point,  Dr.  Martin planned to  start  the \nClaimant on physical therapy and placed her in a lace-up ankle brace.   \n It appears that on May 7, 2024, the Claimant contacted via a telephone call to Dr. Martin’s \noffice for a copy of his medical notes directing her to wear a boot, and his official diagnosis. \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n15 \n \n On June 6, 2024, the Claimant returned to Dr. Martin’s office for a follow-up visit of her \nleft  ankle  posterior  tibial  tendon  spur.   The  Claimant  reported  some  improvement  with  boot \nimmobilization; she was still having some posteromedial pain with prolonged standing.  Per these \nclinic  notes,  the  Claimant  had  been  doing  some  home  exercises.   Dr.  Martin’s assessment  was \n“Workers’ compensation, left ankle sprain, posterior medial improved but still not completely \nbetter.” He  recommended  that  the  Claimant  continue  to  wear  the  boot  walker,  ankle  support \northosis and start formal physical therapy.  Also, Dr. Martin continued the Claimant’s light duty \nwork restrictions.  He opined that the Claimant was not yet at maximum medical improvement. \n Also, on June 6, 2024, the Claimant underwent initial evaluation for physical therapy at \nOrtho  Rehab  &  Specialty  Centers  Farrer  Physical  Therapy  due  to  her  left  ankle  injury.   Joseph \nFarrer, physical therapist, evaluated the Claimant.  She complained of severe left ankle pain.  The \nphysical therapist observation included “Antalgic gait pattern.  Decreased WB on involved side \nankle brace.”  He noted that on Palpation: “Tenderness.  Patient has an increased of tenderness to \ntouch  in  the  following  structures: Anterior ankle ATF.”  Farrer stated that the Claimant was \neducated  about  her  injury  and  was  involved  in  the  development  of  goals.    He  opined  that  the \nClaimant had a good prognosis with PT.  Possible talar subluxation.”  Farrer recommended that \nthe Claimant undergo physical therapy sessions three times a week, for four weeks with treatment \nto consist of Medical Exercise Training, Home Exercise Program, and Patient Education. The first \ntreatment   included   full   tissue   examination,   patient   education,   general,   and   coordination \ncombination activity. \n The Claimant underwent physical therapy sessions from June 6 through July 9, 2024.  \n Dr.  Martin  saw  the  Claimant  in  follow-up  clinic  for  her  compensable  injury  on  July  12, \n2024.  The Claimant reported that physical therapy had improved her symptoms.  However, she \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n16 \n \nwas  still  complaining  of  some  anterior  and  posteromedial  ankle  pain,  but  still  she  had  some \ninability to jump.  Dr. Martin recommended that she continue therapy for another month.  He also \ncontinued  her  light-duty  work  restrictions  and  stated  that on the  next  visit  he  would  anticipate \nreleasing her to full duty without restriction.  However, Dr. Martin opined that he did not anticipate \na permanent partial impairment rating.  \n The  Claimant  continued  with  her  physical  therapy sessions directed  by  Dr.  Martin  from \nJuly 15, 2024, through August 2,2024. \n Dr.  Martin  saw  the Claimant  on  August  9, 2024, in  a  follow-up  clinic for  her  left  ankle \ninjury.  She reported that she was working with formal physical therapy and was slowly improving.  \nHowever,  the  Claimant  stated  that  she  still  cannot  step up stairs  reliably  and  that  after  15  to  20 \nminutes she had enough pain to justify sitting down.  At that time, the Claimant was not back at \nwork, but  she continued  on  light  duty.    Left  ankle  examination  by  Dr.  Martin  revealed  that  the \nClaimant had tenderness across the ankle mortise, posterior tibial tendon, and pain with positive \nsingle left leg raise.  His assessment was “45-year-old female, workers compensation, left posterior \ntibial tendon strain.” Dr. Martin continued the Claimant on formal physical therapy and directed \nher to return to work on light duty restrictions, which included standing for 30 minutes to an hour \nwith no climbing stairs or ladders. \n Following her office visit with Dr. Martin, the Claimant continued  with formal physical \ntherapy sessions from August 13, 2024, through September 5, 2024. \n   On September 5, 2024, the Claimant was seen for a final follow-up evaluation at the Ortho \nRehab & Specialty Center Farrer Physical Therapy due to pain in her left ankle and joints of the \nleft  foot.    At  that  time, Farrer,  authored  a  Discharge Note.  Farrer stated that  the  Claimant was \ncompliant with her physical therapy sessions and no longer complained of pain.     \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n17 \n \n  Dr.  Martin  evaluated the  Claimant on  September  13, 2024, due to her  workers’ \ncompensation  injury  of  a diagnosis  of  a left  posterior  tibial  tendon sprain.   Per  these  notes,  the \nClaimant was seen in follow-up for her injury.  At that time, overall, the Claimant had improved, \nbut she continued to feel tightness in the posteromedial of her ankle.  She reported that her pain \nhad resolved and she was ready to go back to work full duty.  Dr. Martin stated that on physical \nexamination of her ankle, the tenderness over the distal posterior tibial tendon had significantly \nimproved, and that her skin was tact with no new changes.  His assessment was “45-year-old \nworkers’ compensation, left ankle posterior tibial tendon sprain.”  Dr. Martin opined: \n Plan: The patient is much improved, she will be allowed to return to work full duty without \n restriction, she is not yet at maximum medical improvement, follow-up in a month for final  \n check.  I do not anticipate a permanent partial impairment rating or any permanent work    \n restrictions. \n As a result, on that same date, Dr. Martin authored a return-to-work slip stating that the \nClaimant could return to work full duty with no restrictions. \n The Claimant returned for an office visit with Dr. Martin on October 17, 2024.  He opined \nthat the Claimant had continued with improvement in the posterior tibial.  However, Dr. Martin \nstated that she had developed plantar fasciitis, this was worse in the mornings and with prolonged \nstanding.  The Claimant remained in regular shoes, and she had been without restrictions at work.  \nHe educated the Claimant on plantar fasciitis and returned her to full duty work. \n  Also, on October 17, Dr. Martin wrote in a clinic note, “Dena McLevain/the Claimant was \nseen in my office on October 17, 2024.  She may return to work full duty with no restrictions...”   \n The  Claimant  saw  Dr.  Martin on  November  21,  2024,  for an  office  visit  due  to  her \ncompensable workers’  compensation injury  of  “a  left  posterior  tibial  tendon  sprain.”    She \npresented  in  follow-up  clinic  with  her  regular  shoes  on  with  no  pain  in her heel  or  ankle.    The \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n18 \n \nClaimant reported that she was happy with her progress.  At that time, she reported that since her \nlast  visit she  had  no recent  problems to  report.   On physical examination of the Claimant’s left \nfoot, Dr. Martin opined “Left foot examination is benign, she has no areas of tenderness, no \nswelling, alignment equal to contralateral side, foot, well perused.” His assessment was that the \nClaimant’s “left ankle posterior tibial tendon sprain and plantar fasciitis” had resolved.  Dr. \nMartin’s plan included the following: “The patient is placed at maximum medical improvement, \nshe has a 0% permanent partial impairment rating based on the 4\nth\n edition AMA guidelines, she \nhas no permanent work restrictions, she will follow-up with me as needed.”        \n As a result, on November 21, 2024, Dr. Martin wrote in a letter to Whom it May Concern: \n“It is my medical opinion that Ms. Dena McLevain/the Claimant  may  return to work  as  full \nduty...”     \n            Adjudication \n A.  Temporary Total Disability Compensation  \n The Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury to her left ankle/foot on April \n7,  2024.    She  is  seeking  temporary  total  disability  compensable  from  May  1, 2024, through \nNovember 21, 2024, for  her compensable injury.   However, the Respondents have alleged that \nthe Claimant is not entitled to temporary total disability compensation for her compensable work-\nrelated left ankle injury because they were providing light-duty work to the Claimant, but she was \nterminated  for  cause.    As  such,  it  is  the  Respondents’ position that the Claimant  would  not  be \nentitled to temporary total disability compensation during the timeframe sought.    \n The  respondent-employer has alleged the Claimant’s employment was terminated for \npurported violations of company policies as outlined above and should be barred from recovery \nof temporary total disability compensation.  However, I am unable to find termination for cause \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n19 \n \nto  be a  bar to an  award  of temporary  total  disability  compensation.   Superior  Industries  v. \nThomaston, 72 Ark. App. 7, 32 S.W. 3d 52 (2000).  \n An employee who has suffered a scheduled injury is entitled to compensation for temporary \ntotal disability during her healing period or until the employee returns to work, whichever occurs \nfirst.  Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  The healing \nperiod is that period for healing of the injury which continues until the employee is as far restored \nas the permanent character of the injury will allow.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, \n879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  If the underlying condition causing the disability has become more stable \nand if nothing further in the way of treatment will improve that condition, the healing period has \nended. \nAfter  reviewing  the  evidence  in  this  case  impartially,  without  giving  the  benefit  of  the \ndoubt to either party, I find that the Claimant proved her entitlement to temporary total disability \nfrom May 1, 2024 through November 21, 2024, except for the brief periods she returned to work.  \n In the present matter, the Claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury to her left \nankle/foot on April 7, 2024, while lifting a patient.  The Respondents accepted the claim and have \npaid all appropriate medical benefits on the claim.   \nSpecifically, the Claimant came under the care of Dr. Martin, and he ordered an MRI of \nthe Claimant’s left ankle.  Dr. Martin reviewed the MRI of the Claimant’s left ankle, and he opined \nthat it was consistent with some tendinitis, tenosynovitis of the posterior tibial tendon.  No intra-\narticular abnormality noted.  His assessment was “Posterior tibial tendinitis left side workers’ \ncompensation following injury/sprain.” Dr. Martin ordered formal physical therapy, a boot, and a \nmedication regimen for the Claimant’s left ankle injury.  He placed the Claimant on light duty.  \nThe Claimant has not returned to work during the period of time in question, (except for the days \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n20 \n \nshe  returned  to  work),  and  she  continued  in  her  healing  period from  the  day  of  her  injury until \nNovember  21,  2024.    At  that  point,  Dr.  Martin  opined  the  Claimant  was  maximum  medical \nrecovery for her compensable left ankle injury.     \n Under these circumstances, the evidence before preponderates that I am compelled to find \nthat the Claimant proved her entitlement to temporary total disability compensation from May 1, \n2024, through November 21, 2024, except for the days that she worked.  \nOf  note,  the  Claimant’s  attorney  made  a  correction  regarding  her  employment  with \nMcDonald’s.  The McDonald’s information is from 2025 and not within the parameters of the \nperiod that she is asking for temporary total disability compensation.  However, it appears that \nher employment with Dollar General is applicable to the time frame for which temporary total \ndisability compensation is requested.  \n B.  Attorney’s Fee \n The parties stipulated that the respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety.  As \nsuch, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee on all indemnity benefits \nawarded herein to the Claimant, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. (2012). \n                                                                    AWARD \n The Respondents are directed to pay benefits in accordance with the findings of fact set \nforth herein this Opinion.   \n All accrued sums shall be paid in lump sum without a discount, and this award shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-809 (Repl. 2012).  Pursuant \nto Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715 (Repl. 2012), the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to a 25% attorney’s \nfee on the indemnity benefits awarded herein.   \n \n\nMcLevain - H404600 \n21 \n \n This fee is to be paid one-half by the insurance carrier and one-half by the Claimant.  \n      IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                                                                                                  ______________________                       \n                         CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H404600 DENA S. MCLEVAIN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SPRING CREEK HEALTH & REHAB, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND/ CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRARY 6, 2026 Hearing held before Administrative...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:31:51.986Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404600-2026-02-06","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MCLEVAIN_DENA_H404600_20260206.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}