{"id":"full_commission-H205069-2024-04-09","awcc_number":"H205069","decision_date":"2024-04-09","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Erica Bearfield","employer_name":"Rock Region Metro","title":"BEARFIELD VS. ROCK REGION METRO AWCC# H205069 & H304225 APRIL 9, 2024","outcome":"reversed","outcome_keywords":["reversed:1"],"injury_keywords":["neck","shoulder","repetitive","sprain","back","rotator cuff"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bearfield_Erica_H205069-H304225_20240409.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Bearfield_Erica_H205069-H304225_20240409.pdf","text_length":24724,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NOS.  H205069 & H304225  \n \nERICA BEARFIELD, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nROCK REGION METRO,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nATA WC TRUST, INSURANCE CARRIER/ \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2024  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE STEVEN R. McNEELY, \nAttorney at Law, Jacksonville, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal and the claimant cross-appeals an \nadministrative law judge’s opinion filed October 11, 2023.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant proved she sustained a \ncompensable injury on March 15, 2022, but that the claimant did not prove \nshe sustained a compensable injury on September 3, 2021.  The \nadministrative law judge awarded medical treatment and temporary total \ndisability benefits.  After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full \nCommission finds that the claimant proved she sustained a compensable \ninjury on March 15, 2022.  The claimant proved that the medical treatment \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  2\n  \n \n \nof record provided after March 15, 2022 was reasonably necessary, and \nthat she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from July 26, 2022 \nthrough January 26, 2023.     \nI.  HISTORY \n Erica Rochelle Bearfield, now age 49, testified that she became \nemployed with the respondents, Rock Region Metro, in 2004.  Ms. Bearfield \ntestified that she drove a bus for the respondents.  The claimant testified \nthat beginning in 2020 she was required to open and close a “COVID \nshield” installed on Rock Region buses.  The claimant’s testimony indicated \nthat she was required to open and close the COVID shield 30-35 times per \nhour over the course of at least an eight-hour work shift driving the bus.  \nThe parties stipulated that the employee-employer relationship existed on \nSeptember 3, 2021.  The claimant testified that her right arm began hurting \napproximately a month before September 2021, and that she suffered from \nswelling in her neck and shoulder.  The claimant contended that she \n“sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder” on September 3, \n2021.   \n The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on September 17, 2021.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section \nof the Form AR-N indicated that the Place of Accident was “on duty on bus” \nand that the Date of Accident was September 15, 2021.  It was written on \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  3\n  \n \n \nthe Form AR-N that the claimant injured “Right side of neck,” and that the \ncause of injury was “Moving passenger bags on wheelchair to secure the \nchair the bags were heavy.” \n The record includes a Workplace Injury Triage & Reporting “Incident \nReport” describing a right shoulder injury.  The Incident Report indicated \nthat the Mechanism of Injury was “Repetitive Motion.”  Miriam Lawrence, \nN.P. reported on September 17, 2021, “The patient presents today with \nright shoulder, neck and arm pain from repetitive movement pulling on \nshield to board passengers and moving heavy bags.”  Miriam Lawrence \nassessed “1.  Right shoulder pain” and “2.  Sprain of right shoulder.”  An x-\nray of the claimant’s right shoulder was taken on September 17, 2021 with \nthe impression, “No radiographically evident acute abnormalities of the right \nshoulder.”      \n The claimant treated at Concentra Health Centers on September 21, \n2021, at which time the claimant was diagnosed with “Pain in right \nshoulder.”  The claimant was returned to work with no restrictions on \nSeptember 21, 2021.  The record indicates that the claimant returned to \nwork for the respondents.       \n The parties stipulated that the employee-employer relationship \nexisted on March 15, 2022.  The claimant contended that she sustained an \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  4\n  \n \n \n“additional injury or aggravation to her right shoulder” on March 15, 2022.  \nThe claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  What happened in March of 2022? \nA.  I started back doing like a lot of working overtime.  I was \ndoing a lot of work, you know, doing overtime, and – like the \n16-hour days, several days in a row, 16 hours.  And that day, I \nhad a wheelchair, yes.  And when I went back there to do my \nwheelchair, I felt it.  It was hurting real bad that day.  So when \nI went home, I called in the next day, and I told them – I called \nin to dispatch, and I told them that I wanted to call in sick \nbecause my shoulder was hurting.... \nQ.  Can you tell the judge if there was a difference between \nyour problems with your right shoulder in March of ’22 and \nback in September of the year before? \nA.  I wasn’t able to lift my arm to put my shirt on this time.  It \nwas more pain.  It was worse than the first time.   \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  You also told me in the deposition that on March 15\nth\n you \nfelt a pop when you were opening a shield to let people in.  Is \nthat right? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  You didn’t report it right then because you thought it was \njust a pain, and it would go away.  Is that right? \nA.  Yes.  That’s correct.   \n \n The claimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF \nINJURY, on March 29, 2022.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of \nthe Form AR-N indicated that the Date of Accident was March 15, 2022 and \nthat the employer was notified of same on March 29, 2022.  The claimant \nappeared to write on the Form AR-N that she injured her “Right left \nshoulder” and that the cause of injury was “Swelling and hard to raise up.” \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  5\n  \n \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s right shoulder was taken on March 31, 2022 \nwith the following impression: \n1.  Mild distal supraspinatus tendinosis with questionable tiny \nfocal full-thickness tear of the distal anterior leading edge of \nthe supraspinatus tendon insertion. \n2.  Sublabral foramen versus SLAP tear. \n3.  Small glenohumeral joint effusion.   \n4.  Mild degenerative arthrosis of the acromioclavicular joint. \n5.  Small amount of fluid in the subacromial subdeltoid bursa \nwhich may indicate mild bursitis.   \n \n The impression of Clint Bearden, PA-C on April 5, 2022 was “1.  \nGlenoid labral tear, right initial encounter,” “2.  Right shoulder pain,” and “3.  \nSprain of right shoulder.”   \n An x-ray of the claimant’s right shoulder was taken on April 7, 2022 \nwith the findings and impression, “Irregularity of the greater and lesser \ntuberosities is seen, most likely sequelae of underlying rotator cuff \ndegeneration/tear.  Subacromial spurring is noted.”   \nDr. Lawrence O’Malley reported on June 30, 2022: \nErica Bearfield is a 47 y.o. female patient seen today as a \nfollow up patient for workman’s Comp evaluation of right \nshoulder pain.  She works at Rock region Metro and has been \nthere for the last 17 half years.  She normally drives the city \nbus.  This involves her steering the bus, opening closing \ndoors and packaging wheelchairs for passengers.  She \ninitially began experiencing shoulder pain in September of \n2021.  There is no known injury at that time.  She was having \nlaterally based shoulder pain and some neck pain.  She went \nto Concentra where physical therapy was prescribed and she \nhad an intramuscular steroid injection.  Her pain did improve \nbut never completely went away from that episode.  Then \nstarting Around March 15\nth\n she had [an] increase in her \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  6\n  \n \n \nshoulder pain which was worse than it was back in \nSeptember.  She did well 1 round of physical therapy and saw \na provider at Concentra where an MRI was ordered.  After \nMRI was completed she was placed on light duty with no use \nof the right shoulder [and no bus driving].  Since March her \npain [has] been anterior and laterally based.  [Has] been \nworse with any lifting or overhead activity.... \nPatient states that when she [returned] to work at full duty she \nhad an increase in pain.  It has been difficult to complete her \njob as a driver.... \nIMAGING:  Radiographs right shoulder ordered and \ninterpreted in clinic today:  Overall normal bony alignment.  No \nsignificant abnormalities noted.   \nOutside MRI reviewed and interpreted today:  Shows some \nmild cuff tendinosis but no frank rotator cuff tear.   \n \n Dr. O’Malley gave the following impression:  “Erica Bearfield is a 47 \ny.o. female with right shoulder pain secondary to overuse with biceps and \nrotator cuff tendinitis.  PLAN:  Patient has not had any lasting improvement \nfrom conservative therapy.  We discussed surgical intervention as a \ntreatment option and she wishes to proceed with surgery.”   \n On July 6, 2022, a Claims Specialist corresponded with Rita Vaughn, \nRN, Orthopaedic Workers’ Compensation Liaison, UAMS:  “Can you please \nask Dr. O’Malley to address if the major cause of Erica’s need for treatment \nis work related?”  Dr. O’Malley replied on July 6, 2022, “No I can’t say that \ngreater than 51% of the current issues are due to her work.  Thanks.”   \n Dr. O’Malley performed surgery on July 26, 2022:  “1.  