{
  "id": 6137611,
  "name": "Linda L. KING v. BAXTER COUNTY REGIONAL HOSPITAL",
  "name_abbreviation": "King v. Baxter County Regional Hospital",
  "decision_date": "2002-09-11",
  "docket_number": "CA 01-996",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "100",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 Ark. App. 97"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "86 S.W.3d 13"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "345 Ark. 626",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5808,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.729,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3401771686302947
    },
    "sha256": "0fe9f627a892b6ea13b568cd5434eee4e8a8f37de9cb38bb1a6e2931f37d369c",
    "simhash": "1:8fb1cb5e957ed5a9",
    "word_count": 951
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:26.957939+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Neal and Baker, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Linda L. KING v. BAXTER COUNTY REGIONAL HOSPITAL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sam Bird, Judge.\nIn May 1991, Linda L. King, a medical transcriptionist at Baxter County Regional Hospital, developed carpal tunnel syndrome, which was accepted as a workers\u2019 compensation injury. She underwent surgeries related to the compensable injury in 1991 and 1993. She returned to work after each procedure but quit in January 1995. A hearing was later conducted before the administrative' law judge on two contested issues: 1) temporary partial disability benefits related to King\u2019s admittedly compensable carpal tunnel syndrome; and 2) the com-pensability of her alleged psychological injury or illness. The law judge denied King\u2019s request for temporary partial disability benefits and found that she had failed to prove her claim of a psychological injury or illness. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the law judge\u2019s decision.\nKing now appeals the decision of the Commission. She contends that it erred 1) in refusing to award temporary partial disability benefits between October 10 and December 19, 1993; and 2) in refusing to find that she suffered a compensable mental injury. We are unable to determine which parts of appellant\u2019s abstract and addendum support the arguments she makes in her brief. Under Rule 4-2 the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court (2002), we offer her an opportunity to cure the deficiency.\nArkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(7) (2002) states, \u201cRefi-erence in the argument portion of the parties\u2019 briefs to material found in the abstract and Addendum shall be followed by a reference to the page number of the abstract or Addendum at which such material may be found.\u201d Rule 4-2(a)(8) specifies that the addendum to appellant\u2019s brief shall include relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to the Court\u2019s understanding of the case; and in the case of lengthy documents, \u201conly relevant excerpts in context need to be included. ...\u201d Insufficiency of an appellant\u2019s abstract or addendum is addressed by section 4-2(b), which states in pertinent part:\n(3) Whether or not the appellee has called attention to deficiencies in the appellant\u2019s abstract or Addendum, the Court may address the question at any time. If the Court finds the abstract or Addendum to be deficient such that the Court cannot reach the merits of the case, or such as to cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the disposition of the appeal, the Court will notify the appellant that he or she will be afforded an opportunity to cure any deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief, at his or her own expense, to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (7).. Mere modifications of the original brief by the appellant, as by interlineation, will not be accepted by the Clerk. Upon the filing of such a substituted brief by the appellant, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement the brief, at the expense of the appellant or the appellant\u2019s counsel, as the Court may direct. If after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies, the appellant fails to file a complying abstract, Addendum, and brief within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the Rule.\nHere, in order to address the merits of appellant\u2019s arguments regarding temporary partial disability and psychological illness or injury, we must necessarily examine relevant parts of the testimony, wage records, and medical records. Our efforts to do so, however, have been frustrated by the lack of proper references to pages of the abstract or addendum. By way of example, appellant\u2019s argument under her first point presents statements of facts about fight-duty restriction, changed job duties, and reduction in pay, but it includes only a sole reference to \u201cPg. No. 10.\u201d There is no indication that this is indeed a page of the abstract, and there are no references to documents in the addendum that also might be necessary to our review. Under appellant\u2019s second point of appeal, the argument is based in part upon testimony given by appellant, three co-workers, and supervisor; and upon impairment ratings, evaluations, and diagnoses, and opinions given by medical specialists. Page references in this argument are sometimes incorrectly given to pages of the transcript or exhibits rather than to pages of the abstract or the addendum, as required by Rule 4-2. Furthermore, the argument section in appellant\u2019s second point does not make any page number reference to any of the extensive medical records contained in the addendum, and we are unable to ascertain the portion of the lengthy medical records that might lend support to her argument. The medical records in appellant\u2019s brief are reproduced at pages 86 through 218 of the addendum, not in keeping with the directive of Rule 4-2(a) (8) that documents be reduced in the addendum to \u201conly relevant excerpts.\u201d\nFor the reasons discussed above, we find appellant\u2019s abstract and addendum to be deficient such that we cannot reach the merits of the case. Therefore, we set a date fifteen days from the date of this opinion to allow appellant to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief in conformance with Rule 4-2 (a) (5) and (8). See In Re: Modification of the Abstracting System, 345 Ark. 626 (2001). Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(3) specifies that appellant\u2019s brief be a substituted brief rather than a modification, and that appellee is afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement. Appellee will be allowed ten days to file its brief if it wishes to do so.\nRebriefing ordered.\nNeal and Baker, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sam Bird, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederick S. \u201cRick\u201d Spencer, for appellant.",
      "Walter A. Murray, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Linda L. KING v. BAXTER COUNTY REGIONAL HOSPITAL\nCA 01-996\n86 S.W.3d 13\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered September 11, 2002\nFrederick S. \u201cRick\u201d Spencer, for appellant.\nWalter A. Murray, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 123,
  "last_page_order": 126
}