BABBITT v. ALCOA, 1997 AWCC 33

CLAIM NO. E305581

PAUL H. BABBITT, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. ALCOA, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JANUARY 8, 1997

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE PHILIP E. KAPLAN and SILAS H. BREWER, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE PHILLIP CARROLL, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Remanded.

[1] ORDER
[2] The claimant appeals and the respondent cross-appeals an opinion and order filed by the administrative law judge on July 22, 1996. In addition to the present claim, twenty-four (24) separate hearing loss claims were heard at hearings held on January 29, 30, 31 and February 1 and 5, 1996. The administrative law judge indicated that the transcript and exhibits of the hearing pertaining to all the claims would be maintained in the Paul Babbitt file. When these claims were submitted to the Full Commission, we received twenty-five (25) separate case files. Paul Babbittv. ALCOA, W.C.C. No. E305581, was designated as the Master File. It included a transcript of the claimant’s testimony only, an exhibit made a part of the record subsequent to the hearing which included Alcoa’s Memorandum Brief and a Memorandum Brief for the claimants, with no index of exhibits. In the other twenty-four claims there is only a transcript of the claimant’s testimony, if the claimant testified, and the respondent’s brief. In a separate box we received a single set of two volumes of exhibits for all twenty-five claimants, that is indexed along with numerous other depositions, and other evidence. We are unable to accurately determine the record for each individual claim.

[3] Consequently, we find that the claim must be remanded to the administrative law judge so that the exhibits can be clearly identified. Whenever a party applies for review by the Full Commission of an administrative law judge’s determination, we must conduct a de novo review of the entire record of evidence in each claim received by the administrative law judge. Woods v. Best Western, 32 Ark. App. 196, 799 S.W.2d 565 (1990). In addition, we have a statutory duty to make our determination on the basis of the record as a whole. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (c)(2) (Repl. 1996). Obviously, we cannot properly perform our duty to review the entire record unless all of the evidence comprising the record is readily discernable with certainty.

[4] Consequently, any exhibit received into the record must be sufficiently identified. Clearly, adequate assurance is provided if the exhibit is contained in the bound transcript certified by the court reporter. However, where the exhibit is not contained in the bound transcript, it must be clearly identified in each claim so that there is no doubt whatsoever of its identity. Accordingly, we find that we must remand this claim to the administrative law judge so that the record can be settled. The administrative law judge is also instructed to do so as expeditiously as possible so that this Commission can consider this claim on its merits.

[5] IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELDON F. COFFMEN, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner MIKE WILSON, Commissioner