{"id":"full_commission-H303648-2025-06-30","awcc_number":"H303648","decision_date":"2025-06-30","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Contessa Allison","employer_name":"Southeast Arkansas Human Development Center","title":"ALLISON VS. SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER AWCC# H303648 June 30, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","denied:6"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","repetitive","back","knee","strain","rotator cuff","fracture","ankle"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Allison_Contessa_H303648_20250630.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Allison_Contessa_H303648_20250630.pdf","text_length":25525,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  H303648  \n \nCONTESSA L. ALLISON, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nSOUTHEAST ARKANSAS HUMAN  \nDEVELOPMENT CENTER, EMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED JUNE 30, 2025  \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant appeared pro se. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. McLEMORE, \nJR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed as Modified. \n \n OPINION AND ORDER \n The claimant appeals an administrative law judge’s opinion filed \nJanuary 29, 2025.  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 finds that the claimant did not \nprove she sustained a compensable injury to her right or left shoulder which \nwas caused by rapid repetitive motion.  The claimant therefore did not \nprove that she sustained a compensable injury in accordance with Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(Repl. 2012).     \nI. HISTORY \n\nALLISON - H303648  2\n  \n \n \n Contessa Allison, now age 54, testified that she had been employed \nin 2015 as a cafeteria worker at University of Arkansas at Monticello.  Ms. \nAllison testified that she had been employed at UAM as a stir fry cook, \nwhich work “required a lot of repetition, stirring, stirring.  And eventually I \nstarted havin’ soreness in my shoulder.”  The claimant testified that she \nreceived medical treatment for her right shoulder.     \n The claimant testified that she became employed with the \nrespondents, Southeast Arkansas Human Development Center, in March \n2020.  The claimant testified, “I was a residential assistant where I worked \ndirectly with clients in the unit of 15 men....Part of your duties is you do the \nkitchen, which includes doin’ all the laundry for the 15 men.  And then you \nalso have to clean the kitchen and all of that, and as well as take care of \nyour clients and whatever they need.”   \n The claimant testified that she sustained a work-related injury to her \nright leg while employed with the respondents in September 2020.   The \nclaimant signed a Form AR-N, EMPLOYEE’S NOTICE OF INJURY, on \nOctober 1, 2020.  The ACCIDENT INFORMATION section of the Form AR-\nN indicated that an accident occurred on September 14, 2020:  “Employee \nwas chasing a client who was running off.  She pulled her right hamstring.”  \nThe record indicates that the claimant returned to work for the respondents \non or about October 20, 2020.   \n\nALLISON - H303648  3\n  \n \n \n Dr. Ethan Schock reported on April 2, 2021: \nMs. Allison is here today with her Worker’s Compensation \nnurse case manager for consideration of her right lower \nextremity pain and swelling.   \nI reviewed her records which date back to September 2020.  \nShe was apparently running and felt some discomfort and \nswelling in her right lower extremity.  She was diagnosed with \nanterior knee pain.  She has had some physical therapy, oral \nanti-inflammatory medication and was, about a month ago \nreleased to go back to 12-hour shifts.... \nIn November 2020 she had an MRI.  This study is reviewed \nand suggest generalized changes about the knee consistent \nwith osteoarthritis.... \nPLAN:  Structurally, she is intact.... \nI believe she has reached maximal medical improvement with \nrespect to her right knee work-related incident of September \n2020.  I believe her symptoms are related to preexistent \nosteoarthritis with no demonstrable new injury associated with \nthe September 2020 event.  She is released and has no \nfurther restrictions or limitations with respect to her September \n2020 work-related incident.   \n \n Dr. Schock assessed “Right knee osteoarthritis” and “Strain of \nhamstring tendon.”   \n Dr. Joe Wharton noted on April 13, 2021, “Pt presents for visit for \nWorkmen’s Comp. follow-up.  She is still hurting in her right knee.  Her work \nhas moved her back up to 12 hour shifts.  Her knee is hurting worse....We \nwill send her to Good Hope prosthetics for a knee brace to help safely \nmanage her daily activities at work.” \n An administrative law judge examined the pro se claimant: \nQ.  Specifically, when did you start having problems with your \nright and/or your left shoulders? \n\nALLISON - H303648  4\n  \n \n \nA.  That was starting around April, May goin’ on into there \naround that time....in 2021.... \nQ.  You’re claiming this was a gradual onset injury to both \nyour right and your left shoulders.   \nA.  Mm-hmm....I was always in the kitchen. \nQ.  Okay. \nA.  And that required you to do the laundry....You got thick \njeans.  You got all – you got all this heavy stuff you pullin’ out \nof these little – you only one washing machine and one dryer \nand you – \nQ.  Were these industrial size washing machines? \nA.  No. \nQ.  And dryers? \nA.  No.  Regular ones you have in your house.... \nQ.  But that’s what you were doing at the time you noticed \npain in your right and left shoulders? \nA.  Yes, ‘cause I was constantly in there – in the kitchen every \nnight, night after night after night.... \nQ.  But there was no specific incident where you were pulling \nanything out of the dryer or anything like that where you heard \na pop or fell on your shoulder or had any injury that happened \nspecifically?  This all was gradual and just came on a little bit \nat a time? \nA.  Repetition of con – of doin’ that kitchen, ‘cause you’re not \n– you’re not only doin’ the – the laundry....I’m constantly using \nmy arms for everything.  Everything I do is puttin' pressure on \nmy arms.   \nQ.  So don’t let me mischaracterize your testimony.  You tell \nme if I’ve got this right.  What you’re saying is the gradual pain \nstarted and continued to get worse over a period of time.  Is \nthat right? \nA.  Yes.   \nQ.  And what you believe caused it is washing the clothes and \nputting the clothes in the washer, taking them out and putting \nthem in the dryer, taking them out.  Did you have to fold the \nclothes as well? \nA.  I had to fold ‘em, and eventually they started having – \nwhere we had to put ‘em away.... \nQ.  What were the job duties you were performing when you \nfelt the pain in your right and left shoulders other than the \nwashing and the drying of the clothes? \n\nALLISON - H303648  5\n  \n \n \nA.  When I had to start puttin’ them up, the clothes up....why I \nreally felt the pain was when I had to start puttin’ the clothes \nup, then they had those closets that were floor to ceiling.   \n \n Dr. Wharton noted on May 28, 2021, “I have been seeing her for a \nworkman’s comp injury.  This has concluded as she has been referred to \northopedics.  She has problems with her right shoulder which she says is a \nprevious injury sustained some years ago.  She thinks is rotator cuff \ninvolved.”  Dr. Wharton’s assessment included “1.  Right shoulder pain, \nunspecified chronicity....X-ray of the right shoulder showed degenerative \nchanges at the AC and at the glenoid.\"   \n X-rays of the claimant’s right shoulder were taken on May 28, 2021 \nwith the following findings: \nThere is mild degenerative spurring at the AC joint and distal \nacromion.  The proximal humerus and glenohumeral joint are \nunremarkable.  There is no evidence for acute fracture or \nperiosteal reaction.  No lytic or sclerotic lesion.  The \nsurrounding soft tissues are unremarkable. \nIMPRESSION:  Mild degenerative spurring at the AC joint and \nacromion.  No acute osseus abnormality.   \n \n The parties stipulated that the employment relationship existed at all \npertinent times, including August 26, 2021, “when the claimant alleges she \nbecame disabled as a direct result of alleged ‘compensable’ gradual onset \ninjuries to both her right and left shoulders.”  The claimant testified that she \nreported the alleged gradual-onset injury on September 25, 2021.   \n\nALLISON - H303648  6\n  \n \n \n The record indicates that the respondents terminated the claimant’s \nemployment effective September 26, 2021.  The NOTICE OF \nDISCIPLINARY ACTION included the following cause:  “Contessa has \ndisplayed a consistent pattern of failure to comply with workplace policies, \nrules, job-related standards as well as a reasonable work-related \ninstructions (sic).  She consistently refuses instructions given by her \nSupervisor, placing unnecessary stress and additional work load on all staff \nin the unit in which she works.”   \nDr. Wharton noted on October 11, 2021, “Pt here with continued right \nshoulder pain, not improv (sic) over prior exam.”  Dr. Wharton assessed “1.  \nRight shoulder pain, unspecified chronicity.”  X-rays of the claimant’s right \nshoulder were taken on October 11, 2021 with the following findings: \n No fractures or dislocations. \n Mild degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular joint. \n No erosions.  No radiopaque foreign body. \n IMPRESSION:  1.  No acute findings.   \n \nDr. Wharton’s assessment on December 9, 2021 was “1.  Right \nshoulder pain, unspecified chronicity,” “2.  Rotator cuff arthropathy of right \nshoulder,” and “3.  Morbid obesity due to excess calories.”  Dr. Wharton \nnoted that the claimant “underwent a subacromial space injection.”   \nThe claimant treated at Mainline Health Systems, Inc. on July 21, \n2022.  An APRN reported at that time: \n\nALLISON - H303648  7\n  \n \n \n1. Left shoulder pain patient thinks it is in her rotator cuff \narea, reaching is a problem has been going on for 7-8 \nmonths gets better and then gets worse again, also look at \nher right ankle she twisted it 2 months ago and it is still \nsore.... \n52 y/o female in clinic with c/o pain in multiple joints, she is \nc/o left shoulder pain and right ankle pain.  She sprained \nright ankle several weeks ago and continues to cause her \npain....She reports that both of her shoulders hurt her, she \nbelieves it was from her job, pain started after she had \nworked for years folding clothes, she is c/o knee pain also.  \nHer left shoulder and right ankle are her main concerns \ntoday, right shoulder has been evaluated, was to have MRI \nbut she canceled appt.   \n \n The APRN’s assessment included “1.  Left shoulder pain, \nunspecified chronicity.”   \n X-rays of the claimant’s left shoulder were taken on July 21, 2022 \nwith the following findings: \nThe humeral head appears normally aligned within the \nglenoid, with detailed evaluation limited by lack of axillary or \ntransscapular wide view.  No fracture visualized.  Joint spaces \nare maintained.  Visualized portions of the lung are \nunremarkable. \nIMPRESSION \nUnremarkable left shoulder radiographs.  No acute osseous \nabnormality. \n \n The claimant signed a Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION, \non June 6, 2023.  The claimant wrote in the ACCIDENT INFORMATION \nsection of the Form AR-C that the Date of Accident was August 26, 2021.  \nThe claimant described the cause of injury and part of body injured: \nThe cause of the injury to my (left) shoulder/rotator cuff is due \nto repetitive use, stemming gradually from months of \n\nALLISON - H303648  8\n  \n \n \ncontinuous laundry and cleaning duties.  These duties include \ndoing laudry (sic) for 15 client (sic), mopping, lifting and \nbathing clients, wiping down entire kitchen.  I am also \nexperiencing the same rotator cuff issues in my (right) \nshoulder at the same time as the left. \n \n Casondra Jones, Assistant Personnel Manager, Human Resources, \nsigned a WITNESS STATEMENT on June 15, 2023:  “There is no record of \nformer employee, Contessa Allison, reporting a work-related injury to her \nshoulders.”   \nA pre-hearing order was filed on September 20, 2024.  According to \nthe text of the pre-hearing order, the claimant contended, “The claimant \ncontends her claim is not barred by the applicable S/L.  Furthermore, she \ncontends she has sustained gradual onset ‘compensable’ injuries to either \nor both her right and left shoulder(s); that she is entitled to both medical and \nindemnity benefits; and, if she retains one, her attorney is entitled to a \ncontroverted fee.”   \n The parties stipulated that the respondents “controvert this claim in \nits entirety.”  The respondents contended, “The respondents contend that \non June 8, 2023, the claimant reported having allegedly sustained a gradual \nonset injury(ies) to her right and/or left shoulder(s) that she further alleged \nresulted in her inability to work as of August 26, 2021, which the \nrespondents controverted.  