{"id":"alj-H404860-2025-12-09","awcc_number":"H404860","decision_date":"2025-12-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Dannie Townley","employer_name":"Hiland Dairy Co., LLC","title":"TOWNLEY VS. HILAND DAIRY CO., LLC AWCC# H404860 December 09, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee","ankle","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TOWNLEY_DANNIE_H404860_20251209.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"TOWNLEY_DANNIE_H404860_20251209.pdf","text_length":23770,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n WCC NO. H404860 \n \nDANNIE TOWNLEY, Employee CLAIMANT \n \nHILAND DAIRY CO., LLC, Employer RESPONDENT \n \nCCMSI, Carrier RESPONDENT \n \n \n OPINION FILED DECEMBER 9, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  ERIC  PAUL  WELLS  in  Fort  Smith, \nSebastian County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by EDDIE H. WALKER, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by ERIC NEWKIRK, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n STATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n On September 18, 2025, the above captioned claim came on for a hearing at Fort Smith, \nArkansas.   A pre-hearing conference was conducted on July 14, 2025, and a Pre-hearing Order \nwas  filed  on July  15,  2025.      A  copy  of  the  Pre-hearing  Order  has  been  marked  Commission's \nExhibit 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 July 19, \n2024. \n 3. The claimant sustained a compensable injury to his left knee, left ankle, and left foot \non or about July 19, 2024. \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-2- \n 4.  The  claimant  was  earning  sufficient  wages  to  entitle  him  to  compensation  at  the \nweekly rates of $848.00 for temporary total disability benefits and $636.00 for permanent partial \ndisability benefits. \n By agreement of the parties the issues to litigate are limited to the following: \n 1.  Whether  Claimant  is  entitled  to  additional  temporary  total  disability  benefits  from \nMarch  25,  2025,  to  September  28,  2025,  or  in  the  alternative,  whether  claimant  is  entitled  to \nA.C.A. §11-9-505(a) benefits. \n 2. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s fee. \n The claimant's contentions are as follows: \n“a.   The   claimant   contends   that   he   is   entitled   to   additional \ntemporary total disability benefits on or about March 8, 2025 until \na date yet to be determined. \n \nb.  The  claimant  contends  that  if  it  is  determined  that  he  has \nreached  MMI,  he  is  entitled  to  benefits  pursuant  to  ACA  §11-9-\n505(a). \n \nc.   The   claimant   contends   that   his   attorney   is   entitled   to   an \nappropriate attorney’s fee on any indemnity benefits to which the \nclaimant is entitled, that he has not already received.” \n \n The respondents’ contentions are as follows: \n“1. The Respondents contend that the Claimant sustained primarily \na  left  knee  injury  for  which  he  underwent  surgery  by  Dr.  Justin \nClayton  on  September  6,  2024,  which  has  resulted  in  Dr.  Clayton \ntwice releasing the Claimant to Full Duty and assessing maximum \nmedical  improvement  with  a  2%  point  anatomical  impairment \nrating  that  has  been  accepted  and  paid  by  Respondent.  However, \nthe  Claiamnt’s  DOT  Examiner  placed  work  restrictions  on  the \nClaimant following each time Dr. Clayton released the Claimant to \nFull  Duty.  The  Claimant  works  as  a  Transport  Driver  for  the \nRespondent  Employer,  and  that  job  requires  a  Full  Duty  Release \nfrom  the  DOT  Examiner  for  the  Claimant  to  be  able  to  return  to \nwork for the Respondent Employer. \n \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-3- \n2. In light of the above, the Respondents contend that the Claimant \nis  in  no  way  entitled  to  additional  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits   because   his   condition   has   plateaued,   and   he   is   at \nmaximum  medical  improvement  with  the  2%  impairment  rating \nalready  assessed  and  paid.  