{"id":"alj-H408153-2025-08-06","awcc_number":"H408153","decision_date":"2025-08-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Pearlie Mcdaniel","employer_name":"Crestpark Of Forrest City LLC","title":"McDANIEL VS. CRESTPARK OF FORREST CITY LLC AWCC# H408153 August 06, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","fracture","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McDaniel_Pearlie_H408153_20250806.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"McDaniel_Pearlie_H408153_20250806.pdf","text_length":24184,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC NO. H408153 \n \n \nPEARLIE McDANIEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nCRESTPARK OF FORREST CITY LLC, \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nCANNON COCHRAN MGMT. SVCS., INC., \n THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 6, 2025 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on June 27, 2025, in Forrest \nCity, St. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by Mr. Gary Davis, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents   represented   by   Ms. Melissa   Wood,   Attorney   at   Law,   Little   Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n On June  27,  2025,  the  above-captioned  claim  was  heard  in Forrest  City, \nArkansas.    A  prehearing  conference  took  place  on April  28,  2025.   The Prehearing \nOrder entered that same day pursuant to the conference was admitted without objection \nas  Commission  Exhibit  1.    At  the  hearing,  the  parties  confirmed  that  the  stipulations, \nissues, and respective contentions, as amended, were properly set forth in the order. \nStipulations \n The   parties   discussed   the   stipulations   set   forth   in   Commission   Exhibit  1.  \nFollowing an amendment of  Stipulation  No. 2 at  the  hearing,  they  are  the  following, \nwhich I accept: \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n2 \n \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The  employee/self-insured  employer/third-party  administrator  relationship \nexisted among the parties on August 16, 2023. \n3. Claimant’s average weekly wage of $288.75 entitles her to compensation \nrates of $193.00/$154.00. \n4. Respondents have controverted this claim in its entirety. \nIssues \n At  the  hearing,  the parties  discussed the  issues  set forth  in  Commission  Exhibit \n1.   After  the  addition  of  an issue  concerning  when  Claimant  furnished  notice  of  her \nalleged injury, the following were litigated: \n1. Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder by \nspecific incident. \n2. When did Claimant furnish notice of her alleged injury? \n3. Whether   Claimant   is entitled   to   reasonable   and   necessary   medical \ntreatment of her alleged injury. \n4. Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. \n5. Whether Claimant is entitled to a controverted attorney’s fee. \n All other issues have been reserved. \nContentions \n The respective contentions of the parties are as follows: \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n3 \n \n Claimant: \n1. Claimant  contends  that  she  sustained  compensable  injuries  to  her  right \nshoulder when she fell while on the job and in the employ of Respondent.  \nShe further contends entitlement to payment of medical expenses incurred \nand  to  temporary  total  disability  benefits  through  a  date  yet  to  be \ndetermined. \nRespondents: \n1. Respondents contend  that  Claimant  did  not  suffer  a  compensable  injury \non August 16, 2023.  She was not working on the alleged date of injury or \nperforming any employment-related activities. \n2. Respondents  further  contend  that  Claimant  failed  to  give  notice  of  any \nalleged incident until October 10, 2024, and that they should not be liable \nfor benefits in the event compensability is found. \n3. Moreover,  Respondents  contend  that  Claimant  continued  to  work  for \nRespondent employer through her date of resignation in December 2024. \n4. Finally,  Respondents  contend  that  the  medical  documentation  does  not \nsupport  a  compensable  injury,  nor  does  it  support  entitlement  to  benefits \nin the event compensability is found. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including medical reports, documents, and \nother  matters  properly  before  the  Commission,  and  having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear \nthe  testimony  of  the witnesses and  to  observe their demeanor,  I  hereby  make  the \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n4 \n \nfollowing  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  § \n11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis claim. \n2. The stipulations set forth above are reasonable and are hereby accepted. \n3. Claimant  has  not  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that she \nsustained  a  compensable injury  to  her  right shoulder injury  by  specific \nincident. \n6. Because  of  Finding/Conclusion  No.  3,  supra,  the  remaining  issues—\nconcerning  when  did Claimant furnish  notice  of  her  alleged  injury,  and \nwhether she is entitled to reasonable and necessary treatment, temporary \ntotal disability benefits, and a controverted attorney’s fee—are  moot  and \nwill not be addressed. \nCASE IN CHIEF \n Summary of Evidence \n The hearing witnesses were Claimant, Tracey Fleetwood, and Keith Adams. \n In  addition  to  the Prehearing Order  discussed  above,  the  exhibits  admitted  into \nevidence  in  this  case were Claimant’s Exhibit 1, a compilation of her medical  records, \nconsisting of one index page and 40 numbered pages thereafter; Respondents’ Exhibit \n1, another compilation\n1\n of Claimant’s medical records, consisting of one index page and \n \n1\nThis exhibit does not comply with the Prehearing Order because (1) the index is \nnot  date-specific;  (2)  it  is  organized by provider  and  not  chronologically.    Respondents \nare cautioned not to do this in the future. \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n5 \n \n59 numbered  pages  thereafter;  and  Respondents’  Exhibit  2, non-medical  records, \nconsisting of one index page and 11 numbered pages thereafter. \n Testimony.   Claimant, who  is 77 years  old  and a  high  school  graduate,  testified \nthat she worked for Respondent Crestpark of Forrest City LLC (“Crestpark”) as a cook’s \nhelper.  She described her duties: \nWash  dishes,  clean  up  behind  yourself,  clean  the  refrigerator  and  the \ndeep freezer out and get it all stacked in, you know, real nice, and I would \nclean  the  sink  table  and  then  wash  the  dishes  .  .  .  I  had  to  cook—\nsometimes  I  had  to  cook  pies  and  cakes,  and  then  I  would  have  to  do  a \nsalad for the other employees, the salaried employees. \n \n Asked  about  the  incident  at  issue,  which  occurred  in  August  2023,  Claimant \nrelated: \nWell, I went—the CNA came in and we knowing every day this lady, she \nate cream of chicken noodle soup, and they a small can.  And I went back \nthere  in  the  room,  in  the  stockroom,  and  got  that,  the  can  of  soup,  and \nthen  I  was  in  such  a  hurry my  foot  got  caught  on  the  pallet  on  the  floor, \nand I fell . . . . \n \n Claimant’s testimony was that her right shoulder was injured in this fall,  which \nstated  occurred  on  a  Saturday approximately  ten  minutes  before  the  end  of  her  shift.  \nNo  one  witnessed  the  incident.   Right  after  it  occurred,  she  went  to  the  Forrest  City \nMedical  Center;  and the  following  Monday, Claimant went  to Dr.  James  Meredith,  her \npersonal  physician.  At  the  time  she  presented  for  treatment  that  day,  she  also  had  a \nknot on her head as a result of the fall.  She was given, inter alia, a steroid injection in \nher shoulder in the emergency room.  According to her, she continued to receive these \ninjections  for  approximately  18  months—which  enabled  her  to  continue  working  at \nCrestpark during that period of time. \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n6 \n \n According  to  Claimant,  her  supervisor  at  this  time  was  Keith  Adams.    Asked  if \nshe reported the fall to him, she replied that supervisors did not work on the weekend.  \nShe added:  “So when I went in Monday, I told Keith I was hurt, and he said—he was \nripping at some papers.  He said, ‘okay.’”  Her testimony was that she stayed put in his \noffice, waiting for papers to report her injury.  