{"id":"full_commission-H109799-2023-06-09","awcc_number":"H109799","decision_date":"2023-06-09","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Gina Sallee","employer_name":"Universal Helth Services, Inc","title":"SALLEE VS. UNIVERSAL HELTH SERVICES, INC. AWCC# H109799 JUNE 9, 2023","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","knee","back","neck","shoulder","thoracic","lumbar","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sallee_Gina_H109799_20230609.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Sallee_Gina_H109799_20230609.pdf","text_length":51653,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H109799 \n \nGINA SALLEE, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nUNIVERSAL HELTH SERVICES, INC.,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT \nSERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JUNE 9, 2023  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE EVELYN E. BROOKS, Attorney \nat Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE LAUREN A. SPENCER, \nAttorney at 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 \nNovember 3, 2022.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she suffered a compensable injury.  After reviewing the \nentire record de novo, the Full Commission reverses the administrative law \njudge’s opinion.  The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved she \nsustained a compensable injury to her cervical spine and left knee.  We find \nthat the claimant did not prove she was entitled to additional temporary total \ndisability benefits.     \nI.  HISTORY \n\nSALLEE - H109799   2\n  \n \n \n The record indicates that Gina Sallee, now age 49, became \nemployed with the respondents, Heartland Behavioral Health, on or about \nSeptember 13, 2021.  Ms. Sallee was hired to be a Community Relations \nRepresentative 1 for the respondent-employer.  The Job Description for a \nCommunity Relations Representative included the following physical \nrequirements:  “A wide range of motor activity is required in performing job \nresponsibilities.  The majority of activity will be standing, walking, bending, \nand lifting as necessary in the office setting.  Ability to ascent (sic) and \ndescent (sic) stairs in a timely fashion and sit long periods of time sorting \npaperwork and keyboarding.\"  The claimant described her work duties:  “I \nwould travel to various locations in Missouri and Arkansas and provide \ninformation about services.  Answer any questions that the providers may \nhave in regards to the particular services or insurance.”     \nThe record indicates that an individual named Mary Flores signed a \nREFERENCE/INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER on behalf of the \nclaimant, and that the same was dated September 17, 2021.           \nThe parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed on December 7, 2021.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \n Q.  So what happened on December 7\nth\n of 2021? \nA.  December of ’21, I was heading to Little Rock, which is \nwhere I was supposed to be heading for work that day, and on \nthe interstate a deer came out and I hit the deer.   \n\nSALLEE - H109799   3\n  \n \n \nQ.  And was that a motor vehicle accident that you could \nrecover from and continue on to Little Rock? \nA.  No.  The vehicle was completely totaled.  All the airbags \ndeployed.  The car was inoperable.   \nQ.  And did you report the accident? \nA.  I did immediately to my supervisor. \nQ.  And who was your supervisor? \nA.  Betsy Curtis.   \nQ.  And how did you report it? \nA.  From the best of my remembrance, I texted her and let her \nknow that I had had an accident and sent her photos of the \nvehicle and let her know that I was speaking to the State \nHighway Patrol at that time. \nQ.  Now, when you had the accident, were you alone? \nA.  No.  I had someone riding with me that day.... \nQ.  And what was the person’s name? \nA.  Mary Flores.  She is a corporal at Sebastian County \nJuvenile Detention Center.   \nQ.  So did Ms. Flores riding with you change your routine in \nany way? \nA.  No, not at all.... \n  Q.  How did the morning start out? \nA.  She arrived at my home approximately at 7:30 in the \nmorning and we left at 8:00 a.m. and had the accident, you \nknow, shortly after that.    \n   \nThe claimant filled out an Arkansas State Police Crash Report \nSupplement Driver/Witness Statement Form on December 7, 2021:  “I was \ntraveling E on Hwy I 40 when a deer hit ran out in front of me.  I tried to stop \n& couldn’t.  I hit the deer, and contacted State Hwy. Police.”   \nAn Arkansas Motor Vehicle Crash Report Narrative was completed \non or about December 7, 2021:  “V1 was traveling eastbound on Interstate \n40 near the 40 mile-marker when a deer ran out in front of the vehicle.  V1 \ndidn’t have enough time to stop and collided with the deer in the roadway.”  \n\nSALLEE - H109799   4\n  \n \n \nThe Arkansas Motor Vehicle Crash report indicated that Mary Andrea \nFlores was a passenger in the claimant’s vehicle at the time of the accident.       \nThe respondents state on appeal to the Full Commission that the \nclaimant received temporary total disability benefits beginning December 8, \n2021.  According to the record, the claimant treated at “Back in Action \nSpine and Sports Injury Clinic, Inc.” beginning December 15, 2021.  The \nclaimant complained of pain in areas including her left knee, neck, and \nback.  Dr. Cameron J. Mitchell, D.C. reported “Reverse Curve” in the lateral \ncurvature of the claimant’s cervical spine.       \nDr. Thomas E. Cheyne examined the claimant on December 22, \n2021: \nMs. Sallee is a 48-year-old, who presents with cervical, left \nshoulder, and left arm pain as well as left knee pain.  She has \nalso some milder lower back pain.  She states this began \nwhen she was working and was driving on 12/07/2021 and hit \na deer.  She had x-rays of her neck and left knee, both of \nwhich were within normal limits.  She has been to a \nchiropractor.... \nMUSCULOSKELETAL:  She is tender in the neck.  She has \n20% to 30% limitation of range of motion of her head and \nneck in all directions.  She has normal sensation in the upper \nextremities to touch.  She has good strength and muscle tone \nin her arms.  Her DTRs are 1+ and equal bilaterally.  With \nregard to the left shoulder, she is tender anteriorly.  She has \nmildly limited adduction.  With regard to the right shoulder, \nbilateral elbows and bilateral wrists, she has good range of \nmotion with no pain, effusion, crepitus, or instability.  She is \nminimally tender in the thoracic and lumbar region....With \nregard to the left knee, she is mildly tender anteriorly.  There \nis no swelling or effusion.  There is no erythema or abrasions.  \nShe has good range of motion with no instability.  Again, x-\n\nSALLEE - H109799   5\n  \n \n \nrays of the cervical spine and left knee are within normal \nlimits.   \n \n Dr. Cheyne gave the following impression:  “1.  Cervical strain with \npossible left cervical radiculitis.  2.  Left shoulder contusion.  3.  Left knee \ncontusion.”  Dr. Cheyne planned, “We will put her on Celebrex, have her \ntake hot showers twice daily, stay at light activity, go to physical therapy.  \nWe will put her on work restrictions and we will see her back in one month \nfor followup.”  Dr. Cheyne returned the claimant to restricted work on \nDecember 22, 2021:  “5 LB WEIGHT LIMIT.  NO LIFTING OR REACHING \nABOVE SHOULDER LEVEL.  NO SITTING MORE THAN 45 MINUTES.”   \n Carri Compton, an Administrative Officer with the respondent-\nemployer, provided the claimant with ACCOMMODATION WORK \nREQUIREMENTS on December 27, 2021: \nIn review of your job description and in consultation with Betsy \nrelated to work requirements for the Community Relations \nposition we have outlined work expectations for us meeting \nthe restrictions requested from your physician at Mercy Clinic \nas of 12-22-21:  5 lb. weight limit, No lifting or reaching above \nshoulder level and no sitting more than 45 minutes. \nYou can saturate your local area, and would not be \nsitting/driving more than 45 minutes at a time.  A mix \n(obviously if you are comfortable) of saturating your local area \nwith in-person face-to-face marketing and WFH.  When WFH, \nyou would be expected to have (AT LEAST) 25 phone \ncall/individualized emails a day, everything logged in MS4 of \ncourse.  In addition, at the very least 1 zoom presentation a \nweek with outpatient clinic(s) IF you forgoes (sic) the F2F \nmarketing.  In addition to everything being logged, you would \nstill need to turn in your weekly plan, and weekly recap.  Betsy \nwill also provide HBH RTC postcards for you to send out \n\nSALLEE - H109799   6\n  \n \n \nmailings to OUTPATIENT CLINICS ONLY in your territory.  \nThe main focus would be outpatient clinics.   \nPlease let me know if you have any further questions.   \n \n Dr. Cheyne noted on January 28, 2022, “Ms. Sallee returns for \nfollowup of her cervical strain with possible left cervical radiculitis as well as \nleft shoulder and left knee contusions.  She has had some improvement in \nher neck and shoulder, but no improvement in the knee at all.  She \ncomplains of an instability of the knee when she is walking.  We will \ncontinue her Celebrex, work restrictions, light activity, heat therapy, and \nphysical therapy, but I would also recommend getting an MRI scan of the \nleft knee, and we will see her back after the scan.”   \nAn MRI of the claimant’s left knee was taken on February 10, 2022 \nwith the following findings: \nMultiloculated very thin and small popliteal cyst.  Tear of the \nposterior horn of the medial meniscus.  Cruciate and collateral \nligaments are intact as well as distal patellar tendon complex.  \nLateral meniscus intact.  Small joint effusion.  Very small cyst \nlike lesion in the distal medial fight femur measuring 6 mm. \nIMPRESSION:  Tear of the posterior horn medial meniscus \nwith small joint effusion. \n \n Dr. Cheyne noted on February 15, 2022: \nMs. Sallee returns for followup of her cervical strain with \npossible left cervical radiculitis as well as left knee pain.  She \nhad her MRI scan of her knee which indicated a posterior horn \nmedial meniscal tear.  With regard to the knee, we will get her \nin to see one of our surgeons for an evaluation.  She is having \na great deal of difficulty ambulating because of this.  She also \nis unable to sit in a car for any length of time without her knee \nbothering her as well as her back.  For now, we will leave her \n\nSALLEE - H109799   7\n  \n \n \noff work, get her in to see a surgeon regarding the knee, but \nshe will also continue her Celebrex, and we will get an MRI of \ncervical spine.  I will see her back after the scan.   \n \n Dr. Cheyne reported on February 15, 2022, “This is to certify that \nGina M Sallee was seen in my clinic on 2/15/2022.  SHE IS TO REMAIN \nOFF WORK UNTIL SEEN BY THE SURGEON.  Appt on 3/1 at 8:10.” \n Betsy Curtis, the respondent-employer’s Director of Business \nDevelopment, corresponded with Carri Compton and others on February \n16, 2022:  “I have confirmed that Gina worked up to (including) yesterday.  \nToday is Day 1 of her not working.  I am not sure what I need to do in \nregards to payroll.  Please let me know!”   \n Dr. Bryan Smith, Mercy Clinic Orthopedic Surgery Fort Smith, \nexamined the claimant on March 1, 2022: \nThis is a 48-year-old female, who has been having pain in the \nleft knee since December 7\nth\n.  She states she was involved in \na motor vehicle accident when she was traveling at a high \nspeed and collided with a deer.  She states she has had pain \nin the left knee, shoulder, and neck.  She has previously seen \nby Dr. Cheyne.  She has tried Celebrex as well as physical \ntherapy on the knee.  She says the physical therapy made her \nknee feel worse.  The anti-inflammatories have not helped \nmuch.  She does experience swelling in the knee.  She \nlocalizes the pain medially as well as anteriorly.  Sometimes, \nshe feels like the knee will give out on her.  She did obtain an \nMRI and was referred for evaluation.  She says that she is not \nhaving tremendous amount of catching or locking, but does \nfeel like the knee tries to give way sometimes.  She has used \na compressive sleeve.  She is currently off work.  She is \nemployed as a marketing representative and she does a lot of \ndriving in the car.  She has not been able to do this and has \nhad difficulty walking, going up and down stairs.... \n\nSALLEE - H109799   8\n  \n \n \nExamination of the left knee, she does have a mild effusion.  \nShe is very guarded with mobility of the knee, but she can get \nthe knee straight and flexed to 120 degrees.... \nIMAGING:  X-rays are available for review.  They are negative \nfor fracture or dislocation.  They show maintenance of the joint \nspace.  MRI previously obtained is available for review.  This \nhas been read by the radiologist and I have reviewed the \nimages directly with the patient.  The radiologist did feel like \nthere is a posterior horn medial meniscal tear.  I have looked \nat this on the PD imaging.  I do see signal in the posterior \nhorn of the medial meniscus.  I see this less so on the T2-\nweighted signals.  