 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baxter County Regional Hospital Risk Management Resources v. Dixon11/16/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
In its second appeal to this court, appellant Baxter County Regional Hospital challenges particular awards made to appellee Arlene Dixon for compensable workers' compensation injuries that she sustained to her back in 1991 while working as a nurse's assistant. The first appeal was taken from the Commission's decision of February 14, 2001, which reversed the administrative law judge's denial of Dixon's request for benefits. In our unpublished opinion, Baxter County Reg'l Hosp. v. Dixon, CA 01-481 (Dec. 12, 2001), we noted that the Commission's decision included an order of remand to the administrative law judge for findings to be made on two remaining issues. We therefore held that the Commission's decision was not ripe for our review, and we dismissed the appeal without prejudice. See id.
The administrative law judge subsequently found, in an opinion of August 29, 2002, that Dixon proved that she had suffered permanent total disability, including a thirteen percent anatomical impairment to the body as a whole. The Commission affirmed and adopted the law judge's opinion in a decision of August 5, 2003. The hospital now appeals the Commission's decisions of February 14, 2001, and August 5, 2003. The hospital contends that no substantial evidence supports the Commission's findings (1) that the statute of limitations did not bar Dixon's request to modify a previous award; (2) that Dixon's treatment from Drs. Park and McBride was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to her compensable injuries; and (3) that Dixon was entitled to permanent total disability, including an anatomical impairment of thirteen percent.
We are unable to address the first point on appeal for want of specific findings by the Commission. The hospital notes in its brief that a claim for "additional benefits" must be filed within one year of last payment of compensation or two years from the date of injury under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702, while under section 11-9-713(a)(1) & (2) a compensation order, award, or decision can be reviewed within six months of termination of the compensation period fixed in the original order or award, on the ground of a change in physical condition. The hospital argues that the Commission arbitrarily used different statutory phrases in its 2001 decision, failing to distinguish a claim for "additional benefits " from a "request to modify a previous award." We agree. For example, the Commission wrote:
[The Commission] affirmed an administrative law judge's denial of "additional benefits" to the claimant in a Full Commission opinion filed November 18, 1996. The statute of limitations began running again at that time; however, the parties stipulated that the claimant's present "request to modify the previous award" was then filed on October 27, 1997. This second filing for "additional benefits" was also clearly filed within the one year period permitted once the prior claim was decided by the Full Commission order filed on November 18, 1996.
(Emphasis added.) Additionally, the Commission both quoted a portion of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702 in its decision and referred to section 11-9- 713 as a basis for remand:
The Full Commission remands this case to the administrative law judge. We direct the administrative law judge to enter findings of fact regarding [Dixon's] contention that she is entitled to a modification of her award pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§11-9- 713(a)(2). The Full Commission also directs the administrative law judge to enter findings of fact regarding the claimant's contention that she is entitled to an additional 13% impairment rating as assigned by Dr. McBride.
(Emphasis added.)
Page 1 2 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|