Legal Opinion

Williams v. Prostaff Temporaries

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided November 18, 1998No. CA 97-1418PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge.

Michelle Williams brings this appeal from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission found that Williams failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that she was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits and (2) that she was entitled to medical treatment by Dr. Ted Saer. On appeal, Williams asserts that she did show, by substantial evidence, that she was entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits and that she was entitled to medical treatment by Dr. Ted Saer. We affirm the Worker’s Compensation…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bradley v. AlumaxCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1995
  2. Willmon v. Allen Canning Co.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Tiller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1989
  4. Kuhn v. Majestic HotelCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1995

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Williams v. Prostaff TemporariesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
  2. Daniels v. Affiliated Foods SouthwestCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2000
  3. Huffy Service First v. LedbetterCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2002
  4. Leonard Reed v. M.A. Mortenson Companies and Arch Insurance company/gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2024
  5. Cross v. Magnolia Hospital Reciprocal Group of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2003

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API