The respondent contends the claimant cannot \nestablish she sustained either a specific incident or a gradual onset injury to \n\nALLISON - H303648  9\n  \n \n \neither or both her right and/or left shoulder(s) on or before August 26, 2021; \nor that she sustained any gradual onset injury whatsoever arising out of \n[and] in the course of her employment caused by both rapid and repetitive \nmotion.  The respondent further contends the claimant cannot establish she \nhas timely filed her claim.  Therefore, the respondent contends the \napplicable S/L now bars the claimant’s claim for benefits.  The respondent \nfurther contends the claimant cannot meet her burden of proof pursuant to \nthe Act in establishing her alleged injury(ies) is (are) the major cause of any \ndisability or need for treatment.  Alternatively, the respondent contends that \nif the claimant’s alleged injury(ies is (are) deemed compensable claim was \ncompensable (sic), it cannot be deemed liable for the payment of any \nresponsible (sic) for disability, medical, indemnity, and/or disability benefits \nprior to the date the claimant reported her alleged injury(ies) to her \nemployer.  Finally, the respondents reserve the right to raise additional \ncontentions, or to modify those stated herein, pending the completion of any \nand all appropriate and necessary investigation and discovery.”   \n The parties agreed to litigate the following issues: \n1. Whether this claim is barred by the applicable statute of \nlimitations (S/L). \n2. If the claim is not barred by the applicable S/L, whether the \nclaimant sustained “compensable” gradual onset injuries \nwithin the meaning of the Arkansas’ Workers’ \nCompensation Act (the Act) to her right and/or left \nshoulder(s) that culminated in disability on or about August \n26, 2021.   \n\nALLISON - H303648  10\n  \n \n \n3. If the claimant’s alleged injury(ies) is (are) deemed \ncompensable, the extent to which she is entitled to medical \nand indemnity benefits. \n4. If the claimant retains an attorney in this matter, whether \nher attorney is entitled to a controverted fee on these facts. \n5. The parties specifically reserve any and all other issues for \nfuture litigation and/or determination.   \n \nA hearing was held on October 31, 2024.  An administrative law \njudge examined the claimant: \nQ.  Is there anything I haven’t asked you about your right and \nyour left shoulder injury allegations that you think I should \nhave asked you or that you would like to put into the record at \nthis time? \nA.  It’s just that – like I said, it’s – just that repetition, ‘cause, \nlike I said, I was workin’ by myself with one other person.  I \nwas in the kitchen pretty much every night doin’ that job.  And \nthen, like I said, when they added the puttin’ the clothes, that’s \nwhen it got worse, the overstretchin’ of my arm, and then I \nwas like – I was – it was to the point where I could – ‘cause I \nhad to do it over.  It wasn’t just – you – you – you do – I got 15 \nclients so I gotta put 15 clothes away – so I’m doin’ it 30 times \nopenin’ and closin’ that thing overstretchin’ myself.  And then \nwith the clothes you just constantly all this foldin’.  I mean, it’s \nnot like it was just a little – a little load of clothes.  It’s a lot.   \nQ.  Sure.  I understand. \nA.  And then pullin’ and stuff, you know, with that old washin’ \nmachine stuff gets stuck around there and you’re stretchin’ \nand pullin’.  It was just a combination of all that, you know.  \nAnd then you have to mop, then you got these big industrial \nmops pullin’ on your shoulders and stuff.  They got in – you \ngotta wipe all this wipin’ down and – and it was – it was a lot.  \nAnd then you gotta deal with your clients that you gotta \nlift....Everything I did is – is shoulder work.   \n \n The respondents’ attorney cross-examined the claimant: \n  Q.  So you had a variety of tasks, didn’t you? \n  A.  Yes.   \n  Q.  You did not do one particular task the entire shift? \n\nALLISON - H303648  11\n  \n \n \n  A.  No.... \nQ.  But I want to make it clear you did not do laundry duties \nthe entire 12-hour shift.  You had other things that you did \nduring the 12 hours. \nA.  Yes, but that – yeah, I had other things.... \nQ.  So you’re working with a washer and dryer that most of us \nhave in our home? \nA.  Mm-hmm.... \nQ.  Can you recall about how long it takes for a wash cycle \nand a dry cycle? \nA.  For wash and dry?  It could be upwards to 30 or 40 \nminutes or in between maybe.... \nQ.  You just had to load the machine and put the detergent in \nand turn it on, correct? \nA.  Correct.   \nQ.  And then after the cycle’s complete, then you take the \nclothing out and put it in the dryer and turn it on? \nA.  Mm-hmm.... \nQ.  So I want to make sure I’m understanding the work that \nyou did at the Human Development Center.  You were \nrunning the washer and dryer five or six loads during your \nshift. \nA.  Mm-hmm. \nQ.  Would that be during the 12-hour shift? \nA.  Yes, other than when I – nothin’ changed.  I had to still do \n– even though we was comin’ in at 6:00, I still had to do the \nkitchen, you know.   \n \n An administrative law judge filed an opinion on January 29, 2025.  \nThe administrative law judge found that the statute of limitations did not bar \nthe claim.  The respondents do not appeal that finding and in fact ask that \nthe Full Commission affirm the administrative law judge’s opinion.  The \nadministrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove she \nsustained a compensable injury.  The claimant appeals to the Full \nCommission. \n\nALLISON - H303648  12\n  \n \n \nII.  ADJUDICATION \n Act 796 of 1993, as codified at Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(Repl. \n2012), provides, in pertinent part: \n(A)  “Compensable injury” means: \n(ii)  An injury causing internal or external physical harm to \nthe body and arising out of and in the course of \nemployment if it is not caused by a specific incident or is \nnot identifiable by time and place of occurrence, if the \ninjury is: \n(a)  Caused by rapid repetitive motion.   \n \nIn analyzing whether an injury is caused by rapid repetitive motion, \nthe standard is a two-pronged test:  (1)  the tasks must be repetitive, and \n(2)  the repetitive motion must be rapid.  Malone v. Texarkana Public \nSchools, 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998).   \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).   \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)(ii)(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).  For \n\nALLISON - H303648  13\n  \n \n \ninjuries falling within the definition of compensable injury under subdivision \n(4)(A)(ii), the burden of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence, \nand the resultant condition is compensable only if the alleged compensable \ninjury is the major cause of the disability or need for treatment.  Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-102(4)(E)(ii)(Repl. 2012).  “Major cause” means more than fifty \npercent (50%) of the cause, and a finding of major cause shall be \nestablished according to the preponderance of the evidence.  Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-102(14)(Repl. 2012).   \nAn administrative law judge found in the present matter, “5.  The \nclaimant has failed to meet her burden of proof in demonstrating her job \nduties at HDC constitute either rapid-repetitive motion, and/or that they \nwere the ‘major cause’ of her right and left shoulder pain/problems.”  The \nadministrative law judge erred as a matter of law.  The claimant had the \nburden of proving that her “alleged compensable injury,” not her “job \nduties,” was the major cause of her disability or need for treatment.  See \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(E)(ii)(Repl. 2012); Medlin v. Wal-Mart Stores, \nInc., 64 Ark. App. 17, 977 S.W.2d 239 (1998).  See also Crudup v. Regal \nWare, 69 Ark. App. 206, 11 S.W.3d 567 (2000).  Nevertheless, the Full \nCommission has the duty to decide the case de novo and we are not bound \nby the characterization of evidence adopted by an administrative law judge.  \nTyson Foods, Inc. v. Watkins, 37 Ark. App. 230, 792 S.W.2d 348 (1990).       \n\nALLISON - H303648  14\n  \n \n \nThe Full Commission finds in the present matter that the claimant did \nnot prove she sustained a compensable injury to her left shoulder or right \nshoulder as a result of rapid repetitive motion.  As we have discussed, the \nclaimant first complained of right shoulder pain in 2015 while working as a \ncook for another employer.  The claimant became employed with the \nrespondents, Southeast Arkansas Human Development Center, in about \nMarch 2020.  The claimant testified that she provided residential services to \n15 clients, which work included laundry and kitchen duties.  The \nrespondents provided benefits related to a right lower extremity injury \nsustained by the claimant in September 2020.  A physician stated in April \n2021, “I believe she has reached maximal medical improvement with \nrespect to her right knee work-related incident of September 2020.”   \nThe claimant testified that she began suffering from right and left \nshoulder problems in about April 2021.  The claimant testified that these \nsymptoms were related to her work for the respondents in the kitchen and \nlaundry areas.  The claimant testified that she was washing “thick” jeans.  \nThe claimant described her duties of washing clothes, placing them in the \ndryer and removing them, and then folding the clothes.  Dr. Wharton \nreported in May 2021 that the claimant was suffering from right shoulder \npain “which she says is a previous injury sustained some years ago \n[emphasis supplied].”  Dr. Wharton was obviously referring to the injury \n\nALLISON - H303648  15\n  \n \n \nsustained by the claimant in 2015 while she was employed in the UAM \ncafeteria.   \nThe respondents terminated the claimant’s employment effective \nSeptember 26, 2021.  The record does not indicate that the termination of \nthe claimant’s employment was related to the alleged compensable injuries; \ninstead, the respondents asserted that the claimant failed to comply with \nworkplace policies, rules, and job-related standards.   \nThe claimant treated at Mainline Health Systems on July 21, 2022.  \nThe claimant reported that she suffered from bilateral shoulder pain as a \nresult of “folding clothes.”  The claimant signed a Form AR-C, CLAIM FOR \nCOMPENSATION, on June 6, 2023.  The claimant alleged in the Form AR-\nC that she suffered from bilateral shoulder problems as a result of “months \nof laundry and cleaning duties.”  The claimant testified at hearing that she \nsuffered from shoulder pain as a result of working in the respondents’ \nlaundry and kitchen areas.   \nThe Full Commission finds that the claimant did not prove she \nsustained a compensable injury in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(A)(ii)(Repl. 2012).  The claimant did not prove by a preponderance \nof the evidence that she sustained an injury causing internal or external \nphysical harm to her left or right shoulder which arose out of and in the \ncourse of employment or was caused by rapid repetitive motion.  Even if the \n\nALLISON - H303648  16\n  \n \n \nclaimant’s work for the respondents in the area of kitchen and laundry was \nrepetitive, the claimant did not prove that these allegedly repetitive tasks \nwere performed rapidly.  See Malone, supra.  The claimant also did not \nestablish a compensable injury supported by objective findings.  The x-rays \nof the claimant’s right shoulder taken May 28, 2021 and October 11, 2021 \nrevealed mild degenerative changes and cannot be interpreted as \ndemonstrating a compensable injury caused by rapid repetitive motion.  The \nx-ray of the claimant’s left shoulder taken July 21, 2022 was reported to be \n“Unremarkable” and likewise cannot be interpreted as establishing a \ncompensable injury by medical evidence supported by objective findings.  \nFinally, the claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that \nthe alleged compensable injury was the major cause of the alleged \ndisability or need for treatment.  See Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n102(4)(E)(ii)(Repl. 2012); Medlin, supra.   \nAfter reviewing the entire record de novo, the Full Commission finds \nthat the claimant did not prove she sustained a compensable injury in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(Repl. 2012) et seq.  \nThis claim is respectfully denied and dismissed.   \n \n \n \n\nALLISON - H303648  17\n  \n \n \nIT IS SO ORDERED.         \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303648 CONTESSA L. ALLISON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 30, 2025","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.263Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H303648-2025-06-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Allison_Contessa_H303648_20250630.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}