{ "id": 6137490, "name": "CAGLE FABRICATING AND STEEL, INC. v. Roger D. PATTERSON", "name_abbreviation": "Cagle Fabricating & Steel, Inc. v. Patterson", "decision_date": "1993-09-01", "docket_number": "CA 92-1215", "first_page": "79", "last_page": "81", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 Ark. App. 79" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "861 S.W.2d 114" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-704", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ark. App. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139410 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/42/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 Ark. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1906116 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/309/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. App. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137567 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/37/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ark. App. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137126 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/36/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 223, "char_count": 3359, "ocr_confidence": 0.912, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3608438240779086e-07, "percentile": 0.6358474953559069 }, "sha256": "dee779b6d34d372b515e7068e68e024f14d921f19d82977233e3fddffd1f0c13", "simhash": "1:6933cc17735b40f8", "word_count": 553 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:44.592852+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CAGLE FABRICATING AND STEEL, INC. v. Roger D. PATTERSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellee in this workers\u2019 compensation case has moved for attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 1 l-9-715(b) (1987), based on our opinion of June 23,1993, in which we affirmed the award of workers\u2019 compensation benefits in favor of the appellee. We grant the motion and award attorney s fees in the sum of $500.00 to the appellee.\nThis case began as a claim for benefits, based on a work-related hernia, which was granted by the Commission. The employer appealed that decision to this Court and, in Cagle I, we affirmed the Commission\u2019s award of benefits to the appellee. Cagle Fabricating and Steel, Inc. v. Patterson, 36 Ark. App. 49, 819 S.W.2d 14 (1991). The appellee, having prevailed in Cagle I, moved for an award of attorney\u2019s fees which we granted by a per curiam issued February 12, 1992. Cagle Fabricating and Steel, Inc. v. Patterson, 37 Ark. App. 85, 827 S.W.2d 660 (1992). No appeal was taken from our decision granting the appellee\u2019s motion for attorney\u2019s fees. Subsequently, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review of our decision in Cagle I, concluded that we had erred in finding that the Commission made a satisfactory finding of fact with respect to the fifth requirement of the hernia statute, and reversed and remanded to the Commission for a new decision based upon a specific finding regarding compliance with the fifth statutory requirement. Cagle Fabricating and Steel, Inc. v. Patterson, 309 Ark. 365, 830 S.W.2d 857 (1992). On remand, the Commission found that the appellee had satisfied that requirement and again awarded benefits to the appellee. The employer appealed to this Court, which again affirmed the Commission\u2019s award of benefits to the appellee in Cagle II. Cagle Fabricating and Steel, Inc. v. Patterson, 42 Ark. App. 168, 856 S.W.2d 30 (1993). In the course of that appeal, the employer presented arguments concerning our prior award of attorney\u2019s fees to the appellee for prevailing in Cagle I. We did not address these arguments because the appellant conceded that the appel-lee would be entitled to the award of attorney\u2019s fees should the appellee prevail on appeal.\nThe present motion presents a separate issue, i.e., whether the appellee is entitled to an additional fee for prevailing in Cagle II. Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 11-9-715(b)(1) provides for additional attorney\u2019s fees if the claimant prevails on appeal. The statute neither expressly provides for nor expressly prohibits an additional award of attorney\u2019s fees in cases such as the case at bar, where the claimant has been required to defend his award of workers\u2019 compensation benefits through two separate appeals brought by the employer to this Court. Construing the attorney\u2019s fee provision liberally and in accordance with the remedial purposes of the Act, see Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-704(c)(3) (Supp. 1991), we hold that an additional award of attorney\u2019s fees is authorized by the statute under the circumstances of this case. Therefore, we grant the appellee\u2019s motion and award attorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $500.00.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Warner & Smith, by: Wayne Harris, for appellant.", "Daily, West, Core, Coffman & Canfield, by: Eldon F. Coffman and Douglas M. Carson, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CAGLE FABRICATING AND STEEL, INC. v. Roger D. PATTERSON\nCA 92-1215\n861 S.W.2d 114\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered September 1, 1993\nWarner & Smith, by: Wayne Harris, for appellant.\nDaily, West, Core, Coffman & Canfield, by: Eldon F. Coffman and Douglas M. Carson, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0079-01", "first_page_order": 101, "last_page_order": 103 }