CARPENTER v. CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., 1995 AWCC 63

CLAIM NO. E408147

JACQUE CARPENTER, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and ITT HARTFORD, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED MARCH 9, 1995

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

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE JAY TOLLEY, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE ANGELA DOSS, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

[1] ORDER
[2] This matter comes before the Full Commission on the claimant’s motion for remand. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge an November 3, 1995, to consider the claimant’s entitlement to benefits for certain medical treatment and to additional temporary total disability compensation. In an opinion and order filed December 8, 1994, the administrative law judge denied the claimant’s claim for additional compensation, and the claimant filed a timely notice of appeal. However, on February 8, 1995, the Commission received a letter from the claimant’s attorney asking that the claim be remanded to the administrative law judge for consideration of the claimant’s entitlement to permanent disability compensation. The respondents have objected to the claimant’s request, noting that the request was not submitted until after briefs had been submitted by both parties and that the claimant could have sought a permanent impairment rating prior to the November 3, 1994, hearing.

[3] After giving due consideration to the claimant’s motion, the respondents’ objection, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant’s motion must be denied. In doing so, we note that the claimant has indicated that events have occurred which render the issues on appeal moot. However, we also note that the claimant has not indicated that she intends to abandon those issues, and she has not sought to dismiss her appeal. Therefore, since briefs have been prepared and submitted, we find that these issues are ripe for determination, and we find that the claimant’s motion should be denied. [4] Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the claimant’s motion is hereby denied. [5] IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALLYN C. TATUM, Commissioner

[6] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.