Certainly, I do not see any displacement.  It \nis hard for me to tell if it does exit to the articular surface.  The \nMCL appears to be intact.  There might be a little bit of edema \naround it, but there is no full-thickness tearing.  ACL and PCL \nare intact as are the lateral ligaments.   \nASSESSMENT:  Left knee pain status post MVC concerning \nfor medial meniscus tear.  I had a long discussion with Gina.  \nShe has been extremely painful with this knee.  She was in a \nhigh-energy accident.  The MRI does look like there is some \nsignal on the PD images in the posterior horn, however, it is \nless so visible on the T2 and I do not know if it exits the \narticular surface.  She is really painful with stress to the \nmedial collateral ligament, although I do feel it is stable.  We \nhave talked about options including diagnostic arthroscopy \nand possible meniscus repair versus debridement versus a \ntrial of continued nonoperative management.  She would like \nto proceed with a trial of nonoperative management.  So, we \nare going to place her into a hinged knee brace.  I would like \nfor her to continue the anti-inflammatory.  I want her to work \non icing.  We have also talked about injection.  We are going \nto hold on this.  We are going to see how she does with the \nhinged brace to protect that medial collateral ligament and see \nif that gives her any improvement in symptoms.  I am going to \nsee her back in 2 weeks’ time.  At that time, if she is \ncontinuing to have mechanical symptoms and her exam is \nconsistent with meniscal pathology, we will give strong \nconsideration to a diagnostic arthroscopy and likely meniscus \nrepair versus debridement.  Other options would be \nconsideration of steroid injection.  All this has been discussed.  \nShe has expressed understanding.  We are also going to \nprovide her a note for work given that she is to be up on her \n\nSALLEE - H109799   9\n  \n \n \nfeet and walk for extended periods.  We are going to keep on \nher current work restrictions, which is off work.  We will revisit \nthis at the following visit.  All this was discussed.  She has \nexpressed understanding and agreed to the plan.   \n \n Dr. Smith reported on March 1, 2022, “Patient was seen in my office \ntoday and is unable to work until seen again in 2 weeks.” \n A representative of the respondent-carrier corresponded with Dr. \nCheyne on March 1, 2022: \nI am the claims examiner handling the Work Comp claim for \nyour patient, Gina Sallee.  She currently has work restrictions \nwhich include no lifting greater than 5 lbs, no reaching above \nshoulder level and no sitting more than 45 minutes.  Her \nemployer has advised me that she’s able to work from home \nwhile staying within the restrictions.  She has a desk job and \ncan stand and sit as needed.  Please indicate below your \napproval/disapproval of her working from home.  Thank you.   \n \n Dr. Cheyne checked a space beside the word “Approve.”       \nThe respondents state on appeal that the claimant received \ntemporary total disability benefits until March 14, 2022. \nThe claimant followed up with Dr. Smith on March 15, 2022:  “She \nstates that, unfortunately, her knee is not getting any better.  She is still \nhaving pain.  She does tell me that she is having cramping in the calf as \nwell as pain that goes all the way down to her foot and caused her foot to \ncramp.  She says that she is not interested in any surgical intervention for \nthe knee.”  Dr. Smith assessed “Left knee status post motor vehicle collision \nwith concern for medial meniscus tear.  I have previously reviewed the MRI \n\nSALLEE - H109799   10\n  \n \n \nwith Gina.  There may be a tear in the posterior horn of the medial \nmeniscus....She is wanting to avoid surgery, so we are going to trial on \ninjection today....With regard to her knee, I would recommend that she \nreturn to her previous work restrictions that were provided, which were no \nlifting heavier than 5 pounds and no sitting for greater than 45 minutes.  So \nwe are going to inject the left knee.  I will see her in six weeks.”       \nDr. Smith reported on March 15, 2022: \n This is to certify that Gina M Sallee was seen in my clinic on \n3/15/2022.   \n She may return to work next scheduled day of work.   \n \n RESTRICTIONS: \n 5 LB WEIGHT LIMIT \n NO LIFTING OR REACHING ABOVE SHOULDER LEVEL \n NO SITTING MORE THAN 45 MINUTES   \n \nThe claimant agreed on cross-examination that the respondent-\nemployer accommodated the work restrictions assigned by Dr. Smith.   \nDr. Cheyne noted on March 30, 2022, “Ms. Sallee returns for \nfollowup of her left cervical radiculitis which has gotten more intense.  We \nhad ordered an MRI scan of the cervical spine, but her worker’s comp \nadjuster cancelled it, apparently wanting to schedule it at some other \nfacility.  They will need to be in control of that.  From my standpoint, she \nhas done medications and physical therapy, and I will see her back on a \np.r.n. basis hopefully after she has an MRI of cervical spine.” \n\nSALLEE - H109799   11\n  \n \n \nDr. Cheyne noted on March 30, 2022, “Negative brain CT scan.”  Dr. \nCheyne stated on March 30, 2022, “This is to certify that Gina M Sallee was \nseen in my clinic on 3/30/2022.  She IS TO CONTINUE CURRENT WORK \nRESTRICTIONS.  WORK AT HOME.” \nThe respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  Do you agree on March 30\nth\n Dr. Cheyne said current \nrestrictions continue and also work from home? \nA.  I do.... \nQ.  But those additional restrictions, working from home, that \nwas also accommodated, right?  You were able to begin \nworking from home? \nA.  Yes, that is correct.   \nQ.  Under those restrictions by Dr. Cheyne, the 5-pound \nweight limit, the no lifting or reaching above your shoulder \nlevel, no sitting for more than 45 minutes at a time, under \nthose restrictions you were not totally incapacitated.  Right? \nA.  Correct. \nQ.  You were not so totally incapacitated you were unable to \nearn wages, right? \nA.  Correct.   \n \n Dr. Cheyne reported on April 26, 2022: \nMs. Sallee returns for followup of her cervical strain with left \ncervical radiculitis.  She had her MRI cervical spine earlier \ntoday.  To my review, the primary finding is a small disk \nosteophyte complex at C5-6 with moderate left facet arthrosis \nwith neural foraminal narrowing.  She had lesser changes at \nother levels.  I do not think that she needs to see a surgeon \nwith regard to her neck.  She has done physical therapy and \nanti-inflammatories.  We will get her into the pain clinic for 1 \nCESI to be done on the left at the C5-6 level, but she is now \ncomplaining of numbness in both of her arms as well as the \nhearing deficit off and on.  She had head trauma in the \naccident and apparently was unconscious for a period of time.  \nShe went to the emergency room, but no scan was done.  I \nwould recommend getting a CT brain scan as well as \n\nSALLEE - H109799   12\n  \n \n \nEMG/NCV of the upper extremities, and we will see her back \nafter those are completed.   \n \n Dr. Smith noted on April 28, 2022, “Cheyne has her on restrictions.  I \nwould agree with those restrictions, and I asked her to continue those until I \nsee her at the next visit.”   \nThe claimant followed up with Dr. Cheyne on June 7, 2022, and Dr. \nCheyne kept the claimant’s work restrictions in place.   \nDr. Natalie Strickland provided a Pain Clinic Consultation on June 8, \n2022:  “Ms. Sallee is a 48 y.o. female who presents to the pain clinic with \nneck pain.  She was a direct procedure referral from Dr. \nCheyne....Inspection of spine reveals good posture, with cervical \nstraightening....Cervical R>L paraspinal and trapezius spasm of muscle \nand myofascial pain to palpation....Cervical MRI from 2022, pertinent \nfindings:  Straightening cervical lordosis, multilevel disc desiccation.”  Dr. \nStrickland assessed “1.  Cervical radicular pain.  2.  Cervical foraminal \nstenosis.  3.  Cervical spondylosis.”  Dr. Strickland treated the claimant \nconservatively.   \nCarri Compton, the respondent-employer’s Director of Human \nResources, signed an Employee Corrective Action Report on June 28, 2022 \nindicating that the claimant’s employment was to be terminated: \nMs. Sallee documented that she contacted the Creative \nCounseling Center on 10-1-21, 4-6-22 and 5-18-22 indicating \nthat she left brochures, was emailing a HBH video and had \n\nSALLEE - H109799   13\n  \n \n \nspoke to Beth Stiles.  It was discovered that this facility had \nnot been contacted by Heartland per contact with one of the \nowners and they did not have any Heartland brochures in their \noffice.  Ms. Sallee also reported that on 6/20/2022 she made \ncontact with approximately 15 contacts by phone (verified by \nMs. Sallee on 6-21-22), however, the follow-up completed by \nthe DBD with the names Ms. Sallee presented as contacts \nwere found to not be in the office and some of the information \npresented was not people that worked at those facilities.... \nA meeting was held on 6-27-22 inquiring about this \ninformation and Ms. Sallee reported “If I documented I spoke \nto someone then I did it.”  During this meeting when questions \nwere attempting to be asked she abruptly ended the call.  As \na result of Ms. Sallee not responding to questions being asked \nand her falsifying contacts that impact the business and image \nof Heartland termination will occur.   \n \n The CEO of Heartland Behavioral Health corresponded with the \nclaimant on June 29, 2022: \nPlease find attached a termination corrective action based on \ninformation gained from our referral sources and your actions \nwhen attempting to discuss this matter.  Enclosed you will find \na box and label in order to return your computer, badge, keys, \nbusiness cards, and any other Heartland property you may \nhave.... \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  In your termination paperwork that the judge has access to \nand the respondents have introduced it, it mentions something \nabout falsifying contacts.  Did you ever falsify any contacts? \nA.  Not to my knowledge I have never falsified any contacts.   \nQ.  Now, since you were terminated at the end of June, have \nyou been able to work anywhere else? \nA.  No, I have not. \nQ.  Are you still on restrictions? \nA.  I am, yes.   \nQ.  Why have you not been able to work anywhere else? \nA.  Well, based off the restrictions and then the fact that I am \non medication and I am in pain and I still have my injuries, I \n\nSALLEE - H109799   14\n  \n \n \nhave good days and bad days where I can function \nsometimes, but then I may have to sit or stand.  And I am not \nable to take showers as requested by the doctor twice a day, \nso it makes it difficult in finding employment with restrictions \nand pain, you know.  And the requirement of taking my \nmedication affects me as well.   \n \n Dr. Cheyne reported on July 29, 2022: \nThis patient returns for follow-up of her left cervical radiculitis.  \nShe went to the pain clinic but decided not to have an epidural \ninjection.  She has had a nerve conduction test of the upper \nextremities which was normal.  She is seeing an ear nose and \nthroat physician with regard to her hearing loss.  From the \nstandpoint of her cervical radiculitis I will recommend that she \nsimply continue her Celebrex, light activity and heat therapy \nand we will see her back on [an] as needed basis.  She has \nlost her job.  She states the insurance company has now \ndenied her claim.  If she wants to reconsider the epidural \ninjections we can certainly consider that at another time.  I \nhave also suggested to her that if she would like to do so she \ncould get a second opinion evaluation from another physician.   \n \n An amended pre-hearing order was filed on August 11, 2022.  \nAccording to the text of the amended pre-hearing order, the claimant \ncontended that she was “entitled to temporary total disability benefits and \nadditional medical treatment in the form of testing and pain management.  \nClaimant is also entitled to an award of an attorney’s fee.  The claimant \nreserves all other issues.”   \n The pre-hearing order included a “stipulation” indicating, “3.  The \nrespondent controverts that claimant sustained a compensable injury to her \nneck and left knee on December 7, 2021.”  The respondents contended that \n\nSALLEE - H109799   15\n  \n \n \nthe claimant was “not entitled to any benefits under the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation law.”   \n According to the August 11, 2022 pre-hearing order, the parties \nagreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits for injuries to her neck and left knee from June 29, \n2022 to a date yet to be determined.   \n2.  If compensable, the compensation rate. \n3.  Whether claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits from June 29, 2022 to a date yet to be determined \nas a result of an injury to her neck and left knee.   \n4.  Whether claimant is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment. \n5.  Attorney fees on all indemnity benefits.   \n \nA hearing was held on September 14, 2022, and an administrative \nlaw judge filed an opinion on November 3, 2022.  