CLAIM NO. F410921
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 28, 2006
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HONORABLE PHILIP M. WILSON, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by HONORABLE FRANK B. NEWELL, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: vacated in part, and remanded.
OPINION AND ORDER
The Claimant appeals a decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed on September 13, 2006. A Pre-hearing Order was filed on April 24, 2006 which set out the following issues to be presented at the hearing.
1. Compensability of the claimant’s alleged carpal tunnel syndrome.
2. Claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability benefits, medical benefits, and attorney’s fees.
3. Claimant reserves all other issues.
The following contentions were made by the parties in the pre-hearing order:
The claimant contends that she had a hand-intensive job and began having symptoms with her hands in August of 2004; that she reported her injury to her supervisor and an accident/incident report was filed; that she has seen multiple doctors and ultimately has come under the care of Dr. Charles Clark who relates her hand-intensive activities directly to her carpal tunnel syndrome; that she is entitled to all appropriate benefits, temporary total disability benefits, and attorney’s fees.
The respondents contend that the claimant did not sustain compensable carpal tunnel syndrome injuries while working for respondent employer and that she is not therefore entitled to an award of weekly benefits; nor is she entitled to an award of medical benefits or attorney’s fees.
The issues and contentions were verified by the Administrative Law Judge before the hearing on April 24, 2006. The following findings of fact and conclusion of law were made in the September 13, 2006 decision.
1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this claim.
2. The employee/employer/carrier relationship existed at all relevant times, including August 2, 2004.
3. The claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Based on our de novo review of the record, we find that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge should be vacated and remanded for a decision on the issues of compensability and entitlement to temporary total disability benefits, medical benefits, and attorney’s fees.
Ark. Code. Ann. § 1-9-702(e) states:
Failure to file a claim within the period prescribed in subsection (a) or (b) of this section shall not be a bar to the right unless objection to the failure is made at the first hearing on the claim in which all parties in interest have been given a reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.
As set out above the respondents did not raise the issue of the statute of limitations at the first hearing. The respondents’ primary defense was that the medical evidence precludes a finding of compensability and an award of weekly and medical benefits. The Administrative Law Judge sua sponte raised the statute of limitations in her September 13, 2006 decision. It has been held by the Courts and this Commission that it is improper for an Administrative Law Judge to raise an issue for the first time in her opinion. The Courts have reasoned that if a judge is allowed to do that she puts herself in the shoes of the respondents council and makes the parties arguments for them.See Singleton v. City of Pine Bluff, Full Commission Opinion, Filed February 23, 2006 (Claim No. F302526).
Therefore, the finding rendered sua sponte by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the statute of limitation is hereby vacated, and the claim is remanded for a determination on the issues of compensability and entitlement to temporary total disability benefits, medical benefits, and attorney’s fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
_______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
_______________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner