{"id":"full_commission-H303571-2025-04-09","awcc_number":"H303571","decision_date":"2025-04-09","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Mary Ginther","employer_name":"Emerson Electric Company","title":"GINTHER VS. EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY AWCC# H303571 April 09, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["denied:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back","repetitive"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ginther_Mary_H303571_20250409.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Ginther_Mary_H303571_20250409.pdf","text_length":25023,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H303571 \n \nMARY M. GINTHER, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nEMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nOLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, \nMITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES AND \nWOODYARD, P.L.L.C.,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE SCOTT HUNTER, JR., Attorney \nat Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE RICHARD N. DODSON, \nAttorney at Law, Texarkana, Texas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \nThe respondents appeal an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nOctober 1, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nproved she sustained a compensable injury.  The administrative law judge \nawarded medical treatment and a period of temporary total disability \nbenefits.  After reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission \nfinds that the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury.  We find that the claimant proved she was \n\nGINTHER - H303571  2\n  \n \n \nentitled to temporary total disability benefits and reasonably necessary \nmedical treatment.     \nI.  HISTORY \n Mary Ginther, now age 35, testified that she became employed with \nthe respondents, Emerson Electric Company, in October 2022.  Ms. Ginther \ntestified that her job title was “Paint Technician.”  The claimant testified on \ndirect examination: \nQ.  And we’re here today because of an alleged job injury on \nFebruary 15, 2023, is that right? \nA.  Correct. \nQ.  And can you please explain to the Court what happened \non that day? \nA.  I was working on the Paint Line, and we were doing the \n1000 Jack Stand Challenge, which meant we have to have \n1000 jack stands completed within that month.  That means it \nhad to be welded, painted, packed, and shipped out within \nthat month.  So I was loading and unloading jack stands from \nthe line, and then I heard a loud popping in my right shoulder, \nand I had instant pain in my right shoulder down my right arm, \nmy forearm.... \nQ.  Were you working with anyone, by yourself when you \nwere working with these jack stands? \nA.  No.  Paige Jones was working on the line with me.... \nQ.  As far as after the injury, did you – did you let anybody, a \nsupervisor or anyone, know of the injury? \nA.  The Operations Manager, Annie Stigall.  She kind of was \nwalking up to the Paint Line kind of seeing I was holding my \narm, asked me what happened, and then she told me I \nneeded to go fill out an Incident Report.... \nQ.  Where did you go to fill out the Incident Report? \nA.  I went to Joe B.  I can’t pronounce his last name, so I \napologize.  He was the Safety Coordinator at that time, and he \ntold me to fill out an Incident Report, so I took the Report, \nfilled it out, I had Paige Jones look over it, and then she \n\nGINTHER - H303571  3\n  \n \n \nsigned it as a witness, and I gave it back to Joe that same \nday.   \n \n The claimant’s attorney examined Paige Jones: \n  Q.  And where do you work? \n  A.  Emerson Electric.... \n  Q.  Did you ever work directly with Mary Ginther? \n  A.  Yes, sir. \nQ.  Specifically on February 15, 2023, do you – do you \nremember if you were working in close proximity to Mary \nGinther? \nA.  Yes, sir....We were working side by side hanging jack \nstands while other people were pulling parts off the line.... \nQ.  On that date, do you remember anything happening to Ms. \nGinther’s physical condition while she was working? \nA.  It was a normal day at first, and then we were hanging the \njack stands, you heard a pop and her arm – and her arm went \nlimp.   \nQ.  So you were – y’all were sitting there working, you heard \nthis pop.  I guess it attracted your attention? \nA.  Yes.  I looked at her and I asked what had happened. \nQ.  What did she tell you? \nA.  She wasn’t sure as to what had fully happened at that \ncurrent moment.  She just knew that her arm got hurt.   \n \n According to the record, the claimant filled out an “Emerson \nProfessional Tools MFG Incident Report” on February 15, 2023.  The \nclaimant wrote that the event occurred at 9:00 a.m. on February 15, 2023 \nand that the location was “Ashflat Paint Line.”  The claimant reported that \nPaige Jones witnessed the incident.  The claimant described the injury as \n“Right bicept/shoulder (sic).”  