The administrative law \njudge found, among other things, that the claimant failed to prove she \nsustained a compensable injury.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission.  \nII.  ADJUDICATION \nA.   Compensability \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n(A) “Compensable injury” means: \n(i) An accidental injury causing internal or external \nphysical harm to the body ... arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment and which requires medical \nservices or results in disability or death.  An injury is \n“accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident \nand is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]   \n\nSALLEE - H109799   16\n  \n \n \n \nThe phrase “arising out of the employment” refers to the origin or \ncause of the accident and the phrase “in the course of the employment” \nrefers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the injury \noccurred.  J. & G. Cabinets v. Hennington, 269 Ark. 789, 600 S.W.2d 916 \n(1980).  In order for an injury to arise out of the employment, it must be a \nnatural and probable consequence or incident of the employment and a \nnatural result of one of its risks.  Id.   \nThe test for determining whether an employee was acting within the \n“course of employment” at the time of the injury requires that the injury \noccur within the time and space boundaries of the employment, when the \nemployee is carrying out the employer’s purpose or advancing the \nemployer’s interests directly or indirectly.  Olsten Kimberly Quality Care v. \nPettey, 328 Ark. 381, 944 S.W.2d 524 (1997), citing Pilgrims Pride Corp. v. \nCaldarera, 54 Ark. App. 92, 923 S.W.2d 290 (1996).  A traveling employee \nis generally within the course of her employment from the time she leaves \nhome on a business trip until she returns, for the self-evident reason that \ntraveling itself is a large part of the employee’s job.  Id.       \nA compensable injury must also be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D)(Repl. \n2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot come under the \n\nSALLEE - H109799   17\n  \n \n \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. \n2012).   \nThe employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she sustained a compensable injury.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(E)(i)(Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence means the \nevidence having greater weight or convincing force.  Metropolitan Nat’l \nBank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d 252 (2003). \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  \nClaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsuffered a compensable injury on December 7, 2021.”  It is the duty of the \nFull Commission to enter findings in accordance with the preponderance of \nthe evidence and not on whether there is substantial evidence to support \nthe administrative law judge’s findings.  Roberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. \nApp. 184, 649 S.W.2d 402 (1983).  The Full Commission reviews an \nadministrative law judge’s opinion de novo, and it is the duty of the Full \nCommission to conduct its own fact-finding independent of that done by the \nadministrative law judge.  Crawford v. Pace Indus., 55 Ark. App. 60, 929 \nS.W.2d 727 (1996).  The Full Commission enters its own findings in \naccordance with the preponderance of the evidence.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. \nWatkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990).   \n\nSALLEE - H109799   18\n  \n \n \nIn the present matter, the Full Commission finds that the claimant \nproved she sustained a compensable injury.  As we have discussed, the \nrecord indicates that the claimant became employed with the respondents \non or about September 13, 2021.  The claimant was hired to be a \nCommunity Relations Representative 1 for the respondents.  This \nemployment position required physical activity with office work, and the \nclaimant testified “I would travel to various locations in Missouri and \nArkansas and provide information about services.”   \nThe parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nDecember 7, 2021.  The claimant testified that she was traveling to Little \nRock to perform employment services for the respondents that day, but that \nthe vehicle she was driving struck a deer on Interstate 40.  The claimant \ntestified that her vehicle was disabled as a result of the accident.  The \nclaimant’s testimony was corroborated by an Arkansas Motor Vehicle Crash \nReport Narrative dated December 7, 2021.  The evidence demonstrates \nthat, because travel was an essential part of the claimant’s work for the \nrespondents, the December 7, 2021 motor vehicle accident arose out of \nand in the course of the claimant’s employment.  J. & G. Cabinets, supra.  \nThe record shows that the accident occurred within the time and space \nboundaries of the employment, when the claimant was directly carrying out \nthe employer’s purpose.  Olsten Kimberly Quality Care, supra.  Traveling \n\nSALLEE - H109799   19\n  \n \n \nwas a large part of the claimant’s job.  See id.  Whether or not the \nclaimant’s friend Mary Flores testified on her behalf, the Arkansas Motor \nVehicle Crash Report certainly indicated that Ms. Flores was at least \npresent at the time of the motor vehicle accident.  Moreover, the \nrespondent-employer obviously believed the claimant to be performing \nemployment services on December 7, 2021, because the respondents paid \ntemporary total disability benefits beginning December 8, 2021.  The \nclaimant also testified that the respondent-carrier initially provided medical \ntreatment.     \nThe claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury.  The claimant proved that she sustained \nan accidental injury causing physical harm to the body.  The claimant \nproved by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury arose out of and \nin the course of employment, required medical services, and resulted in \ndisability.  The claimant proved that the injury was caused by a specific \nincident and was identifiable by time and place of occurrence on December \n7, 2021.   \nAdditionally, the claimant established a compensable injury by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings.  Dr. Mitchell reported \n“Reverse Curve” in the lateral curvature of the claimant’s cervical spine on \nDecember 15, 2021.  Muscle spasms can constitute objective findings to \n\nSALLEE - H109799   20\n  \n \n \nsupport compensability.  Continental Express, Inc. v. Freeman, 66 Ark. App. \n102, 989 S.W.2d 538 (1999).  