BACON v. MARKHAM STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, 2000 AWCC 29

CLAIM NO. D813830

MARY BACON, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. MARKHAM STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JANUARY 26, 2000

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

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Respondent represented by the HONORABLE KEVIN STATEN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Decision of the Administrative Law Judge: Vacated and remanded.

ORDER
[1] The respondents appeal an opinion and order filed by the administrative law judge on September 1, 1999. In that opinion and order the administrative law judge found that the claimant is entitled to ongoing medical treatment for her back difficulties which arose from a compensable injury sustained in February of 1986. Specifically, the administrative law judge found that the claimant is entitled to medical treatment generated as a result of her complaints with her low back in September of 1998. Because the parties and administrative law judge have failed to prepare an adequate record for our review, we find that the decision of the administrative law judge must be vacated and this case remanded to settle the record.

[2] The claimant’s brief to the administrative law judge in this case requested that the administrative law judge incorporate by reference the transcript of the previous hearings and all attachments thereto, together with two attachments to the claimant’s brief, as the record in this case. The administrative law judge’s September 1, 1999 opinion and order states in the first paragraph that this case has been submitted on briefs by the respective parties and attached medical exhibits. However, the second paragraph of the administrative law judge’s September 1, 1999 opinion and order states that the past transcripts from hearings, orders and opinions of the administrative law judge and the Full Commission are incorporated into the administrative law judge’s September 1, 1999 opinion by reference. [3] However, we are unable to locate a copy of transcripts from any prior hearings, or a copy of any prior orders and opinions of the administrative law judge or the Full Commission in the “record” which has been presented to the Full Commission for review on appeal. To the contrary, that record appears to consist solely of the respondents’ letter-brief to the administrative law judge with attached medical exhibits and the claimant’s letter-brief to the administrative law judge with attached medical exhibits. Under these circumstances, we remand this case to the administrative law judge to conduct any additional proceedings which may be necessary to settle the record in this case. Specifically, the administrative law judge is directed to obtain copies of, and review, the past transcripts from hearings, and the prior orders and opinions of the administrative law judge and the Full Commission in this case. The administrative law judge is then directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law following his full examination of the relevant evidence presented in this case, and the administrative law judge is directed to prepare a supplemental record consisting of the indicated transcripts, orders and opinions which will then be available to the Full Commission for review if either party appeals the administrative law judge’s substituted opinion and order. [4] IT IS SO ORDERED. [5] _______________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman

_______________________________
MIKE WILSON, Commissioner

[6] Commissioner Humphrey concurs.