To  the  extent  the  Claimant  has  any \nfurther medical treatment such as additional surgery which requires \nthe  Claimant  to  re-enter  the  healing  period,  Respondents  will \nreinstate all appropriately owed temporary total disability benefits. \nThus, no additional temporary total disability benefits are owed at \nthis time since the Claimant’s conditions are plateaued and MMI \nhas been achieved per Dr. Clayton. \n \n3. With regard to Claimant’s allegations of benefits pursuant to \nArkansas Code Annotated §11-9-505(a), the Respondent Employer \nhas in no way “unreasonably refused” to allow the Claimant to \nreturn  to  work.  The  job  requirements  for  a  Transport  Driver  are \nexplicitly  stated  and  have  not  changed  in  any  way,  and  those  job \nduties  require  a  Full  Duty  release  from  a  DOT  Examiner  in  order \nfor  the  Claimant  to  perform  his  job  duties.  The  Claimant  remains \nemployed,  and  efforts  continue  to  be  made  to  determine  what  is \nnecessary  for  the  Claimant  to  obtain  a  Full  Duty  release  from  the \nDOT Examiner so that he can return to his job with the Respondent \nEmployer  as  a  Transport  Driver.  Accordingly,  no  benefits  are \nowed pursue to Arkansas Code Annotated §11-9-505(a). \n \n4. Respondents concede that the Claimant is entitled to reasonably \nnecessary medical treatment, and such medical treatment has in no \nway been refused or denied by Respondents. \n \n5.  Respondents  concede  that  the  Claimant’s  attorney  would  be \nentitled  to  an  appropriate  attorney’s  fee  with  regard  to  any \nindemnity  benefits  awarded  to  the  Claimant  beyond  those  which \nhave   been   accepted   and   paid   by   the   Respondents.   However, \nRespondents affirmatively state that no attorney’s fee would be \nowned  in  connection  with  subsequent  temporary  total  disability \nbenefits  which  might  later  come  into  play  should  the  Claimant \nundergo  further  surgery  which  would  result  in  the  Claimant  re-\nentering his healing period. \n \n6.  By  way  of  alternative  contention,  the  Respondents  plead  an \noffset   for   any   group   medical   insurance   or   group   short-term \ndisability   benefits   paid   to   the   Claimant   or   on   his   behalf. \nRespondents  also  assert  an  offset  for  an  unemployment  benefits \npaid to the Claimant, to the extent allowed under Arkansas law.” \n \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-4- \n The claimant in this matter is a 41-year-old male who sustained compensable injuries to \nhis left knee, left ankle and left foot on or about  July 19, 2024. The claimant was employed by \nthe respondent as a truck driver delivering dairy products. The claimant gave direct examination \ntestimony regarding his July 19, 2024, incident as follows: \nA The time of the injury? \n \nQ Yes. \n \nA How I got hurt? Well, I was at my last stop – no, I take that \nback. I was at my last stop for that trailer. Go to Walmart, Walmart \non Rogers Avenue, the Neighborhood Market. And I did my usual, \nback the trailer in, went in, start unloading the trailer, and I got one \nor two pallets off. As we are going through there, the pallets have \nto be stacked on walls and stuff. \n \n Then, I went to pick up another one, a full load of milk, and \nas I was backing up, I tripped and fell with the pallet, fell down on \nthe ground. \n \nQ And what part of your body did you injure? \n \nA Well, the pallet jack ran over my foot and it went up my leg \nand then the pallet jack set up on top of my kneecap. \n \nQ Did you end up seeing Dr. Clayton, an orthopedic surgeon, \nwith  the  Mercy  Orthopedic  Department  in  connection  with  our \nknee? \n \nA Yes. \n \n On September 9, 2024, the claimant underwent surgical intervention for his compensable \nleft knee injury at the hands of Dr. Justin Clayton. Following is a portion of that operative report: \nPREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Left knee medial meniscus tear. \n \nPOSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Left knee medial meniscus tear \nplus osteochondral defect of the medial femoral condyle. \n \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-5- \nPROCEDURES PERFORMED: Left knee arthroscopy with partial \nmedial  meniscectomy  and  left  knee  arthroscopic  microfracture  of \nan osteochondral lesion. \n \n After  surgery,  the  claimant  underwent  several  weeks  of  physical  therapy  and  on \nDecember  3,  2024,  Dr.  