{"id":"full_commission-H104907-2025-01-15","awcc_number":"H104907","decision_date":"2025-01-15","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Cedric Bennett","employer_name":"Pine Bluff School District","title":"BENNETT VS. PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT AWCC# H104907 January 15, 2025","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","neck","cervical","strain","wrist","sprain","fracture","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bennett_Cedric_H104907_20250115.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Bennett_Cedric_H104907_20250115.pdf","text_length":23753,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H104907 \n  \nCEDRIC BENNETT, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nPINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 15, 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 \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nAugust 7, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed \nto prove he was entitled to additional medical benefits.  After reviewing the \nentire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that he was entitled to \nadditional medical treatment as recommended by Dr. Lovett.     \nI.  ADJUDICATION \n Cedric Bennett, now age 63, testified that he had been employed \nwith the respondents, Pine Bluff School District, for 28 years.  The parties \nstipulated that the employee-employer relationship existed on June 2, 2021.  \n\nBENNETT - H104907  2\n  \n \n \nThe claimant testified that he fell from a ladder after being hit by a rolling \nschool bus.  The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on June 2, 2021.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of the \nForm AR-N indicated that an accident occurred at 2:00 p.m. on June 2, \n2021.  It was written on the Form AR-N that the claimant injured his “left \nhand, left elbow, tailbone, back, bumped head....Mechanic fell off of a \nladder while changing a bulb on the rear of the school bus.”     \nThe claimant treated at Jefferson Regional Medical Center on June \n2, 2021: \nFELL ABOUT 5 FEET OFF A LADDER.  AT WORK, \nWORKING ON A SCHOOL BUS, WHEN BRAKE GOT \nRELEASED AND BUS ROLLED ONTO HIM KNOCKING HIM \nOFF THE LADDER.  BUS ROLLED OVER LEFT HAND.  \nCOMPLAINS OF LEFT HAND, LEFT ELBOW AND LOWER \nBACK PAIN.  HIT HEAD.  NO LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS.  \nNO NECK PAIN.   \n \n The diagnosis on June 2, 2021 was “Hand crush injury, left, initial \nencounter.  Left elbow pain.  Acute low back pain.  Work related injury.”   \n The claimant treated at MedExpress on June 8, 2021.  Physical \nexamination showed swelling in the claimant’s left hand and the ball of his \nleft foot.  The assessment at that time included “Cervicalgia” and “Low Back \nPain.”  An emergency physician’s diagnosis on June 8, 2021 was “Post \nconcussive syndrome.  Cervical strain.  Wrist sprain.  Foot contusion.”  The \n\nBENNETT - H104907  3\n  \n \n \nclaimant was treated conservatively.  A CT of the claimant’s cervical spine \nwas taken on June 8, 2021 with the impression, “No fracture.”   \n The record indicates that the claimant treated with Dr. Victor Vargas \nbeginning June 17, 2021: \nIn brief, Patient presented today for an evaluation of lower \nback pain.   \nPatient is a 60-year-old male, who presents to my clinic for the \nfirst time to have an evaluation of injury at work. \nThe patient said that he was knocked off a ladder by the \nschool bus. \nHe said that he fell from the ladder landed on the back he \ncomplains of pain in the lumbar spine.   \nHe was taken to the Jefferson regional hospital he had a CT \nscan of the head and [had] an evaluation and he was told that \nno fractures happened.   \nHe was prescribed pain medications and muscle relaxer.   \nHe said that he has continued with pain and tingling and \nnumbness.  He has prior back pain.   \nAlso complains of pain in the left hand with pain and swelling \nthat has been gradually improving. \nAlso numbness and tingling.... \nX-rays of the lumbar spine AP, lateral, in standing position \nwere done in the clinic today, reviewed and interpreted which \nshowed there is acceptable alignment.   \nMultilevel mild or small anterior osteophyte formation.   \nThere is a sclerosis of the posterior elements and I cannot \nrule out unilaterality spondylolysis at L5 without \nspondylolisthesis.   \nX-rays of the left hand multiple views that show no evidence \nof fractures or dislocations mild osteoarthritic changes of the \ncarpal joints.  Osteoarthritis of the radial carpal joint with a \nsclerosis and osteophyte formation of the styloid process of \nthe radius and the scaphoid. \n \nAssessment \nLow back pain. \nDegenerative disc disease. \nFacet arthropathy. \n\nBENNETT - H104907  4\n  \n \n \nPossible L5 spondylolysis. \nLeft wrist sprain. \nLeft wrist mild to moderate osteoarthritic changes.   \n \n Dr. Vargas planned physical therapy, an LSO brace, medication, and \nadditional diagnostic testing.   \nAn MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on July 7, 2021 \nwith the following impression: \n1.  Disc bulge at L5-S1 contacts and displaces the traversing \nleft S1 nerve root. \n2.  Spondylolysis at L5.  Marrow edema signal is noted in the \npars interarticularis on the right.   \n \n Dr. Vargas performed a lumbar steroid injection on July 7, 2021.   \nDr. Vargas reported on July 16, 2021: \nCedric Bennett is a 60 year old male who presents to discuss \nconcerns about their Back, that began on 06/02/2021.... \nPatient is a 60-year-old, male.  The patient said that he was \nknocked off a ladder by the school bus.  Patient presented \ntoday for follow-up.   \nHe also wants to be evaluated for left foot pain and a neck \npain.   \nThe patient has been seen before and after asked to be \nevaluated for a left wrist pain and lower back pain. \nThe patient stated that he is complaining of 1 month of pain at \nthe ball of the foot that increases with weightbearing and \nthrobbing sensation sometimes with tingling.   \nAlso he complains of neck pain that has been going on for 2 \nto 3 months and is getting worse.... \nHe said that the lower back pain is unchanged, the injection \nhelped only for 2 days.  The physical therapy made the back \npain worse.   \nContinue with numbness in the left lower extremity.... \nAssessment \nLow back pain. \n\nBENNETT - H104907  5\n  \n \n \nDegenerative disc disease.  With protrusion of the disc L5-S1 \nthen goes in close contact with the traversing nerve roots.   \nFacet arthropathy. \nL5 spondylolysis. \nLeft wrist sprain. \nLeft wrist mild to moderate osteoarthritic changes.   \nLeft foot pain secondary to metatarsalgia. \nNeck pain with degenerative disc disease.... \nRecommended management of the pain with physical \ntherapy.... \nThe patient is not at maximum medical improvement.   \nI found no evidence of objective findings of injury on the \n[complaints] of the left foot and the cervical spine.   \nPreviously we have evaluated the lower back pain which is an \nexacerbation of pre-existing condition.   \n \n Upon referral from Dr. Vargas, Dr. Gary Frankowski performed a Left \nTransforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection L5-S1 on July 30, 2021.   \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Vargas on August 4, 2021: \nI have discussed with the patient that we have found no \nobjective finding of injury of the lumbar spine however has \nbeen treated for an aggravation of the pre-existing condition \nbut he has had transient relief of the symptomatology.   \nI am considering that the patient has exhausted the options of \ntreatment conservatively to mitigate his symptoms of pain. \nHowever, the pain is multifactorial and I am considering \nprobably more more likely than not his symptoms are due to \nthe pre-existing condition.   \nConsequently, I think the patient is having relief of the \nsymptomatology with the physical therapy and I highly \nrecommended to continue physical therapy for the cervical \nspine and lumbar spine with extension of 3 weeks.   \nAfter that I would consider that the patient has exhausted the \noptions of treatment for conservative treatment and he can be \nconsidered at MMI when he finished a 3 more weeks of \nphysical therapy prescribed today.... \nThe patient is entitled to 0% impairment as a whole person.  \nBased on the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent \n\nBENNETT - H104907  6\n  \n \n \nImpairment.  Fourth Edition.  From the American Medical \nAssociation.   \n \n Dr. Vargas reported on or about September 8, 2021: \nPatient presented today to the clinic however he has been \nreleased in the previous visit at MMI.   \nThe patient stated that he finished physical therapy last week.   \nHe complains of some headaches. \nI explained [to] the patient that the patient was released at \nmaximal medical improvement last visit and I have no further \nrecommendations and he is supposed to return to work on full \nduty no restrictions on 8/25/2021. \nFor further details refer to my previous visit on 8/4/2021. \n \n The claimant began treating with Dr. Heather L. Whaley at Pain \nTreatment Centers of America on October 26, 2021.  Dr. Whaley’s \nassessment included “Spondylosis” of the lumbosacral region and cervical \nregion.  Dr. Whaley prescribed medication. \n The claimant testified that the respondent-carrier did not authorize \nadditional medical treatment after May 6, 2022.    \n The claimant presented for treatment at Legacy Spine & \nNeurological Specialists on August 16, 2022:  “This 61-year-old male \npresents with low back and neck pain.  He reports that his low back and \nneck pain have been present for about a year and has progressively gotten \nworse.  He reports that the pain is in his low back and will radiate posteriorly \ndown both legs to his feet....In order to evaluate these complaints, we must \nobtain an MRI of the lumbar and cervical spine to rule out any structural \nabnormalities including lumbar and cervical stenosis, as well as for \n\nBENNETT - H104907  7\n  \n \n \nprocedural planning purposes.  We will also obtain x-rays of the lumbar and \ncervical spine.  We will have him follow up with one of our neurosurgeons \nonce we have obtained the necessary imaging.  In the meantime, he will \ncontinue his medication regimen.”      \n The claimant underwent an “MR Cervical Spine w/o Contrast” at \nPavilion MRI on September 7, 2022.  The findings included “straightening of \nthe cervical lordosis.”  The following conclusion resulted:  “Retrolisthesis, \ncentral protrusion with effacement of the ventral cord at the C3-4 and C4-5 \nlevels as well as uncovertebral hypertrophic degenerative changes and \nright facet hypertrophy at the C4-5 level with abutment of the exiting right \nC5 nerve.” \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was also taken on September \n7, 2022 with the following conclusion: \nDominant findings are noted at the L5-S1 level with \nanterolisthesis, a broad-based disc bulge, central protrusion \nwith leftward orientation, posterior annular tear, left foraminal \nprotrusions and moderate to severe right and moderate left-\nsided facet hypertrophy with chronic bilateral spondylolysis \ncontributing to abutment of bilateral exiting L5 nerves and \nabutment of bilateral descending S1 nerves with possible \nmass effect upon the descending left S1 nerve.   \n \n Dr. Dominic Maggio reported in part on September 14, 2022, “We \nwill proceed with a left-sided L5-S1 selective nerve root block.”   \n\nBENNETT - H104907  8\n  \n \n \n Dr. Maggio stated on October 13, 2022, “We will proceed with \nbilateral SI joint injections per the Legacy protocol.”  The record does not \nindicate that Dr. Maggio’s treatments were effective.   \n Dr. Maggio noted on January 5, 2023, “We will proceed with a left-\nsided SI fusion.”  The record indicates that Dr. Maggio performed an SI-joint \nfusion on February 28, 2023.  The claimant reported some post-surgical \nimprovement in his physical condition.   \n The record contains a Change of Physician Order dated November \n17, 2023:  “A change of physician is hereby approved by the Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission for Cedric Bennett to change from \nVictor Vargas, M.D. to Angela Lovett, M.D[.]”   \n Dr. Angela Lovett examined the claimant on December 4, 2023.  Dr. \nLovett performed a trigger point injection.         \nA pre-hearing order was filed on April 15, 2024.  According to the \npre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The claimant contends that he \nachieved a change of physician through the Commission to Dr. Angela \nLovett.  Respondents paid the initial evaluation but have since controverted \nentitlement to ongoing treatment.”   \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that all \nappropriate benefits have been paid with regard to claimant’s injuries \nsustained on June 2, 2021.  Respondents took the position that additional \n\nBENNETT - H104907  9\n  \n \n \nmedical treatment is not reasonable and necessary on May 6, 2022.  If \nclaimant obtained treatment prior to that date the carrier was unaware of, \nthe treatment was unauthorized.  Additionally, claimant has preexisting \nproblems with his cervical spine, so if he needs additional treatment for his \nneck, it is not due to the June 2, 2021 injury.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issue:  “1.  Claimant’s \nentitlement to ongoing/additional medical treatment.”   \n After a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nAugust 7, 2024 and found that the claimant failed to prove he was entitled \nto additional medical benefits.  The administrative law judge therefore \ndenied and dismissed the claim.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such \nmedical treatment as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the \ninjury received by the employee.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  \nThe employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that medical treatment is reasonably necessary.  Stone v. Dollar \nGeneral Stores, 91 Ark. App. 260, 209 S.W.3d 445 (2005).  Preponderance \nof the evidence means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Metropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 \n\nBENNETT - H104907  10\n  \n \n \nS.W.3d 252 (2003).  What constitutes reasonably necessary treatment is a \nquestion of fact for the Commission.  Wright Contracting Co. v. Randall, 12 \nArk. App. 358, 676 S.W.2d 750 (1984).  An employee who has sustained a \ncompensable injury is not required to offer objective medical evidence to \nprove he is entitled to additional benefits.  Ark. Health Ctr. v. Burnett, 2018 \nArk. App. 427, 558 S.W.3d 408. \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  The \nclaimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is \nentitled to additional medical benefits.”  The Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant proved he was entitled to additional medical treatment as \nrecommended by Dr. Lovett.  The claimant testified that he had been \nemployed with the respondents, Pine Bluff School District, since 1996.  The \nparties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on June 2, 2021.  \nThe claimant testified that, while performing employment services for the \nrespondents, he fell from a ladder after being hit by a rolling school bus.  \nThe medical evidence of record corroborated the claimant’s testimony.  \nThere was no stipulation with regard to compensability, but the respondents \nstate on appeal that the claimant “sustained compensable injuries to his \nlower back, neck, left hand and foot” on June 2, 2021. \n Following the work-related accident as a result of which the claimant \nsustained compensable injuries to his lower back, neck, left hand, and foot, \n\nBENNETT - H104907  11\n  \n \n \nthe claimant received authorized, conservative treatment from Dr. Vargas \nbeginning June 17, 2021.  Dr. Vargas pronounced maximum medical \nimprovement and 0% permanent anatomical impairment on August 4, 2021.  \nIt is well-settled, however, that an employee may be entitled to additional \nmedical treatment after the end of his healing period, if said treatment is \ngeared toward management of the compensable injury.  Patchell v. Wal-\nMart Stores, Inc., 86 Ark. App. 230, 184 S.W.3d 31 (2004).   \n The claimant testified that the respondent-carrier did not authorize \nadditional medical treatment after May 6, 2022.  The claimant began \ntreating at Legacy Spine & Neurological Specialists on August 16, 2022.  As \na result of his treatment at Legacy Spine & Neurological Specialists, the \nclaimant eventually underwent an SI joint fusion performed by Dr. Maggio \non February 28, 2023.  Nevertheless, the Full Commission reiterates that \nthe record contains a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF INJURY \nsigned by the claimant on June 2, 2021.  Once the employee has received \nhis Form AR-N, subsequent unauthorized medical expenses are not the \nemployer’s responsibility.  See Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-514(c)(3)(Repl. 2012); \nTempworks Management Services v. Jaynes, 2023 Ark. App. 147, 662 \nS.W.3d 280.  The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the \nclaimant’s treatment at Legacy Spine & Neurological Specialists was \nunauthorized and shall not be the respondents’ responsibility.  Said \n\nBENNETT - H104907  12\n  \n \n \nunauthorized treatment includes the surgical treatment provided by Dr. \nMaggio.   \n The claimant received a statutory change of physician to Dr. Lovett \non November 17, 2023.  Dr. Lovett examined the claimant on December 4, \n2023, and she performed a trigger point injection.  The record indicates that \nthe claimant received benefit from Dr. Lovett’s treatment.  The Full \nCommission finds that that treatment provided by Dr. Lovett was reasonably \nnecessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  \nWe find that Dr. Lovett’s treatment recommendation was causally related to \nthe June 2, 2021 compensable injury and was not related to a prior injury or \npre-existing condition.          \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, therefore, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved he was entitled to additional \nmedical treatment as recommended by Dr. Lovett.  We find that Dr. Lovett’s \ntreatment recommendations are reasonably necessary in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing on appeal to the \nFull Commission, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a fee of five hundred \ndollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n \n \n \n\nBENNETT - H104907  13\n  \n \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \nDISSENTING OPINION \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant is entitled to additional medical treatment as recommended by Dr. \nAngela Lovett. \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) requires an employer to provide an \nemployee with medical and surgical treatment \"as may be reasonably \nnecessary in connection with the injury received by the employee.\"  The \nclaimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the \nadditional treatment is reasonable and necessary.  Nichols v. Omaha Sch. \nDist., 2010 Ark. App. 194, 374 S.W.3d 148 (2010). \nWhat constitutes reasonably necessary treatment is a question of \nfact for the Commission.  Gant v. First Step, Inc., 2023 Ark. App. 393, 675 \nS.W.3d 445 (2023).  