Right shoulder \narthroscopy with arthroscopic biceps tenodesis.  2.  Posterior labral repair.  \n3.  Extensive debridement intra-articularly and also subacromial space.  4.  \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  7\n  \n \n \nSubacromial decompression.”  The post-operative diagnosis was “1.  Right \nshoulder biceps tearing.  2.  Subacromial impingement.  3.  Posterior labral \ntear, superior labral tearing.”   \n The claimant was provided physical therapy following surgery.   \n Dr. O’Malley performed additional surgery on January 11, 2023:  \n“Right shoulder arthroscopy with lysis of adhesions and manipulation.”  The \npost-operative diagnosis was “Right shoulder acromioclavicular joint \narthritis.”   \n The claimant followed up with Dr. O’Malley on January 26, 2023: \nErica Rochelle Bearfield is a 47 y.o. year old female patient \nwho comes in today 2 weeks out from right shoulder \narthroscopy with lysis of adhesions and manipulation under \nanesthesia.  She states she is doing well.  She is doing \nphysical therapy at Harris and Renschaw, she is happy with \nthe progress she has made.  She is not having any pain.  She \nis ready to return to work.  She is a bus driver for the City of \nLittle Rock.... \nWe will give her a return to work note today with no \nrestrictions.... \n \n The claimant testified that she returned to work on or about February \n11, 2023.   \n Dr. O’Malley noted in part on March 13, 2023, “She has made great \nprogress.  She is back at work without any issues....We will see her back \non an as-needed basis.”   \n A pre-hearing order was filed on August 2, 2023.  The parties \nstipulated that the respondents “initially accepted this claim as medical-only \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  8\n  \n \n \nand paid some benefits.  Respondents now deny claims in their entirety.”  \nAccording to the pre-hearing order, the parties agreed to litigate the \nfollowing issues: \n1.  Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her \nright shoulder on 9/3/2021. \n2.  Are there objective findings of an acute injury on 9/3/2021. \n3.  Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable medical and \nindemnity benefits from the date of onset to a yet \nundetermined date. \n4.  Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her \nright shoulder on 3/15/2022.   \n5.  Are there objective findings of an acute injury on \n3/15/2022. \n6.  Whether Claimant is entitled to reasonable and necessary \nmedical treatment, including two surgeries performed by Dr. \nLawrence O’Malley, including out of pocket expense, mileage \nand reimbursement for private health insurance. \n7.  Whether Claimant is entitled to Temporary Total Disability \n(TTD) following her 3/15/2022 injury for approximately 8 \nmonths, specific dates to be provided. \n8.  Attorney’s fees.  All other issues are reserved.   \n \n   A hearing was held on September 28, 2023.  At that time, the \nclaimant contended that she was entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits from July 26, 2022 through January 26, 2023.  An administrative \nlaw judge filed an opinion on October 11, 2023.  The administrative law \njudge found that the claimant proved she sustained a compensable injury \non March 15, 2022, but that the claimant did not prove she sustained a \ncompensable injury on September 3, 2021.  The administrative law judge \nawarded medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits.  The \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  9\n  \n \n \nrespondents appeal to the Full Commission and the claimant cross-\nappeals. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. \n2012), 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 be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(E)(i)(Repl. \n2012).  “Objective findings” are those findings which cannot come under the \nvoluntary control of the patient.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. \n2012). \n The 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).  \n The Commission must strictly construe the provisions of Act 796 of \n1993.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704(c)(3)(Repl. 2012).  Strict construction \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  10\n  \n \n \nrequires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed.  \nEdens v. Superior Marble & Glass, 346 Ark. 487, 58 S.W.3d 369 (2001).  \nThe doctrine of strict construction is to use the plain meaning of the \nlanguage employed.  Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, \n41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  In this regard, there is no expressed intent or \nlanguage in Act 796 which requires an employee to prove that her alleged \ninjury was “acute.”     \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “The \nClaimant did not prove a compensable rapid and repetitive injury to her right \nshoulder on September 3, 2021.”  Although she has filed a notice of cross-\nappeal, the claimant asserts in her brief that the Full Commission should \naffirm the administrative law judge’s opinion.  The claimant states in her \nbrief, “If this Commission reverses the ALJ regarding a compensable \nspecific incident injury then claimant argues she alternative (sic) suffered a \ngradual onset injury with worsening of symptoms.”   \n The Full Commission affirms the administrative law judge’s finding \nthat the claimant “did not prove a compensable rapid and repetitive injury to \nher right shoulder on September 3, 2021.”  However, the Full Commission \nalso affirms the administrative law judge’s finding that the claimant \nsustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder on March 15, 2022. \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  11\n  \n \n \n The claimant, who the Commission finds was a credible witness, \ntestified that she became employed as a bus driver for the respondents in \n2004.  The claimant began suffering from pain in her right shoulder in \napproximately September 2021.  The claimant received conservative \nmedical treatment and was released to return to work on September 21, \n2021.  The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nMarch 15, 2022.  The claimant testified that she right shoulder began \nhurting while she was performing employment services for the respondents.  \nThe claimant agreed on cross-examination that she “felt a pop” in her right \nshoulder while opening the “COVID shield” which the claimant had \ndescribed during direct examination.   \n The record indicates that the claimant reported the injury to the \nrespondents no later than March 29, 2022.  An MRI of the claimant’s right \nshoulder showed abnormalities including a SLAP tear and glenohumeral \njoint effusion.  A physician assistant’s impression on April 5, 2022 was \n“Glenoid labral tear” and “Sprain of right shoulder.”  An x-ray on April 7, \n2022 confirmed a tear in the claimant’s right shoulder.  The claimant began \ntreating with Dr. O’Malley, who corroborated the claimant’s account of a \nwork-related injury.  Dr. O’Malley performed a right shoulder arthroscopy, \nlabral repair, and debridement on July 26, 2022.  Dr. O’Malley’s surgical \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  12\n  \n \n \nreport included “biceps tearing” and “superior labral tearing.”  Dr. O’Malley \nperformed additional surgery on January 11, 2023.   \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury.  \nThe claimant proved that she sustained an accidental injury causing \nphysical harm to the body.  The claimant proved that the injury arose out of \nand in 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 or about \nMarch 15, 2022.  In addition, the claimant established a compensable injury \nby medical evidence supported by objective findings.  These objective \nfindings include Dr. O’Malley’s surgical report of “right shoulder biceps \ntearing,” “labral tear,” and “superior labral tearing.”  The claimant proved \nthat these objective medical findings were causally related to the March 15, \n2022 accidental injury and were not the result of a pre-existing condition or \nprior injury.   \n The Full Commission finds that the medical treatment of record \nfollowing the March 15, 2022 compensable accidental injury, including \nsurgical treatment provided by Dr. O’Malley, was reasonably necessary in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  We recognize \nDr. O'Malley’s statement on July 6, 2022, “I can’t say that greater than 51% \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  13\n  \n \n \nof the current issues are due to her work.”  Nevertheless, the claimant was \nnot required to prove “major cause” in this case.  The claimant was only \nrequired to prove that her compensable injury was “a factor” in the need for \nsurgery.  See Williams v. L&W Janitorial, Inc., 85 Ark. App. 1, 145 S.W.3d \n383 (2004).  The claimant in the present matter indeed proved that the \nMarch 15, 2022 compensable injury was at least “a factor” in her need for \nsurgery and was in fact reasonably necessary in connection with the \ncompensable injury. \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved she sustained a compensable injury to her right \nshoulder on March 15, 2022.  The claimant proved that the medical \ntreatment of record following the compensable injury, including surgery \nperformed by Dr. O’Malley, was reasonably necessary in accordance with \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant proved that she \nremained within a healing period and was totally incapacitated from earning \nwages beginning July 26, 2022 and continuing through January 26, 2023.  \nThe claimant therefore proved that she was entitled to temporary total \ndisability benefits beginning July 26, 2022 and continuing through January \n26, 2023.  See Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 \nS.W.2d 392 (1981).  