But he informed her that “[w]e don’t do \nworkman’s comp,” and asked her to close the day as she left.  Claimant stated that she \nalso told “Jamie,” a kitchen helper who was also working at Crestpark on August 16, \n2023, that she had fallen and gotten hurt. \n Asked  about  her  current  shoulder  condition,  Claimant  testified  that  she  suffers \nfrom  sharp  pain  in  the  shoulder.    She  is  unable  to  raise  her  right  arm  higher  than just \nabove  her  head.   Dr.  Meredith  referred  her  to Dr.  Ron  Schechter, a  specialist  in \nJonesboro.  She was ultimately found to have suffered a tear in her shoulder.  Surgery \nthereon  has  been  scheduled  for  July  2025.    Her  treatment  has  been  covered  by  her \nMedicare. \n Claimant  stated  that  she  told  treating  personnel  at  both  the  hospital  and  Dr. \nMeredith’s office that she hurt her shoulder at work.  But when asked about purported \ndiscrepancies in her account contained in Dr. Meredith’s records, Claimant denied the \naccuracy  of  those  other  references.   For  instance,  while  a  November  10,  2023,  report \nreflects that Claimant stated that her shoulder was injured when her nephew dropped a \nflowerpot on it while the two of them were moving her sister, Claimant disputed making \nthis  statement, adding  that  her  sister  did  not  move.   During my  questioning of her, the \nfollowing exchange took place: \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n7 \n \nQ. I’ve been  listening  to  your  testimony  and  one  of  the  things  I’m \ncurious about  is,  are  you  certain  that August  16\nth\n of 2023,  are  you \nsure that’s the day you fell? \n \nA. I’m positive. \n \nQ. How do you know for certain? \n \nA. Because  I  looked  on  the  calendar  and  when  I  got  to  the—well,  I \nknowed about it when I got to Dr. Meredith’s office that Monday. \n \nAfter it was pointed out\n2\n to Claimant that August 16, 2023, fell on a Wednesday—not a \nSaturday—the following exchange occurred: \nQ. Did  you  say,  Ms.  McDaniel,  that  you  know  what  day  of  the  week \nthis happened?  What day was it? \n \nA. It was on a Saturday. \n \nQ. You know it was a Saturday? \n \nA. Yes, sir. \n \n. . . \n \nQ. Did you fall on Wednesday? \n \nA. I fell on a Saturday. \n \nQ. On a Saturday. \n \nA. Uh-huh. \n \nQ. Okay.  Where  did  you  come  up  with  the 16\nth\n,  then?   You  said  you \nlooked at a calendar, though. \n \nA. Yeah, but I was—when I got home, I was kind of out of it.  I didn’t \nhardly make it home. \n \nQ. Well, when did you look at a calendar? \n \nA. That Monday, I believe. \n \n2\nI hereby take judicial notice under Buxton v. City of Nashville, 132 Ark. 511, 201 \nS.W. 512 (1918), that August 16, 2023, fell on a Wednesday. \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n8 \n \n \nQ. The following Monday? \n \nA. Because I didn’t go to church that Sunday. \n \nQ. Okay, all right.  And you’re certain it was a Saturday?  There’s no \nquestion in your mind? \n \nA. It was a Saturday. \n \n Called by Respondents, Tracey Fleetwood testified that she is the administrative \nassistant  at  Respondent  Crestpark.    As  part  of  her  duties,  she  handles  workers’ \ncompensation  matters.    She  stated  that  employees  who  suffer  work-related  injuries \nshould  report  them  to  their  supervisor,  and  that  they  are  sent  to  Dr.  Meredith  for \ntreatment.    Workers  injured  on  the  weekend  can  see  the  nurse  who  is  on  duty.    The \nfacility has a Form P on display. \n According  to  Fleetwood,  she  did  not  know  about  Claimant  purportedly  being \ninjured  at  work  prior  to  October  10,  2024.    Nor  was  she  aware  that  Claimant  was \ntreating with Dr. Meredith. \n Called by Respondents, Keith Adams testified that he is the dietary supervisor at \nCrestpark.  He was Claimant’s direct supervisor.  He  stated  that  he  did  not  become \naware of Claimant’s alleged shoulder injury until she filed her claim in 2024.  Before that \ntime, it was his understanding, based on a conversation with her, that Claimant hurt her \nshoulder when she fell in her yard while running from a dog.  But shortly thereafter, he \nstated that Claimant told him “that she was out talking to a neighbor and a stray  dog \ncame up, and they ran in the house and her neighbor fell on top of her.”  He denied that \nClaimant  told  him  in  August  2023  that  she  hurt  her  shoulder  at  work.    However,  he \nalleged that her reporting the alleged injury in October 2024 was contemporaneous with \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n9 \n \nher  being  written  up  for  disruptive  behavior  and  then  suspended  for  smoking  at  the \nfacility. \n Medical  Records.    The  medical  records  in  evidence,  contained  in  Claimant’s \nExhibit 1 and Respondents’ Exhibit 1, reflect the following: \n On November 10, 2023, Claimant presented to APRN Madeline Herrington, who \nwas in Dr. Meredith’s office.  Per the report in evidence, Claimant related to Herrington \nthat “[s]he had a flower pot to fall on her shoulder and she fell and now she is having \npain in her right shoulder[.]”  The following narrative appears later in the report: \n[P]atient  presents  with  pain  to  the  right  shoulder  [and]  denies  wanting  x-\nrays  at  this  time.    Reports  helping  her  sister  move  and  her  nephew \naccidentally dropped a flower pot on her and then she fell.  Denies hitting \nher  head  or  LOC  [and]  reports  pain  to  the  shoulder  will  return  if  no \nimprovement over the weekend. \n \nExamination  notes  concerning  the  shoulder  reflect  only  limited  range  of  motion.  \nHerrington assessed her as having “[a]cute pain of right shoulder” and administered \ninjections of Depo Medrol and Toradol/Keterolac.  But Claimant returned on November \n13,  2023,  stating that she  was  still  having pain  and  was unable  to  move  her  shoulder.  \nAs  before,  examination  of  the  shoulder  showed  only  that  she  was  having  range-of-\nmotion  issues  with  it.   An  x-ray  of  the  shoulder  was  read  by  Dr.  John  Oliver  on \nNovember  14,  2023,  to  show  “[n]o  acute  fracture  or  dislocation  .  .  .  [and]  [m]ild \ndegenerative changes of the right AC joint and glenohumeral joint noted.” \n On  March  4,  2024,  Claimant  returned  to  Dr. Meredith’s  office  and  requested \nanother injection of her shoulder.  He gave her an injection of Lidocaine/Triamcinolone.  \nClaimant  returned  to  Meredith  on  May  20,  2024,  but  did  not  complain  about  her \nshoulder.    This  changed,  however,  on  August  16,  2024.    On  this  occasion, she  stated \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n10 \n \nthat she hurt her right shoulder “when falling on it in the spring.”  She denied re-injuring \nit, and added that the shoulder pain was worsening.  Once again, examination showed \nthat she had limited range of motion in the shoulder. \n When Claimant returned to Dr. Meredith’s office on September 19, 2024, and \nsaw APRN Tracy Jill Jones, she informed her that “she fell [in the] fall of last year on \nsome  doorsteps  and  hurt  her  right  shoulder  and  .  .  .  has  been  experiencing  shoulder \npain since . . . .”  Later in the report of that visit, Jones wrote: \nPatient  presents  complaining  of  chronic  right  shoulder  pain.    It  started \nabout 3 years ago.  She was taking care of her husband who had severe \ndementia, and he hit her on the top of her shoulder. \n \n Claimant  requested  an  MRI  of  her  right  shoulder;  and  one  was  performed  on \nSeptember  23,  2024.    The  MRI  revealed  that  she  had  a  full-thickness  tear  of  the \nsupraspinatus  and  infraspinatus  tendons  with  4  cm  of  retraction,  an  incomplete  full-\nthickness  tear  of  the  subscapularis,  tenosynovitis  of  the  long  and  short  heads  of  the \nbiceps tendon, and moderate glenohumeral joint effusion. \n On October 8, 2024, Claimant saw Dr. Schecter.  The history portion of his report \nreads in pertinent part: \nThe patient presents for evaluation of right shoulder pain . . . [s]he denies \nany  history  of  trauma.    She  started  having  pain  in  her  shoulder  about  a \nyear ago and it has gotten progressively worse over time. \n \nSchecter informed Claimant “that per problem is consistent with significant rotator cuff \narthropathy with massive tearing of the rotator cuff as well as secondary arthritis.” \n On November 19, 2024, Claimant returned to Dr. Meredith and was given a Depo \nMedrol injection and a refill of Hydrocodone.  