{
  "id": 6141514,
  "name": "SPRINGDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Springdale Memorial Hospital v. Director of Labor",
  "decision_date": "1991-05-29",
  "docket_number": "E 89-232",
  "first_page": "266",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ark. App. 266"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "809 S.W.2d 828"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "208 Ark. 903",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1478662
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/208/0903-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 Ark. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1684869
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/235/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 S.W. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ark. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1350591
      ],
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/104/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 S.W.2d 672",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 Ark. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1441869
      ],
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/183/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892760
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "204-05"
        },
        {
          "page": "280"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 Ark. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1751479
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/276/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1895705
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/294/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1712390
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 11-10-524",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 4942,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.892,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.516764497825288e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4469660200266502
    },
    "sha256": "5625951cb85dc2259da0fb59f0ae652d79f392a042696d6cfc7b5f2f9c9342c9",
    "simhash": "1:3369310d838b265c",
    "word_count": 831
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:46.151700+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Jennings and Mayfield, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SPRINGDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George K. Cracraft, Chief Judge.\nSpringdale Memorial Hospital appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review awarding unemployment benefits to Catherine Bar-ranger. Appellant contends that the claimant\u2019s appeal to the Board of Review was untimely and that, in any event, there is no substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s finding that the claimant was discharged from her employment with appellant for reasons other than misconduct connected with the work. Because we find merit in appellant\u2019s contention that the claimant\u2019s appeal to the Board of Review was untimely, we do not address the second issue.\nOn February 10, 1989, the decision of the appeal tribunal was mailed to the claimant and her attorney. The opinion denied her claim, finding that she had been discharged from her employment for misconduct connected with the work. Although the Board\u2019s review of an appeal tribunal\u2019s decision ordinarily must be initiated within twenty days of the mailing date of the decision, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 11-10-524(a), -525(a) (1987), this claimant\u2019s notice of appeal to the Board of Review was not mailed until October 2, 1989, almost eight months later. Pursuant to Paulino v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 676, 599 S.W.2d 760 (1980), the Board of Review then conducted a hearing to determine whether the untimeliness of the appeal was due to \u201ccircumstances beyond the [claimant\u2019s] control.\u201d\nThe claimant testified that, upon receipt of the decision of the appeal tribunal, she discussed the matter with her attorney and instructed him to proceed with an appeal. She stated that he told her that he would and subsequently informed her that he had done so. She did not know why the appeal was not filed before October 2. Although called to testify, the claimant\u2019s attorney merely noted that he did not have with him his file in the case, and his reasons for delay in filing the appeal are not shown in the record. On this evidence, the Board found as follows:\nFrom the evidence, the Board of Review finds that the claimant\u2019s appeal to the Board of Review was filed in an untimely manner due to circumstances beyond the claimant\u2019s control and her appeal will therefore be considered timely. She entrusted her appeal to her attorney and the failure to file the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the claimant\u2019s control.\nThe Board then reversed the decision of the appeal tribunal on its merits and awarded benefits to the claimant.\nWe conclude that the Board\u2019s determination that the claimant\u2019s reliance upon her attorney excuses her failure to file a timely appeal disregards the basic concept of the relationship between attorney and client. It is a rule of general application that a client is bound by the acts of his attorney within the scope of the latter\u2019s authority, including the attorney\u2019s negligent failure to file proper pleadings. See Allen v. Kizer, 294 Ark. 1, 740 S.W.2d 137 (1987); DeClerk v. Tribble, 276 Ark. 316, 637 S.W.2d 526 (1982). In Peterson v. Worthen Bank & Trust Co., 296 Ark. 201, 753 S.W.2d 278 (1988), the court stated:\nThe rules of agency generally apply to the relationship of attorney and client. The editors of 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client \u00a7 180, provide this summary:\n[U] sually the general rules of law which apply to agency apply to the relation of attorney and client. [Citing White & Black Rivers Bridge Co. v. Vaughan, 183 Ark. 450, 36 S.W.2d 672 (1931)]. Accordingly, the omissions, as well as commissions, of an attorney are to be regarded as the acts of the client whom he represents, and his neglect is equivalent to the neglect of the client himself. [Citing Blackstad Mercantile Co. v. Bond, 104 Ark. 45, 148 S.W. 262 (1912)]. Attorney\u2019s acts are attributed to the client. Thus, in the absence of fraud, the client is bound, according to the ordinary rules of agency, by the acts, omissions, or neglect, of the attorney within the scope of the latter\u2019s authority, [citing Riley v. Vest, 235 Ark. 192, 357 S.W.2d 497 (1962), and Beth v. Harris, 208 Ark. 903, 188 S.W.2d 119 (1945)] whether express or implied, apparent or ostensible. In other words, whatever is done in the progress of the cause by such attorney is considered as done by the party, and is binding on him. . . .\n296 Ark. at 204-05, 753 S.W.2d at 280. The fact that proceedings before the Board of Review are less formal than those in courts of law does not, in our opinion, alter the responsibility of a client for the acts of his attorney.\nOn the record presented, we conclude that the Board\u2019s finding that the failure to file a timely appeal was due to circumstances beyond the claimant\u2019s control is not supported by substantial evidence.\nReversed.\nJennings and Mayfield, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George K. Cracraft, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cypert, Crouch, Clark, & Harwell, by: Brian L. Spaulding, for appellant.",
      "Allan Pruitt, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SPRINGDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR\nE 89-232\n809 S.W.2d 828\nCourt of Appeal of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1991\nCypert, Crouch, Clark, & Harwell, by: Brian L. Spaulding, for appellant.\nAllan Pruitt, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0266-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 294
}