ALLISON v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, 1996 AWCC 266


CLAIM NOS. E303982, E303999, E304005, E304006, E304008, E304017, E304018, E304024

LAMAR ALLISON, GEORGE H. BOLLIER, WINFRED O. BURTON, HORACE W. CALLOWAY, JOE W. CARLISLE, CHESTER M. CLARK, CLEVELAND CLARK and ALVIN CORNISH, EMPLOYEES, CLAIMANT v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 5, 1996

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

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE SILAS BREWER, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DENNIS, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

[1] ORDER
[2] This matter comes before the Full Commission on the respondent’s motion to consolidate the above-referenced claims for purposes of appeal to the Full Commission. After giving due consideration to the respondent’s motion, the claimant’s response, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the respondent’s motion must be denied.

[3] In its motion to consolidate the above-referenced claims, the respondent asserts that the administrative law judge cited the same legal authority in his opinion in each claim in finding that the Statute of Limitations had not run. The respondent asserts that consolidation of these claims for appeal will achieve judicial economy and allow the single issue of law which is determinative of the issue on appeal in each claim to be decided uniformly.

[4] However, we find that consolidation of the above-referenced claims is not proper for several reasons. First, when these claims are submitted to the Full Commission on appeal, we must conduct a de novo review of the entire record in each claim. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (1987);ITT/Higbie Manufacturing v. Gilliam, 34 Ark. App. 154, 807 S.W.2d 44 (1991). Therefore, we have the duty to make findings of fact according to a preponderance of the evidence in the record in each claim and not according to whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the administrative law judge. Jane Traylor,Inc. v. Cooksey, 31 Ark. App. 245, 792 S.W.2d 351 (1990).

[5] In that regard, we note that none of these claims were presented on the record of stipulated facts. Instead, a hearing was held in each claim (except Claim No. E304008), and the administrative law judge’s decision in each claim appears to have required an evaluation of the evidence presented at the hearing. Moreover, the respondent’s notices of appeal do not identify any alleged undisputed factual basis which the respondent believes would support its argument that the decision of the administrative law judge in each claim should be reversed. Based on the lack of stipulated facts in the record, it appears that we will be required to make relevant findings of fact in each claim, and we will be required to apply the law to those findings of fact based on our de novo review. In short, we find that consolidation of the above-referenced claims will not promote judicial economy, as the respondent suggests. In addition, we find that the briefs filed by the parties in each claim, setting out how the law should be applied to the facts presented, will adequately insure that the Statute of Limitations issue will be uniformly decided among the claims.

[6] In reaching our decision, we note that the Commission does not have in place procedures for class action filings or for claims consolidation. Although the respondent suggests that consolidating these claims for appeal will not cause undue confusion, we note that Claim No. E304008 was apparently dismissed by the administrative law judge on July 8, 1996, on joint motion of the parties. Thus, it appears that the respondent’s motion for consolidation has already caused confusion, and will likely promote further confusion for all of the parties as well as the Commission, if granted.

[7] Therefore, for the reasons discussed herein, we find that any judicial economy or more uniform application of the law which might be gained by consolidation of the above-referenced claims does not justify the potential confusion to the parties and to the Commission by deviating from the Commission’s current claims administration procedures. Accordingly, we find that the respondent’s motion to consolidate the above-referenced claims for appeal must be, and hereby is, denied.

[8] IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner

[9] Commissioner Holcomb concurs.