CLAIM NO. D511762
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED AUGUST 28, 2001
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE KEITH BLACKMAN, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by the HONORABLE WALTER A. MURRAY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Remanded.
ORDER
The respondent appeals an opinion and order filed by the Administrative Law Judge on April 23, 2001. In that opinion and order, the Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable heart attack in 1985. After conducting a de novo
review of the entire record, we remand this case for further findings.
The claimant was employed as a patrolman for the City of Jonesboro Police Department. The claimant sustained a myocardial infarction in 1985. The respondent accepted liability for the claimant’s heart attack until 1997.
At a hearing held on March 8, 2001, the claimant contended that he sustained a compensable heart attack on July 20, 1985. In the alternative, the claimant contended that the respondent waived any right to challenge the compensability of the claimant’s heart attack after so many years. The respondent denied that the claimant sustained a compensable heart attack and also contended that the start of the hearing was the first time that the respondent was made aware of the waiver issue.
In her April 23, 2001 opinion and order, the Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable heart attack. The Administrative Law Judge made no findings on the claimant’s contention that the respondent waived any right to raise compensability as a hearing issue. The Administrative Law Judge made no findings on whether the waiver issue was timely raised.
On appeal, the claimant asserts that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that he sustained a compensable heart attack. In addition, the claimant renews his argument that the respondent in this case waived any right to challenge the compensability of the claimant’s 1985 heart attack. On the waiver issue, the respondent asserts that the claimant has failed to establish any “reliances,” and the respondent asserts that “[i]t is settle [sic] law that a claim can be controverted any time.”
All issues should be raised and developed before the Administrative Law Judge. While the parties discussed “waiver” at the start of the hearing, and discuss this issue again on appeal, the Administrative Law Judge made no findings on this issue. In order to avoid piecemeal litigation, we hold in abeyance review of the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable heart attack on July 20, 1985, and we remand this case to the Administrative Law Judge for findings on whether the respondent’s compensability challenge is barred by “waiver,” and on whether the “waiver” issue was raised in a timely manner by the claimant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner