WASHINGTON v. MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTH ARK., 1997 AWCC 76

CLAIM NO. E205029

SARAH A. WASHINGTON, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTH ARK., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED FEBRUARY 7, 1997

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

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

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE NORWOOD PHILLIPS, Attorney at Law, El Dorado, Arkansas.

[1] ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission from a remand by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, directing this Commission to rule on the constitutional question raised by the claimant herein. Specifically, the claimant has alleged that Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-521 (Repl. 1996), better known as the “scheduled injury” statute is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[3] In a recent decision specifying the role of the Commission in determining constitutional issues, the Arkansas Court of Appeals stated that:

We believe that requiring the Commission to decide constitutional issues will ensure that the Commission takes a “hard look” at the question, thereby giving us the benefit of its experience and expertise. See, Sierra Club v. Robertson, 784 F. Supp. 593 (W.D. Ark. 1991), aff’d 28 F.3d 753
(8th Cir. 1984). Such a requirement would also serve the important purpose of presenting us with fact-findings sufficient to permit the constitutional issues to be decided. This will permit many needless remands, in keeping with our policy of discouraging piecemeal appeals in workers’ compensation cases. See, e.g. Baldor Electric Co. v. Jones, 29 Ark. App. 80, 777 S.W.2d 586 (1979).

[4] Green v. Smith Scott Logging, 54 Ark. App. 53, 922 S.W.2d 746 (1996). [5] On the record and briefs before us, we are unable to accomplish the clearly stated objectives of the Court of Appeals in remanding constitutional issues for our consideration. In the present remand, we are faced with little more than an assertion that the statute in question is unconstitutional, and are directed to little, if any, controlling or otherwise illuminating case law by the parties’ briefs. We accordingly find the record before us to be an insufficient one on which to make a ruling as to the constitutionality of the scheduled injury statute. [6] We thus hereby direct the Clerk of the Commission to establish a briefing schedule concerning the constitutional issues raised by the claimant. If either party believes an additional hearing is necessary, the party should request a remand to an administrative law judge. [7] IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner MIKE WILSON, Commissioner