{"id":"full_commission-H204207-2024-07-18","awcc_number":"H204207","decision_date":"2024-07-18","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Bj Wallace","employer_name":"Garland County Habitat For Humanity","title":"WALLACE VS. GARLAND COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AWCC# H204207 JULY 18, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","shoulder","cervical","sprain","rotator cuff","neck","fracture"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wallace_BJ_H204207_20240718.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Wallace_BJ_H204207_20240718.pdf","text_length":24333,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H204207 \n \nB. J. WALLACE, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nGARLAND COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nBANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE CO./ \nESIS, INC., CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JULY 18, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE LAURA BETH YORK, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE ERIC NEWKIRK, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nFebruary 1, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove he sustained a compensable injury.  After reviewing the \nentire record de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not \nestablish a compensable injury by medical evidence supported by objective \nfindings.     \nI.  HISTORY \n B. J. Wallace, now age 69, testified that he became employed with \nthe respondents, Garland County Habitat for Humanity, in about October \n\nWALLACE - H204207  2\n  \n \n \n2021.  The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed at all \npertinent times.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  Tell me what happened on March 8\nth\n, 2022? \nA.  Okay.  We got a call for a rep – for a washing machine, \nand so we went out front, they was three of us.  They was a \ngreen van that was pulled up sideways, and the center doors \nopened up.  And so we got the washing machine in but the \nguy had a – a lip there about a – oh, probably two inches high \nso you couldn’t push it in.  So one of the guys went around \nand was gettin’ into the van to try to lift the washing machine \nup.  Well, the other guy that was helping me on the left side, \nhe dropped his end and so that left me with a washing \nmachine trying to fall out....I’m trying to grab it and hold it and \nit’s tryin’ to fall out at the same time, and that’s – that’s where I \ngot hurt.... \nQ.  Tell me where you hurt.   \nA.  I hurt – it was my shoulders and around in the back part \naround my scapula area, especially the right scapula, and \nthen the – If you’re trying to ask for the pain now or right then, \nit wouldn’t just an onset right then because after – it was \nafterwards when I went to feelin’ a lot of the pain.  But it goes \nacross my back over to my left one, but not as bad.... \nQ.  You reported the injury? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Okay.  And your employer eventually sent you to the \ndoctor.  Is that correct? \nA.  Yes. \n \n According to the record, the claimant treated at CHI St. Vincent Hot \nSprings on March 16, 2022.  It was reported at that time, “The problem \nbegan on 3/8/2022.  1\nst\n visit; 3/16/22:  helping load a washing machine – \nwound up with all the weight when loading.  Developed pain mostly in the \nshoulder blade area, burning, stinging and interferes with sleep laying on R \n\nWALLACE - H204207  3\n  \n \n \nshoulder, tried salonpas, no prior shoulder issues.”  Physical examination \non March 16, 2022 revealed the following: \n exam R shoulder, No swelling, bruising or wound present. \n TTP medial to scapula and across sup. trap \n Limited ROM \n Mild crepitus with PROM \n Xray AC jt arthritis \n L shoulder, No swelling, bruising or wound present \n TTP medial to scapula \n Limited ROM \n Mild crepitus with PROM. \n xray with AC jt arthritis \n Cervical Spine; \n No swelling, bruising or wound present. \n No Palpable spasm noted \n TTP  \n Limited ROM \n xray:  ant. spur of c3.   \n \n The diagnosis was “1.  Sprain of other specified parts of left shoulder \ngirdle, initial encounter[.]  2.  Sprain of other specified parts of right shoulder \ngirdle, initial encounter[.]”  Dr. Mark Larey noted, “The cause of this problem \nis related to work activities.”  Dr. Larey recommended conservative \ntreatment. \n An x-ray of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on March 16, \n2022 with the impression, “Normal alignment.  Disk spaces maintained.  \nMild anterior spurring C3 and C5.”  An x-ray of the claimant’s right shoulder \nwas taken on March 16, 2022 with the findings, “There are no acute \nfractures or dislocations.  What is seen of the scapula appears \nunremarkable.  AC joint arthrosis.”  An x-ray of the claimant’s left shoulder \n\nWALLACE - H204207  4\n  \n \n \nwas taken on March 16, 2022 with the findings, “There are no acute \nfractures or dislocations.  What is seen of the scapula appears \nunremarkable.  