HATTER v. ARKANSAS PRODUCTS COMPANY, 1996 AWCC 305

CLAIM NO. E413863

OLLIE HATTER, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. ARKANSAS PRODUCTS COMPANY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and COMPENSATION MANAGEMENT, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED DECEMBER 5, 1996

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

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

Respondents represented by J. DAVID WALL, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

[1] ORDER
[2] This case comes on for review before the Commission on claimant’s request to remand for an additional hearing.

[3] After our consideration of claimant’s request and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that this case should be remanded to an Administrative Law Judge. [4] Accordingly, we find that the opinion and order filed by the Administrative Law Judge on January 22, 1996, must be set aside and that this case should be remanded for additional proceedings. Additionally, the Clerk of the Commission is instructed to assign this claim to an Administrative Law Judge so that a hearing can be scheduled as expeditiously as possible. [5] IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner

[6] Commissioner Holcomb dissents.

[7] DISSENTING OPINION
[8] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. In my opinion, the claimant has failed to state sufficient grounds for a remand. Not only has claimant failed to file a motion for remand or motion for rehearing, claimant also failed to sufficiently state in her notice of appeal that she was deprived of her rights or that the process by which the Administrative Law Judge rendered the opinion is contrary to law. The claimant merely argues in her brief that because the Administrative Law Judge who rendered the opinion did not have an opportunity to observe the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, this case should be remanded. I find this argument without merit. Claimant even acknowledged in her brief, “[o]bviously, there are matters that might facilitate from time to time, that one administrative law judge would hear a case, and another would decide the case.”

[9] The Administrative Law Judge’s well-reasoned opinion evidences that he carefully reviewed all testimony and documentation before rendering his decision. A review of the transcript clearly shows that the claimant’s testimony was inconsistent. During her deposition, claimant testified that her knee problems were not caused by a specific incident. However, during the hearing claimant vividly recalled an incident at work where she twisted her knee. Claimant’s testimony at the hearing contradicts the history she provided to her family physician when she first sought treatment for her condition stating that no trauma occurred. In addition, it is inconsistent with her deposition testimony. It is my opinion that the Administrative Law Judge reached the right conclusion regarding the claimant’s credibility based upon her inconsistent stories. [10] In my opinion, the Commission acted reasonably and legally in reassigning cases to a new Administrative Law Judge once the original Law Judge who heard the case resigned prior to rendering the final opinion. We cannot remand all of the cases which we originally reassigned to a new Law Judge. If our decision to assign cases to another Administrative Law Judge to write an opinion was wrong, let the Court of Appeals so advise. Accordingly, for those reasons stated herein, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. [11] ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner