Kirk v. Cent. States Mfg., Inc. , 2017 Ark. App. 519 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                   Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 519
    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION III
    No. CV-17-155
    JOHN KIRK                                        Opinion Delivered:   October 4, 2017
    APPELLANT
    APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
    V.                                               WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
    COMMISSION
    CENTRAL STATES                                   [NO. F706889]
    MANUFACTURING, INC; LIBERTY
    MUTUAL GROUP; AND DEATH AND
    PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY    SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE
    TRUST FUND                    RECORD AND REBRIEFING
    APPELLEES ORDERED
    WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
    Appellant appeals from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s
    (Commission) January 12, 2017 opinion affirming and adopting the July 11, 2016 opinion
    of the administrative law judge (ALJ) denying his claim on finding that the statute of
    limitations had run in the matter and that he had failed to prove that he was entitled to any
    additional indemnity benefits. On appeal, appellant argues (1) that the Commission erred in
    finding that his claim for additional indemnity benefits was barred by the applicable statute
    of limitations and (2) that the Flores v. Walmart Distribution interpretation of the statute of
    limitations is not strict construction, and is therefore contrary to legislative intent. 1 We are
    unable to address the merits of appellant’s argument and hereby order supplementation of
    the record and rebriefing.
    1
    
    2012 Ark. App. 201
    .
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 519
    Appellant provided the only testimony at the hearing before the ALJ. He testified
    that he was injured on July 25, 2006. He received temporary total disability benefits through
    October 15, 2007, and received medical treatment, including surgery with Dr. Blankenship,
    after which he returned to work. In 2013, while working for Central States Manufacturing,
    Inc. (Central States), in South Dakota, he started experiencing increased pain, which he
    reported to Central States. Central States “forced [him] to go through a process with the
    Workers’ Compensation Commission,” in which he eventually returned to the care of Dr.
    Blankenship, who removed him from work and performed a second surgery. Following the
    surgery, he attempted to return to work under “partial day and limited activity restrictions”
    in 2014, but his pain increased despite being limited to four-hour work days. He returned
    to Dr. Blankenship, who again removed him from work, and then Central States fired him,
    saying that he was “no longer needed.” Central States stopped paying indemnity benefits
    when it fired him, though it had resumed doing so after his second surgery.
    Appellant testified that “[t]here was a period of about five years that [he] did not
    receive any type of indemnity benefit, only medical”; he thought the gap was between 2007
    and 2012. He was not sent or asked about, and he did not ask for, any indemnity benefits
    during that time. He never made a written claim for indemnity benefits and did not request
    them before hiring an attorney. He stated that he “never saw a need to request additional
    benefits; [he] did not know it was an option.” Following appellant’s testimony, both
    appellant and Central States rested, after which the ALJ ordered briefs from both, noting
    that he “particularly want[ed] the statue of limitations’ [sic] issue” addressed in the briefs.
    2
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 519
    Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-711(b)(1)(A) provides that, after a notice of
    appeal is filed with the Commission, “the commission under its certificate shall send to the
    court all pertinent documents and papers, together with a transcript of evidence and the
    findings and orders, which shall become the record of the cause.” 2 Appellant provided the
    only live testimony at the hearing. Neither appellant nor Central States provided a closing
    argument to the ALJ, with both resting after appellant’s testimony. The record lodged with
    our court does not contain either of the parties’ briefs. Without the briefs submitted to the
    ALJ, this court is not able to ascertain whether appellant’s arguments were raised below or
    whether they remain in the scope and nature of what they were below. Arkansas Rule of
    Appellate Procedure–Civil 6(e) states that the appellate court, on its own initiative, may
    direct that the omission or misstatement of anything material shall be corrected, and if
    necessary, that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. 3 Therefore, we remand
    to the Commission to supplement the record to include the parties’ briefs.
    The briefs are also absent from the addendum, though necessary for the above-
    referenced reasons. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) states that “[t]he addendum
    shall contain true and legible copies of the non-transcript documents in the record on appeal
    that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case,
    and to decide the issues on appeal.”
    2
    (Repl. 2012).
    3
    (2016).
    3
    Cite as 
    2017 Ark. App. 519
    Additionally, Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) states that “[t]he appellant shall
    create an abstract or abridgment of the transcript that consists of an impartial condensation
    of only such material parts of the testimony of the witnesses and colloquies between the
    court and counsel and other parties as are necessary to an understanding of all questions
    presented to the court for decision.” 4 No more than one page of a transcript shall be
    abstracted without giving a record page reference. 5 Appellant’s method of summarization
    fails to cover all testimony and excludes pages from being abstracted at all.
    Because of these deficiencies, we hereby order rebriefing and direct appellant to file
    a substituted brief that complies with our rules. Appellant shall have fifteen days from the
    date the supplemental record is submitted to file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum
    that complies with the rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We also encourage counsel to
    carefully review our rules to ensure that all material information is contained in the record
    and addendum.
    Supplementation of the record and rebriefing ordered.
    GRUBER, C.J., and WHITEAKER, J., agree.
    Taylor Law Partners, LLP, by: Jason L. Watson, for appellant.
    Zachary F. Ryburn, for appellees.
    4
    (2016).
    5
    Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5)(B).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CV-17-155

Citation Numbers: 2017 Ark. App. 519

Judges: Waymond M. Brown

Filed Date: 10/4/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/4/2017