{"id":"full_commission-H300170-2024-08-07","awcc_number":"H300170","decision_date":"2024-08-07","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Teresa Kimes","employer_name":"Independence At Home","title":"KIMES VS. INDEPENDENCE AT HOME AWCC# H300170 AUGUST 7, 2024","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:3","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["lumbar","back","strain","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Kimes_Teresa_H300170_20240807.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Kimes_Teresa_H300170_20240807.pdf","text_length":24928,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H300170 \n \nTERESA KIMES, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nINDEPENDENCE AT HOME,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 7, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant is Pro Se. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE KAREN H. McKINNEY, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJanuary 3, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she sustained a compensable injury.  After reviewing the \nentire record de novo, the Full Commission affirms the administrative law \njudge’s opinion.     \nI.  HISTORY \n The record indicates that Teresa Lynn Kimes, now age 62, treated at \nSparks Regional in June 2012:  “The patient is a 50 years old female who \npresents with lumbar pain.  The onset was abrupt.”  The diagnosis was \n\nKIMES - H300170  2\n  \n \n \n“Back strain.”  A physician noted in May 2015, “Patient has been having a \nlot more back pain.  Has history of degenerative disc....Will refer to pain \nmanagement.”  An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on June \n12, 2015 with the following impression: \n1.  At L3-4, there is a posterior disc herniation with spinal and \nbilateral foraminal stenosis, worse on the left than the right. \n2.  At L4-5, there is a disc bulge and degenerative facet \nchange with spinal and bilateral foraminal stenosis. \n3.  At L5-S1, there is degenerative facet change with bilateral \nforaminal stenosis. \n4.  At L1-2, there is a slight disc bulge without spinal stenosis. \n5.  Degenerative facet change at all levels.   \n \n Dr. Brian Goodman provided a Pain Clinic Consultation in July 2015:  \n“Ms. Kimes is a 53 y.o. female who presents to pain clinic with back pain \nwhich has been gradually worsening over time.  She thinks the likely cause \nof this pain is degeneration.  The pain is described as constant aching.”  Dr. \nGoodman assessed “1.  Moderate spinal stenosis.  2.  Lumbar spondylosis.  \n3.  Mechanical back pain.”  Dr. Goodman scheduled a diagnostic medial \nbranch block, which was performed in September 2015.  It was reported at \nSparks Regional in March 2016 that the claimant had been suffering from \nback pain for three years.   \n Dr. Donald Paul Samms noted on October 1, 2020, “Patient was \ngetting down out of her son-in-law’s jacked up pickup truck when she \nstepped wrong and had back pain and pain going down her left leg all the \nway to the foot.  She does have history of a bad back.”  An x-ray of the \n\nKIMES - H300170  3\n  \n \n \nclaimant’s lumbar spine was taken on October 1, 2020 with the impression, \n“Degenerative disc disease and minimal spondylolisthesis.”  Dr. Sams \nassessed “1.  Left sided sciatica (Primary).”  An x-ray of the claimant’s \nlumbar spine was taken in April 2022 with the impression, “Advanced \ndegenerative changes.  Grade 1 anterolisthesis of L4 on S1.”       \nThe parties stipulated that the employee-employer-carrier \nrelationship existed on December 4, 2022.  The claimant testified on direct \nexamination: \n Q.  What were you doing on December 4\nth\n? \nA.  I was working at Frances’s place as a home health \nprovider.   \n Q.  And what does that involve? \nA.  It involves cleaning, doing light housekeeping, and helping \nthem with their personal care and cooking a meal.   \nQ.  What all is involved in this personal care? \nA.  Okay.  She was bed – she could not walk or nothing, so I \nhad to change her diaper, her bedding.  Give her a sponge \nbath, dress her.  I put lotion on her.  Comb her hair.... \nQ.  Now, explain to the judge what happened on December \n4\nth\n of 2022.   \nA.  Okay.  It was a Sunday and I had got permission prior \nbefore from my work and I was going to go to communion at \nchurch and I had to leave at 10 o’clock to be there by \n10:30....While [Frances] was eating I got the linens, they are \ncalled Tucks, and her sheets, her diapers, her pads and laid \nthem all out....I took the blankets off her bed.  She lowered \nher bed....She grabs ahold of the rail and I was trying to start \nthe roll I call it and all her stuff that needs to go under her and \nshe lets go of the rail and she says, “I can’t do this.  It hurts.”  I \nsaid, “Okay, Frances.”  I said, “Frances, you are going to have \nto help me.”  So she done it again, so I put my arm up to hold \nher where she cannot roll back over and I can proceed to roll \nher diaper and all the items that she needed under her bed, \nher linens, and she kept hollering, “I can’t do it.  It hurts.  It \n\nKIMES - H300170  4\n  \n \n \nhurts.”  So that did take some time....So when I was bent over \nand I was rolling up the unsanitary linens and trying to roll out \nthe other one and I was tugging on it and she lets go and just \nsays she can’t do it no more.  When I leaned over, I had a \npain in my back.  I stopped right then....Eventually I did get it \ndone, but I did not do everything like it should have been....I \nsat down for a minute.  So I left there at 10:15.  When I got in \nthe car, I called Independence and I called Samantha to tell \nher that I hurt my back.  I did not get nobody on the \nphone....Coming back from church, I called Independence \nand I got Tiffany.  She told me that she will tell the girls, which \nthe girls was Christy and Carolyn.... \nQ.  During this period of time, did you contact the personnel at \nIndependence and tell them your back was bothering you? \nA.  Yes, sir.   \nQ.  Did you tell them it was bothering you because of this \naccident on the 4\nth\n? \nA.  Yes, sir.... \n \n Carolyn Langley testified that she was the respondent-employer’s \nscheduling supervisor.  The respondents’ attorney examined Carolyn \nLangley: \n  Q.  Tell us about Ms. Frances. \nA.  She is one of our bedridden clients.  She has a hospital \nbed that is in her living room.  She has a trapeze and also the \ntwo bedrails.... \nQ.  Now, we are here because Ms. Kimes is claiming that she \ninjured her back on December the 4\nth\n, 2022, while working for \nMs. Frances.  Are you aware that is her allegation? \nA.  I’m aware that that is the allegation.   \nQ.  Okay.  What do you know, if anything, about what Ms. \nKimes claims about what happened on December 4\nth\n?  Did \nshe tell you anything? \nA.  No, ma’am.   \nQ.  What do you know? \nA.  Nothing other than just the call-ins for needing to go to the \ndoctor for her back hurting and us requesting a doctor’s \nrelease to come back to work, as we would with any \ncaregiver.   \n\nKIMES - H300170  5\n  \n \n \nQ.  So you are aware that she reported she needed to go to \nthe doctor for back pain? \nA.  Yes. \nQ.  Was there any discussion about why she had back pain or \nhow it occurred? \nA.  No, ma’am. \nQ.  Did she ever volunteer to you that she got hurt at work? \nA.  No.... \nQ.  Are you aware of any complaints of anything occurring \nwith Ms. Kimes working on December the 4\nth\n? \nA.  The only one that I am aware of is when I received a \nphone call on the 5\nth\n from the client herself asking us to \nremove Teresa and never send her back due to a \ntemperamental situation.... \nQ.  So she was blocked from treating Frances after December \nthe 4\nth\n.  Is that correct? \nA.  Correct.... \nQ.  Did she at any time report to you that she hurt her back \ntaking care of Ms. Frances on December 4\nth\n? \nA.  No.   \n \n The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  Now, what happened on December 15\nth\n? \nA.  That morning when I got up I had problems walking, so I \nwent to the walk-in clinic.  I called in that morning to tell them, \n“I cannot do nothing else no more.  I am going to the doctor,” \nand I went to the walk-in clinic.   \n \n According to the record, the claimant treated at Baptist Health Urgent \nCare on December 15, 2022:  “Patient comes in today for a back pain....PT \nIS HOME HEALTH NURSE HAS HURT BACK WORKING WITH \nPATIENTS.  WORSENING BACK PAIN FOR A WEEK.”  Physical \nexamination showed, among other things, “Bilateral muscle spasm.”   \nThe assessment on December 15, 2022 was “Dorsalgia, unspecified \n– High risk of morbidity without treatment - Poorly controlled – Worsening.”  \n\nKIMES - H300170  6\n  \n \n \nAn x-ray of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on December 15, 2022 \nwith the following impression: \n1.  There is loss of the normal lumbar spine lordosis which \nwould be concerning for muscle spasm. \n2.  Severe multi-level degenerative change of the spine. \n3.  Grade I anterolisthesis of L5 on S1.   \n \n The claimant agreed on cross-examination that she did not work for \nthe respondents after December 15, 2022.  An APRN saw the claimant on \nDecember 20, 2022:  “Complains of lower back pain.  She went to urgent \ncare not long ago and was told she had spinal enthesopathy and needed to \nsee a neurosurgeon.  She would like a referral.  She states this [has] been \ngoing on for years.  She has recently been on a Medrol Dosepak and \ncyclobenzaprine.  She states she has tried injections and physical therapy.  \nShe does see an orthopedic doctor about this but states none of it is \nhelping.  She declines chiropractor referral.”  The assessment on December \n20, 2022 included “Spinal enthesopathy of lumbar region (HCC).\"   \nDr. Robert Cline Lane reported on December 21, 2022: \nTeresa L. Kimes is a 60 y.o female to the emergency \ndepartment with complaints of increasing lower back pain.  \nShe states that she has been having gradual increase in pain \nover the past 7 months or so however the past week she has \nhad much more trouble with it.  She is she does (sic) heavy \nlifting at work as she works in home health and was seen last \nweek at urgent care and had imaging done and is \nsubsequently seen (sic) her PCP who has sent a referral for \nneurosurgery evaluation.  She has been on a Medrol Dosepak \nalong with Flexeril however this does not seem to be helping \n\nKIMES - H300170  7\n  \n \n \nher pain.  The pain goes mostly into her right hip and leg but \nsometimes on the left side as well.... \n \n Dr. Lane diagnosed “Chronic right-sided back pain with right-sided \nsciatica (primary).” \n An MRI of the claimant’s lumbar spine was taken on January 6, 2023 \nwith the impression, “Degenerative changes of the lumbar spine which are \ndescribed in detail by level above.”   \n The claimant began pain management treatment with David Holt, \nPA-C on January 18, 2023:  “Teresa is a 60 year old female who presents \nto the clinic with complaint of pain in low back, bilateral legs, bilateral knees.  \nHas known severe lumbar foraminal stenosis.”  David Holt assessed \n“Lumbar degenerative disc disease.”  Dr. Holt noted on February 15, 2023 \nthat the claimant “fell in the rain.”   \n Dr. Gautam Kanu Gandhi noted on February 21, 2023, “This is a \nchronic problem.  The current episode started more than 1 year ago (>10 \nyears)....The pain is present in the lumbar spine.”  Dr. Gandhi discussed \nconservative treatment and surgery, and he advised the claimant to return \nto the clinic in six months.       \n Dr. Michael S. Wolfe assessed the following on May 4, 2023:  \n“Radiographs show degenerative changes at L3-4 L4-5 and L5-S1 with \ngrade 1 spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 findings are somewhat similar to what \nwas noted 3 years ago but she definitely has progressive disc deterioration \n\nKIMES - H300170  8\n  \n \n \nand joint space narrowing she is having mechanical pain related to her disc \nchanges and I do think that surgical intervention could be of help to her \nbecause she is having such severe problems she is to follow-up with the \nphysician in Conway she will continue on Mobic at present I will see her \nback in clinic on [an] as needed basis.”   \nA pre-hearing order was filed on August 8, 2023.  According to the \ntext of the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The claimant \ncontends that she sustained compensable injury to her lower back while \nattempting to move a patient on December 3 [sic], 2022.  She contends that \nher injury has required reasonably necessary medical services and has \nrendered her temporarily totally disabled from December 5, 2022, until a \ndate yet to be determined.  She seeks the statutory attorney’s fee for her \nattorney on all appropriate benefits that might be subsequently awarded.”   \n The parties stipulated that the respondents “have controverted the \nclaim in its entirety.”  The respondents contended, “Respondents contend \nthat the claimant cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury for which she is entitled to medical and \nindemnity benefits.  Specifically, Respondents contend that the claimant \nsuffers from pre-existing degenerative disc disease for which she has \nreceived treatment as far back as 2010 and that the claimant did not report \n\nKIMES - H300170  9\n  \n \n \na work related injury occurring on December 3 [sic], 2022, or at any time \nduring her employment.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues:   \n1.  Whether Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her \nlow back on or about December 4, 2022.   \n2.  Whether Claimant is entitled to medical treatment for her \ncompensable low back injury. \n3.  Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability \nbenefits from December 5, 2022, to a date yet to be \ndetermined. \n4.  Whether Claimant’s attorney is entitled to an attorney fee.   \n \n A hearing was held on October 5, 2023.  The claimant testified that \nDr. Gandhi had scheduled surgery for October 30, 2023.  An administrative \nlaw judge filed an opinion on January 3, 2024 and found that the claimant \nfailed to prove she sustained a compensable injury.  The administrative law \njudge therefore denied the claim.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission.     \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent part: \n  (A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external physical \nharm to the body ... \narising out of and in the course of employment and which \nrequires medical services or results in disability or death.  An \ninjury is “accidental” only if it is caused by a specific incident \nand is identifiable by time and place of occurrence[.]   \n \n A compensable injury must also be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D)(Repl. \n\nKIMES - H300170  10\n  \n \n \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 he 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 An administrative law judge found in the present matter, “2.  