{
  "id": 6139778,
  "name": "MID-STATE CONSTRUCTION and Argonaut Insurance Company v. Harold A. SEALY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mid-State Construction v. Sealy",
  "decision_date": "1988-12-21",
  "docket_number": "CA 88-189",
  "first_page": "186",
  "last_page": "188",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ark. App. 186"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "761 S.W.2d 951"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 Ark. App. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6135998
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/23/0003-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ark. App. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136609
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/25/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-805",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3283,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.904,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7670920221857867e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7108503237061311
    },
    "sha256": "5f53925807b00edfc3e43d0f761edd41931f402e9e5bc9f028890b39c5213ef4",
    "simhash": "1:b1d60bafc10454b2",
    "word_count": 526
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:57.673702+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cracraft and Mayfield, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MID-STATE CONSTRUCTION and Argonaut Insurance Company v. Harold A. SEALY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nThis is an appeal from the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission. The appellant argues that the Commission erred in finding that the appellee\u2019s lung injury was not barred by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-805, which provides that the Commission loses jurisdiction over a claim where a joint petition has been entered concerning the same injury. We dismiss because the order appealed from was not an appealable order.\nThe appellee suffered an injury to his knee during the course of his employment in 1983, which required surgery. Shortly after the surgery the appellee suffered a lung injury which was diagnosed as a possible pulmonary embolus related to the recent surgical procedure. The appellee filed a claim with the Commission alleging that his lung injury was a result of the surgery and, therefore, compensable. The appellant insurance carrier controverted this claim, and a hearing was held on May 15,1984. Before the administrative law judge issued an opinion, the parties entered into a joint petition settlement. Subsequent to the May 15 hearing, it was discovered that the appellee had actually been suffering from silicosis, and the appellant filed a new claim with the Commission.\nThe administrative law judge found that the Commission had not lost jurisdiction of the claim because there were two different lung injuries in the two different claims. The administrative law judge titled his opinion, Interim Order and Opinion, and noted that although he was finding that the Commission did have jurisdiction over the claim, there were still potential issues concerning the statute of limitations.\nThe appellant appealed to the full Commission. In a one paragraph opinion, the Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the administrative law judge, \u201cincluding all findings and conclusions therein.\u201d\nThe appellant then filed an appeal in this Court, arguing that the Commission\u2019s findings that there were two injuries and that it had not lost jurisdiction were not supported by sufficient evidence.\nFor an order to be appealable, it must be a final order. Ark. R. App. P. Rule 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. Hernandez v. Simmons Industries, 25 Ark. App. 25, 752 S.W.2d 45 (1988). This rule applies equally to appeals from the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission. Id.; Samuels Hide and Metal Co. v. Griffin, 23 Ark. App. 3, 739 S.W.2d 698 (1987). Interlocutory decisions and decisions on incidental matters are not reviewable for lack of finality, and ordinarily an order of the Commission is reviewable only at the point where it awards or denies compensation. Hernandez, supra. The issue decided in this case by the Commission is purely an incidental issue and did not dismiss the parties, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights as to the subject matter in controversy.\nAppeal dismissed.\nCracraft and Mayfield, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter A. Murray, for appellants.",
      "Whetstone and Whetstone, by: Gary Davis and H. Mayo Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MID-STATE CONSTRUCTION and Argonaut Insurance Company v. Harold A. SEALY\nCA 88-189\n761 S.W.2d 951\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered December 21, 1988\nWalter A. Murray, for appellants.\nWhetstone and Whetstone, by: Gary Davis and H. Mayo Smith, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0186-01",
  "first_page_order": 212,
  "last_page_order": 214
}