HATTER v. ARKANSAS PRODUCTS COMPANY, 1997 AWCC 86

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
OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 25, 1997

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 respondent’s motion for reconsideration. Further, claimant has filed a motion for attorney’s fee in the event she prevails on respondent’s motion.

[3] After our consideration of both motions, the response of the parties thereto and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the motions should be denied. [4] Accordingly, we find that respondent’s motion for reconsideration and claimant’s motion for attorney’s fees should be, and hereby are, denied. [5] IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner

[6] Commissioner Wilson concurs in part and dissents in part.

[7] CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
[8] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s order denying the respondent’s motion for reconsideration. However, I concur in the majority’s order denying claimant’s motion for attorney’s fees. In my opinion, the Commission should not have remanded this case to an Administrative Law Judge because the claimant failed to state sufficient grounds for a remand.

[9] Accordingly, I would grant the respondent’s motion for reconsideration. [10] MIKE WILSON, Commissioner