Straightening of the spine is a sign that is \nnormally associated with muscle spasm in the straightened area.  Estridge \nv. Waste Management, 343 Ark. 276, 33 S.W.3d 167 (2000).  The claimant \ntherefore proved that she sustained a compensable cervical strain as \ndiagnosed by Dr. Cheyne, and that the cervical strain was established by \nobjective medical findings not within the claimant’s voluntary control.  There \nwere also objective findings supporting Dr. Cheyne’s diagnosis of “Left knee \ncontusion.”  An MRI of the claimant’s left knee on February 10, 2022 \nshowed “Tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus.”  This \nabnormality demonstrated on MRI testing was clearly an objective medical \nfinding establishing a compensable injury to the claimant’s left knee.  Dr. \nSmith also noted an objective finding in the claimant’s left knee, notably \n“effusion” on March 1, 2022.  “Effusion” is another objective medical finding \nestablishing a compensable injury.  Swifton Public Schools v. Shields, 101 \nArk. App. 208, 272 S.W.3d 851 (2008).     \nThe claimant therefore proved by a preponderance of the evidence \nthat she sustained compensable injuries to her left knee and cervical spine \non December 7, 2021.  The Full Commission reiterates in the present \nmatter that the claimant was acting within the course of her employment \nwith the respondents when she sustained the compensable injuries to her \n\nSALLEE - H109799   21\n  \n \n \nleft knee and cervical spine, because travel was a necessary part of the \nclaimant’s employment.  See Olsten Kimberly Quality Care, supra.     \nB.   Temporary Disability \nThe respondents state on appeal to the Full Commission that they \npaid temporary total disability benefits beginning December 8, 2021 until \nMarch 14, 2022.  The claimant contends that she is entitled to additional \ntemporary total disability benefits beginning June 20, 2022 and continuing \nuntil a date yet to be determined.  The Full Commission finds that the \nclaimant did not prove she was entitled to additional temporary total \ndisability benefits.   \nThe claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable unscheduled injury to her cervical spine on \nDecember 7, 2021.  For an unscheduled injury, temporary total disability is \nthat period within the healing period in which the employee suffers a total \nincapacity to earn wages.  Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. \n244, 613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).  “Healing period” means that period for \nhealing of an injury resulting from an accident.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(12)(Repl. 2012).  The healing period continues until the employee is as \nfar restored as the permanent character of her injury will permit.  Arkansas \nHighway & Transp. Dep’t v. McWilliams, 41 Ark. App. 1, 846 S.W.2d 670 \n\nSALLEE - H109799   22\n  \n \n \n(1993).  The determination of when the healing period ends is a question of \nfact for the Commission.  Id. \nIn the present matter, the claimant sustained a compensable cervical \nstrain on December 7, 2021.  Dr. Cheyne assigned work restrictions \nbeginning December 22, 2021.  The respondents provided reasonable \nACCOMMODATION WORK REQUIREMENTS beginning December 27, \n2021.  However, the respondent-carrier continued to pay temporary total \ndisability benefits until March 14, 2022.  Dr. Smith released the claimant to \nreturn to restricted work beginning March 15, 2022, and as we have noted, \nthe claimant agreed on cross-examination that the respondent-employer \naccommodated the work restrictions assigned by Dr. Smith.  The claimant \nalso agreed on cross-examination that she was not totally incapacitated \nfrom earning wages.  The evidence does not demonstrate that the claimant \nremained within a healing period for her compensable cervical strain at any \ntime after March 14, 2022.  Temporary disability benefits cannot be \nawarded after an employee’s healing period has ended.  Milligan v. West \nTree Serv., 57 Ark. App. 14, 946 S.W.2d 697 (1997).  Nor does the record \nshow that the claimant was totally or partially incapacitated from earning \nwages at any time after March 14, 2022.  The claimant therefore did not \nprove she was entitled to any additional temporary total disability benefits \nwith regard to her unscheduled compensable injury.   \n\nSALLEE - H109799   23\n  \n \n \nThe claimant also sustained a scheduled compensable injury to her \nleft knee on December 7, 2021.  An employee who has sustained a \nscheduled injury is to receive temporary total disability benefits during her \nhealing period or until she returns to work.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n521(a)(Repl. 2012); Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, \n41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  The healing period is that period for healing of the \ninjury which continues until the permanent character of the injury will permit.  \nNix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  \nWhether an employee’s healing period has ended is a question of fact for \nthe Commission.  Ketcher Roofing Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark. App. 63, 901 \nS.W.2d 25 (1995). \nThe claimant on appeal argues that she is entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits from June 20, 2022 to a date yet to be determined.  The \nclaimant cites Superior Industries v. Thomaston, 72 Ark. 7, 32 S.W.3d 52 \n(2000), and contends, “As in Superior, here this claimant did not refuse the \nwork even though she was working in pain.  She was not terminated by \nchoice; and therefore, she should not be denied TTD.”   \nIn Superior Industries v. Thomaston, supra, the Arkansas Court of \nAppeals awarded temporary total disability benefits even though the \nclaimant’s employment was terminated after he returned to light-duty work.  \nNevertheless, Superior Industries was limited to its facts and did not involve \n\nSALLEE - H109799   24\n  \n \n \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-521(Repl. 2012), the statute applicable to the \nclaimant’s scheduled injury.  See Robertson v. Pork Group, Inc., 2011 Ark. \nApp. 448, 384 S.W.3d 639.  The claimant in the present matter returned to \nappropriate and suitable work following her scheduled injury.  According to \nthe evidence of record, however, the claimant was patently dishonest with \nthe respondent-employer with regard to the claimant’s employment duties.  \nThe respondents’ Director of Human Resources documented on June 28, \n2022 that the claimant falsely reported making several potential business \ncontacts.  