ERWIN v. RIVERSIDE FURNITURE CORP., 2007 AWCC 41

CLAIM NO. F408476

SANDRA ERWIN, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. RIVERSIDE FURNITURE CORP., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED APRIL 19, 2007

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

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE STEVEN M. SHARUM, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE E. DIANE GRAHAM, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.

This matter comes before the Commission on Claimant’s Motion to Remand for Further Hearings filed on February 19, 2007. Claimant alleged injuries to her low back, left ankle and foot, as well as reflex sympathetic dystrophy (hereinafter RSD), additional medical treatment and additional temporary total disability benefits (hereinafter TTD). A hearing was held on January 4, 2005. In an Opinion filed March 31, 2005, the administrative law judge found: claimant sustained a compensable injury to her left ankle/foot; claimant failed to prove she sustained a compensable injury to her lower back and left leg and failed to prove RSD as a compensable consequence of her compensable injury. Claimant reserved her additional TTD claim and her additional medical

Page 2

claim. This was affirmed and adopted on appeal to the Full Commission on March 28, 2006.

Claimant then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. While this was pending, claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission for a compensable consequence of her left foot/ankle injury in the form of a fall which resulted in a fractured wrist and right leg on May 30, 2006. The Court of Appeals dismissed claimant’s appeal on November 29, 2006, finding the Commission’s Order of March 28, 2006 was not a final order.

Claimant then filed a Motion for Remand on February 19, 2007. We find there is no need for a remand as the Court of Appeals did not remand the case to the Commission, but instead dismissed claimant’s appeal because the order entered was not final. Thus, the hearing scheduled for March 27, 2007 should and could have gone forward since two (2) issues were reserved (additional TTD and additional medical) and a new claim has been filed regarding the new fall on a compensable consequence. Respondent even agreed the hearing could go forward on these issues. Other issues that may be raised are not before the Commission at this time and we make no findings regarding these claims, and no findings as to whether or not these issues should be addressed at the hearing.

Page 3

In other words, there is no need for a remand since the issues are before the administrative law judge already. We therefore deny the motion to remand since it is not necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
______________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
______________________________ PHILIP A. HOOD, Commissioner

Page 1