She informed Meredith’s office on March \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n11 \n \n19,  2025,  that  surgery  on  her  right  shoulder  had  been  scheduled  for  the  following \nmonth. \nADJUDICATION \nA. Compensability \n Introduction.    As  the  parties  have  stipulated,  Claimant was  an  employee  of \nRespondent Crestpark on August 16, 2023.  In this action, Claimant has alleged that as \na result of a specific incident at work on that date, she sustained a compensable injury \nto her right shoulder.  Respondents deny that this alleged injury is compensable. \n Standards.   Arkansas Code  Annotated  § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i)  (Repl.  2012),  which  I \nfind applies here, defines “compensable injury”: \n(i)  An  accidental  injury  causing  internal  or  external  physical  harm  to  the \nbody  .  .  .  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment  and  which \nrequires  medical  services  or  results  in  disability  or  death.    An  injury  is \n“accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident and is identifiable by \ntime and place of occurrence[.] \n \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Repl. 2012).  “Objective findings” are those \nfindings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Id. § 11-9-102(16).  \nThe  element “arising  out  of  .  .  .  [the]  employment” relates  to  the  causal  connection \nbetween the claimant’s injury and his or her employment.  City  of El  Dorado  v.  Sartor, \n21 Ark. App. 143, 729 S.W.2d 430 (1987). \n If  the  claimant  fails  to  establish  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  of  the \nrequirements  for  establishing  compensability,  compensation  must  be  denied.   Mikel  v. \nEngineered Specialty Plastics, 56 Ark. App. 126, 938 S.W.2d 876 (1997).  This standard \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n12 \n \nArk.  373,  326  S.W.3d  415; Smith  v.  Magnet  Cove  Barium  Corp.,  212  Ark.  491,  206 \nS.W.2d 442 (1947). \n Discussion.  In examining the elements of compensability cited supra, it is clear \nthat  Claimant  eventually  was  found  to  have  objective  findings of  injury  to her right \nshoulder in the form of, inter alia, rotator cuff tearing (found on the September 23, 2024, \nMRI).    This objective  finding  certainly  caused  internal  or  external  physical  harm  to \nClaimant’s body and required medical services. \n What  remains  to  be  determined,  however,  is  whether Claimant’s right shoulder \ncondition arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  her  employment  and  was  caused  by  an \nincident that is identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Claimant must show that a \ncausal connection existed between the injury and her employment.  Gerber Products v. \nMcDonald, 15 Ark. App. 226, 691 S.W.2d 879 (1985).  An injury occurs “in the course of \nemployment” when it occurs “within the time and space boundaries of the employment, \nwhile the employee is carrying out the employer’s purpose or advancing the employer’s \ninterests  directly  or  indirectly.”  Olsten  Kimberly  Quality  Care  v.  Pettey,  328  Ark.  381, \n944 S.W.2d 524 (1997); Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. v. Caldarera, 54 Ark. App. 92, 923 S.W.2d \n290 (1996).  An injury arises out of a claimant’s employment “when a causal connection \nbetween work conditions and the injury is apparent to the rational mind.”  Sartor, supra. \n In  her  hearing  testimony,  as  detailed  above,  Claimant  described  her  right \nshoulder  getting  hurt  when  she  tripped  over  a  pallet  and  fell  in  the  stockroom  at \nRespondent Crestpark while retrieving a can of soup.  She was “positive” that the event \nin question took place on August 16, 2023, explaining that she had consulted a calendar \nthe following Monday.  But once it was pointed out that employment records in evidence \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n13 \n \ndo not reflect that she worked that particular day, she explained that she knew that her \nfall occurred on a Saturday in August 2023. \n Her testimony was that the same day as the fall, she went to Forrest City Medical \nCenter; and that she saw Dr. Meredith the following Monday.  