In assessing whether a given medical procedure is \nreasonably necessary for treatment of the compensable injury, the \nCommission analyzes both the proposed procedure and the condition it \n\nBENNETT - H104907  14\n  \n \n \nsought to remedy.  Walker v. United Cerebral Palsy of Ark., 2013 Ark. App. \n153, 426 S.W.3d 539 (2013). \n The claimant was initially seen at Jefferson Regional Medical Center \non June 2, 2021, where he complained of left hand, left elbow, and low-\nback pain. He did not complain of neck pain at that time.   \nApproximately six weeks after his on-the-job injury, on July 16, 2021, \nthe claimant treated with Dr. Victor Vargas, complaining of, among others, \nlumbar sacral pain.  Dr. Vargas diagnosed the claimant with “[d]egenerative \ndisc disease with protrusion of the disc L5-S1 then goes in close contact \nwith the traversing nerve roots” and facet arthropathy, believing this \ncondition to be an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition.  Dr. Vargas \nrecommended physical therapy and a left transforaminal injection at L5-S1 \nas a diagnostic and therapeutic tool.  \nThe claimant returned to Dr. Vargas for a follow-up on August 4, \n2021.  Dr. Vargas opined: \nI have discussed with the patient \nthat we have found no objective \nfinding of injury of the lumbar spine \nhowever has been treated for an \naggravation of the pre-existing \ncondition but he has had transient \nrelief of the symptomology. \n \nI am considering that the patient \nhas exhausted the options of \ntreatment conservatively to \nmitigate his symptoms of pain. \n\nBENNETT - H104907  15\n  \n \n \nHowever, the pain is multifactorial \nand I am considered probably \nmore likely than not his symptons \nare due to this pre-existing \ncondition. \n \nConsequently, I think the patient is \nhaving relief of the \nsymptomatology with the physical \ntherapy and I highly recommended \nto continue physical therapy for the \ncervical spine and lumbar spine \nwith extension of 3 weeks. \n \nAfter that I would consider that the \npatient has exhausted the options \nof treatment for conservative \ntreatment and he can be \nconsidered at MMI when he \nfinished 3 more weeks of physical \ntherapy prescribed today. \n \nWork status \nThe patient will be off work until \n8/25/21 where he will return to \nwork on full duty no restriction. \n \nImpairment rating \nThe patient is entitled to a 0% \npermanent impairment as a whole \nperson.  Based on the Guides to \nthe Evaluation of Permanent \nImpairment.  Fourth edition. From \nthe American Medical Association. \n \n Subsequent to his release by Dr. Vargas, the claimant used his \npersonal health insurance to obtain additional medical treatment, ultimately \nundergoing a left SI-Joint fusion performed by Dr. Dominic Maggio on \n\nBENNETT - H104907  16\n  \n \n \nFebruary 23, 2023. Prior to conducting surgery, Dr. Maggio obtained an \nMRI on September 7, 2022, which revealed \ndegenerative disease.  Of note at \nL5-S1 there is a grade 1 \nanterolisthesis.  There is moderate \nto severe left-sided, and moderate \nright-sided neural foraminal \nstenosis No central canal stenosis. \nNo other areas of significant \ncentral canal or neural foraminal \nstenosis.  There is preserved \nlumbar lordosis. \n \nThese records reflect no objective findings of ongoing traumatic \ninjury.  The record is clear that all treatment after Dr. Vargas’s release of \nthe claimant was for the claimant’s degenerative disc disease. \nWhen the claimant began treating with Dr. Lovett on December 4, \n2023, he reported chronic low back pain and chronic sacroiliac joint pain. \nDr. Lovett also assessed the claimant with radiculopathy and spondylolysis \nof the lumbar region and performed a trigger point injection at L4L5S1 [sic]. \nAs with the claimant’s previous physicians, Dr. Lovett did not indicate any \nfindings of acute injury, but rather her treatment clearly focused on the \nclaimant’s pre-existing degenerative condition. \nThe evidence is clear that any aggravation of the claimant’s pre-\nexisting degenerative condition had resolved when Dr. Vargas released him \nat MMI in August of 2021.  \n\nBENNETT - H104907  17\n  \n \n \nThe claimant’s subsequent doctors opined that the claimant suffered \nfrom degenerative changes and made no note of any traumatic injury.  The \nadministrative law judge in this matter gave appropriate weight to Dr. \nVargas’s opinion and accurately ruled that all treatment following August of \n2021 was for the claimant’s pre-existing condition. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H104907 CEDRIC BENNETT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PINE BLUFF SCHOOL DISTRICT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 15, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.620Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H104907-2025-01-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bennett_Cedric_H104907_20250115.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}