CLAIM NO. E218738
RANDY OLIVER BETTS, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. BRYCE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and CONTINENTAL LOSS ADJUSTING SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED MARCH 4, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by ZAN DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by WALTER A. KENDEL, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER
[2] This case comes on for review before the Commission on respondent’s motion to remand.
[3] After our consideration of respondent’s motion, claimant’s objection thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that respondent’s motion should be denied.
[4] The Administrative Law Judge found that claimant’s preexisting left hip condition was aggravated during a work-related accident and awarded benefits for medical treatment, as well as temporary total disability from June 1993 (when respondent suspended the payment of benefits) to an uncertain future date. Respondent has appealed these findings to the Commission. Respondent seeks a remand to the Administrative Law Judge, arguing that temporary total disability benefits cannot be awarded to an uncertain future date but must extend only to the date of the hearing. We find that respondent’s argument is without merit.
[5] The primary issue on appeal will be whether claimant’s left hip difficulties are compensable. If we reverse the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge on this issue, the issues concerning the extent of benefits to which claimant is entitled will be moot. Respondent surely is not paying temporary total disability benefits while this case is on appeal. We agree with claimant’s observation that he is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from June 1993 until such time as the evidence indicates that he is no longer in his healing period and unable to work. If respondent is ultimately ordered to pay benefits, respondent can suspend the payment of benefits at any time it chooses and claimant would then have to request a hearing to resolve any dispute.
[6] Accordingly, we find that respondent’s motion to remand should be, and hereby is, denied.
[7] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner
