State News : Arkansas

For employers and their workers compensation insurance carriers, the denial of a claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits prompts a major sigh of relief. However, it’s important to manage expectations by keeping in mind that a claimant may be allowed to relitigate the issue of whether they’re entitled to PTD benefits if the claimant proves that their physical condition has changed since their initial claim for PTD was denied.

This issue was considered in MHM Support Servs. v. Miller, 2025 Ark. App. 546, where Claimant Tammy Miller filed a claim alleging permanent and total disability due to compensable injuries she sustained in January 2016 despite a previous ruling denying that Miller was entitled to PTD benefits as a result of her compensable injuries. Respondents argued that the issue had already been decided and could not be adjudicated for a second time based on the legal doctrine known as res judicata which bars relitigation of a judicial or administrative determination unless there is a change following the Order. However, the presiding Administrative Law Judge, Full Commission, and Court of Appeals disagreed with Respondents, finding that Miller’s second claim for PTD benefits was not barred by res judicata because she proved that her physical condition had changed after the Commission made its first ruling denying PTD benefits in August 2021.

In an Opinion filed on November 12, 2025, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the ALJ’s and Full Commission’s award of PTD benefits reasoning that she presented objective evidence supporting several new conditions and injuries that she was diagnosed with after her first claim for PTD benefits was denied in August of 2021. The Court of Appeals also relied heavily on the ruling made by an ALJ in June of 2022 finding that Miller had entered into a second healing period a few months after her first PTD claim was denied when she began to suffer complications from the surgery she previously had to repair her compensable hip injury including a partial torn tendon and pelvic floor dysfunction that her surgeon attributed to the hip injury. Given that Respondents did not appeal the ALJ’s Opinion awarding Miller TTD benefits for her second healing period, the Court found no merit in Respondents’ argument that Miller had failed to establish a change in her condition sufficient to warrant a second adjudication for PTD benefits, and instead considered the ALJ’s Opinion to be clear evidence that Miller’s physical condition had changed following the Commission’s initial PTD determination.