Clayton  authored  the  following  letter  “To  Whom  It  My  Concern” \nregarding the claimant as follows: \nDannie  Townley  was  seen  in  my  clinic  on  12/3/2024.  Please \nexcuse Dannie for his absence from work on this day to make the \nappointment. \nHe  can  return  to  work  with  no  restrictions  but  should  complete \nphysical  therapy  for  work  hardening  or  job  specific  PT.  Return  to \nclinic in 6 weeks. \n \n On December 9, 2024, the claimant underwent a DOT medical examination at the hands \nof  Jacee  Banning,  APRN-CNP  who  determined  the  claimant  did  not  meet  DOT  standards  to \ndrive  giving  the  following  specific  reason,  “weakness  and  limited  ROM  of  the  left  lower \nextremity.” \n The claimant continued  physical therapy in  December of 2024  and January of 2025 and \nwas seen by Dr. Clayton on February 25, 2025. Following is a short progress note from that visit:  \nChief complaint: Left knee pain. \n \nHistory:  This  patient  is  currently  in  physical  therapy  after  he  had \nsurgery  for  a  work-related  injury  on  his  left  knee.  He  reports  that \nthe  only  thing  that  he  is  really  having  difficulty  with  his  deep \nbending and squatting they have been working on the some. \n \nExam:  Patient  ambulates  unassisted  in  regular  shoewear  he  is \napprehensive about deep bending of his knee. \n \nMedical  decision  making:  Postsurgical  visit  are  not  sure  there  is \nmuch  else  I  can  do  for  him  at  this  point  however  I  do  think  it \nreasonable   for   him   to   conclude   his   physical   therapy.   His \ncertification ends in 2 weeks so I will see him in 2 weeks once he \nhas concluded therapy. At that point we will need to either release \nhim without restrictions or consider an FCE. \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-6- \n \n On  March  18,  2025,  the  claimant  again  saw  Dr.  Clayton.  Following  is  a  progress  note \nfrom that visit: \nChief complaint: left knee pain. \n \nHistory:  Patient  is  status  post  meniscectomy  on  the  left  knee.  He \nreports that physical therapy has helped a lot. He reports that both \nhe and the physical therapist think he could benefit from a little bit \nmore therapy because he is just about to where he needs to be. \n \nExam: Patient’s knee exam is largely unremarkable it is stable to \nstressing   he   ambulates   in   regular   shoewear   without   assistive \ndevices. \n \nMedical  decision  making:  Left  knee  status  post  arthroscopy  we \nwill  return  him  to  work  with  no  restrictions.  Extend  physical \ntherapy for 2 weeks at which point he should be MMI. We would \nlike  an  impairment  rating  in  2  weeks  at  the  conclusion  of  his \nphysical  therapy  and  then  he  can  come  back  to  clinic  so  that  we \ncan sign off on that. \n \n The   claimant   continued   physical   therapy   and   underwent   another   DOT   medical \nexamination on March 21, 2025. This examination was performed by Dominique Carver, APRN. \nThe  claimant,  again,  failed  to  meet  the  standards.  The  examiner  specifically  stated,  “HTN; \nweakness  and  pain  in  the  left; lower leg.” The records in both the claimant’s and respondents’ \nexhibits  are  somewhat  confused,  but  it  appears  that  the  claimant  was  examined  by  a  DOT \nmedical  examiner  on  December  9,  2024;  March  21,  2025;  April  8,  2025;  April  14,  2025;  and \nApril  25,  2025.  It  is  undisputed  by  both  parties  that  the  claimant  never  was  fully  cleared  by  a \nDOT examiner to the point that the respondent would return him to work. \n On May 15, 2025, the  claimant was seen by  Dr.  James Brigance  regarding his left knee \ndifficulties. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nSubjective \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-7- \nPatient  ID:  Dannie  Gerald  Townley  Jr  is  a  41  y.o.  male  who \npresents for left leg pain. \nPatient  here  to  follow-up  on  chronic  left  knee  pain.  It  has  been \nawhile  since  he  has  been  our  clinic  needs  to  reestablish  care.  He \nhad  an  injury  at  work  unloading  a  truck  and  had  injury  to  his  left \nknee which required meniscus repair about 9 months ago. He went \nto  physical  therapy  and  has  been  having  ongoing  evaluation  by \noutside  Orthopedics  Dr.  Clayton.  He  comes  in  today  stating  an \nneeds  referral  to  a  new  orthopedist  because  he  is  having  trouble \ngetting into Dr. Clayton. Does not have any insurance and is Osage \ntribal  member.  Reports  continued  left  knee  pain  difficulty  with \nextension  and  flexion  and  has  not  been  able  to  pass  a  DOT \nphysical to return to work.  \n \n*** \nAssessment & Plan \nHistory of bucket handle tear of medial meniscus \nContinued  left  knee  pain  after  surgical  intervention  and  meniscus \nrepair  about  9  months  ago.  Had  an  injury  at  work  unloading  a \ntruck.  Is  requesting  a  2\nnd\n opinion  or  follow-up  with  some  of  the \northopedist  because  he  has  had  difficulty  getting  into  his  previous \northopedic  surgeon  Dr.  Clayton  who  performed  this  surgery  9 \nmonths  ago.  I  informed  the  patient  that  since  he  is  not  a  Choctaw \ntribal member he is not eligible to see our orthopedic surgeon. We \nwill  in  the  meantime  get  x-ray  of  the  left  knee  and  repeat  MRI  to \nevaluate  and  consider  outside  referral  for  further  evaluation  as \nnecessary. I will follow up on x-ray and MRI results as they return. \nPatient agrees. \nOrders: \nXR knee 3 views left; Future \nMR knee left wo IV contrast; Future \n \n On  May  16,  2025,  the  claimant  underwent  an  MRI  of  the  left  knee  at  the  Talihina \nhospital. Following are the impressions from that diagnostic test: \nImpression: \n1. Horizontal-oblique signal abnormality in the posterior horn and \nbody of the medial meniscus concerning for a meniscal tear. Given \nthe  clinical  history  of  recent  meniscal  repair  surgery,  the  signal \nabnormality  could  be  related  to  postoperative  changes.  Clinically \ncorrelate with physical exam. \n2. Minimal grade II chondromalacias along the articular surfaces of \nthe medial femoral condyle and medial facet of the patella. \n3. Small suprapatellar joint effusion. \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-8- \n4.  Mild  tendinosis  of  the  biceps  femoris  tendon  at  its  fibular \nattachment. \n5.  Focal  small  area  of  amorphous  signal  MLD  in  the  infrapatellar \nfat pad near the midline of the joint likely representing developing \narthrofibrosis related to recent arthroscopy. \n \n On August 12, 2025, the claimant was seen at UAMS Orthopedics and Sports Medicine \nby Dr. Tyler Carllee. Following is a portion of that medical record: \nChief Complaint: \nLeft knee \n \nHistory of Present Illness \nDannie Townley is a 41 y.o. year old male patient. \nHe  is  a  new  patient  to  my  clinic.  A  large  portion  of  his  history  is \ndocumented  in  the  outside  records  media  lab.  He  had  a  work \nrelated  injury  in  July  of  2024  where  he  fell  in  his  truck  and  a  lift \nran  over  his  leg.  He  has  had  knee  pain,  leg  pain  and  foot  pain \nsince.  He  was  diagnosed  with  a  medial  meniscus  tear  and  had  an \narthroscopic  medial  meniscectomy  with  medial  femoral  condyle \nmicrofracture in September of 2024. He has done PT and had some \nimprovement. He has persistent medial knee pain and swelling. He \nhad  a  post  op  MRI  that  showed  concern  for  a  persistent  medial \nmeniscus  tear.  He  was  referred  to  us  for  a  second  opinion.  He \ncontinues to have numbness on the top of his left foot. He has not \nhad a steroid injection. He unfortunately does not have all records \nassociated with his care today. \n \n*** \nImaging and Results \nI  reviewed  a  post  operative  MRI  from  May  of  2025.  This  was  all \nthat  was  available  today.  This  shows  oblique  T2  signal  in  the \nmedial  meniscus  posterior  horn.  This  looks  to  be  a  tear  vs.  post \nsurgical  changes.  He  has  an  effusion.  There  is  a  full  thickness \ncartilage  defect  on  the  posterior  medical  femoral  condyle  with \nunderlying  subchondral  edema  measuring  about  1cm  in  its  largest \ndiameter.   There   is   early   patellar   chondromalacia.   There   is   a \nmoderate size effusion. \n \nAssessment and Plan \n41  year  old  with  left  knee  and  foot  pain.  I  have  concern  for  a \npersistent  medial  meniscus  tear  medially.  He  has  paresthesia  over \nthe dorsal foot that may be related to a compressive neuropathy or \nmononeuropathy of the left. \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-9- \n \nI have asked him to get his arthroscopic photos if possible. I would \nlike to be able to view his pre operative left knee MRI. I would like \nto  see  his  CT  scan  of  the  foot  and  radiographs.  I  am  ordering  an \nEMG/NCS to evaluate his peripheral neuropathy symptoms. I will \nsee him again  after  all of this can be done and discuss options for \ntreatment including non operative and operative options. \n \nTotal time on the date of the encounter is : 45 minutes. \n \n On August 20, 2025, the claimant was again seen by Dr. Carllee. Following is a portion \nof that medical record: \nSubjective: \nDannie  is  a  41-year-old  gentleman  who  returns  today  for  his  left \nknee.  Since  we  last  saw  Ms.  Undergone  EMG  nerve  conduction \nstudy  to  evaluate  for  peroneal  neuropathy.  He  has  also  obtain \nrecords  including  his  previous  surgery  arthroscopic  photos  his \npreoperative  MRI  his  preoperative  CT  scan  of  his  foot  and  other \nradiographs available for review today. \n \n*** \nAssessment and Plan: \n41-year-old gentleman with a work related injury over a year ago. \nHe  has  persistent  pain  and  swelling  in  his  knee.  I  think  he  has  a \nmeniscus    tear    that    was    incompletely    resected    and    would \nrecommend  arthroscopic  revision  medial  meniscectomy.  I  do  not \nthink an aggressive approach with his cartilage lesion will result in \nany benefit but chondroplasty may be indicated if he has any loose \nfragments  or  unstable   flaps  persisting  on  the  medial  femoral \ncondyle.  I  do  not  think  his  peroneal  nerves  including  his  current \nsymptomatology  from  a  compression  standpoint  and  thus  I  would \nnot  recommend  any  surgery  for  that.  He  may  benefit  from  some \nneuropathic  medication  like  gabapentin  or  Lyrica  in  the  future  if \nhis  symptoms  do  not  improve.  He  is  in  agreement  with  our  plan \ntoday.   He   would   like   to   proceed   with   revision   surgery.   He \nunderstands risks benefits alternatives to surgery. Risks of surgery \ninclude  by  are  not  limited  to  incomplete  relief  of  symptoms, \nprogression  of  osteoarthritis,  need  for  further  surgery,  pain  and \nswelling,  would  complications  and  infection,  bleeding,  blood  clot, \nneurovascular  injury,  risks  of  anesthesia  and  others.  When  repair \nor  reconstruction  is  indicated  there  are  risks  for  retear  of  the \nrepaired or reconstructed structure. \n \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-10- \nI discussed his case independently with the case manager who was \nwith him separately today. We will try to see if this is approved by \nworker’s comp. He will keep his same work restrictions as last \ntime. \n \nTotal time on the date of the encounter is: 38 minutes. \n \n The claimant has asked the Commission to determine if he is entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits from March 25, 2025, to September 28, 2025, or in the alternative, whether he \nis entitled to ACA § 11-9-505(a) benefits. \nA  claimant  who  suffers  a  scheduled  injury  is  entitled  to  receive  temporary  total  or \ntemporary  partial  disability  benefits  during  their  healing  period  or  until  they  return  to  work, \nregardless  of  whether  there  is  a  total  incapacity  to  earn  wages. Wheeler  Construction  Co.  v. \nArmstrong,  73 Ark. App. 146, 41 S.W. 3d 822 (2001). \n Dr. Clayton’s March 18, 2025, progress note states, “... We will return him to work with \nno  restrictions.  Extend  physical  therapy  for  2  weeks  at  which  point he should be at MMI.” \nHowever, even after Dr. Clayton’s full release, the claimant continued to have difficulties due to \nhis compensable left knee injury; to the point that the claimant was unable to pass multiple DOT \nmedical examinations. \n The  claimant  sought  relief  for  his compensable  left  knee  injury  from  Dr.  Brigance,  who \nprovided  the  claimant  with  a  left  knee  MRI  and  referred  him  to  Dr.  Carllee.  Dr.  Carllee \nalternately concluded in his August 20, 2025, that the claimant “has a meniscus tear that was \nincompletely resected” and recommended an arthroscopic revision medial meniscectomy. \n While Dr. Clayton found the claimant to be at MMI, he was incorrect as the claimant’s \nhealing  period  had  never  ended  due  to  the  incomplete  meniscus  resection.  The  claimant  never \nreturned   to   work   for   the   respondent   as   he   was   unable   to   pass   multiple   DOT   medical \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-11- \nexaminations. The claimant has a scheduled compensable left knee injury, did not return to work \nfor the respondent, and never left his healing period from the time period of March 25, 2025, to \nSeptember  28,  2025.  As  such  he  is  entitled  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  during  that \nperiod of time. It was noted at the hearing in this matter that the claimant was in arrears for child \nsupport. The claimant’s award of temporary total disability benefits is subject to the statutory \noffset required by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act regarding child support arrearages. \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 \nJuly 14, 2025, and contained in a Pre-hearing Order filed July 15, 2025, are hereby accepted as \nfact. \n 2. The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  entitled  to \ntemporary total disability benefits from March 25, 2025, to September 28, 2025. \n 3.  The  claimant  has  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his  attorney  is \nentitled an attorney’s fee in this matter.  \n ORDER \nThe respondents shall pay the claimant temporary total disability benefits from March 25, \n2025, to September 28, 2025, subject to the statutory offsets required by the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Act for any child support arrearage. \n The respondent shall pay to the claimant’s attorney the maximum statutory attorney’s \n\nTownley – H404860 \n \n-12- \nfee  on  the  benefits  awarded  herein,  with  one-half  of said  attorney’s  fee  to  be  paid  by  the \nrespondent in addition to such benefits and one-half of said attorney’s fee to be withheld by the \nrespondent from such benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715. \n All sums herein accrued are payable in a lump sum and without discount and shall earn \ninterest at the legal rate until paid. \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                                ____________________________                                               \n       HONORABLE ERIC PAUL WELLS \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H404860 DANNIE TOWNLEY, Employee CLAIMANT HILAND DAIRY CO., LLC, Employer RESPONDENT CCMSI, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 9, 2025 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ERIC PAUL WELLS in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas. Claimant represent...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:32.781Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H404860-2025-12-09","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/TOWNLEY_DANNIE_H404860_20251209.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}