The respondents are entitled to an appropriate offset in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-411(Repl. 2012). \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  14\n  \n \n \n The claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for legal services in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  For prevailing \non appeal, the claimant’s attorney is entitled to an additional fee of five \nhundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(b)(1)(Repl. \n2012). \n IT IS SO ORDERED.    \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \nDISSENTING OPINION      \n I must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s finding that the \nclaimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a \ncompensable injury on March 15, 2022. \nGenerally, a specific incident injury is an accidental injury arising out \nof the course and scope of employment caused by a specific incident \nidentifiable by time and place of an occurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i).  This, therefore, requires that a claimant establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course \nof employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external physical harm \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  15\n  \n \n \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings establishing an \ninjury as defined in Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific incident identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i). \nA compensable injury must be established by medical evidence \nsupported by \"objective findings.\"  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D). \nObjective findings cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16).  There is no requirement that medical \ntestimony be based solely or expressly on objective findings, only that the \nrecord contains supporting objective findings.  Stephens Truck Lines v. \nMillican, 58 Ark. App 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1972) and Singleton v. City of \nPine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244 S.W.3d 709 (2006).  It is within the \nCommission's province to weigh all the medical evidence, to determine \nwhat is most credible, and to determine its medical soundness and \nprobative force.  Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark. App. 459, 637 \nS.W.3d 280 (2021).  In weighing the evidence, the Commission may not \narbitrarily disregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness.  Id. \nThe Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or \nany other witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  16\n  \n \n \nthose portions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  White v. \nGregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). \nFrom the outset, the basis of this claim is spurious at best. \nClaimant’s Form N, completed by the claimant and submitted on March 29, \n2022, describes the claimant’s injury as “right left shoulder “[S]welling and \nhard to raise up.”  (Resp. Ex. 2, P. 2).  There is no mention of a popping \nsound or tear to the claimant’s right shoulder at that point.  Id.  In fact, the \nclaimant never mentioned her shoulder popping to her treating physician, \nLawrence O’Malley, during the course of his treatment.  Throughout the \nclaimant’s treatment, Dr. O’Malley was unable to state within a reasonable \ndegree of medical certainty that the claimant’s injury was work related. \n(Resp. Ex. 1, P. 13). \nThe ALJ relies on the claimant’s statement that she heard a popping \nnoise in her shoulder on March 15, 2022 as the entire basis his ruling that \nthe claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury to her shoulder.  This, however, is \ncontradictory to the evidence.  This statement by the claimant that she \nheard a popping noise in her shoulder cannot satisfy the requirement of \nobjective medical findings to support an award to the claimant.  A claimant’s \ntestimony is never uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. \n303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  A claimant’s testimony alone cannot act as \n\nBEARFIELD - H205069 & H304225  17\n  \n \n \nobjective findings when they are clearly refuted by a professional medical \nopinion and the claimant’s own prior statements.  The evidence is clear that \nit cannot be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the \nclaimant suffered a specific incident injury on March 15, 2022 and the ALJ’s \nfindings should therefore be reversed. \nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n  \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS. H205069 & H304225 ERICA BEARFIELD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ROCK REGION METRO, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ATA WC TRUST, INSURANCE CARRIER/ RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.720Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H205069-2024-04-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Bearfield_Erica_H205069-H304225_20240409.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}