But this, too, is not borne \nout  by  the  evidence.    As  shown supra,  she  did  not  present  for  treatment  for  her right \nshoulder  until  November  10,  2023—87  days  after  August  16,  2023.  A  causal \nrelationship   may   be   established   between   an   employment-related   incident   and   a \nsubsequent physical injury based on the evidence that the injury manifested itself within \na  reasonable  period  of  time  following  the  incident,  so  that  the  injury  is  logically \nattributable to the incident, where there is no other reasonable explanation for the injury. \nHall v. Pittman Construction Co., 234 Ark. 104, 357 S.W.2d 263 (1962).  In the course \nof  that  visit, Claimant related to Dr. Meredith’s office that she hurt her shoulder while \nshe was helping her sister move when her nephew dropped a flowerpot on her, causing \nher to fall. \n As  her  medical  records  show,  being  struck by  a flowerpot is  just  one  version  of \nher  story  that  she  has  given to  treating  personnel  in  describing how  her  right  shoulder \nbecame  injured.    During  an  August  16,  2024,  appointment,  Claimant  stated  that  the \nshoulder became hurt after she fell on it “in the spring.”  The next month, Claimant told \nother treating personnel that the injury in question took place in the autumn of 2023, and \nthat it happened when she fell “on some doorsteps”—not on a pallet in a stockroom as \ndetailed in her hearing testimony.  But during that same visit, Claimant gave yet another \nexplanation for her shoulder condition; she described it as beginning three years prior, \nwhen she was struck by her dementia-ridden husband.  Amazingly, despite all of these \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n14 \n \nquite different origin stories—none of which bear resemblance to tripping over a pallet at \nwork—Claimant told Dr. Schecter that she had suffered no known trauma to account for \nher right shoulder condition. \n The determination of a witness’ credibility and how much weight to accord to that \nperson’s testimony are solely up to the Commission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., \n72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  The Commission must sort through conflicting \nevidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  In so doing, the Commission is not required \nto  believe  the  testimony  of  the  claimant  or  any  other  witness,  but  may  accept  and \ntranslate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of \nbelief.  Id. \n In light of the foregoing, I am simply unable to credit Claimant’s testimony.  She \nhas not established that her condition of her right shoulder as documented by the MRI \nwas  due  to  an  accident  that  arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  her  employment  at \nRespondent  Crestpark.    Consequently,  she has not  proven  by  a  preponderance of  the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury to that shoulder by specific incident. \nB. Remaining Issues \n Because  Claimant  has  not  established  that  she  suffered  a  compensable  injury, \nthe  remaining  issues—which  consist  of  establishing  when  she  furnished  notice  of  her \nalleged  injury  and  her  entitlement  to  reasonable  and  necessary  treatment,  temporary \ntotal disability benefits, and a controverted attorney’s fee—are  moot  and  will  not  be \naddressed. \n\nMcDANIEL – H408153 \n15 \n \nCONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim for initial benefits is hereby denied and dismissed. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n       ________________________________ \n       Hon. O. Milton Fine II \n       Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC NO. H408153 PEARLIE McDANIEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CRESTPARK OF FORREST CITY LLC, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CANNON COCHRAN MGMT. SVCS., INC., THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 6, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:04.011Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H408153-2025-08-06","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McDaniel_Pearlie_H408153_20250806.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}