{
  "id": 1715323,
  "name": "OWENS COUNTRY SAUSAGE and EMPLOYERS' CASUALTY COMPANY v. Gary CRANE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Owens Country Sausage v. Crane",
  "decision_date": "1980-02-27",
  "docket_number": "CA 79-294",
  "first_page": "732",
  "last_page": "735",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 Ark. 732"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "594 S.W.2d 872"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 602",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675931
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "609"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0602-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619254
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0614-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 699",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616820
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0699-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 371,
    "char_count": 6212,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4188597644869924e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6485748783037157
    },
    "sha256": "c7d3408987a52829805ad9caeec410ae244d7bb9e63939f37efb96c2e746f277",
    "simhash": "1:15a6258f7969a578",
    "word_count": 1028
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "OWENS COUNTRY SAUSAGE and EMPLOYERS\u2019 CASUALTY COMPANY v. Gary CRANE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Judge.\nThis workers\u2019 compensation appeal presents two main questions. The first is whether there is substantial evidence to support the commission\u2019s finding that an award of the costs of a rehabilitation program are reasonable. We hold there was. Secondly, we must decide whether a claimant who appeals an administrative law judge\u2019s decision to the commission and who loses on his appeal but wins on the cross-appeal of the respondents should be regarded as having \u201cprevailed\u201d on appeal and be thus entitled to an attorney\u2019s fee as provided in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1332 (Supp. 1979). We hold he should.\nThe appellant sustained a compensable injury while driving a delivery truck for the appellee, Owens Country Sausage. The administrative law judge found 5% anatomical impairment and awarded temporary total disability payments, and payments for partial disability and permanent disability to the body as a whole at 5%. The judge found that a finding of \u201coverall permanent disability\u201d would be premature, as the appellee was a rehabilitation candidate. The judge suggested at the end of his conclusions that without rehabilitation, the appellee might be entitled to an additional 5 to 10% permanent disability.\nThe appellee had been a part time professional pilot. As his rehabilitation program, he proposed he be allowed to take instruction leading to three additional pilot ratings which would improve his income prospects in that field. The administrative law judge\u2019s award as affirmed by the commission was that the appellants would be responsible for the cost of one such rating, i.e., \u201cInstrument Rating \u2014 Airplane\u201d to be obtained at a Dallas, Texas, flight school.\nIn his appeal to the full commission, Mr. Crane urged he should be entitled to all of the rehabilitation program he had proposed, and that he was permanently disabled to the extent of 10% and that dates of his temporary total and temporary partial disability as found by the judge should be adjusted. The respondents appealed certain aspects of the award with respect to the temporary benefits, one of the medical payments, the permanent disability finding and the rehabilitation award. The commission affirmed the award in its entirety, and in a supplemental opinion awarded the claimant\u2019s attorney a $100 fee for the appeal.\n1. Rehabilitation\nAt the outset, we should dispose of the suggestion of the appellants that the appellee should not be allowed an award of benefits for permanent disability and a rehabilitation program as well. No authority is cited for that contention, and it is directly contrary to the language of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310(f) (Supp. 1979), which says rehabilitation benefits are to be in addition to other benefits provided by the Act.\nThe evidence showed the appellee was earning $275 per week at his job with Owens. Since the accident, and up to the time of the hearing, he had been earning an average of $135.30 per week as a pilot and flying instructor. Based on the testimony of the appellee\u2019s present employer, an instrument rating would permit the appellee to earn as much as he had been earning with Owens, or more.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1310 (f) permits an award of the costs of a rehabilitation program which is \u201creasonable in relation to the disabilities sustained by [the] employee.\u201d Given the commission\u2019s findings based on the evidence of the salary discrepancy and the prospect of improvement, we cannot say there is a lack of substantial evidence that this program is reasonable.\nII. Attorney\u2019s Fee\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1332 says, in part:\nIn addition to the fees herein provided, if the claimant prevails on appeal, the attorney for the claimant shall be entitled to an additional fee at the full Commission and appellate court levels, such additional fee to be paid by the employer or carrier, and such fee to be set by the Commission and/or appellate court. The maximum fees allowable hereunder shall be the sum of one hundred dollars ($100) on appeals to the full Commission from a decision of an administrative law judge, and until July 1, 1979, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) on appeals to the Arkansas Supreme Court from a decision of the Commission, and beginning July 1, 1979, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) on appeals to the Arkansas Court of Appeals from a decision of the Commission. In determining the amount of fees, the Court shall take into consideration the nature, length, and complexity of the services performed, and the benefits resulting therefrom to the compensation, beneficiary.\nThe appellants\u2019 contention is that, as neither party \u201cprevailed\u201d on appeal to the commission, it should not have awarded the maximum $100 attorney\u2019s fee to the appellee. It could just as well be said that both parties prevailed before the commission, as the appellee won on the cross-appeal and the appellants won on the direct appeal.\nWe choose to characterize this case as one where the claimant prevailed, as workers\u2019 compensation statutes should be interpreted liberally in favor of the claimant. Aluminum Co. of America v. Henning, 260 Ark. 699, 543 S.W. 2d 480 (1976); Mohawk Rubber Co. v. Buford, 259 Ark. 614, 535 S.W. 2d 819 (1976).\nWe note the commission did not bother to justify the $100 award in its supplemental opinion. Rather than send the case back for justification, we have looked into the record and found evidence that the appellee\u2019s attorney\u2019s efforts warranted the fee. We do not propose to do that in every case, however, and we suggest the commission heed Chief Justice Harris\u2019 admonition in Aluminum Co. of America v. Wilson, 262 Ark. 602, 559 S.W. 2d 710 (1978), that \u201cthe commission should set out the basis for any . allowance made.\u201d (262 Ark. at 609)\nIn view of the brief filed on this appeal, an additional fee of $200 is allowed to the appellee\u2019s attorney.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William L. Peek, Jr., of Hubbard, Patton, Peek, Haltom & Roberts, for appellants.",
      "Southern & James, by: Byron S. Southern, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OWENS COUNTRY SAUSAGE and EMPLOYERS\u2019 CASUALTY COMPANY v. Gary CRANE\nCA 79-294\n594 S.W. 2d 872\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 27, 1980\nReleased for publication March 19, 1980\nWilliam L. Peek, Jr., of Hubbard, Patton, Peek, Haltom & Roberts, for appellants.\nSouthern & James, by: Byron S. Southern, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0732-01",
  "first_page_order": 768,
  "last_page_order": 771
}