The claimant wrote on the “Incident Report,” “I \nwas pulling parts off the line, heard my right shoulder pop and have had \npain in my forearm, bicep and shoulder since.” \n\nGINTHER - H303571  4\n  \n \n \n The claimant testified that she returned to restricted work for the \nrespondents following the specific incident, but that the condition of her right \narm progressively worsened.  The claimant agreed on cross-examination \nthat she continued to work for three months.    \n The claimant testified that the respondent-employer’s Safety \nCoordinator eventually directed her to treat with Dr. Terry Burns.  Dr. Burns \nexamined the claimant on May 5, 2023: \nPt complaining of Rt shoulder pain off and on since 2/15/23.  \nPt describes pain as burning, achy, constant, and worsens \nwith certain movements along with some weakness.  She \ndenies any specific fall or injury but does say she does a lot of \nrepetitive lifting at work....Has been using Biofreeze, \nmeloxicam/ibuprofen, applying wraps and ice/heat.   \n \n Alicia Justice testified that she was the respondent-employer’s “HR \nBusiness Partner.”  Ms. Justice testified that the respondents paid for the \nclaimant’s May 5, 2023 treatment with Dr. Burns.   \nThe claimant was treated at WRMC Orthopaedic and Sports \nMedicine Clinic on June 20, 2023.  An LPN assessed “(1)  Tear of distal \ntendon of biceps” and “(2)  Right shoulder pain....MRI reviewed with \npatient.  Discussed right elbow distal biceps repair since injury was in Feb \n2023 and has had no relief.  No shoulder derangement seen on MRI.”  The \nLPN also reported, “Today’s visit related to an accident/injury?:  Yes.  Date \nof Accident/Injury:  02/15/23 (LOADING PARTS ONTO LINE ABOVE \nHEAD, FELT/HEARD POPPING).” \n\nGINTHER - H303571  5\n  \n \n \n Dr. Dylan Carpenter’s diagnosis on June 20, 2023 was “Tear of distal \ntendon of biceps” and “Right shoulder pain.”  Dr. Carpenter performed a \n“Right distal biceps repair” on June 28, 2023.  The claimant testified that Dr. \nCarpenter arranged follow-up treatment after surgery, which treatment \nincluded physical therapy.  The claimant testified on direct examination: \nQ.  And it looks like you missed some work at Emerson due to \nthe surgery and the rehab, is that right? \nA.  Correct.   \nQ.  Approximately how long did you – did you miss work? \nA.  For the surgery, I missed three weeks.   \n \n Dr. Carpenter reported on July 18, 2023 that the claimant could \nreturn to work on July 24, 2023.  Dr. Carpenter assigned work limitations of \n“light duty, no lifting over 5 lbs, no over head work.”  The claimant testified \nthat she returned to work for the respondents.   \n A pre-hearing order was filed on May 7, 2024.  The claimant \ncontended, “The Claimant contends that her position is the paint line as a \npaint tech, but she is often required to do other positions within Emerson \nElectric that are outside of her job description.  On the date of injury the \nClaimant was being required to load and unload jack stands for the ‘1000 \njack challenge’ for the month.  As she was lifting a jack, she felt a pop and \nhad immediate shooting pain, reported the injury and filled out an incident \nreport.”   \n\nGINTHER - H303571  6\n  \n \n \n The parties stipulated that the respondents “have controverted this \nmatter in its entirety.”  The respondents contended, “The Employer \ncontroverts the claim.  The Claimant has not and cannot establish by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury \nduring the course and scope of her employment.  The medical records \nobtained to date do not establish an injury within the course and scope of \nthe Claimant’s employment.” \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Compensability of a right arm injury. \n2. Reasonable and necessary medical treatment. \n3. TTD from February 15, 2023, to a date to be determined. \n4. Attorney’s fees. \n5. All other issues are reserved, including PPD.   \n \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge filed an opinion on \nOctober 1, 2024.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant \nproved she sustained a compensable injury.  The administrative law judge \nawarded medical treatment and a period of temporary total disability \nbenefits.  The respondents appeal to the Full Commission.   \nII.  ADJUDICATION \nA.  Compensability \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. 2012) provides, in pertinent  \n \npart: \n \n(A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n \n\nGINTHER - H303571  7\n  \n \n \n(i)  An accidental injury causing internal or external \nphysical harm to the body ... arising out of and in \nthe course of employment and which requires \nmedical services or results in disability or death.  An \ninjury is \"accidental” only if it is caused by a specific \nincident and is identifiable by time and place of \noccurrence[.]   \n \nA compensable injury must also be established by medical evidence \nsupported by objective findings.