{ "id": 6135998, "name": "SAMUELS HIDE AND METAL COMPANY v. Michael S. GRIFFIN", "name_abbreviation": "Samuels Hide & Metal Co. v. Griffin", "decision_date": "1987-11-25", "docket_number": "CA 87-143", "first_page": "3", "last_page": "5", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "23 Ark. App. 3" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "739 S.W.2d 698" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "19 Ark. App. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6652766 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/19/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 966", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712556 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0966-01" ] }, { "cite": "248 Ark. 1182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1597777 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/248/1182-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ark. App. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6654974 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/17/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Ark. App. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142498 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/8/0346-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 284, "char_count": 3489, "ocr_confidence": 0.906, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.163900956692094e-07, "percentile": 0.9396097996446897 }, "sha256": "479e233208bbfe39f50ae1dd0b70de0c65d8f4c54da0c506d5457728bd4eb14c", "simhash": "1:7743ede3cd20d586", "word_count": 570 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:27.300013+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cracraft and Cooper, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "SAMUELS HIDE AND METAL COMPANY v. Michael S. GRIFFIN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission. At a hearing on a joint petition settlement, the administrative law judge suggested that $2,000 to $2,500, in addition to the $5,000 offered, should be paid. Appellant\u2019s counsel obtained an additional $2,500 and the law judge approved the joint petition without another hearing. However, the claimant then employed counsel and a motion was filed with the law judge asking that the order approving the joint petition be set aside. The law judge denied the motion and, on appeal to the full Commission, the law judge\u2019s order was vacated and the matter remanded with directions to schedule a hearing on the final settlement petition.\nThe employer has appealed and contends no additional hearing is necessary and that appellee\u2019s acceptance of the $7,500 without tendering any portion of it back has estopped appellee from challenging the settlement. We conclude that the order of the Commission is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable. Even though the issue of appealability was not argued in the briefs, it is a jurisdictional question which the appellate court has the right and duty to raise in order to avoid piecemeal litigation. Morgan v. Morgan, 8 Ark. App. 346, 652 S.W.2d 57 (1983).\nFor an order to be appealable it must be a final order. Ark. R. App. P. 2. To be final, an order must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights as to the subject matter in controversy. Epperson v. Biggs, 17 Ark. App. 212, 705 S.W.2d 901 (1986). This rule applies to appeals from the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission. See H.E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W.2d 880 (1970), and Cooper Industrial Products v. Meadows, 269 Ark. 966, 601 S.W.2d 275 (Ark. App. 1980).\nIt is the general rule that orders of remand are not final, appealable orders. Lloyd v. Potlatch Corp., 19 Ark. App. 335, 721 S.W.2d 670 (1986). In 3 Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law \u00a7 80.11 (1983), the rule is stated as follows:\nThere is in compensation procedure, just as in any other judicial procedure, such a thing as a completely unreviewable matter, as in the case of interlocutory decisions that are unreviewable for lack of finality, or incidental decisions that involve details committed to the absolute discretion of the lower tribunal. Ordinarily an order is reviewable only at the point where it awards or denies compensation. Accordingly, review has been denied of an order allowing claimant to amend his claim, denying a motion to receive further evidence, remanding the case for further evidence or findings, directing the claimant to be medically examined, continuing the trial of a claim while a tort action was pending, and granting claimant\u2019s petition for interrogatories on the facts surrounding her husband\u2019s death. (Footnotes omitted.)\nThe Commission\u2019s remand in the instant case is not a final determination of any issue but merely remands the case for an additional hearing; therefore, it falls within the general rule as set out above and is not a final, appealable order.\nDismissed.\nCracraft and Cooper, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Walker, Snellgrove, Laser & Langley, by: David N. Laser, for appellant.", "Zolper, Coop, Robertson & Associates, P.A., by: Jeannette A. Robertson, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SAMUELS HIDE AND METAL COMPANY v. Michael S. GRIFFIN\nCA 87-143\n739 S.W.2d 698\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered November 25, 1987\nWalker, Snellgrove, Laser & Langley, by: David N. Laser, for appellant.\nZolper, Coop, Robertson & Associates, P.A., by: Jeannette A. Robertson, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0003-01", "first_page_order": 23, "last_page_order": 25 }