CLAIM NO. E113495
ROBERT BLACK, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. CACHE VALLEY ELECTRIC, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, and ROYAL INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 1, 1995
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE ROBERT A. RUSSELL, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL J. EMERSON, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission on two motions. One motion is claimant’s Motion for Reconsideration. The second motion is respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
[3] On August 12, 1994, claimant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Claimant contends that the Full Commission should grant its Motion for Reconsideration because the issue on appeal was not whether claimant is entitled to a change of physician but rather whether claimant can undergo further treatment by a previous treating physician. In the alternative, claimant requests that we issue an order clarifying our July 28, 1994 opinion. After carefully reviewing claimant’s motion, respondents’ response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Full Commission, we deny claimant’s motion.
[4] In our July 28, 1994 opinion we found that claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that further treatment by Drs. Boyd or Blackburn with the Semmes-Murphy Clinic in Memphis is reasonable and necessary medical treatment for claimant’s work-related condition. We did not deny claimant continued medical treatment by his duly authorized treating physician, Dr. D. J. Canale. As noted, claimant had petitioned for and received a change of physician to Dr. Canale. Absent a true referral by Dr. Canale to Drs. Boyd or Blackburn of the Semmes-Murphy Clinic, claimant is not entitled to additional treatment by these physicians. Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider the additional medical evidence at this time. Furthermore, we find that our opinion dated July 28, 1994 does not need further clarification. Thus, as stated, we deny claimant’s motion.
[5] With regard to the respondents’ motion to dismiss the claimant’s appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, we find that we do not have authority to dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Rule 3 (b), this Commission can dismiss an appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals only if the motion for dismissal is filed with the Commission before the record is docketed with the Court and if all parties to the appeal petition for dismissal and jointly stipulate that it is to be dismissed. See also, In Re Arkansas Rules ofAppellate Procedure 3 (b),
296 Ark. 580,
756 S.W.2d LXXII
(1988). In the present case, the claimant has not joined into a stipulation to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, we find that the respondents’ motion to dismiss the claimant’s appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals should be, and hereby is denied. The respondents’ motion must be addressed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
[6] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner
[7] Commissioner Humphrey concurs in part and dissents in part.
[8] CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
[9] I concur with the order of the majority denying respondent’s motion to dismiss claimant’s appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent from the order of the majority denying claimant’s motion for reconsideration.
[10] PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