AC joint arthrosis.”   \n Dr. Larey continued to provide follow-up treatment.   \n An MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder was taken on June 14, 2022: \nHISTORY:  67-year-old male with right shoulder pain after an \ninjury at work.... \nFINDINGS:  Moderate hypertrophic changes are present \nalong the acromioclavicular joint.  There is a type II acromion.  \nThe muscles and tendons comprising the rotator cuff are \npreserved without tear or tendinopathy.  The labrum is \npreserved.  There is mild chondromalacia along the \nglenohumeral joint.  There is no bone marrow edema or \nsubchondral cyst formation.  There is no joint effusion.  The \ndeltoid muscle is normal in appearance.   \nIMPRESSION:  1.  No evidence of rotator cuff or labral \npathology. \n2.  Mild chondromalacia along the glenohumeral joint. \n \n An x-ray of the claimant’s left shoulder was also taken on June 14, \n2022: \nHISTORY:  67-year-old male with left shoulder pain after \ninjury at work.... \nFINDINGS:  Moderate hypertrophic changes are present \nalong the acromioclavicular joint.  There is a type II acromion.  \nThe muscles and tendons comprising the rotator cuff are \npreserved.  The labrum is grossly normal in appearance.  \nThere appears to be mild chondromalacia along the \nglenohumeral joint.  No subchondral cysts are seen along the \nglenohumeral joint.  There is no bone marrow edema.  There \nis small subchondral cyst in the greater tuberosity of the \nhumerus.  The deltoid muscle is normal in appearance. \nIMPRESSION:  1.  Hypertrophic changes along the \nacromioclavicular joint. \n2.  No evidence of rotator cuff or labral pathology. \n\nWALLACE - H204207  5\n  \n \n \n3.  Mild chondromalacia along the glenohumeral joint.   \n \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Larey on June 16, 2022: \nThe problem began on 3/8/2022....here for MRI review.  Still \npain occurring in R scapular region and often at night when he \nis sleeping gets numb/tingling feeling going down R arm into \nfinger.  Hasn’t been having to lift as he has been on light duty.  \n[Scheduled] to start PT next week.... \nDiscussed he will wind up on permanent restrictions as I don’t \nsee him being able to resume full lifting.  Will request \nEMG/NCS of R upper extremity.  Go ahead with PT.  Recheck \npost EMG or PT whichever is completed first.... \n \n The claimant received physical therapy visits at Hot Springs Sports \nMedicine beginning June 22, 2022.  The last physical therapy treatment of \nrecord took place on or about July 22, 2022.  According to a statement at \nhearing by the claimant’s attorney, the respondent-carrier paid for all of the \nmedical treatment provided the claimant through approximately July 22, \n2022.      \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Now, I know that in July of 2023, about a year after this \naccident at work that we’re here on today, you had a – you \nhad a head injury.  Is that correct? \nA.  Yes.  I don’t know if you’d call it a injury.  I raised the – the \nhood was up on the car.  I raised up, and when I raised my \nhead it come – where it latches, that come loose.  Well kinda \ndropped my head a little bit and it – it didn’t – it wasn’t like the \nwhole thing come down on my head.... \nQ.  Did you sustain any injury to your cervical spine in that \naccident or was that your head? \nA.  It was just my head.... \nQ.  That did not happen at work. \nA.  No.   \n \n\nWALLACE - H204207  6\n  \n \n \n A CT of the claimant’s head was taken on or about July 4, 2023 with \nthe impression, “No acute intracranial abnormality.”  It was noted at that \ntime, “68-year-old male on Xarelto who presents after head injury with some \nintermittent headaches and neck pain.  Differential diagnoses include skull \nfracture, intracranial bleed, or cervical spine fracture.”   \n A CT of the claimant’s cervical spine was taken on July 4, 2023 with \nthe following findings: \nAlignment of the craniocervical junction is preserved.  \nVertebral bodies of the cervical spine demonstrate normal \nheights and alignment.  Disc spaces are maintained.  \nPrevertebral and paravertebral soft tissues are within normal \nlimits. \nIMPRESSION:  No traumatic fracture or malalignment of the \ncervical spine.   \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on July 26, 2023.  According to the text \nof the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The claimant contends \nthat on March 18, 2022, the claimant was loading a washing machine into a \nvehicle with a co-worker, and the co-worker was unable to hold onto his end \ncausing the claimant to sustain an injury to his neck, both his right and left \nshoulders, and his lower back.  The respondents initially accepted the claim \nas compensable and paid some medical benefits.  He contends that on \nMarch 16, 2022, the claimant received treatment from Dr. Mark Larey, who \nordered twelve (12) sessions of physical therapy (PT) and placed the \nclaimant on light duty work restrictions.  