When the respondents attempted to investigate these \ndiscrepancies, the claimant abruptly ended the conversation.  The \nrespondents appropriately terminated the claimant’s employment effective \nJune 28, 2022.  The Commission is not required to believe the testimony of \nany witness, and may accept and translate into findings of fact only those \nportions of testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Tucker v. Roberts-McNutt, \nInc., 342 Ark. 511, 29 S.W.3d 706 (2000).  With regard to the termination of \nthe claimant’s employment, we find that portion of the claimant’s testimony \nunworthy of belief.  An indicator of the claimant’s lack of credibility with \nregard to her work record is the claimant’s delivery to the respondents of a \ncounterfeit diploma purportedly issued from Michigan State University \nconferring upon the claimant a “Master of Social Work.”     \n\nSALLEE - H109799   25\n  \n \n \nThe Full Commission finds that the claimant’s entitlement to \ntemporary disability benefits ended when she returned to work within her \nphysical restrictions.  See Turcios v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 471, \n504 S.W.3d 622.  The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant \nat hearing: \nQ.  On June 29th of ’22 is when you received a termination \nletter.  Right? \n A.  I’m sorry, what date again? \n Q.  June 29\nth\n of “22? \nA.  I am not sure exactly, the exact date I received it, but I \nbelieve the letter was dated the 28\nth\n, but I don’t recall the \nexact date I received the box with the termination letter in it. \nQ.  Had you not been terminated, those accommodations \nwould have continued.  Right? \nA.  As far as I am aware, yes.   \n \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved she sustained a compensable injury to her cervical \nspine and left knee on December 7, 2021.  We find that the claimant did not \nprove she was entitled to additional temporary disability benefits.  The \nclaimant proved that the medical treatment of record was reasonably \nnecessary in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  \nThere are currently no recommendations of record for additional medical \ntreatment.  For prevailing in part on appeal, the claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to a fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012). \n \n\nSALLEE - H109799   26\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 determination that the \nclaimant has met her burden of proving that she suffered a compensable \ninjury to her cervical spine and left knee on December 7, 2021. \n The outstanding issue in this case is whether the claimant was \nengaged in a work-related activity at the time of her car accident on the \nmorning of December 7, 2021 as required by our Rules.  See Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i).  A compensable injury does not include an injury \nthat is inflicted upon the employee at a time when employment services are \nnot being performed.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iii).  The phrase \"in \nthe course of employment\" and the term \"employment services\" are not \ndefined in the Workers' Compensation Act.  Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. \nConner, 373 Ark. 372, 284 S.W.3d 57 (2008).  An employee is performing \nemployment services when he or she is doing something that is generally \nrequired by his or her employer.  Id.; Pifer v. Single Source Transp., 347 \n\nSALLEE - H109799   27\n  \n \n \nArk. 851, 69 S.W.3d 1 (2002).  We use the same test to determine whether \nan employee is performing employment services as we do when \ndetermining whether an employee is acting within the course and scope of \nemployment.  Jivan v. Econ. Inn & Suites, 370 Ark. 414, 260 S.W.3d 281 \n(2007).  The test is whether the injury occurred within the time and space \nboundaries of the employment, when the employee was carrying out the \nemployer's purpose or advancing the employer's interest, directly or \nindirectly.  Id.  The critical inquiry is whether the interests of the employer \nwere being directly or indirectly advanced by the employee at the time of \nthe injury.  Conner, 373 Ark. 372, 284 S.W.3d 57.  Moreover, the issue of \nwhether an employee was performing employment services within the \ncourse of employment depends on the particular facts and circumstances of \neach case.  Id. \n The particular facts of this case rest on the claimant’s credibility as a \nwitness. \"Where there are contradictions in the evidence, it is within the \nCommission's province to reconcile conflicting evidence and to determine \nthe true facts.\"  Templeton v. Dollar Gen. Store, 2014 Ark. App. 248, 434 \nS.W.3d 417 (2014).  Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and \nthe weight to be given to their testimony are within the exclusive province of \nthe Commission.  Long v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98 Ark. App. 70, 79, 250 \nS.W.3d 263, 271 (2007).  A claimant's testimony is deemed controverted as \n\nSALLEE - H109799   28\n  \n \n \na matter of law.  See Ester v. Nat'l Home Ctrs. Inc., 335 Ark. 356, 981 \nS.W.2d 91(1998).  The Commission is not required to believe the testimony \nof the claimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into fact \nonly those portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Long, 98 \nArk. App. at 79-80, 250 S.W.3d at 271-72. \n The ALJ astutely enumerated five individual reasons why the \nclaimant’s testimony cannot be trusted.  First, when applying for her \nposition with the respondent employer, the claimant submitted a fake \ndiploma representing that she had a master’s degree in social work from \nMichigan State University.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 7, 13).  The claimant admitted \nin her testimony that she did not have a master’s degree and had never \nenrolled in Michigan State.  (Hrng. Tr. Pp. 23-24).  Although the claimant \ntestified that this was a “display for my future achievements,” it is, more \nsimply put, a total fabrication and disregard for the truth.  (See Hrng. Tr., P. \n23).  Additionally, on her resume, the claimant represented that she was a \nlicensed social worker and presented a document representing a \nprovisional social work license.  (Resp. Ex. 1, P. 13).  This is another total \nfabrication and disregard for the truth. The claimant has never been a \nlicensed social worker.  (Hrng. Tr., P. 24).  The claimant testified that these \nfabrications “might be beneficial . . . to help me get the job, but then I \nrealized later that the job never required any type of social work degree.” \n\nSALLEE - H109799   29\n  \n \n \n(Hrng. Tr., P. 23). The degree in question “was made by me.”  Id.  As to her \npurported provisional social work license, the claimant testified that she \n“took the test, but I did not pass it.”  (Hrng. Tr., P. 24).  During the claimant’s \nemployment with the respondent employer, the claimant used the \nabbreviation “PLMSW” in her email signature, giving the incorrect \nimpression that she was a provisionally licensed master social worker. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 60).  Upon questioning, the claimant admitted she did not \nhave a provisional license and that the use of LMSW was not accurate. \n(Hrng. Tr., P. 24). \nThe claimant continued her habit of not telling the truth throughout \nher employment with Heartland, falsifying reports reflecting that she met \nwith Beth Stites at Creative Counseling Solutions when it was later \ndiscovered that no one worked there by that name and no Heartland \nbrochures were left at their offices.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 96-100).  \nLater, in June 2022, the claimant was given a list of businesses to \ncontact and she made entries into the computer system reflecting that she \nhad done so.  When Betsy Curtis with Heartland followed up with those \nbusinesses to ensure that contact had been made, she could not confirm \nthat any contacts had been made. In fact, for many of these calls, Ms. \nCurtis learned that the person that the claimant purported to contact either \ndid not work for the business, was on vacation for the summer, or had not \n\nSALLEE - H109799   30\n  \n \n \nreceived a call from the claimant.  (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 101-103).  The claimant \nwas fired from the respondent employer for this incident.  I am in agreement \nwith the ALJ that the claimant’s abject refusal to directly answer any \nquestion regarding the falsification of contacts was unimpressive and does \nnot add any credibility to the claimant’s testimony. \n The Majority takes the respondent carrier’s initial acceptance of this \nclaim as compensable as proof that the claimant was providing employment \nservices for Heartland at the time of her December 2021 accident.  The \ninitial acceptance of the claim by the respondents is absolutely no proof that \nthe claimant was performing employment services at the time of the \naccident.  The Commission is well aware that many cases are initially \naccepted as compensable and later denied when the carrier’s investigation \nis completed and respondents should not be punished as a result and their \ninitial acceptance is not and should not be treated as proof.  \nThe Majority fails to recognize that the claimant’s irrefutable history \nof not telling the truth to benefit herself has a direct impact on the \ncompensability of this claim.  The Majority spends little time addressing the \nissue of credibility when the credibility of the claimant is the crux of this \ncase.  The ALJ, who was able to observe the demeanor and credibility of \nthe claimant, correctly determined that the claimant was not a credible \nwitness and denied her claim.  The claimant fabricated her resume, a \n\nSALLEE - H109799   31\n  \n \n \ndiploma from Michigan State, and a social work license in order to be hired \nby the respondent employer and was ultimately fired due to her inability to \nbe truthful.  \nThere is no record reflecting any appointments that the claimant had \nset for the date of her accident, and she did not name any offices she \nintended on visiting specifically.  Beyond her own statements made to make \nthis appear to be a work-related injury, there is no testimony or evidence \nproving that the claimant was indeed traveling to Little Rock for work.  The \nclaimant did not call her passenger in the accident, Mary Flores, to \nsubstantiate her claim, but rather rested her entire claim on her own self-\nserving testimony.  It is unreasonable to take the claimant’s word as fact \nconsidering her history of being unable to tell the truth, and I believe the \nclaimant has failed to meet her burden of proving that she was providing \nemployment services at the time of her accident on December 7, 2021. \n The respondents clearly proved the claimant is not truthful and not \ncredible.  Even more importantly, the claimant admitted under oath that she \nfalsified documents and did not tell the truth.  She admitted under oath that \nshe stated on her resume she had a master’s degree from Michigan State \nwhen she had never even enrolled there.  She went so far as to provide the \nrespondent employer with a fake diploma from Michigan State.  She also \nstated on her resume she was a licensed social worker experienced in all \n\nSALLEE - H109799   32\n  \n \n \naspects of social services and provided a print out from the Arkansas Social \nWork Licensing Board of her provisional license when in fact she admitted \nunder oath that she did not pass the social work exam and had never held a \nprovisional license.  She also admitted at the hearing that she used LMSW \nas the signature line on her email when she does not have a degree in \nsocial work or a license to practice social work. \n The only true issue in this case is whether the claimant was a \ncredible witness. The only proof presented was her own self-serving \ntestimony.  The claimant has admitted under oath that she is not truthful, \nfabricated her resume, produced a fake diploma, provided a printout from \nthe Social Work Licensing Board when she had failed the licensing exam, \nand held herself out as a licensed master social worker when she had \nnever received a degree or license in that field.  If the claimant was this \nuntruthful just to obtain a job with Heartland, it defies reason to believe her \ntestimony is credible while she is seeking workers’ compensation benefits. \n To accept the testimony of the claimant, who under oath has \nadmitted she is not truthful, only rewards her deceitful behavior.  I agree \nwith the ALJ that the claimant is not credible and that her claim should be \ndenied. \nFor the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n\nSALLEE - H109799   33\n  \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H109799 GINA SALLEE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNIVERSAL HELTH SERVICES, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 9, 2023","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.303Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H109799-2023-06-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sallee_Gina_H109799_20230609.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}