CLAIM NO. F309931
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JUNE 24, 2005
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE FREDERICK S. SPENCER, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas.
Respondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE CURTIS NEBBEN, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE JUDY RUDD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
The above-styled matter is currently before the Full Commission on the claimant’s MOTION FOR AN ORDER RULING ON THE MOTION PREVIOUSLY FILED BYTHE CLAIMANT ON OR ABOUT MARCH 30, 2005 AND FOR RULING ON MOTION TORECUSE BEFORE DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, and on the claimant’sMOTION TO RECUSE AND MOTION TO REMAND FOR SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING BEFOREINDEPENDENT JUDICIARY. After reviewing all of the relevant pleadings before us, the Full Commission denies the claimant’s motions.
In an opinion filed February 1, 2005, an administrative law judge found, among other things, that the claimant failed to prove he sustained a compensable injury. The claimant appealed to the Full Commission, and the Clerk of the Commission established a briefing schedule.
On March 30, 2005, the claimant filed a MOTION FOR THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE OR, ALTERNATIVELY FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF. On April 1, 2005, the claimant filed a MOTION FOR REMAND FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR, ALTERNATIVELY FOR PERMISSION TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE FULL WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION ON APPEAL. The respondent-employer requested that the Full Commission deny the claimant’s motion for remand and for a new briefing schedule.
The Full Commission filed an opinion on May 4, 2005. The Full Commission ordered that the claimant would be allowed to submit affidavits pertaining to the claimant’s appeal of the administrative law judge’s decision. The Full Commission denied the claimant’s motion to remand, and we directed the Clerk of the Commission to establish a new briefing schedule.
On May 20, 2005 and May 23, 2005, the claimant filed a MOTION FOR ANORDER RULING ON THE MOTION PREVIOUSLY FILED BY THE CLAIMANT ON OR ABOUTMARCH 30, 2005 AND FOR RULING ON MOTION TO RECUSE BEFORE DECIDING THEMERITS OF THE CASE. The Commission’s file also contains a MOTION TORECUSE AND MOTION TO REMAND FOR SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING BEFORE INDEPENDENTJUDICIARY. The respondent-employer filed a response to the claimant’sMOTION TO RECUSE on June 6, 2005.
When recusal is in issue, the Supreme Court of Arkansas has held that a judge has a duty to sit on a case unless there is a valid reason to disqualify, and on appeal, the Court presumes impartiality on the trial judge’s part. Perroni v. State, 03-878 (Ark. 6-17-2004), citing Walls v.State, 341 Ark. 787, 20 S.W.3d 322 (2000). In the present matter, the claimant’s attorney has failed to establish facts sufficient to show partiality or bias on the part of any of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioners. There is a duty not to recuse where no prejudice exists.Massongill v. County of Scott, 337 Ark. 281, 991 S.W.2d 105 (1999), citing U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill, 315 Ark. 685, 870 S.W.2d 383
(1994). Because the claimant’s attorney has not demonstrated prejudice or a conflict of interest against the claimant’s attorney or his client, the Full Commission denies the motion for recusal.
The Full Commission again denies the motion for remand. We direct the Clerk of the Commission to establish a briefing schedule so that the Full Commission can litigate all of the relevant issues on appeal, including the constitutional issues raised by the claimant. See, Hamilton v.Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
________________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner