{"id":"full_commission-H205844-2023-09-13","awcc_number":"H205844","decision_date":"2023-09-13","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Robert Scott","employer_name":"Correct Craft Holdings, LLC & Basscat,","title":"SCOTT VS. CORRECT CRAFT HOLDINGS, LLC & BASSCAT, AWCC# H205844 SEPTEMBER 13, 2023","outcome":"affirmed","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:1","denied:1"],"injury_keywords":["hernia","back","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Scott_Robert_H205844_20230913.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Scott_Robert_H205844_20230913.pdf","text_length":24119,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H205844 \n \nROBERT W. SCOTT, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nCORRECT CRAFT HOLDINGS, LLC & \nBASSCAT, EMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE FREDERICK S. “RICK” \nSPENCER, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE JAMES A. ARNOLD, II, \nAttorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJune 6, 2023.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to \nprove he sustained a compensable hernia.  After reviewing the entire record \nde novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant proved he sustained a \ncompensable hernia.  The Full Commission finds that the medical treatment \nof record was reasonably necessary, and that the claimant proved he was \nentitled to a period of temporary total disability benefits.   \nI.  HISTORY \n Robert W. Scott, now age 52, testified on direct examination: \n\nSCOTT - H205844  2\n  \n \n \nQ.  Now you have had pre-existing problems with your \nhernias, is that right? \n  A.  There was a bulge or whatever. \n  Q.  Did you ever have surgery for the hernia? \n  A.  No, sir.   \nQ.  So you never really knew anything other than this little \nbulge, is that correct? \n  A.  Yes, sir. \n \n Mr. Scott testified that he became employed with the respondents in \nFebruary 2022.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \n  Q.  And you worked for Basscat and Vinway, is that right? \n  A.  Yes. \nQ.  Just for the record, because some people might not know \nwhat Basscat does, what is Basscat producing? \nA.  They make high end fishing boats.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed on or about August 3, 2022.  The claimant testified on \ndirect examination: \nQ.  And it’s my understanding that you were laying fiberglass \nin the bow of one of those big high-end boats, and you were \nbending over laying that fiberglass and felt an immediate pain, \nis that correct? \nA.  Yes....I went to the supervisor and asked what can I help \nwith, and he was laying fiberglass in a boat, and the man that \ndoes it there as well, he needed help because they had three \nto get done that day....I mixed up some residue and went over \nthere and started doing that boat.  I bent over, and you lay a \npiece of fiberglass about that long in there after you’ve soaked \nit, and I didn’t like the way it laid, it wasn’t smooth and nice \nand it didn’t look very nice, so I pulled it back up.  I raised up, \nand it was close to being finished, time for lunch.  When I \nraised up I felt a sharp pain, and I thought, “That was weird.”   \nMy jug of resin was almost gone, depleted, because I knew it \nwas close to lunchtime, so as I went to go dump the excess \namount of resin it was an odd, it wasn’t like your heart pumps, \n\nSCOTT - H205844  3\n  \n \n \nyou know how you hit your finger with a hammer, you heart \npumps and you feel pain?  Well, this was sporadic and it \nwasn’t normal, and it kept getting worse, so I went and spoke \nto my supervisor, Jessie, and told  him, I said, “Something’s \nwrong.”   \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \nQ.  At the time you felt pain on August 3\nrd\n you were not lifting \nanything? \n  A.  No, I was not. \nQ.  Okay.  What you did was you had been bending over the \nboat, and when you raised, when you straightened up is when \nyou felt pain? \nA.  Yeah.   \n \n The claimant testified that he “clocked out” from work following the \nincident and drove himself to a hospital.   \n The medical evidence corroborated the claimant’s testimony.  \nAccording to the record, the claimant received emergency treatment at \nBaxter Regional Medical Center on August 3, 2022: \n51 yo M pt presents for abd. pain.  He has a hernia at his belly \nbutton that he feels he has gotten worse today.  He felt a \nmoderate to severe tearing pain.... \nAbdomen is soft and nontender, no hepatosplenomegaly.  \nThere is a have a (sic) buccal hernia present easily reduced. \n \n A physician diagnosed “1.  Umbilical hernia, 08/03/2022.”  A CT of \nthe claimant’s abdomen and pelvis was taken on August 3, 2022 with the \nimpression, “Ventral hernia with a loop of bowel in this with the opening of \nthe hernia measuring 3.1 cm.” \n\nSCOTT - H205844  4\n  \n \n \n The record contains a Work/School Release Form dated August 3, \n2022.  The Work/School Release Form indicated, “He/she may return to \nwork/school after this date:  8/15.”  The claimant was restricted to “No \nheavy lifting over 15 lbs....Restrictions apply through this date:  8/15 or \ncleared by Surgeon.”     \n Dr. Lance R. Lincoln reported on August 4, 2022: \nWrks at Bass Cat.  Yesterday working on a boat bent over \nfiberglassing.  New job for him.  Leaning over the boat and \nwhen he raised up got a sharp pain in abdomen.  Was sharp.  \nRated at 8/10.  Since he has a bulge in his navel.  The pain \nhas steadily declined but the lump is really tender.  Went to \nER and [did] CT.  Showed the hernia and it was tender.  Made \na referral to surgery on the 15\nth\n.  Only seeing me due to \nprotocol.... \nABDOMEN:  normal, bowel sounds present, soft, 3 cm \numbilical hernia, and very tender.  Easily reduces, \nnondistended.   \n \n Dr. Lincoln assessed “1.  Umbilical hernia without obstruction and \nwithout gangrene.”  Dr. Lincoln assigned “Light duty, no lifting.”   \n Dr. John A. Carlisle examined the claimant on August 15, 2022: \nPatient words:  I was doing fiberglass bent over the side of a \nboat.  I had done it several times that day when all of a \nsudden I felt a tear after standing up. \nThe patient is a 51 year old male who presents with an \numbilical hernia.  This hernia is thought to be acquired.  \nSymptoms include bulge in the paraumbilical area (just \nsuperior to umbilicus) and abdominal pain.  The pain is \nlocated in the lower abdomen.  There is no radiation.  The \npatient describes the pain as dull and aching.  Onset was \nsudden 12 day(s) ago.  Onset followed bending (“bending \nover into the side of a boat working fiberglass, stood up and it \nstung”).  The symptoms occur constantly.  The patient \n\nSCOTT - H205844  5\n  \n \n \ndescribes this as moderate in severity and unchanged.  \nSymptoms are exacerbated by bending (& twisting).  \nSymptoms are relieved by recumbency.... \nThe injury is currently under review for a worker’s comp claim.  \nClaim # unavailable at this time as they are “investigating” the \ncause of the injury.... \nToday’s Impression:  08/15/22 – JAC – Patient seen today \nfor hernia related concerns.  He does not remember when he \nfirst noticed it but possibly a year or more.  He reports the \nother day at work he bent over wrong and it “popped out and \nwas very painful”.  He was evaluated in the ER shortly after \nthat where a CT scan was completed.  I reviewed his results \nwhich revealed a ventral hernia with a loop of bowel in the \nopening approximately 3.1 cm in size.  On exam, he has a \nreducible 1cm umbilical hernia which is tender on exam.  I \nwould recommend a robotic repair of his hernia[.]   \n \n The claimant testified that he returned to light-duty work for the \nrespondents on or about August 15, 2022.  The claimant testified that he \nperformed light-duty work for approximately one week:  “I worked the whole \nweek until Friday, and then I was brought into one of the offices and said \nthey no longer needed my services.”   \nDr. Carlisle performed surgery on September 16, 2022:  “DA VINCI \nGEN XI VENTRAL HERNIA, robot assist laparoscopic umbilical hernia \nrepair with mesh.”  The pre- and post-operative diagnosis was “Umbilical \nhernia.”   \n Dr. Carlisle noted on October 3, 2022, “Post op visit s/p RA umbilical \nhernia repair.  He is doing well.  His surgical incisions are healing well.  I \nadvised to continue to limit heavy lifting for 2 additional weeks and then he \ncan return to normal activity.  He may f/up with me as normal.”           \n\nSCOTT - H205844  6\n  \n \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on March 14, 2023.  The claimant \ncontended, “The Claimant contends that he sustained a compensable \nhernia while performing employment services for the respondent employer.  \nHis injury was sudden and his need for surgery was directly related to him \nbending over a boat while laying fiberglass and exerting himself for \nemployer requiring immediate medical intervention.  The Claimant contends \nthat he is entitled to payment of the medical expenses related to his \ntreatment for the Hernia.  The Claimant contends that he is entitled to TTD \n(dates to be determined).”   \n The respondents contended, “Respondents contend that the \nClaimant is not entitled to Arkansas Workers’ Compensation benefits for his \nhernia.”   \n The text of the pre-hearing order indicated that the parties agreed to \nlitigate the following issues: \n1.  Compensability of work-related hernia injury. \n2. Claimant’s entitlement to medical and reimbursement for \nmedical bills related to his hernia claim. \n3.  Entitlement to past due temporary total disability benefits, \nthe dates to be determined.   \n4. Controverted attorney’s fee. \n5.  All issues are reserved.   \n \n   A hearing was held on April 19, 2023.  The claimant testified on re-\ndirect examination: \nQ.  Help the judge understand what you meant by bending.  \nI’ve been there, I’ve seen the livewells and those kinds of \n\nSCOTT - H205844  7\n  \n \n \nthings, but you’re going to have to kind of explain what do you \nmean by “bending over”?  Can you kind of demonstrate that \nfor the judge? \nA.  I can.  I’ll use the bannister if that’s okay....I was right on \nthe bow in a hole where, I think that’s where they put the logs \nin.  It’s an elongated hole about that wide (demonstrating).  I \nbent over like this (demonstrating) and way up inside there, I \nhad to move my nose or my mouth when I’m up underneath \nthere trying to pump this fiberglass in there laying flat like this \npaint is here on this black line.... \nQ.  So for the record, we don’t have a video here, but for the \nrecord, you’re leaning way over, almost down to where you’re \ntouching your toes? \nA.  Yeah.  I was actually – my head was hidden.  You can hit \nyour head on that bottom of the boat.  That’s how far into the \nboat I was.   \nQ.  Okay.  And you’re in this, would you say this is an \nexaggerated bend over? \nA.  Yes, sir.  I was bearing down like this (demonstrating).  I \nwas almost on my tippy toes, yes.   \nQ.  All right.  So when you raised back up, you felt something \ntear? \nA.  Yeah.  There was a really sharp pain, and I thought “What \nwas that?”  And I probably, from here to that door you walk, \nthere’s a doorway right there, maybe five feet from where I \nwas at....it was like somebody was kicking me on the inside of \nmy stomach with boots on.  That’s what it felt like....I told my \nsupervisor, Jessie, clocked out, and I drove myself to the \nhospital.   \n \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on June 6, 2023.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove he sustained \na compensable injury.  The claimant appeals to the Full Commission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-523(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n(a)  In all cases of claims for hernia, it shall be shown to the \nsatisfaction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission: \n\nSCOTT - H205844  8\n  \n \n \n(1) That the occurrence of the hernia immediately followed as \nthe result of sudden effort, severe strain, or the application \nof force directly to the abdominal wall; \n(2) That there was severe pain in the hernial region; \n(3) That the pain caused the employee to cease work \nimmediately; \n(4) That notice of the occurrence was given to the employer \nwithin forty-eight hours thereafter; and \n(5) That the physical distress following the occurrence of the \nhernia was such as to require the attendance of a licensed \nphysician within seventy-two (72) hours after the \noccurrence. \n(b)(1)  In every case of hernia, it shall be the duty of the \nemployer forthwith to provide the necessary and proper \nmedical, surgical, and hospital care and attention to effectuate \na cure by radical operation of the hernia, to pay all reasonable \nexpenses in connection therewith, and, in addition, to pay \ncompensation not exceeding a period of twenty-six (26) \nweeks.     \n \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  That the \nclaimant has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to show that he \nsustained a compensable, work-related hernia on August 3, 2022.”  The \nFull Commission does not affirm this finding.   \nThe claimant, who the Full Commission finds was a credible witness, \ntestified that he suffered from a pre-existing “bulge” in his abdomen.  There \nis no indication of record, however, that the claimant required medical \ntreatment for a hernia prior to the work-related incident in the present \nmatter.  The claimant became employed with the respondents in February \n2022, and the parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nAugust 3, 2022.  The claimant testified that he was “bending over” the bow \n\nSCOTT - H205844  9\n  \n \n \nof a boat during the course of his employment with the respondents, \ninstalling fiberglass.  The claimant agreed on re-direct examination that he \nwas “leaning way over” into a boat to the extent that he was nearly touching \nhis toes.  The claimant testified, “When I raised up I felt a sharp pain....it \nwas like somebody was kicking me on the inside of my stomach with boots \non.”  As the Full Commission has discussed supra, the medical evidence of \nrecord corroborated the claimant’s testimony.  It was noted at Baxter \nRegional Medical Center on August 3, 2022 that the claimant “felt a \nmoderate to severe tearing pain.”  Dr. Lincoln noted on August 4, 2022, \n“Leaning over the boat and when he raised up he got a sharp pain in \nabdomen.  Was sharp.”  Dr. Carlisle noted the claimant’s credible history on \nAugust 15, 2022, “I felt a tear after standing up.”   \nThe Full Commission finds in the present matter that occurrence of \nthe hernia (1)  immediately followed as the result of “sudden effort.”  The \nclaimant testified that he felt a sharp pain after leaning over, nearly touching \nhis toes, and raising up.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that an \nemployee sustained a compensable hernia after “bending over and \nstraightening up.”  See Price v. Little Rock Packaging Co., 42 Ark. App. \n238, 856 S.W.2d 317 (1993).  The Full Commission likewise finds in the \npresent matter that the claimant’s hernia occurred immediately following his \n“bending and straightening” at work on August 3, 2022. \n\nSCOTT - H205844  10\n  \n \n \nThe Full Commission also finds that there was (2) severe pain in the \nhernial region following the incident.  The claimant credibly testified that he \nfelt a “sharp pain” in his abdomen, “like somebody was kicking me on the \ninside of my stomach with boots on.”  The evidence demonstrates that the \nclaimant (3) ceased work immediately.  The claimant testified that he \n“clocked out” immediately following occurrence of the hernia in order to \nseek medical treatment.  The claimant proved (4) that notice of the \noccurrence was given to the employer within forty-eight (48) hours \nthereafter.  The claimant testified that he informed his supervisor of the \noccurrence immediately following the accident.  Finally, the evidence \ndemonstrates that (5) the attendance of a licensed physician was required \nwithin seventy-two (72) hours after the occurrence.  The Full Commission \nthus finds that the claimant proved he sustained a compensable hernia in \naccordance with each applicable element of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n523(a)(Repl. 2012).      \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved he sustained a compensable hernia in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-523(a)(Repl. 2012).  We find that the medical \ntreatment of record was reasonably necessary in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-523(b)(1)(Repl. 2012) and Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The evidence demonstrates that the claimant \n\nSCOTT - H205844  11\n  \n \n \nremained within a healing period and was totally incapacitated from earning \nwages from August 3, 2022 through August 15, 2022.  The claimant \nreturned to work at light duty from August 15, 2022 until the respondents \nterminated the claimant’s employment effective August 22, 2022.  The \nclaimant proved he was again totally incapacitated from earning wages and \nremained within his healing period beginning August 23, 2022 and \ncontinuing until October 17, 2022 in accordance with Dr. Carlisle’s October \n3, 2022 report.  The claimant therefore proved he was entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits from August 3, 2022 through August 15, 2022, and \nfrom August 23, 2022 until October 17, 2022.  See Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n523(b)(1)(Repl. 2012);  Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, \n613 S.W.2d 392 (1981).   \nThe 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)(Repl. \n2012). \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n\nSCOTT - H205844  12\n  \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \nI must respectfully dissent from the Majority’s determination that the \nclaimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a \ncompensable hernia. \nAs highlighted above, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-523(a) requires that \nfive criteria be met for a hernia to be compensable: \n(1)  That the occurrence of the hernia \nimmediately followed as the result of sudden \neffort, severe strain, or the application of \nforce directly to the abdominal wall; \n(2)  That there was severe pain in the hernial \nregion; \n(3)  That the pain caused the employee to cease \nwork immediately; \n(4)  That notice of the occurrence was given to \nthe employer within forty-eight (48) hours \nthereafter; and \n(5)  That the physical distress following the \noccurrence of the hernia was such as to \nrequire the attendance of a licensed \nphysician within seventy-two (72) hours \nafter the occurrence. \n \n“The policy underlying these rather strict requirements is designed to \nmake the award of compensation for a hernia depending on the manner in \nwhich a hernia occurred and not on its mere existence.”  King v. Puryear \nWood Products, 254 Ark. 452, 494 S.W.3d 123 (1973).  This is meant to \n\nSCOTT - H205844  13\n  \n \n \nseparate congenital or pre-existing hernias from those resulting from \ntrauma or effort at work.  Id.  Simply put: \nThe people have seen fit to make, and the \nlegislature has seen fit to leave, a compensable \nhernia a rather dramatic occurrence under the \nstatute, with little or no room left for question or \ndoubt that it did occur with in the course of \nemployment as an immediate result of sudden \neffort, severe strain or force applied to the \nabdominal wall.  