Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

STROTHER v. LACROIX OPTICAL, 2013 Ark.App. 558 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Number: inarco20131002027 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2013
Summary: WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge. Appellant appeals from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's (Commission) reversal of the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that appellant was permanently and totally disabled. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the Commission's reversal was unsupported by substantial evidence and (2) the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act is unconstitutional in violation of her right to substantive and procedural due process. Because appellant has submitted a brief w
More

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge.

Appellant appeals from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's (Commission) reversal of the administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that appellant was permanently and totally disabled. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the Commission's reversal was unsupported by substantial evidence and (2) the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act is unconstitutional in violation of her right to substantive and procedural due process. Because appellant has submitted a brief without a proper addendum in violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i),1 we order appellant to submit a supplemental addendum.

Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) requires the addendum to include all items that are essential for the appellate court to understand the case and to decide the issues on appeal, including exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. In its opinion and order reversing the ALJ's findings as to whether appellant was permanently and totally disabled, the Commission relies, in part, on surveillance video of appellant that "showed no apparent difficulties involving claimant's upper extremities or any other part of her body." This video, though in the record, is not in the addendum.

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a supplemental addendum to provide the video exhibit to the members of the court within seven calendar days from the date of this opinion.2 We strongly encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the supplemental addendum, to review our rules, as well as the record and addenda, to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present.

Supplementation of the addendum ordered.

HARRISON and WYNNE, JJ., agree.

FootNotes


1. (2012).
2. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer