CLAIM NOS. E706164 and E612291
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED APRIL 6, 1998
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimants represented by the HONORABLE JAY TOLLEY, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE JOSEPH PURVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE JIM JULIAN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER[2] This matter comes before the Full Commission on the claimant’s Motion to Consolidate the above-referenced claims for purposes of appeal to the Full Commission. After duly considering the claimant’s motion, the respondents’ objection thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimants’ motion must be denied. [3] In a joint motion, for separate claimants William Pressler and Catherine Anderson, the claimants’ attorney contends that these cases involve a common legal issue (“objective evidence”) so that an appeal consolidation before the Full Commission is proper. [4] We find that consolidation of the above-referenced claims is not proper for several reasons. First, this Commission does not have in place procedures for class action filings or claims consolidation. See, Paul Babbitt v. ALCOA, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, February 3, 1997 (Claim No. E305581);Lamar Allison, et al. v. International Paper Company, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, November 5, 1996 (Claim No. E303982). Second, 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 on appeal. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704
(Repl. 1996); ITT/Higbie Manufacturing v. Gilliam, 34 Ark. App. 154, 807 S.W.2d 44 (1991). We have the duty to enter findings offact according to a preponderance of the evidence in the record
in each claim, and not merely findings for alleged errors of law as the claimants’ attorney seems to suggest. Jane Traylor, Inc.v. Cooksey, 31 Ark. App. 245, 792 S.W.2d 351 (1990). [5] Furthermore, we note that these two claims do not have sufficient commonality to warrant consolidation even if consolidation procedures were in place at the Commission. In this regard, these two claims involve separate claimants, separate respondents, and separate events allegedly causing compensable injuries. We frankly do not perceive any basis to conclude that a consolidation of appeals would be warranted in these cases under these circumstances. [6] Therefore, for reasons discussed herein, we find that the motion of attorney Jay Tolley to consolidate the appeals in Claim No. E706164 and Claim No. E612291 must be, and hereby is, denied. [7] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner MIKE WILSON, Commissioner