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(D)(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).  The requirement that a compensable injury must be established by \nmedical evidence supported by objective findings applies only to the \nexistence and extent of the injury.  Stephens Truck Lines v. Millican, 58 Ark. \nApp. 275, 950 S.W.2d 472 (1997).   \nThe 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).   \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “3.  The \nclaimant has satisfied the required burden of proof to show that she \nsustained a compensable, work-related injury to her right arm on February \n\nGINTHER - H303571  8\n  \n \n \n15, 2023.”  The Full Commission finds that the claimant proved by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury. \nThe claimant testified that she became employed with the \nrespondents in October 2022.  The claimant’s job title for the respondent-\nemployer was “Paint Technician.”  The claimant testified that she was \nworking on the respondents’ Paint Line on February 15, 2023.  The \nclaimant testified that she heard a loud “popping” and pain while unloading \na jack stand.  A co-worker on February 15, 2023, Paige Jones, testified that \nshe heard a “pop” and that the claimant’s arm “went limp.”  The claimant \ntestified that the respondent-employer’s Safety Coordinator directed her to \nfill out an Incident Report, and the claimant indeed filled out such a Report \non February 15, 2023.  The Incident Report, which was included of record, \ncorroborated the claimant’s testimony at hearing.  The claimant wrote on \nthe Incident Report that she heard a “pop” in her right shoulder and that she \nimmediately began suffering from pain in her right forearm and bicep.  The \nrespondents state on appeal that the “noise on the production floor” \nprecluded the claimant or Paige Jones from hearing a “pop” on February \n15, 2023.  Nevertheless, the Full Commission finds that the probative \nevidence of record corroborates the testimony of the claimant and Paige \nJones.     \n\nGINTHER - H303571  9\n  \n \n \nAs we have discussed, the claimant testified that the respondent-\nemployer’s Safety Coordinator eventually directed her to seek treatment \nwith Dr. Terry Burns.  Dr. Burns saw the claimant on May 5, 2023 and \npurported to state that the claimant did not have a “specific fall or injury,” \nbut he also noted that the claimant had been suffering with pain since the \ndate of the work-related accidental injury, February 15, 2023.  A \nrepresentative of the respondent-employer, Alicia Justice, testified that the \nrespondents paid for the claimant’s May 5, 2023 visit with Dr. Burns.  The \nclaimant was examined at WRMC Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Clinic \non June 20, 2023.  It was plainly noted at that time that the claimant had \nbeen suffering from pain since the accidental injury which occurred on \nFebruary 15, 2023.  Dr. Carpenter’s diagnosis on June 20, 2023 was “Tear \nof distal tendon of biceps” and “Right shoulder pain.”  Dr. Carpenter \nperformed a “Right distal biceps repair” on June 28, 2023.    \nIn 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).  The Full \nCommission finds in the present matter that the claimant was a credible \n\nGINTHER - H303571  10\n  \n \n \nwitness.  The claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she \nsustained a compensable injury in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(A)(i)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant proved that she sustained an \naccidental injury causing physical harm to the body, that is, the claimant’s \nright arm.  The claimant proved that the injury arose out of and in the \ncourse of employment, required medical services, and resulted in disability.  \nThe injury was caused by a specific incident and was identifiable by time \nand place of occurrence on February 15, 2023.  The claimant also \nestablished a compensable injury by medical evidence supported by \nobjective findings, namely, Dr. Carpenter’s diagnosis of “Tear of distal \ntendon of biceps.”  The Full Commission finds that the “Tear of distal \ntendon of biceps” was causally related to the February 15, 2023 accidental \ninjury.   \nB.  Temporary Disability \nThe standard for determining entitlement to temporary total disability \nbenefits differs depending on whether the injury is a scheduled injury or an \nunscheduled injury.  Lawless v. AT&T Tech. Servs. Co., 2025 Ark. App. 67, \nCV-24-289 (Ark. App. Feb. 05, 2025), citing City of Fort Smith v. Kaylor, \n2019 Ark. App. 517, 588 S.W.3d 803.  The claimant in the present matter \nsustained a compensable scheduled injury to her right arm on February 15, \n2023.  For scheduled injuries the injured employee is to receive \n\nGINTHER - H303571  11\n  \n \n \ncompensation for temporary total disability during the healing period or until \nshe returns to work, whichever occurs first.  Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n521(a)(Repl. 2012); Wheeler Constr. Co. v. Armstrong, 73 Ark. App. 146, \n41 S.W.3d 822 (2001).  An incapacity to earn wages is presumed when a \nclaimant has sustained a compensable scheduled injury.  Minnesota Min. & \nMfg. v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94, 989 S.W.2d 151 (1999).  The healing period is \nthat period for healing of the injury which continues until the employee is as \nfar restored as the permanent character of the injury will permit.  Nix v. \nWilson World Hotel, 46 Ark. App. 303, 879 S.W.2d 457 (1994).  Whether an \nemployee’s healing period has ended is a question of fact for the \nCommission.  Ketcher Roofing Co. v. Johnson, 50 Ark. App. 63, 901 \nS.W.2d 25 (1995).         \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “5.  The \nclaimant has satisfied the required burden of proof to show that she is \nentitled to TTD for a period of three weeks, one day.”  The administrative \nlaw judge cited as authority a well-known case related to unscheduled \ninjuries, Ark. State Hwy. Dept. v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613 S.W.2d 392 \n(1981).  The administrative law judge therefore erred as a matter of law.  \nLawless, supra.  Nevertheless, the Full Commission has the duty to decide \nthe case de novo and we are not bound by the characterization of evidence \n\nGINTHER - H303571  12\n  \n \n \nadopted by an administrative law judge.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 37 \nArk. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990).   \nThe Full Commission reiterates in the present matter that the \nclaimant sustained a compensable scheduled injury on February 15, 2023.  \nAlthough the evidence demonstrates that she entered a healing period \nbeginning February 15, 2023, the claimant initially returned to work for the \nrespondents following the compensable injury.  The medical records \nindicate that Dr. Carpenter performed a “Right distal biceps repair” on June \n28, 2023.  The claimant testified that she was unable to work beginning the \ndate of surgery.  The evidence therefore demonstrates that the claimant \nremained within a healing period and did not return to work beginning June \n28, 2023.  Dr. Carpenter noted on July 18, 2023 that the claimant could \nreturn to restricted work beginning July 24, 2023.  The claimant testified that \nshe returned to work for the respondents, where the claimant remains \ngainfully employed.  The claimant therefore proved that she was entitled to \ntemporary total disability benefits beginning June 28, 2023 until July 24, \n2023.  See Armstrong, supra. \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant proved she sustained a compensable scheduled injury on \nFebruary 15, 2023.  The claimant proved that she was entitled to temporary \ntotal disability benefits beginning June 28, 2023 and continuing until July \n\nGINTHER - H303571  13\n  \n \n \n24, 2023.  The claimant proved that the medical treatment of record \nfollowing the compensable injury, including surgery performed by Dr. \nCarpenter, was reasonably necessary in connection with Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-508(a)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant’s attorney is entitled to fees for \nlegal services in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-715(a)(Repl. 2012).  \nFor prevailing on appeal to the Full Commission, the claimant’s attorney is \nentitled to an additional fee of five hundred dollars ($500), pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-715(b)(Repl. 2012).   \nIT IS SO ORDERED.    \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \n I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.  In my de novo \nreview of the record, I find that the claimant has failed to meet her burden of \nproof she suffered a compensable injury to her right shoulder on February \n15, 2023. \nThe claimant alleged she was injured while working for the \nrespondent employer on February 15, 2023, “loading and unloading jack \n\nGINTHER - H303571  14\n  \n \n \nstands from the line and then I heard a loud popping in my right shoulder, \nand I had an instant pain in my right shoulder and down my right arm, my \nforearm.” The claimant completed an incident report, which was given to the \nsafety coordinator, and the claimant returned to work.  \nThree months later, the claimant was treated by Dr. Terry Burns for a \nworkers’ compensation evaluation.  Dr. Burns referred the claimant to Dr. \nDylan Carpenter, who performed surgery on the claimant’s right upper \nextremity.  The respondent’s carrier denied and controverted this claim.  \nAfter a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that \nthe claimant satisfied her burden of proving she suffered a compensable \ninjury to her right upper extremity.  \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 requires a claimant establish by a preponderance of the \nevidence: (1) an injury arising out of and in the course of employment; (2) \nthat the injury caused internal or external physical harm to the body which \nrequired medical services or resulted in disability or death; (3) medical \nevidence supported by objective findings establishing an injury as defined in \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(16) and; (4) that the injury was caused by a \n\nGINTHER - H303571  15\n  \n \n \nspecific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence.  Ark. Code \nAnn. § 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).  \nIt is within the Commission's province to weigh all the medical \nevidence, to determine what is most credible, and to determine its medical \nsoundness and probative force.  Sheridan Sch. Dist. v. Wise, 2021 Ark. \nApp. 459, 637 S.W.3d 280 (2021).  \nIn weighing the evidence, the Commission may not arbitrarily \ndisregard medical evidence or the testimony of any witness.  Id.  The \nCommission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or any \nother witness but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those \nportions of the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  White v. Gregg \nAgricultural Enterprises, 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001). \nI find the claimant’s testimony is inconsistent and unreliable.  The \nclaimant has consistently provided misleading information regarding her \nclaim.  \nThe claimant and her coworker, Paige Jones, assert that they heard \nthe claimant’s shoulder pop while on the production line floor.  However, the \n\nGINTHER - H303571  16\n  \n \n \nemployer facility is a 220,000 square foot facility that is made up, \nessentially, of one large room.  During the claimant’s shift, there are \ntypically around 135 workers on the production floor.  \nThe paint line is loud for a variety of reasons: Compressors power \nthe paint guns; there are two nearby blasting cabinets where parts are \nsprayed with glass beads and other abrasive materials; workers operate \npower grinders; a large tumbler with abrasive beads shakes and vibrates \nparts to clean them; and there are at least five forklifts in the building which \nhonk and beep as they move.  Hearing protection is provided to the workers \nand in these areas, and employees have to raise their voices to be heard.  \nIt strains credulity to believe the claimant and Ms. Jones were able to \nhear a pop from the claimant’s arm or shoulder with the elevated noise in \nthe facility.  In addition, Ms. Jones was two and a half to three feet away \nfrom the claimant.  This is also evidenced by the claimant’s inconsistent \nstatements regarding the location of the pop.  \nAt the hearing, both the claimant and Ms. Jones testified they heard \nthe claimant’s shoulder pop while on the production floor. This was \nconfirmed in the incident report.  However, when she was deposed on \nDecember 4, 2023, the claimant testified she heard a pop near her elbow \nand the inside of her right arm.  In addition, the claimant did not report a \npopping sound to Dr. Terry Burns at her initial appointment on May 5, 2023. \n\nGINTHER - H303571  17\n  \n \n \nFor these reasons, it is clear that the claimant’s inconsistent testimony fails \nto meet her burden of proving that she suffered a specific incident injury on \nFebruary 15, 2023. \nFurther, the claimant has been inconsistent in her testimony about \nwhether she was working alone or with Ms. Jones at the time of her injury. \nIn her deposition, the claimant testified that Ms. Jones was “helping me load \nthe jack; however, at the hearing, claimant testified that she was loading the \njack by herself without assistance.  \nThese inconsistencies can also be found in the claimant’s medical \nrecords. The claimant admitted at the hearing that Dr. Burns’ initial report \nregarding the claimant’s injury stated her chief complaint was shoulder pain, \nand she denied any specific injury.  \nDuring her testimony at the hearing, the claimant never denied telling \nDr. Burns she did not have a specific injury.  In fact, at the hearing, the \nclaimant admitted that she told Dr. Burns that there was no specific incident \nand later changed her position after filing her Form C.   \nThe claimant also testified during her deposition she was off work for \nthree months following a bicep tendon repair surgery performed by Dr. \nCarpenter.  However, the claimant was returned to work three weeks and \none day after surgery.  \n\nGINTHER - H303571  18\n  \n \n \nIt is clear that the claimant’s own inconsistent and self-serving \nreporting and testimony regarding the nature of her injury renders her \nunable to satisfy her burden of proof.   \nAccordingly, the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303571 MARY M. GINTHER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES AND WOODYARD, P.L.L.C., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.391Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H303571-2025-04-09","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ginther_Mary_H303571_20250409.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}