{
  "id": 6139956,
  "name": "CARROLL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE and Arkansas Rural Electric Self-Insured Trust v. Tim PACK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carroll Electric Cooperative v. Pack",
  "decision_date": "2004-03-03",
  "docket_number": "CA 03-884",
  "first_page": "293",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 Ark. App. 293"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "151 S.W.3d 324"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark. App., 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6656221
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "139"
        },
        {
          "page": "424"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/45/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-702",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 444,
    "char_count": 9833,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.738,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6026256743153752
    },
    "sha256": "30d3e2e2cb615edbfa57a5c3c67f6afe67cd255a97e1f0f322fd9514ca90c08b",
    "simhash": "1:b78defc757a77cac",
    "word_count": 1556
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:47.605982+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stroud, C.J., and Vaught, J., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CARROLL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE and Arkansas Rural Electric Self-Insured Trust v. Tim PACK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sam Bird, Judge.\nThis is a workers\u2019 compensation case involving the statute of limitations. On January 24, 1995, appellee Tim Pack fell from a tree he was trimming while working for appellant Carroll Electric Corporation. His ankles and feet were severely injured, and his claim initially was accepted as compensable. A hearing was conducted before an administrative law judge on May 20, 2002, to determine appellee\u2019s entitlement to additional temporary total disability benefits from February 13, 1997, to a date yet to be determined; entitlement to additional medical treatment; and the effect of the statute of limitations on these claims. Appellee contended that the healing period had never been found to have ended, and that appellants had paid permanent partial disability for a period of time but had paid nothing after October 14, 1999. He contended that he was entitled to a resumption of total temporary benefits until his healing period should end, and that he was entitled to a resumption of medical treatment. Appellants contended that all appropriate benefits had been paid, that appellee\u2019s claim for additional benefits was barred by the statute of limitations under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-702, and that appellee\u2019s healing period had ended on February 13, 1997, thereby ending his entitlement to temporary total disability benefits.\nThe administrative law judge found that appellee was not barred by limitations from receiving appropriate benefits. After making extensive findings about appellee\u2019s medical treatment and the duration of his healing periods; the law judge awarded temporary total disability benefits for the time periods from January 25, 1994, through February 13, 1997; from April 23 through April 27, 1998; and from September 14, 2001, to a date yet to be determined. Appellants were ordered to pay for medical services related to the compensable injuries. The law judge stated that appellee\u2019s claim, although falling within the time for filing a claim for additional benefits under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-702, was more correctly characterized as a request to enforce the Commission\u2019s prior opinion and award of November 16, 1995. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the law judge. Appellants now appeal the Commission\u2019s decision, contending that substantial evidence does not support the finding that appellee\u2019s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the decision of the Commission.\nArkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-702 (Repl. 2002) reads as follows:\n(b) Time for Filing Additional Compensation. (1) In cases where any compensation, including disability or medical, 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 the injury, whichever is greater.\nThe Commission found that \u201cthe evidence presented would establish that the present claim is not actually a claim for additional benefits, but would more correctly be characterized as simply a request to enforce the Commission\u2019s prior Opinion and award of November 16,1995.\u201d\nThe evidence before the Commission included medical records, appellee\u2019s testimony, and appellants\u2019 documents regarding payments made beginning in 1994. A letter from Dr. Tom Coker on February 13, 1997, states that appellee would very likely eventually need further surgery, including fusions of each ankle; Dr. Coker assessed permanent physical impairment of seventy percent to appellee\u2019s right ankle and forty percent to the left ankle as of the date of the letter. Appellee testified that appellants reduced his bi-weekly benefit payments after Dr. Coker issued the impairment ratings. A printout showing payments by appellants to appellee ends with a December 9, 1999, payment for permanent-partial disability benefits from December 2 to December 8, 1999. Appellants also provided at the hearing a Workers\u2019 Compensation Form AR.-4, showing payment of temporary total disability payments for 164 weeks and one day, as well as permanent partial disability benefits for 151.65 weeks.\nAppellants argue that nothing in the order or in appellee\u2019s contentions suggested that his claim was one to enforce the prior order. They point to the statement in the prehearing order that the issues to be litigated were entitlement to additional temporary total-disability from February 13, 1997, through a date yet to be determined; entitlement to additional medical services; and the effect of the statute of limitations on these additional benefits. They assert that the medical records, particularly Dr. Coker\u2019s letter assessing impairment ratings on February 13, 1997, clearly show that appellee reached the end of his healing period on that date.\nThe Commission found this case analogous to Helena Contracting Co. v. Williams, 45 Ark. App., 137, 872 S.W.2d 423 (1994), where we affirmed the Commission\u2019s conclusion that Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-702(b) \u2014 then found in Supp. 1993 \u2014 did not bar a claim for a resumption of benefits. In Williams we wrote the following:\n[W]e do not think that the claim filed on January 31, 1990, constituted a claim for \u201cadditional compensation\u201d so as to be subject to the limitations period stated in Ark. Code Ann. ll-9-702(b). There is nothing in the record before us to show that the award of compensation made pursuant to the Commission\u2019s order of February 4, 1986, had expired, or that the cessation of benefits by the appellants was sanctioned in any form. Instead, it is clear from the record-that the appellants simply refused to continue the payment of benefits previously awarded by the Commission pursuant to its order of February 1986. Furthermore, it is clear that the order appealed from merely awarded temporary total disability and medical benefits related to the compensable injury. Given that the appellee was already entitled to those benefits by virtue of the Commission\u2019s 1986 order, we think that the Commission erred in concluding that the appellee\u2019s claim was one for \u201cadditional\u201d compensation so as to be subject to the limitations periods provided for in 11-9-702(b). Instead, we regard the appellee\u2019s chimas one for enforcement of the Commission\u2019s previous order, rather than a request for additional compensation, and we hold that the claim was therefore not barred by ll-9-702(b).\n45 Ark. App. at 139, 872 S.W.2d at 424.\nHere, the Commission found that although appellants had paid indemnity benefits and medical expenses for a substantial period of time, as had the respondents in Williams, they had essentially ignored a prior opinion and award. The Commission noted that a hearing had been held on a prior claim appellee filed for additional temporary total disability benefits after appellants unilaterally reduced appellee\u2019s indemnity benefits on June 5, 1995, from the previously paid temporary total disability rate to what they contended was the appropriate permanent partial disability rate. The Commission noted that on November 16, 1995, it had awarded appellee continuing temporary total disability benefits from June 5, 1995, until such time as he should reach the end of his healing period; that the November 1995 order also had awarded maximum attorney fees to appellee\u2019s attorney; and that the order had become final when appellants\u2019 appeal was dismissed on March 19, 1996. The Commission found that appellee\u2019s prior claim for additional benefits had effectively tolled the statute of limitations in regard to the present claim. The Commission wrote:\nThe computer printout furnished by the respondents show[s] that the respondents continued to pay the claimant indemnity benefits at the permanent partial disability rate even after the Opinion and award. At no time after the respondents unilaterally reduced these benefits on June 5, 1995, were they returned to the higher temporary total disability rate. There is also no indication in any of the payments records that the awarded fee was paid to the claimant\u2019s attorney.\nWe note again that appellee contended at the last hearing that he was entitled to a resumption of medical treatment and resumption of temporary total benefits until his healing period should end. This is contrary to appellants\u2019 argument that appellee\u2019s contentions do not suggest a request to enforce the prior opinion. Appellants do not contend that the determination of the end of the healing period had been made when they unilaterally reduced indemnity payments to appellee based on Dr. Coker\u2019s letter of February 13, 1997, nor do they contest the Commission\u2019s finding that they failed to follow the Commission\u2019s order of November 1995 entitling appellee to continuing temporary total disability benefits and medical services until a future date. It is clear that appellants reduced their payments to appellee without benefit of an order to do so, and that appellee\u2019s claim was for an enforcement of a prior award rather than for additional benefits. We affirm the Commission\u2019s finding that Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 ll-9-702(b) is not applicable and, thus, does not bar this claim.\nAffirmed.\nStroud, C.J., and Vaught, J., agree.\nNeither the November 1995 award nor the March 1996 dismissal of appellants\u2019 appeal is included in the briefs before us. It was stipulated at the hearing in the present case that \u201ca prior opinion\u201d of August 10,1995, had become res judicata; that opinion likewise is not included in these briefs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sam Bird, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Betty J. Demory and H. Wayne Young, Jr., for appellants.",
      "Davis & Zega, P.C., by: Boyce R. Davis, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARROLL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE and Arkansas Rural Electric Self-Insured Trust v. Tim PACK\nCA 03-884\n151 S.W.3d 324\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered March 3, 2004\nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Betty J. Demory and H. Wayne Young, Jr., for appellants.\nDavis & Zega, P.C., by: Boyce R. Davis, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0293-01",
  "first_page_order": 317,
  "last_page_order": 321
}