SHELTON v. FREELAND PULPWOOD, 1996 AWCC 85

CLAIM NO. D919250

JAMES SHELTON, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. FREELAND PULPWOOD, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT NO. 1, CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANIES, CARRIER, RESPONDENT NO. 1 and SECOND INJURY FUND, RESPONDENT NO. 2

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED MAY 7, 1996

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

Claimant represented by DENVER L. THORNTON, Attorney at Law, El Dorado, Arkansas.

Respondent No. 1 represented by BRIAN H. RATCLIFF, Attorney at Law, El Dorado, Arkansas.

Respondent No. 2 represented by DAVID L. PAKE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Remanded.

[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission upon remand by the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

[3] We have conducted a de novo review of the entire record. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has remanded the case for more specific findings of fact in support of the decision of the Full Commission which affirmed and adopted the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge. We are of the opinion that the Administrative Law Judge should fully develop findings of fact and conclusions of law not inconsistent with the opinion of the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Therefore, we remand this matter back to the Administrative Law Judge and direct him to more fully set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law on which he relies to support his decision. He may request briefs by the parties if he so desires. [4] Thus, we remand this matter back to the Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge is directed to set forth with more specificity, the findings of facts and conclusions of law consistent with the proceedings and opinion of the Arkansas Court of Appeals. [5] IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner

[6] Commissioner Humphrey concurs.