{"id":"full_commission-H303954-2024-09-18","awcc_number":"H303954","decision_date":"2024-09-18","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Myia Woods","employer_name":"City Of Little Rock","title":"WOODS VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AWCC# H303954 September 18, 2024","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["affirmed:2","granted:2","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Woods_Myia_H303954_20240918.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Woods_Myia_H303954_20240918.pdf","text_length":3867,"full_text":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H303954 \n \nMYIA M. WOODS, EMPLOYEE    CLAIMANT \n \nCITY OF LITTLE ROCK, EMPLOYER                                   RESPONDENT \n \nCADENCE INSURANCE COMPANY/RISK \nMANAGEMENT SERVICES, CARRIER/TPA                        RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, \nLittle Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents represented by the HONORABLE MELISSA WOOD, Attorney \nat Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nDecision of Administrative Law Judge:  Affirmed and Adopted. \n \nOPINION AND ORDER \n Claimant appeals an opinion and order of the Administrative Law \nJudge filed June 25, 2024. In said order, the Administrative Law Judge \nmade the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n1. The AWCC has jurisdiction over this claim.  \n \n2. The previously noted stipulations are accepted as fact. \n \n3. The claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the \nevidence that she is entitled to TTD benefits for any \nperiod.  \n \n\nWoods-H303954    2 \n  \n \n4. Absent an award of benefits, the claimant is not entitled \nto attorney’s fees. \n \n We have carefully conducted a de novo review of the entire record \nherein and it is our opinion that the Administrative Law Judge's decision is \nsupported by a preponderance of the credible evidence, correctly applies \nthe law, and should be affirmed. Specifically, we find from a preponderance \nof the evidence that the findings of fact made by the Administrative Law \nJudge are correct and they are, therefore, adopted by the Full Commission.  \n Therefore, we affirm and adopt the June 25, 2024 decision of the \nAdministrative Law Judge, including all findings and conclusions therein, as \nthe decision of the Full Commission on appeal.  \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n     \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner \n \n \nCommissioner Willhite concurs. \n \nCONCURRING OPINION \n After my de novo review of the entire record, I concur with the \nmajority opinion finding that the Claimant failed to prove by a \npreponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to temporary total \n\nWoods-H303954    3 \n  \n \ndisability benefits for any period. I write separately for the benefit of the \nClaimant.  \n While Claimant did sustain a compensable injury to her left knee and \nlower back, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence in the record \nthat Claimant has met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to \ntemporary total disability under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-521(a) or Ark. State \nHwy. Dept v. Breshears, 272 Ark. 244, 613S.W.2d 392 (1981).  There is \nonly equivocal evidence in the record that Claimant’s physician restricted \nher ability to work because of her compensable injuries after April 15, 2022. \nClaimant continued to work for Respondent until July 13, 2023, well after \nher medical release for her injuries on April 15, 2022. Nor does any \nphysician opine that Claimant’s lumbosacral spondylosis is related to her \ncompensable lower back injury.  While Dr. Suarez does say that the \nClaimant “should remain out of work,” this letter does not relay any details \nwhich were considered in arriving at this conclusion. Thus, I cannot say that \nthe evidence in the record is sufficient to entitle Claimant to temporary total \ndisability benefits for any period.  \nFor the foregoing reason, I concur with the majority opinion. \n \n                                                           ______________________________                                                             \n                                                            M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner","preview":"NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303954 MYIA M. WOODS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CADENCE INSURANCE COMPANY/RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 Upon review before the FULL COMMISSI...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.965Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-H303954-2024-09-18","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Woods_Myia_H303954_20240918.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}