Harkleroad v. Cotter, 248 Ark. \n810, 454 S.W.3d 76 (1970). \n  \nAt issue here is the question of whether, in this instance, “the \noccurrence of the hernia immediately followed as the result of a sudden \neffort, severe strain, or the application of force directly to the abdominal \nwall.” The Majority relies on the language of Price v. Little Rock Packaging \nCo. to support its contention that “bending over and standing up” is \nsufficient to meet this standard.  42 Ark. App. 238, 856 S.W.2d 317 (1993). \nHowever, this ignores the additional testimony from Mr. Price that “when he \nwas lifting loads of paper, he felt an ‘awful pain’ in his side, in the groin \narea.”  Id.  Mr. Price was not simply stooping and standing, but rather he \nwas lifting loads of paper, which would satisfy the requirement of a “sudden \neffort, severe strain, or the application of force directly to the abdominal \nwall.”  Bending over and standing up by itself clearly does not meet this \ndefinition and there is no precedent in this State that supports a finding that \na claimant suffers a compensable injury when the extent of his sudden \n\nSCOTT - H205844  14\n  \n \n \neffort or severe strain is simply bending over and then standing.  And in \nfact, the court in Price did not hold that merely bending over and \nstraightening satisfied the criteria of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-523(a).  In that \ncase, Mr. Price was bending and straightening over an industrial knife and \nfelt an awful pain in his side, in the groin area, when lifting loads of paper. \nThere is no such proof in the case at hand, and Mr. Scott testified that at \nthe moment he felt a sudden pain, he was not lifting anything, but rather \nwas bending over and felt pain upon standing.\n \nBy the claimant’s own admission, he was not lifting anything at the \ntime of his alleged injury: \nQ:  At the time you felt pain on August 3rd you \nwere not lifting anything? \nA:  No, I was not. \nQ:  Okay. What you did was you had been \nbending over the boat, and when you raised, \nwhen you straightened up is when you felt \npain? \nA:  Yeah. (Hrng. Tr., P. 16). \n \nThis fact was later confirmed by Dr. Lance R. Lincoln on August 4, \n2022, who recorded that the claimant was “[l]eaning over the boat and \nwhen raised up got a sharp pain in abdomen.” (Resp. Ex. 1, Pp. 10-11).  On \nAugust 15, 2022, Dr. John A. Carlisle quotes the claimant as stating that “I \nwas doing fiberglass bent over the side of a boat.  I had done it several \ntimes that day when all of a sudden I felt a tear after standing up.”  (Resp. \nEx. 1, Pp. 15-17). \n\nSCOTT - H205844  15\n  \n \n \nNone of the claimant’s treating physicians opined the hernia was \ncaused by an acute, work-related accident.  It does not necessarily follow \nthat merely bending over and straightening up results in a hernia.  More \nimportantly, the claimant had a preexisting hernia for a year prior to \nbeginning work for the respondent employer and admitted such at the \nhearing: \nQ:  Now you have had pre-existing problems \nwith your hernias, is that right? \nA:  There was a bulge or whatever. \nQ:  Did you ever have surgery for the hernia? \nA:  No, sir. \nQ:  So you never really knew anything other than \nthis little bulge, is that correct? \nA:  Yes, sir.  (Hrng. Tr, P. 10). \n \n On the date of the alleged accident, the claimant treated with Dr. \nCaleb Pingel at Baxter Regional Medical Center, who reported that the \nclaimant “has had a hernia at his belly button that he feels he has gotten \nworse today.”  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 2).  In his August 15, 2022 report, Dr. Carlisle \nnoted that the claimant “does not remember when he first noticed it but \npossibly a year or more.”  (Cl. Ex. 1, P. 7).  None of the claimant’s treating \nphysicians have opined that the alleged August 3, 2022 injury was an \naggravation of the admitted pre-existing hernia.  The claimant’s allegations \nfail on this point alone when taking into consideration the public policy laid \nout in Harkleroad and Puryear above as this is the exact type of hernia \nclaim our Rules are intended to prohibit. \n\nSCOTT - H205844  16\n  \n \n \n The claimant has wholly failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that his alleged work-related hernia was the result of a sudden \neffort, severe strain, or the application of force directly to the abdominal \nwall.  There is no precedent in this jurisdiction supporting any contention \nthat simply standing up, by itself, is sufficient to meet the claimant’s burden \nof proof, and for this reason the ALJ’s findings should be affirmed. \nFor the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205844 ROBERT W. SCOTT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CORRECT CRAFT HOLDINGS, LLC & BASSCAT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2023","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.137Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H205844-2023-09-13","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Scott_Robert_H205844_20230913.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}