{
  "id": 6137331,
  "name": "Wally CHESHIRE v. FOAM MOLDING CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cheshire v. Foam Molding Co.",
  "decision_date": "1992-02-05",
  "docket_number": "CA 91-148",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ark. App. 78"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "822 S.W.2d 412"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "28 Ark. App. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137201
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/28/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718655
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0195-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-524",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3958,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.903,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.527610052784428e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6705165050163157
    },
    "sha256": "c79af86a98be5f05eacb53893484a0fc09b6cdc16a1352553614fda0b896622f",
    "simhash": "1:14316929f524a070",
    "word_count": 635
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:00:27.632915+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Jennings and Mayfield, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Wally CHESHIRE v. FOAM MOLDING CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Judith Rogers, Judge.\nIn this workers\u2019 compensation case, the Commission affirmed and adopted the administrative law judge\u2019s decision that appellant\u2019s claim for additional benefits was barred by the statute of limitations. The only issue in this appeal is whether that determination is correct. We hold that it is, and affirm.\nAs a result of a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to submit the statute of limitations issue to the administrative law judge for decision on the basis of stipulated facts and briefs. It was stipulated that on February 18, 1988, appellant had sustained a work-related injury to his head and face. Appellee had accepted compensability and benefits were paid accordingly. On February 17, 1989, appellant was examined by an ophthalmologist. The ophthalmologist\u2019s bill was paid by appellee\u2019s insurance carrier on March 31, 1989. The appellant filed a claim by mail for additional benefits of March 21, 199\u00d3, in which he sought an award of compensation for disfigurement pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-524 (1987). This claim was acknowledged as received by the Commission on March 26, 1990.\nThe time limitation for filing claims for additional benefits is found at Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 1 l-9-702(4)(b) (1987), which provides:\nIn cases where compensation for disability has been paid on account of injury, a claim for additional compensation shall be barred unless filed with the commission within one (1) year from the date of the last payment of compensation, or two (2) years from the date of injury, whichever is greater.\nIt is undisputed that appellant\u2019s claim filed in March of 1990 was beyond the two year limitations period. It was the appellant\u2019s contention before the administrative law judge, as it is on appeal, that the statute of limitations was suspended for a year from the date that payment was made of the opthalmologist\u2019s services, March 31, 1989. The administrative law judge determined, however, in reliance on the supreme court\u2019s decision in Heflin v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 244 Ark. 195, 424 S.W.2d 365 (1968), that the one-year limitations period began to run on February 17, 1989, the date that the opthalmologist\u2019s services were rendered, thus barring appellant\u2019s claim for additional benefits.\nAppellant acknowledges that the administrative law judge\u2019s decision, as affirmed and adopted by the Commission, is consistent with the holding in Heflin v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., supra. In that case, the court held that the furnishing of medical services constitutes payment of compensation within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 1 l-9-702(4)(b) (1987) [formerly Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1318(b) (Repl. I960)], based upon reasoning that the claimant is \u201ccompensated\u201d by the furnishing of medical services and not by the payment of the charges therefor. Nevertheless, appellant argues that, based on elementary principles of statutory construction, we should construe the statute according to its literal and plain meaning and hold that the date on which medical services are actually paid constitutes the \u201cpayment of compensation\u201d for the purposes of tolling the statute of limitations. In essence, appellant contends that the decision in Heflin is wrong, and that we should depart from its holding.\nThis case is clearly controlled by Heflin v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., supra, and we are not at liberty to overturn a decision of the supreme court. Myles v. Paragould School District, 28 Ark. App. 81, 770 S.W.2d 675 (1983). In this case, the one-year limitations period started to run on February 17, 1989, when appellant was examined by the ophthalmologist; therefore, appellant\u2019s claim for additional benefits filed in March of 1990 was untimely. We affirm.\nAffirmed.\nJennings and Mayfield, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Judith Rogers, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laura J. McKinnon, for appellant.",
      "Michael E. Ryburn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wally CHESHIRE v. FOAM MOLDING CO.\nCA 91-148\n822 S.W.2d 412\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered February 5, 1992\nLaura J. McKinnon, for appellant.\nMichael E. Ryburn, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 100
}