On March 14, 2022, Dr. Larey \n\nWALLACE - H204207  7\n  \n \n \nhalted the PT and ordered MRIs of the claimant’s left and right shoulders.  \nThe claimant contends that June 14, 2022, MRIs revealed evidence of \nrotator cuff and labral pathology, as well as chondromalacia along the \nglenohumeral joint of both the claimant’s left and right shoulders.  The \nclaimant contends that, thereafter, on June 16, 2022, Dr. Larey opined the \nclaimant should continue PT, and he ordered an EMG/NCS study, noting \nthe claimant would eventually need to be placed on permanent restrictions.  \nThe claimant contends at this point the respondents denied the claim and \nstopped paying for all medical treatment.  Therefore, for all the reasons set \nforth above the claimant contends he sustained compensable injuries as set \nforth above within the course and scope of his employment, and that he is \nentitled to additional medical, and TTD benefits, and his attorney is entitled \nto attorney’s fees.  The claimant specifically reserves any and all other \nissues for future litigation and/or determination.”   \n The parties stipulated that the respondents “have paid some medical \nbenefits, but they controvert any and all additional medical and/or indemnity \nbenefits other than those they have paid to date.”  The respondents \ncontended, “The respondents contend the claimant was involved in an \nadmitted work incident/event on March 8, 2022, while he was assisting \nanother employee to load a washing machine into a vehicle.  The \nrespondents contend they initially accepted the claim as compensable, and \n\nWALLACE - H204207  8\n  \n \n \npaid some medical benefits; however, relevant medical records and \ndiagnostic studies conducted after the date of the alleged injuries failed to \nreveal any acute or other ‘trauma related’ objective medical findings of any \ninjuries as the Act requires.  Instead, the only medical findings were \ndegenerative in nature, and not causally connected or related to the \nadmitted work incident/event.  Consequently, the respondents contend all \nthe subject conditions were clearly preexisting and not work-related or \n‘compensable’ within the Act’s meaning.  Accordingly, the respondents \ncontend the alleged injuries to the claimant’s neck, both his right and his left \nshoulders, and lower back/spine are not compensable since there are no \nobjective medical findings which are causally connected or related to the \nsubject March 8, 2022, work incident/event.  Alternatively, in the event the \nCommission deems this claim to be compensable, the respondents contend \nthe claimant sustained nothing more than a temporary aggravation(s) of \nclearly and demonstrably preexisting conditions for which they have paid all \nappropriate medical benefits, and the claimant is entitled to no additional \nmedical or other benefits pursuant to the Act.  Furthermore, the \nrespondents contend that if the respondents have and continue to employ \nthe claimant on a full-time basis, this claim is a ‘medical only’ claim.  \nTherefore, if the Commission deems the claimant is entitled to any \nadditional medical benefits, the respondents contend he is not entitled to \n\nWALLACE - H204207  9\n  \n \n \nTTD benefits since he continued to work on a full-time basis without any \nlost time or wages.  Finally, and alternatively, the respondents contend that \nif the Commission awards additional medical or indemnity benefits to the \nclaimant, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-411 (Lexis \nReplacement 2023) they are entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit/offset for \nany such benefits paid to the claimant by any and all third-party payor(s), \nincluding but not limited to, health insurance, short- and/or long-term \ndisability (STD or LTD) benefits, as well as unemployment benefits.  The \nrespondents specifically reserve any and all other issues for future litigation \nand/or determination.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1.  Whether the claimant sustained “compensable injuries” \nwithin the meaning of the Arkansas’ Workers’ Compensation \nAct (the Act) to his neck, both his right and left shoulders, and \nhis lower back on March 8, 2023.   \n2.  If the claimant’s alleged injuries are deemed compensable, \nthe extent to which he is entitled to additional medical and \nTTD benefits. \n3.  Whether the claimant’s attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted fee on these facts.   \n4.  The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for \nfuture litigation and/or determination.   \n \n A hearing was held on November 3, 2023.  The claimant testified \nthat he was suffering from increased pain in his shoulders and back.  The \nclaimant testified that he wanted to undergo electrodiagnostic testing \nrecommended by Dr. Larey.  The respondents at hearing proffered a set of \n\nWALLACE - H204207  10\n  \n \n \nmedical exhibits, “Proffered Respondent Exhibit 1.”  The administrative law \njudge did not allow admission of this exhibit into evidence.  The \nadministrative law judge filed an opinion on February 1, 2024 and found \nthat the claimant failed to prove he sustained a compensable injury.  The \nadministrative law judge therefore denied and dismissed the claim.  The \nclaimant appeals to the Full Commission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Supp. \n2023), provides, in pertinent part: \n  (A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external physical \nharm to the body ... arising out of and in the course of \nemployment and which requires medical services or results in \ndisability or death.  An injury is “accidental” only if it is caused \nby a specific incident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence[.]   \n \n A compensable injury must also be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D)(Supp. \n2023).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Supp. \n2023).  The requirement that a compensable injury be established by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings applies only to the \nexistence and extent of the injury.  Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. \nApp. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).   \n\nWALLACE - H204207  11\n  \n \n \n Administrative law judges and the Full Commission are charged with \nstrictly construing the provisions of Act 796 of 1993.  See Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-704(c)(3)(Supp. 2023).  Strict construction means narrow \nconstruction and requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not \nclearly expressed.  Hapney v. Rheem Manuf. Co., 341 Ark. 548, 26 S.W.3d \n771 (2000).  The doctrine of strict construction requires a fact-finder to use \nthe plain meaning of the language employed.  Holaday v. Fraker, 323 Ark. \n522, 920 S.W.2d 4 (1996).  Noticeably absent from the language of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Supp. 2023) et seq. is any requirement that \nan employee prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained \nan “acute” injury.     \n The employee has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the \nevidence that he sustained a compensable injury.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(E)(i)(Supp. 2023).  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). \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter that the \nclaimant failed to prove he sustained a “compensable injury.”  It is the duty \nof the Full Commission to enter findings in accordance with the \npreponderance of the evidence and not on whether there is substantial \nevidence to support an administrative law judge’s findings.  Roberts v. Leo \n\nWALLACE - H204207  12\n  \n \n \nLevi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184, 649 S.W.2d 402 (1983), citing Jones v. \nScheduled Skyways, Inc., 1 Ark. App. 44, 612 S.W.2d 333 (1981).  The Full \nCommission reviews an administrative law judge’s opinion de novo, and it is \nthe duty of the Full Commission to conduct its own fact-finding independent \nof that done by an administrative law judge.  Crawford v. Pace Indus., 55 \nArk. App. 60, 929 S.W.2d 727 (1996).  The Full Commission enters its own \nfindings in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence of record.  \nTyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 31 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990).   \n The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant did \nnot establish a compensable injury by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings.  The claimant contended that he sustained an accidental \ninjury arising out of and in the course of employment on March 8, 2022.  \nThe claimant testified that he felt pain in his shoulders and back after lifting \na washing machine.  The claimant did not establish a compensable injury \nby medical evidence supported by objective findings.  The claimant treated \nat CHI St. Vincent Hot Springs beginning March 16, 2022.  Physical \nexamination of the claimant’s right shoulder and neck did not reveal any \nobjective medical findings.  “TTP (Tenderness to Palpation)” was noted, but \n“Tenderness” is not an objective medical finding establishing a \ncompensable injury.  Rodriguez v. M. McDaniel Co., Inc., 98 Ark. App. 138, \n252 S.W.2d 146 (2007).  Complaints of pain and tenderness are not \n\nWALLACE - H204207  13\n  \n \n \nobjective medical findings.  Ozark Natural Food v. Pierson, 2012 Ark. App. \n133, 389 S.W.3d 105, citing Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(Supp. 2023).     \n There were no reports in the present matter of objective medical \nfindings such as bruising, swelling, or muscle spasms.  Nor is there any \nprobative evidence demonstrating that “Mild anterior spurring C3 and C5” \nwas causally related to the alleged March 8, 2022 accidental injury.  There \nis no medical evidence supported by objective findings to establish the \nexistence and extent of an injury allegedly occurring March 8, 2022.  See \nFord v. Chemipulp Process, Inc., 63 Ark. App. 260, 977 S.W.2d 5 (1998).  \nThe MRI testing of the claimant’s right shoulder and left shoulder on June \n14, 2022 did not establish a compensable injury supported by objective \nfindings.  The evidence does not demonstrate that “mild chondromalacia” or \n“type II acromion” were objective medical findings establishing a \ncompensable injury.  We also note that an MRI taken July 4, 2023 showed \n“No traumatic fracture or malalignment of the cervical spine.”   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not establish a compensable injury by medical \nevidence supported by objective findings.  The claimant did not prove that \nhe sustained a compensable injury to his shoulders, neck, or back on \nMarch 8, 2022 or any other date.  The Full Commission notes that \n“Proffered Respondent Exhibit 1” has not been admitted into the evidence \n\nWALLACE - H204207  14\n  \n \n \nof record, and we have not considered this exhibit in our de novo review.  \nThe Full Commission affirms the administrative law judge’s finding that the \nclaimant did not prove he sustained a compensable injury, and this claim is \nrespectfully denied and dismissed. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \nThe ALJ found that the Claimant failed to prove, by a preponderance \nof credible evidence that he sustained a compensable injury.  After \nconducting a thorough de novo review, I would rule in favor of the Claimant \nfor his compensable shoulder injury and that he is entitled to reasonable \nand necessary medical treatment for such injury.  \nTo establish a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence \nthe Claimant must prove: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course of \nemployment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm to the body \nwhich required medical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) medical \n\nWALLACE - H204207  15\n  \n \n \nevidence supported by objective findings, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-102(16), establishing the injury; and (4) that the injury was caused by a \nspecific and identifiable time and place of occurrence.  A compensable injury \nmust be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings and \nmedical opinions addressing compensability must be stated within a degree \nof medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 Ark. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d \n560 (2002).  \nAn 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).  Reasonable \nand necessary medical services may include those necessary to accurately \ndiagnose the nature and extent of the compensable injury; to reduce or \nalleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; or to maintain the \nlevel of healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of the damage \nproduced by the compensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 51 Ark. \nApp. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995).  \nOn March 8, 2021, Claimant was loading a washing machine into a \nvan with a co-worker when the co-worker accidentally dropped his end of \nthe washing machine and the Claimant attempted to hold all of the weight of \nthe washing machine to prevent it from falling off of the van.  The Claimant \nwas initially diagnosed with a sprain of his left and right shoulder by Dr. \n\nWALLACE - H204207  16\n  \n \n \nMark Larey.  Dr. Larey also noted the Claimant’s limited range of motion as \nwell as mild crepitus with passive range of motion.  Dr. Larey stated that the \nClaimant’s injuries were related to his work activities.  The Claimant \nunderwent an MRI on June 14, 2022, which revealed “chondromalacia \nalong the glenohumeral joint” of both his shoulders and “hypertrophy \nchanges along the acromioclavicular joint.”  Considering these objective \nfindings and the statement relating to causation it is my opinion that the \nClaimant sustained injuries to both his shoulders in his work accident.  \nAlthough the Claimant is approximately 69-years-old and may have had \nsome degeneration in his shoulders, when a work accident causes the \ncondition to become symptomatic the result is a compensable injury.  \nParker v. Atlantic Research Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W.3d 449 \n(2004). \nTherefore, I would rule that the Claimant has proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable injury of \nhis right and left shoulder.  Further, Claimant is entitled to such medical \ntreatment as may be reasonably necessary for his compensable injury \nincluding an EMG/NCS as recommended by Dr. Larey.  \n      \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H204207 B. J. WALLACE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GARLAND COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE CO./ ESIS, INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 18, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.223Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H204207-2024-07-18","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Wallace_BJ_H204207_20240718.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}