The \nclaimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury to her low back on or about December 4, \n2022.”  The Full Commission affirms this finding.  The record indicates that \nthe claimant has suffered from chronic low back pain since at least 2012.  \nAn MRI in 2015 showed herniation and bulging in the claimant’s lumbar \nspine.  The claimant thereafter underwent pain management, and x-rays in \nApril 2022 showed “Advanced degenerative changes.”   \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed on \nDecember 4, 2022.  The claimant testified that she was employed with the \nrespondents as a Home Health Provider, and that she was working in the \nhome of a client named Frances.  The claimant testified that she felt a pain \nin her back while leaning over Frances’ bed to change linens.  The claimant \n\nKIMES - H300170  11\n  \n \n \ntestified that she informed personnel with the respondent-employer that she \nhad injured her back.     \n In workers’ compensation cases, the Commission functions as the \ntrier of fact.  Blevins v. Safeway Stores, 25 Ark. App. 297, 757 S.W.2d 569 \n(1988).  The Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the \nclaimant or any other witness but may accept and translate into findings of \nfact only those portions of the testimony it deems worthy of belief.  Farmers \nCo-op v. Biles, 77 Ark. App. 1, 69 S.W.3d 899 (2002).   \n The Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant \nwas not a credible witness.  We find credible the testimony of Carolyn \nLangley, the respondents’ scheduling supervisor.  Carolyn Langley testified \nthat the claimant never reported an alleged injury to her.  Ms. Langley \nspecifically testified that she claimant did not report she injured her back at \nwork on December 4, 2022.  Carolyn Langley testified that Frances \nrequested that the claimant not be allowed to return to her home:  “The \nallegations were that she was cussing and screaming at the client and \nthrew the client’s phone.”   \n Nor did the medical evidence corroborate the claimant’s contention \nthat she sustained an accidental injury on December 4, 2022.  The claimant \ndid not seek medical treatment of record until December 15, 2022.  It was \nnoted that the claimant “HURT BACK WORKING WITH PATIENTS. \n\nKIMES - H300170  12\n  \n \n \nWORSENING BACK PAIN FOR A WEEK.”  However, there was not a \nspecific incident identified.  An APRN’s assessment on December 20, 2022 \nwas “Spinal enthesopathy of the lumbar region (HCC).”  The evidence does \nnot demonstrate that this condition was causally related to an alleged \naccidental injury on December 4, 2022.  Nor does the evidence \ndemonstrate that the subsequent reports of “right-sided sciatica” or lumbar \ndegenerative changes were causally related to an alleged accidental injury.     \n The Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  The \nclaimant did not prove that she sustained an accidental injury causing \nphysical harm to the body.  The claimant did not prove that she sustained \nan injury which arose out of and in the course of employment, required \nmedical services, or resulted in disability.  The claimant did not prove that \nshe sustained an injury which was caused by a specific incident or was \nidentifiable by time and place of occurrence on or about December 4, 2022.  \nNor did the claimant prove that she sustained a compensable aggravation \nof a pre-existing condition.  See Farmland Ins. Co. v. Dubois, 54 Ark. App. \n141, 923 S.W.2d 883 (1996); Ford v. Chemipulp Process, Inc., 63 Ark. App. \n260, 977 S.W.5 (1998). \n\nKIMES - H300170  13\n  \n \n \n After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission \naffirms the administrative law judge’s opinion that the claimant did not prove \nshe sustained a compensable injury on or about December 4, 2022.  This \nclaim is respectfully 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 \n \nCommissioner Wilhite dissents. \nDISSENTING OPINION \n  The Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter referred to as “ALJ”) found \nthat the Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that \nshe sustained a compensable injury to her low back on or about December \n4, 2022, that she was entitled to medical treatment for such injury and that \nshe is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 15, \n2022, to a date yet to be determined.  After conducting a thorough review of \nthe record, I concur in part and dissent in part.  I would rule in favor of the \nClaimant for her compensable injury to her low back which she sustained \n\nKIMES - H300170  14\n  \n \n \non or about December 4, 2022 and is entitled to medical treatment for her \ncompensable injury.  \n1. The Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her low back on or \nabout December 4, 2022 and is entitled to medical treatment for that \ninjury.  \nTo establish a compensable injury by a preponderance of the \nevidence the Claimant must prove: (1) an injury arising out of and in the \ncourse of employment; (2) that the injury caused internal or external harm \nto the body which required medical services or resulted in disability or \ndeath; (3) medical evidence supported by objective findings, as defined in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16), establishing the injury; and (4) that the injury \nwas caused by a specific and identifiable time and place of occurrence.  A \ncompensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings and medical opinions addressing compensability must be \nstated within a degree of medical certainty.  Smith-Blair, Inc. v. Jones, 77 \nArk. App. 273, 72 S.W.3d 560 (2002) \nThe employer takes the employee as he finds him.  Conway \nConvalescent Center v. Murphree, 266 Ark. 985, 585 S.W.2d 462 (Ark. \nApp. 1979).  A pre-existing disease or infirmity does not disqualify a claim if \nthe employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or \ninfirmity to produce the disability for which compensation is sought.  See, \n\nKIMES - H300170  15\n  \n \n \nNashville Livestock Commission v. Cox, 302 Ark. 69, 787 S.W.2d 664 \n(1990); Conway Convalescent Center v. Murphree, 266 Ark. 985, 585 \nS.W.2d 462 (Ark. App. 1979); St. Vincent Medical Center v. Brown, 53 Ark. \nApp. 30, 917 S.W.2d 550 (1996).  An increase in symptoms of a pre-\nexisting degenerative condition is sufficient to establish a compensable \ninjury.  Parker v. Atlantic Research Corp., 87 Ark. App. 145, 189 S.W.3d \n449 (2004). \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).  \nReasonable and necessary medical services may include those necessary \nto accurately diagnose the nature and extent of the compensable injury; to \nreduce or alleviate symptoms resulting from the compensable injury; or to \nmaintain the level of healing achieved; or to prevent further deterioration of \nthe damage produced by the compensable injury.  Jordan v. Tyson Foods, \nInc., 51 Ark. App. 100, 911 S.W.2d 593 (1995).  \nOn December 4, 2022, Claimant was working for Respondent as a \nhome healthcare worker.  Claimant testified that the Respondent’s patient \nrequired an undergarment changing.  During this, the patient was \nuncooperative, and Claimant had to roll the individual over when she felt \npain in her back.  On December 15, 2022, an X-Ray was obtained of \n\nKIMES - H300170  16\n  \n \n \nClaimant’s L-Spine which showed a loss of normal lumbar spine lordosis \nwhich would be concerning for muscle spasm, severe multi-level \ndegenerative changes, and grade I anterolisthesis of the L5 on S1 level of \nthe spine.  Claimant reported to the ER on December 21, 2022, for \nworsening pain in her back where she was diagnosed with chronic right-\nsided low back pain with right-sided sciatica.  Claimant underwent an MRI \non February 21, 2023, which showed a worsening condition of \nmultisegmented lumbar spondylosis with significant spondylosis worse at \nthe L3-4 level with collapse of the interspace, and severe central canal \nstenosis at the L3-4 and L4-5 levels compared to an MRI performed in May \n2018 as read by Dr. Gautam Kanu Gandhi.  Dr. Gandhi found that \nClaimant’s condition was worse than her comparable MRI performed in May \nof 2018.  Dr. Gandhi recommended Claimant for surgical intervention of an \nL3-5 posterior fixation with L3 laminectomy.  \nTherefore, I would find that the Claimant suffered a compensable \nlower back injury and is entitled to medical treatment of such injury in the \nperformance of Dr. Gandhi’s recommended surgery.  \n2. The Claimant is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits from \nDecember 15, 2022 to a date yet to be determined. \nTemporary total disability benefits are appropriate where the \nemployee remains in the healing period and is totally incapacitated from \n\nKIMES - H300170  17\n  \n \n \nearning wages.  Ark. State Highway Dep’t v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 \nS.W.2d 392 (1981).  While the Claimant is clearly still in her healing period \nas she is still treating for her compensable injury, I cannot say she is totally \nincapacitated from earning wages.  Claimant has not been restricted from \nworking by her authorized physician or another medical provider.  \nTherefore, I would find that the Claimant is not entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits from December 15, 2022 to a date yet to be \ndetermined.  \nFor the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H300170 TERESA KIMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT INDEPENDENCE AT HOME, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT GUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 7, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:45.111Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H300170-2024-08-07","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Kimes_Teresa_H300170_20240807.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}