{"id":"full_commission-G702582-2025-04-09","awcc_number":"G702582","decision_date":"2025-04-09","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Nathan Tackett","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock","title":"TACKETT VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# G702582 April 09, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","shoulder","cervical","rotator cuff","carpal tunnel","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Tackett_Nathan_G702582_20250409.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Tackett_Nathan_G702582_20250409.pdf","text_length":25236,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO. G702582 \n \nNATHAN TACKETT, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK,  \nSELF -INSURED EMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nTPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, \nLittle Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe Claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nOctober 8, 2024. The administrative law judge found that the Claimant \nfailed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to \nwage-loss disability benefits as a result of his compensable right upper \nextremity injury resulting from an accident on March 17, 2017. After \nreviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that \nClaimant is entitled to 14% wage-loss disability benefits as a result of his \ncompensable injury.  \n\nTACKETT – G702582  2\n  \n \n \nI. HISTORY \n The testimony of Nathan Tackett, now age 62, indicated that \nhe became employed with the Respondent, Little Rock Police \nDepartment on October 28,1985. Mr. Tackett testified that he had been \nemployed as a Shift Commander for the Downtown Patrol Division’s Day \nWatch for the Respondent in 2017. The parties stipulated that the \nemployee-employer relationship existed on March 17, 2017. The \nClaimant testified on direct examination:  \nQ. Now, tell us how you got hurt?   \nA. We were required to do annual 40 hours of in-service \ntraining every year and during the course of that training, \nwe did a scenario where we were simulating chasing a \nsuspect that had bailed out of a car on the parking lot there \nat the Training Division, an asphalt parking lot. Me and my \npartner and the suspect took off running one way, ran \naround a Conex Storage Container and my partner took off \nrunning behind him. I went the other way to try to cut him \noff on the other side of the storage container. Before I got \nto that end, the suspect came back around the corner. The \nofficer roll playing and fired blanks towards us. I spun \naround to engage the suspect and there was a fine sandy \nsubstance on the asphalt parking lot, like after a rain you \ncan, usually, see. And you know, there’s little dips where \nwater collects and things like that. When I was spinning \naround, being so graceful on my feet, I got my feet all \ntangled up, spun around and fell. I tried to brace my fall. I \npushed back and I saw a pick-up behind me and I tried to \n– thought if I could bounce off the hood with my back, and \nthen, just kind of slide down behind it, it wouldn’t hurt as \nbad. Bounced off the truck, and then hit the ground rolling \nand I don’t know how you can manage to land, literally, \n\nTACKETT – G702582  3\n  \n \n \nright on top of your shoulder but that’s what hit the \npavement first and that’s how the injury occurred. \n \nThe parties stipulated that the Claimant sustained a compensable \ninjury to his right shoulder on March 17, 2017. On May 10, 2017,  \naccording to the record, Claimant reported to Arkansas Specialty \nOrthopaedics where he underwent an x-ray and MRI of his right \nshoulder and was diagnosed with a full thickness right shoulder rotator \ncuff tear.  \nThe Claimant’s testimony indicated that he underwent surgery by \nDr. Kirk Reynolds on May 23, 2017 for his compensable right shoulder \ninjury.  \nThe record indicates that Claimant was seen by Dr. Kirk \nReynolds on January 31, 2018, who stated:  \nIt is my professional opinion that Mr. Tackett has \nreached maximum medical improvement. He may \nreturn to work full, unrestricted duty. No further \ntreatment or follow up is recommended.  \n \nDr. Kirk Reynolds then gave Claimant an impairment rating of “11% \ntotal, partial permanent impairment of the right shoulder. This [equates \nto] a 7% impairment of the whole person.”  \nAccording to the record, Claimant then followed up with Dr. Kirk \nReynolds on October 18, 2018. Dr. Reynolds noted:  \nThe patient reports pain in the right shoulder. He states \nhe is experiencing progressive numbness in the right \n\nTACKETT – G702582  4\n  \n \n \nfingers and notes difficulty with grip strength, \nspecifically with opening things and holding things. He \nadds the numbness affects the whole hand.  \n \nDr. Reynolds then referred the Claimant for an MRI scan of the right  \nshoulder as well as the cervical spine and an EMG/NCV to evaluate for  \ncentral versus peripheral nerve compression. Dr. Reynolds stated that  \nClaimant had not reached maximum medical improvement and the  \nClaimant was to remain on current restrictions at work with no change to  \nhis impairment rating.  \nAccording to the record, an MRI of the Claimant’s right shoulder \nand C-Spine was taken on October 18, 2018 and evaluated by Dr. Kirk \nReynolds:  \nMRI scan of the right shoulder performed on \n10/18/2018 was personally reviewed and demonstrates \na recurrent rotator cuff tear with the residual tendon \nstump at the level of the glenohumeral joint. There is \nsuperior escape of the humeral head but no significant \nabutment with the undersurface of the acromion. On \nthe T1 sagittal images, there is significant volume loss \nin the supraspinatus fossa with grade 2 atrophy on the \nsupraspinatus muscle belly and grade 3 4 atrophy of \nthe infraspinatus muscle belly. Teres minor and \nsubscapularis muscle bellies appear normal with no \natrophy. On the axial images, there are changes \nconsistent with a prior distal clavical excision and there \nis at least a partial thickness tear of the subscapularis \ntendon with some laxity of the tendon fibers.  \n \nMRI scan of the cervical spine performed on \n10/18/2018 was personally reviewed and demonstrates \n\nTACKETT – G702582  5\n  \n \n \nmultilevel disc desiccation and degenerative disc \ndisease but there is no significant neural foraminal \nnarrowing at any level.  \n \nOn October 22, 2018, Dr. Stephen Paulus performed an EMG on  \nClaimant which demonstrated significant right carpal tunnel syndrome \nbut no evidence of cervical radiculopathy. Based on the findings of the \nMRI and EMG, Dr. Reynolds found that Claimant required a reverse \nshoulder arthroplasty of the right shoulder within the next 3-5 years of \nhis visit in November of 2018. Dr. Reynolds specifically stated that the \nneed for the additional medical procedure was “100% related to his \noriginal work injury,” and that he would not recommend the reverse \nshoulder arthroplasty currently, as it would medically retire the Claimant. \nDr. Reynolds further stated that Claimant had not reached maximum \nmedical improvement.  \nClaimant followed up with Dr. Kirk Reynolds on May 6, 2019 for \nhis compensable right shoulder injury. The medical records in evidence \nindicate persistent weakness and pain in the Claimant’s right shoulder. \nDr. Reynolds found that the Claimant was not at maximum medical \nimprovement.  \nClaimant continued treatment with Dr. Kirk Reynolds through \n2019 without reaching maximum medical improvement. On November \n11, 2020, Claimant was again seen by Dr. Reynolds. Claimant reported \n\nTACKETT – G702582  6\n  \n \n \nto Dr. Reynolds that his symptoms were worsening. Claimant remained \non full, unrestricted duty at work but was again not found at maximum \nmedical improvement by Dr. Reynolds.  \nOn February 26, 2021, Claimant was seen by Dr. Kirk Reynolds. \nClaimant reported to Dr. Reynolds that he was “ready to consider \narthroplasty,” for his compensable right shoulder injury. Dr. Reynolds \nreported:  \nI explained the nature of the reverse shoulder \narthroplasty and how it will limit his ability to lift, push \nand pull with any weight heavier than approximately 15 \nto 20 pounds after surgery. This will be likely a lifetime \nrestriction. \n \nClaimant underwent right reverse total shoulder arthroplasty on \nJuly 8, 2021, as recommended and performed by Dr. Kirk Reynolds. \nFollowing the surgery, Claimant was placed on modified duty at work \nwith no use of the right upper extremity. On August 18, 2021, Dr. \nReynolds opined:  \nMr. Tackett remains on modified duty at work with the \nfollowing restrictions: Continue with no use of right \nupper extremity. He has not yet cleared to operate or \ntravel in a motor vehicle except for necessary doctors \nvisits, physical therapy, religious services, or absolutely \nessential personal needs. I realize that these work \nrestrictions are very restrictive. That is by design. Mr. \nTackett remains an active duty police officer with the \nLittle Rock Police Department. He is recovering from a \nprosthetic shoulder reconstruction. I do not want him \nbeing involved in any activities where he would be \nidentified as a police officer and potentially have to \n\nTACKETT – G702582  7\n  \n \n \ndefend himself, on of his partners, or a member of the \ncommunity. This poses an inherent risk to his reverse \ntotal shoulder arthroplasty. His work activities will be \nlessened when he is seen for his next visit.  \n \nOn September 29, 2021, Claimant was seen by Dr. Reynolds  \nwho stated that Claimant was still on modified duty at work with no use \nof the right upper extremity and only occasional driving. Dr. Reynolds \nopined that Claimant was not at maximum medical improvement.  \nIn 2014, Claimant entered the Deferred Retirement Option Plan  \n(hereinafter referred to as “DROP”) which resulted in a mandatory  \nretirement date in October of 2021. Claimant retired on October 31,  \n2021 pursuant to the terms of the DROP. Claimant testified:  \nQ. Now, this retirement date, was it not pre-\ndetermined?  \n   A. In essence it was.  \n Q. And when I say, “pre,” I mean, pre-injury \ndetermined, because you only can stay on a job so \nlong, isn’t that right.  \nA. Yes, sir. I was on the Seven-Year DROP at the time. \nNow, it’s extended to ten, but at the time I was on the \nSeven-Year DROP. If memory serves me correctly, I \nwas already on DROP, when the first injury occurred.  \n \nFurther, Claimant testified as to his retirement:  \nQ. Okay. But if you do retire, if you do take a retirement \n– a forced retirement because of your number of years \nof service and your particular contract that you had with \nretirement, do you not have an opportunity to go back \nto work?  \nA. Yes, sir. There’s actually, a provision under the state \nsupervised retirement plan, LOPFI, Local Police and \nFire System. They enacted some regulations that were \n\nTACKETT – G702582  8\n  \n \n \nin effect at the time, before I retired that would permit \nyou to separate, retire, be gone 90 days and come \nback and be reinstated at your former employment and \nthat was an opportunity; however, due to my injury, I \nwould not have been able to pass the physical, the pre-\nemployment physical agility test and/or the medical \nphysical examination.  \n \nOn December 30, 2021, Dr. Kirk Reynolds reported that he \nanticipated Claimant’s release at maximum medical improvement in \napproximately six months and continued the Claimant’s modified duty at \nwork with a 15-pound lifting, pushing, and pulling limit with the right \nupper extremity.  \nClaimant was seen by Dr. Kirk Reynolds on July 3, 2022. Dr. \nReynolds opined that Claimant reached maximum medical improvement \nstating:  \nNo further treatment is likely to provide an \nimprovement in functional activities with the right \nshoulder. He understands that he will always have \nsome permanent limitations with regards to the \nability to lift, push, and pull, as well as, perform \nrepetitive and extended work overhead. Internal \nrotation range of motion is the most unpredictable \npart of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. I do not \nanticipate he will regain “normal” internal rotation of \nthe shoulder. He has a permanent lifting, pushing, \npulling restriction with the right upper extremity of 15 \npounds. He also has a permanent restriction of only \noccasional work above shoulder level.  \n \nConsidering the complicating and additional medical care required for \nthe Claimant’s compensable right shoulder injury, Dr. Reynolds \n\nTACKETT – G702582  9\n  \n \n \nassessed partial, permanent impairment of 43% to the right upper \nextremity or 26% to the whole body. The parties stipulated in the pre-\nhearing order filed May 22, 2024 that the Respondents have paid \npermanent partial disability benefits associated with the 26% rating to \nthe body as a whole.  \nA pre-hearing order was filed on May 22, 2024. According to the \ntext of the pre-hearing order, the Claimant contended the following: \n“Claimant contends that he has sustained compensable injuries to his \nright shoulder 3/17/17, that he has been found to have permanent \nimpairment, and that he is entitled to a wage loss disability \ndetermination.” \n  The Respondents contended, “Respondents contend that all \nappropriate benefits are being paid with regard to Claimant’s \ncompensable right shoulder injury sustained on 3/17/17. Claimant \ncontinued to work for the City of Little Rock after his injury until he \nretired and moved to Florida.” \n  The parties agreed to litigate the following issues:  \n1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to wage loss disability \nbenefits.  \n2. Attorney’s fees. \n \n  An administrative law judge filed an opinion on October 8, \n2024. The administrative law judge found that the Claimant failed to \n\nTACKETT – G702582  10\n  \n \n \nprove that he is entitled to wage loss benefits in any amount, and that \nClaimant’s attorney is not entitled to an attorney’s fee consistent with \nthese findings.  The administrative law judge therefore denied and \ndismissed the claim. The Claimant appeals to the Full Commission.  \nII. ADJUDICATION \n(A) Wage-Loss \n Wage-Loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury \nhas affected the Claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood. Cross v. \nCrawford County Mem. Hosp., 54 Ark. App. 130, 923 S.W.2d 886 \n(1996). The Commission is charged with the duty of determining \ndisability. Id. In considering claims for permanent partial disability \nexceeding the employee’s percentage of permanent physical \nimpairment, the Commission may take into account, in addition to the \npercentage of permanent physical impairment, such factors as the \nemployee’s age, education, work experience, and other matters \nreasonably expected to affect his future earning capacity. Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-522(b)(1)(Repl. 2012). Such other matters are motivation, \npost-injury income, credibility, demeanor, and a multitude of other \nfactors. Glass v. Edens, 233 Ark. 786, 346 S.W.2d 685 (1961): City of \nFayetteville v. Guess, 10 Ark. App. 313, 663 S.W.2d 946 (1984); Curry \nv. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. 168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990); Cross v. \n\nTACKETT – G702582  11\n  \n \n \nCrawford County Memorial Hosp., supra. It is well established that a \nClaimant’s prior work history and education are factors to be considered \nin determining eligibility for wage-loss benefits. See Cross v. Crawford \nCounty Memorial Hosp., supra.; Glass v. Edens, supra.; City of \nFayetteville v Guess, supra.; Curry v. Franklin Electric, supra. \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) further provides, in \npertinent part:  \n(F)(ii)(a) Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a \ndetermination that the compensable injury was the major cause \nof the disability or impairment.  \n \n “Major cause” means “more than fifty percent (50%) of the \ncause,” and a finding of major cause shall be established according to \nthe preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(14)(Repl. \n2012). Preponderance of the evidence means the evidence having \ngreater weight or convincing force. Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher \nOil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \nIn workers’ compensation cases, the Commission functions as \nthe trier of fact. Blevins v. Safeway Stores, 25 Ark. App. 297, 757 \nS.W.2d 569 (1988). The Commission is not required to believe the \ntestimony of the Claimant or any other witness but may accept and \ntranslate into findings of fact only those portions of the testimony it \ndeems worthy of belief. Farmers Co-op v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 \n\nTACKETT – G702582  12\n  \n \n \nS.W.3d 899 (2002) The Full Commission has the duty to adjudicate the \ncase de novo and we are not bound by the characterization of evidence \nadopted by an administrative law judge. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, \n31 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990).  \nIn the present matter, the Claimant is 62 years-old. Claimant \ngraduated high school in 1980. Claimant obtained approximately 55-60 \nhours of post-secondary education. After graduating high school, \nClaimant joined the Yell County Sheriff’s office and the Russellville \nPolice Department before joining the Little Rock Police Department \n(hereinafter referred to as “LRPD”) in 1985 as a Patrol Officer. From \n1988 through 1990 Claimant was an Undercover Detective with the \nOrganized Crime and Intelligence Division as a Vice Squad with the \nLRPD. Claimant then became an Investigator for the LRPD Training \nDivision and was promoted in August of 1994 to Sergeant. Claimant \nremained in this position until February of 2001 after which he was \npromoted to Commander of Special Operations for the Northwest Patrol \nDivision of LRPD. Claimant remained in that position until June of 2016. \nOn March 17, 2017, Claimant was working as the Shift Commander for \nthe Downtown Patrol Division of the LRPD. On October 31, 2021, \nClaimant retired from the LRPD.  At the time of his retirement, the \nClaimant held a full-time position earning $82,908. Following his \n\nTACKETT – G702582  13\n  \n \n \nretirement, the Claimant had the option of waiting 90-days and \nreapplying for a job with the Respondent. However, the credible proof \nsuggests that he would be considered a new employee and required to \nperform an agility test. The credible proof further suggests that the \nClaimant would not be able to perform such an agility test. The Claimant \nrelocated to Florida in April of 2023, and re-entered the work force as a \nsecurity officer for the University of West Florida. The Claimant’s new \nposition is a full-time job and has an annual salary of $50,000.  A \nsignificant reduction from his position with the Respondent.  \nClaimant’s compensable injury has negatively affected his ability \nto earn a livelihood. Claimant’s compensable injury is the major cause of \nhis disability or impairment. Claimant has limited education. Claimant is \nunable to perform labor intensive work as he did in the past. Claimant \nclearly exhibits a willingness to work. Claimant is also unable to earn \nwages equal to or greater than the wages he earned prior to the \naccident. Based upon these facts and conclusions the Full Commission \nfinds that the Claimant sustained wage-loss disability in the amount of \n14% in excess of the permanent anatomical impairment accepted and \npaid by the Respondents and further finds that the major cause of the \nadditional disability and impairment was related to the Claimant’s \ncompensable injury.  \n\nTACKETT – G702582  14\n  \n \n \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, therefore, the Full \nCommission finds that the Claimant proved that he is entitled to wage-\nloss benefits in the amount of 14% in addition to his given 26% whole-\nbody impairment rating. The Claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for \nlegal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715(a)(Repl. \n2012). For prevailing on appeal, the Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an \nadditional fee of five-hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012).  \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n     \n     \n Commissioner Mayton dissents. \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion finding the \nclaimant proved he is entitled to wage-loss benefits in the amount of 14% \nas a result of his compensable injury. \n The claimant, now 62 years old, sustained a compensable shoulder \ninjury in March 2017 during a training exercise with the Little Rock Police \nDepartment (LRPD).  \n\nTACKETT – G702582  15\n  \n \n \nThe claimant retired from LRPD on October 31, 2021, and has since \nmoved to Florida where he is currently working as a security guard for a \npublic university and acts as an independent contractor conducting \ngovernment background checks for two different companies.  \nWhen a claimant has been assigned an anatomical impairment \nrating to the body as a whole, the Commission has the authority to increase \nthe disability rating, and it can find a claimant permanently disabled based \nupon wage-loss factors. Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., 89 Ark. App. 228, 201 \nS.W.3d 449 (2005).  \nThe wage-loss factor is the extent to which a compensable injury has \naffected the claimant's ability to earn a livelihood. Enterprise Products \nCompany v. Leach, 2009 Ark. App. 148, 316 S.W.3d 253. \n When determining wage-loss disability, the Commission may take \ninto account, in addition to the percentage of permanent physical \nimpairment, such factors as the employee’s age, education, work \nexperience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her \nfuture earning capacity. Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(b)(1). Other factors may \ninclude but are not limited to motivation to return to work, post-injury \nearnings, credibility, and demeanor. Curry v. Franklin Electric, 32 Ark. App. \n168, 798 S.W.2d 130 (1990). A lack of interest in pursuing employment \n\nTACKETT – G702582  16\n  \n \n \nimpedes the assessment of the claimant's loss of earning capacity. Logan \nCounty v. McDonald, 90 Ark. App. 409, 206 S.W.3d 258 (2005).  \nThe Commission may use its own superior knowledge of industrial \ndemands, limitations, and requirements in conjunction with the evidence to \ndetermine wage-loss disability. Taggart v. Mid America Packaging, 2009 \nArk. App. 335, 308 S.W.3d 643. \nThe claimant is a high school graduate with between fifty-five (55) \nand sixty (60) hours of college credit. Claimant worked for the Yell County \nSheriff’s office and the Russellville Police Department before joining the \nLitle Rock Police Department in 1985.  \nBetween 2014 and 2016, the claimant entered the Deferred \nRetirement Option Plan (DROP) through the respondent employer. The \nclaimant testified that once an employee enrolls in DROP, his retirement \ndate is set at the time the claimant enrolled. The claimant’s retirement date \nwas set for seven (7) years after enrollment. The claimant’s retirement from \nLRPD was effective October 31, 2021, and he receives $3,000 a month in \nretirement benefits. Major Christina Plummer with LRPD testified that had \nthe claimant not enrolled in DROP, he could still be employed with the City \nof Little Rock.  \nAfter his retirement, the claimant returned to work with the City of \nLittle Rock as an EEO Investigator earning $35 an hour on a part-time \n\nTACKETT – G702582  17\n  \n \n \nbasis. The claimant moved to Florida in April of 2023 where he is a full-time \nsecurity officer for the University of West Florida, earning $50,000 per year. \nIn addition, the claimant makes an average of $35.00 an hour conducting \nbackground checks for Omniplex and ABC, companies that contract with \nthe government to process security clearances.  \nThe claimant testified he can “pick and choose when I want to do it \nand how much, you know I can take on as far as workload.” \nAt the time of his retirement from LRPD, the claimant was making \n$39.86 per hour, or approximately $82,908 per year. With his combined \nretirement benefits and income from the University of West Florida, the \nclaimant is currently earning approximately $86,000 per year. In addition, \nhe has had two other part-time jobs averaging $35.00 per hour.  So, the \nclaimant is actually receiving more money per year now than he was \nearning for the respondent employer. \nAt the hearing, the claimant did not offer testimony he had applied for \nany jobs and was not hired due to his physical limitations that paid more \nthan his current job at the University of West Florida. He testified he \nconsiders his current role as a security guard “very well paid” and has \noffered no examples of how his injury has limited his ability to work in any \nfield.  \n\nTACKETT – G702582  18\n  \n \n \nThe only reason the claimant did not remain employed by the \nrespondent employer is the fact he voluntarily entered the DROP Program \nand had to retire when the seven-year period expired.  He did not leave his \nemployment with the respondent employer because of his compensable \ninjury, but as a result of his entry into the DROP Program. If he had not \nentered the DROP Program, he could still be employed with the respondent \nemployer earning more wages than he was earning at the time of the \naccident in question. \nThe claimant has failed to prove he is entitled to wage-loss disability.  \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n                                                           ___                                     _________ \nMICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G702582 NATHAN TACKETT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, SELF -INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.411Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G702582-2025-04-09","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Tackett_Nathan_G702582_20250409.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}