{"id":"full_commission-H208296-2026-02-10","awcc_number":"H208296","decision_date":"2026-02-10","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Laura Treadwell","employer_name":"Pope County Judge","title":"TREADWELL VS. POPE COUNTY JUDGE AWCC# H208296 February 10, 2026","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:2","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["strain","back","lumbar","fracture","shoulder","rotator cuff","thoracic","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Treadwell_Laura_H208296_20260210.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Treadwell_Laura_H208296_20260210.pdf","text_length":24932,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO. H208296 \n \nLAURA TREADWELL, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nPOPE COUNTY JUDGE,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nAAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2026 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE DANIEL E. WREN, Attorney at \nLaw, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE JASON M. RYBURN, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Reversed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJuly 22, 2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant proved \nshe was entitled to a five percent permanent anatomical impairment rating \nand wage-loss disability in the amount of 10%.  After reviewing the entire \nrecord de novo, the Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove \nshe sustained permanent anatomical impairment or wage-loss disability as \na result of the compensable injury.       \nI. HISTORY \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  2\n  \n \n \n Laura Treadwell, now age 48, testified that she had been employed \nwith the respondents since 2002.  Ms. Treadwell testified that she became \nan “EMT Paramedic” for the respondents in 2003.  The claimant’s testimony \nindicated that she sustained a previous work-related injury at an \nundetermined date.  The claimant characterized the previous injury as “a \nmuscle strain.”  The record indicates that Dr. H. Kevin Beavers began \ntreating the claimant for low back pain and other symptoms no later than \nOctober 2017. \nAn x-ray of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on November 21, \n2017 with the following findings: \nAP, lateral and spot views of lumbar spine are obtained.  No \nacute appearing wedge compression fracture.  Vertebral body \nheights and disc space heights are fairly well maintained.  \nThere is sclerosis facet joints believed to be degenerative.  \nMild scoliosis.  Pedicles appear to be intact. \nIMPRESSION:  No acute bony abnormality.   \n \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken in October 2018 \nwith the following findings: \nT12-L1:  No focal disc abnormalities.  No central canal \nstenosis or neuroforaminal narrowing.   \nL1-2:  No focal disc abnormality.  No central canal stenosis or \nneural foraminal narrowing. \nL2-3:  No focal disc abnormality.  No central canal stenosis or \nneural foraminal narrowing.   \nL3-4:  No focal disc abnormality.  No central canal stenosis or \nneural foraminal narrowing. \nL4-5:  Small right-sided disc protrusion which effaces the sac \nminimally. \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  3\n  \n \n \nL5-S1:  Focal disc abnormality.  No central canal stenosis or \nneural foraminal narrowing.  Mild facet hypertrophy L4-5 and \nL5-S1. \nIMPRESSION:  Small right-sided disc herniation L4-5.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nApril 15, 2022.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \n Q.  What position did you hold back on April 15\nth\n of 2022? \n A.  I worked for Pope County EMS as a paramedic.... \nQ.  But just for a little bit of background for the judge, a two-\nminute summary of how you got hurt. \nA.  Me and my female partner were on a call in Hector about a \n275-pound man with breathing problems that needed to be \ntransported.  When we put him on our cot, our cots are \nmanual lift....When we picked the cot up, my partner did not \nrelease the handle on the cot.  It did not lock the legs in place \nand when the weight was put back down, the cot slammed to \nthe ground and I was still holding it.  I bent at the waist....My \nhead was close to my toes.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the claimant “sustained a compensable \ninjury to her back” on April 15, 2022.  The claimant signed a Form AR-N, \nEMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF INJURY, on April 15, 2022.  The ACCIDENT \nINFORMATION section of the Form AR-N indicated that the claimant \ninjured her back and right shoulder on April 15, 2022.     \n According to the record, the claimant treated at Conservative Care \nOccupational Health on June 27, 2022: \nPatient states that she was lifting a cot with a coworker.  She \nstates the patient they were lifting was about 275lbs.  She \nstates that the legs of the cot collapsed and she was pulled \nforward.  Patient states that her head went to her feet and she \nhad immediate pain in her back, right shoulder and groin.   \n \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  4\n  \n \n \n An APRN diagnosed “1.  Strain of muscle, fascia and tendon of lower \nback” and “2.  Strain of muscle(s) and tendon(s) of the rotator cuff of right \nshoulder.”  The APRN planned “Referral for MRI.  Referral to \nneurosurgeon.”   \n The record indicates that the claimant began treating with Dr. \nEdward Saer on or about September 9, 2022.  Dr. Saer reported on \nSeptember 12, 2022: \nMs. Treadwell is back in follow-up.  She has been doing \nstrengthening exercises with PT....She is still working with \nrestrictions.  She also continues to have pain which is \nprimarily in the left lower lumbar/lumbosacral area, and in the \nleft lower thoracic area just lateral to the midline.   \nI reviewed her prior imaging had a long discussion with her \nabout this today.  It is difficult to pinpoint 1 specific thing as \nthe cause of her problem.  X-rays and MRI are not terribly \nhelpful.  We will get a SPECT-CT scan of the thoracic and \nlumbar spine to see if we can localize something.  I will see \nher afterwards.  Work restrictions are unchanged.   \n \n Dr. Saer diagnosed “1.  Degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc,” \n“2.  Low back pain,” and “3.  Thoracic back pain.”   \n Dr. Saer reported on September 27, 2022: \nMs. Treadwell is back following CT of the thoracic and lumbar \nspine.  Her insurance company would not approve a SPECT-\nCT.  She continues to have pain in the upper back and also \nsome down lower.  She finds it very difficult to even walk \nthrough the store without having to lean forward on the cart.  \nShe is currently working in the County assessor’s office \nbecause she is on light duty.  Most of that is okay but recently \nshe has had to do a lot of bending and reaching while \nstanding documents.  That has exacerbated her discomfort.   \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  5\n  \n \n \nI reviewed the CT films and report.  The study was done \nearlier today.  There are some minimal degenerative changes \nin different areas but nothing that looks significant in any area.   \nI talked with her about this.  At this point [I do] not have a \ngood explanation for her continued pain other than a soft \ntissue injury.  I do not see anything to need surgery for.  I think \nshe is likely going to need to continue on a restricted duty \nbasis but we should get an FCE to define those restrictions \nbetter.  For now she should continue with light duty.  I will see \nher back after the FCE and plan to release her at that time.   \n \n The claimant followed up with Dr. Saer on November 29, 2022: \nShe is an EMT and had a work-related injury on April 15, 2022 \nlifting a patient on a cot.  She has had pain in her lower back \nas well as tightness in the lower thoracic area since then.   \nShe continues to complain of the tightness in her back \nespecially if she overdoes things.... \nExam:  She gets up and down easily and walks normally.  She \nhas good forward bending and good extension although \nextension is a little uncomfortable.  Forward bending is her \nposition of comfort.  There is no muscle spasm.  She has no \nlocalized tenderness.   \nHer prior imaging did not show any significant abnormalities \nno new x-rays were obtained today.   \nAssessment:  I had recommended an FCE but that was not \napproved.  Therefore I think she should continue with light \nduty level work with a lifting limit of 25 pounds, and no \nrepetitive bending twisting or lifting.  These restrictions should \nbe considered permanent.   \nShe is at MMI.  There is no permanent impairment associated \nwith this injury.   \n \n Dr. Saer further reported on November 29, 2022: \nI saw Laura Treadwell in the office today.  She has been \ntreated for back pain following an injury at work.  As far as I \ncan determine she had a lumbar strain or sprain. \nTreatment was based on the recent injury, not on pre-existing \nchanges.  There are no objective findings to warrant \npermanent impairment rating.  Work restrictions are based \nprimarily on the injury, not any pre-existing conditions.   \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  6\n  \n \n \nAs far as I can tell, this was an acute injury, although I did not \nsee her until 3 months after the date of injury.   \nI do not think any further treatment is needed at this time.   \n \n Dr. Beavers referred the claimant to Dr. Brad A. Thomas, who \nreported in part on March 15, 2023, “She has been having low back pain \nsince an injury at work in April of 2022.  She started having symptoms again \nin January that she believes is related to her work injury....We are going to \norder a new MRI and have her follow up.”   \n Dr. Thomas noted on April 7, 2023, “MRI of the lumbar spine was \nobtained, demonstrating the following findings:  mild degenerative changes, \nno sig canal stenosis or impingement....There is no surgery recommended \nfor her low back, she does still have numbness in her left leg with certain \npositions.  She has been avoiding those positions, we are going to get \nEMG/NCV of the left and f/u after.” \n A NERVE CONDUCTION STUDY LOWER EXTREMITY was done \non May 19, 2023 with the impression, “Mild left proximal sciatic neuropathy; \nperoneal > post tibial division.”     \n Dr. Thomas reported on June 7, 2023 that EMG testing showed “Mild \nleft neuropathy....There is no surgery recommended for her low back based \non the MRI and the EMG.  She does have some mild left radicular \nneuropathy.  She is unable to do her job as a paramedic and is doing a light \nduty job, she will continue her current work status.  She is a year out from \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  7\n  \n \n \nthe work accident and we do feel her continued symptoms are related to the \nwork accident.  We are going to get [an] FCE to evaluate her long term \nwork status.  We will order this and f/u after to determine her impairment \nrating.”   \nA pre-hearing order was filed on January 23, 2024.  The claimant \ncontended, “Dr. Beavers has ordered a functional capacity exam for the \nClaimant which the Respondents refused to approve.”  The respondents \ncontended, “All appropriate benefits have been paid.  The claimant has \nbeen released at MMI with a 0% impairment rating.  An FCE is not medical \ntreatment, nor is it necessary.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether Claimant is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment in the form of an FCE as recommended by Dr. \nBeavers, or whether Claimant is entitled to referral from \nDr. Beavers to a neurologist. \n \nDr. Beavers stated on March 1, 2024: \nI referred Laura Treadwell to Dr. Brad Thomas on February \n22, 2023 for an evaluation of ongoing radicular pain into her \nleft lower extremity.  Dr. Brad Thomas, a board certified \nneurosurgeon ordered an EMG nerve conduction velocity that \nrevealed that she had left proximal sciatic neuropathy.  Ms. \nTreadwell was being seen both by me and Dr. Thomas under \nher health insurance.  Her health insurance would not pay for \nthe continued treatment recommended by Dr. Thomas.  I do \nfeel that referral to Dr. Thomas for a radicular type pain with \nan abnormal MRI was appropriate.  Further based upon the \nEMG nerve conduction results I continue to believe that Ms. \nTreadwell needs to be able to continue her treatment with Dr. \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  8\n  \n \n \nThomas and/or an equally qualified neurosurgeon/orthopedic \nspine specialist.   \n \n A hearing was held on March 14, 2024.  The claimant testified that \nshe was no longer physically able to perform duties as an Emergency \nMedical Technician, but that she was employed with the respondents as a \nDeputy Assessor.     \nThe respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant at the March \n14, 2024 hearing: \nQ.  [Dr. Saer] released you with a zero percent permanent \nimpairment rating.  Is that not true? \nA.  Yes, sir....That is my understanding.  I never received \nanything from Dr. Saer.... \nQ.  And you were released, as you testified earlier, with \npermanent restrictions.  Correct? \nA.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  Do you believe that you can do more than those \nrestrictions? \nA.  No, sir. \nQ.  Do you believe that you can do – that those restrictions \nshould be removed? \nA.  No, sir. \nQ.  What do you think an FCE will accomplish, then? \nA.  My goal is to be compensated for the wage loss that I have \nincurred because of a documented work comp injury.   \nQ.  So in fact, you disagree with that zero percent and the \nFCE is simply a way to get a different rating? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \n \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on June 11, 2024.  The \nadministrative law judge found, “2.  The claimant has proven by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to additional medical \ntreatment in the form of an FCE.”  There was no appeal of the \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  9\n  \n \n \nadministrative law judge’s opinion filed June 11, 2024, and the parties \nstipulated, “Prior opinions are res judicata and the law of the case.”            \n The claimant participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation on July \n8, 2024:  “The results of this evaluation indicate that a reliable effort was put \nforth, with 50 of 50 consistency measures within expected limits....Ms. \nTreadwell completed functional testing on this date with reliable results.  \nOverall, Ms. Treadwell demonstrated the ability to perform work in the \nMEDIUM classification of work[.]”   \n Dr. Thomas noted on August 15, 2024, “The patient presents for \nfurther evaluation and management and the FCE shows she gave reliable \neffort with a medium classification.  She works in the assessors office \nbecause she couldn’t go back to her job at EMS as a paramedic.  She will \nnot be able to go back to working as a paramedic due to the lifting \nrequirements.  We recommend disability from the paramedic position based \non the lifting restrictions.” \n Dr. Thomas reported on November 20, 2024: \nMs. Treadwell is a patient of mine.  I last saw her on \n08/15/2024.  I am going to place her with an impairment rating \nbased on that date which is the last time I saw her.  This will \ngive her a 5% impairment rating for unoperated on continued \nlower back pain after her work injury.   \n \n A pre-hearing order was filed on February 25, 2025.  The claimant \ncontended, “On November 29, 2023, Dr. Saer released the claimant at MMI \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  10\n  \n \n \nand recommended an FCE, but the test was denied by Workers \nCompensation.  He released her with light duty level work with a lifting limit \nof 25 lbs. and no repetitive bending, twisting, or lifting.  Restrictions should \nbe considered permanent.  On February 7, 2023, Claimant sought \ntreatment for injury on her own insurance.  Dr. Beavers referred Claimant to \nDr. Brad Thomas.  On March 15, 2023, Dr. Brad Thomas ordered an MRI \nand on April 7, 2023 Dr. Thomas ordered an EMG and referred her to pain \nmanagement.  On April 24, 2023, Dr. Thomas opined that no surgery was \nrecommended based on the MRI and EMG.  He also opined that Claimant \nis unable to do her current job as a paramedic and is doing a light duty job.  \nClaimant will continue current work status.  I feel her symptoms are related \nto the work accident.  Dr. Thomas stated that we are going to get an FCE to \nevaluate her long-term work status.  On May 19, 2023 the EMG/NCV test \nwas performed.  On July 8, 2024, the FCE test was performed with reliable \nand consistent measures.  On November 20, 2024, Dr. Thomas issued \nClaimant at 5% impairment rating.  Since the accident, the Claimant has \nbeen unable to return to her job as a paramedic.  The Claimant is entitled to \nher impairment rating and wage loss claim.”   \n The respondents contended, “This is an accepted claim and all \nappropriate benefits have been paid.  Dr. Saer released the claimant with a \n0% on 11/29/22.  The claimant suffers from degenerative issues.  The 5% \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  11\n  \n \n \nby Dr. Thomas is invalid as the work in injury was not the major cause.  The \nclaimant is not entitled to wage loss.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether Claimant is entitled to payment of 5% impairment \nrating issued by Dr. Brad Thomas. \n2. Whether Claimant is entitled to wage loss. \n3. Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney’s \nfee.   \n \nThe claimant’s attorney corresponded with Dr. Thomas on April 14, \n2025: \nOn November 20, 2024, we received the attached letter from \nyou stating that you gave her an impairment rating of 5% for \nunoperated continued lower back pain after her work injury. \nIn order to clarify the above impairment rating given, could \nyou please state that the impairment rating given to Laura \nTreadwell was based upon the guides to the evaluation of \npermanent injuries 4\nth\n edition. \n \nYes_______            No_______ \n \n Dr. Thomas checked “Yes” on April 16, 2025.   \nA hearing was held on April 24, 2025.  The claimant testified that she \ncontinued to be employed with the respondents in the assessor’s office.  \nThe claimant testified that she continued to suffer from chronic back pain \nand numbness in her left lower extremity.         \nAn administrative law judge filed an opinion on July 22, 2025.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant proved she sustained \npermanent anatomical impairment in the amount of 5%.  The administrative \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  12\n  \n \n \nlaw judge awarded wage-loss disability in the amount of 10%.  The \nrespondents appeal to the Full Commission. \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Permanent impairment is any functional or anatomical loss remaining \nafter the healing period has been reached.  Johnson v. Gen. Dynamics, 46 \nArk. App. 188, 878 S.S.2d 411 (1994).  The Commission has adopted the \nAmerican Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent \nImpairment (4\nth\n ed. 1993) to be used in assessing anatomical impairment.  \nSee Commission Rule 099.34; Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-522(g)(Repl. 2012).  It \nis the Commission’s duty, using the Guides, to determine whether the \nclaimant has proved she is entitled to a permanent anatomical impairment.  \nPolk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001).   \n Any determination of the existence or extent of physical impairment \nshall be supported by objective and measurable physical findings.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-704)(c)(1)(B)(Repl. 2012).  Objective findings are those \nfindings which cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  Although it is true that the \nlegislature has required medical evidence supported by objective findings to \nestablish a compensable injury, it does not follow that such evidence is \nrequired to establish each and every element of compensability.  Stephens \nTruck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. App. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).  All that \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  13\n  \n \n \nis required is that the medical evidence be supported by objective findings.  \nSingleton v. City of Pine Bluff, 97 Ark. App. 59, 244 S.W.3d 709 (2006).  \nMedical opinions addressing impairment must be stated within a reasonable \ndegree of medical certainty.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(B)(Repl. 2012).   \n Permanent benefits shall be awarded only upon a determination that \nthe compensable injury was the major cause of the disability or impairment.  \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(F)(ii)(a)(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means \n“more than fifty percent (50%) of the cause,” and a finding of major cause \nshall be established according to the preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(14)(Repl. 2012).  Preponderance of the evidence \nmeans the evidence having greater weight or convincing force.  \nMetropolitan Nat’l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., 81 Ark. App. 269, 101 S.W.3d \n252 (2003).   \n An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  The \nclaimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled \nto a 5% impairment rating to the body as a whole.”  The Full Commission \ndoes not affirm this finding.  The parties stipulated that the claimant \n“sustained a compensable injury to her back” on April 15, 2022.  The \nclaimant testified that she sustained a compensable injury as the result of \nbending and lifting a cot while performing employment services.  An \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  14\n  \n \n \nAPRN’s diagnosis on June 27, 2022 was “1.  Strain of muscle, fascia and \ntendon of lower back.”   \n Dr. Saer eventually began treating the claimant, and his diagnosis on \nSeptember 12, 2022 included “1.  Degeneration of lumbar intervertebral \ndisc.”  Dr. Saer reviewed CT films and reported on September 27, 2022, \n“There are some minimal degenerative changes in different areas but \nnothing that looks significant in any area.”  Dr. Saer noted on November 29, \n2022, “There is no muscle spasm....Her prior imaging did not show any \nsignificant abnormalities no new x-rays were obtained today.”  Dr. Saer \nopined, “There is no permanent impairment associated with this injury \n[emphasis supplied].”  Dr. Saer further stated on November 29, 2022, “As \nfar as I can determine she had a lumbar strain or sprain....There are no \nobjective findings to warrant permanent impairment rating [emphasis \nsupplied].”   \n Dr. Thomas reported in April 2023 that an MRI of the claimant’s \nlumbar spine showed “mild degenerative changes” and “no surgery \nrecommended for her low back[.]”  A nerve conduction study of the \nclaimant’s left lower extremity showed “Mild left proximal sciatic neuropathy; \nperoneal > post tibial division.”  Dr. Thomas subsequently noted that EMG \ntesting showed “Mild left neuropathy.”   \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  15\n  \n \n \n As we have noted, the claimant participated in a Functional Capacity \nEvaluation on July 8, 2024:  “Ms. Treadwell completed functional testing on \nthis date with reliable results.  Overall, Ms. Treadwell demonstrated the \nability to perform work in the MEDIUM classification of work[.]”   \n Dr. Thomas reported on November 20, 2024 that he assigned the \nclaimant “a 5% impairment rating for unoperated on continued lower back \npain after her work injury.”  Dr. Thomas informed the claimant’s attorney \nthat he purported to assess 5% permanent anatomical impairment based \non the 4\nth\n Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the \nEvaluation of Permanent Impairment. \n The Full Commission finds, in the present matter, that there were no \nobjective or measurable physical findings supporting any percentage of \npermanent physical impairment.  We note that the Commission may not \nconsider complaints of pain in determining physical or anatomical \nimpairment.  See Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  \nMoreover, it is the Commission’s duty to translate the evidence of record \ninto findings of fact.  Gencorp Polymer Prods. v. Landers, 36 Ark. App. 190, \n820 S.W.2d 475 (1991).  It is within the Commission’s province to weigh all \nof the medical evidence and to determine what is most credible.  Minnesota \nMining & Mfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. App. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  The Full \nCommission finds in the present matter that Dr. Saer’s opinion is credible \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  16\n  \n \n \nand is entitled to more evidentiary weight than Dr. Thomas’ opinion.  The \nFull Commission finds that the probative evidence of record corroborates \nDr. Saer’s opinion, “There is no permanent impairment associated with this \ninjury....There are no objective findings to warrant permanent impairment \nrating.”  We find that there is no portion of the July 8, 2024 Functional \nCapacity Evaluation which can be translated or interpreted as a finding of \npermanent anatomical impairment.   \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not prove she sustained any percentage of permanent \nanatomical impairment as a result of the April 15, 2022 compensable injury.  \nThe claimant did not establish the existence of any percentage of \nanatomical impairment by objective or measurable physical findings, as is \nrequired by Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704(c)(1)(B)(Repl. 2012).  Because the \nclaimant did not prove that she sustained permanent anatomical impairment \nas a result of the compensable injury, the claimant did not prove she was \nentitled to wage-loss disability.  Taggart v. Mid Am. Packaging, 2009 Ark. \nApp. 335, 308 S.W.3d 643.  This claim is respectfully denied and \ndismissed. \n \n \n \n\nTREADWELL - H208296  17\n  \n \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n  \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n     \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite dissents.","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H208296 LAURA TREADWELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT POPE COUNTY JUDGE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2026","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:43.875Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H208296-2026-02-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Treadwell_Laura_H208296_20260210.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}