An Arkansas appeals court has upheld a decision granting disability benefits to a nurse practitioner who says debilitating back injuries have left her unable to work, despite her qualifications and prior work experience.
In an opinion delivered on April 16, 2025, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed that Lisa Pozner, who worked at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), is entitled to wage-loss benefits after a series of spinal injuries that significantly limited her ability to work.
Pozner was injured on the job in September 2021 when she suffered a spinal fracture. Two months later, while undergoing a medical procedure to address the injury, she sustained two more fractures. After months of treatment, she reached maximum medical improvement in December 2022. Her doctors determined she had a 7% permanent impairment to her whole body, and UAMS paid benefits based on that rating without dispute.
But Pozner said the pain and physical limitations from her injuries left her unable to work - particularly in any full-time, sedentary role. At a hearing last August, she described constant pain, the use of a cane, and the inability to sit, stand, or lie down for more than short periods. While she had been looking for work, she said her condition made returning to a job nearly impossible.
UAMS pushed back, arguing that Pozner’s educational background - four bachelor’s degrees and two master’s degrees - made her well suited to many jobs. The university also pointed to her history as a nurse, counselor, and health educator, as well as her ability to fill out online forms and complete coursework from home. They argued she was capable of at least some type of sedentary employment and had stopped cooperating with vocational services that could have helped her find work.
Still, the judge overseeing the case sided with Pozner, finding her testimony credible and her medical limitations convincing. While he agreed she wasn’t permanently and totally disabled, he awarded her an additional 35 percent in wage-loss disability benefits based on her age, experience, and inability to work despite her qualifications. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission agreed, and UAMS appealed.
The appeals court upheld the decision, noting that the Commission had considered all relevant factors and that there was enough evidence to support its conclusion. The court emphasized that it wasn’t its job to second-guess credibility judgments or re-argue the facts.
UAMS tried to argue that Pozner should have been disqualified from wage-loss benefits for dropping out of a vocational rehab program, but the court declined to consider that point because it hadn’t been raised earlier in the case.
The ruling in University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; and Arkansas Insurance Department, Public Employee Claims Division v. Lisa Pozner highlights how courts weigh real-world limitations against theoretical work capacity in workers’ compensation claims. For insurers, it’s a reminder of how personal factors—like age, pain, and credibility—can strongly influence outcomes, even when medical evaluations suggest a claimant could technically perform some jobs.
