{
  "id": 1715329,
  "name": "FRANK J. ROONEY, INC. and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. v. Lloyd D. PITTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Pitts",
  "decision_date": "1980-03-26",
  "docket_number": "CA 79-317",
  "first_page": "911",
  "last_page": "916",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 Ark. 911"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "597 S.W.2d 120"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 699",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616820
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0699-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 Ark. 770",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1715501
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/268/0770-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 467,
    "char_count": 8401,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.894,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.86486014027979e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4591922154534878
    },
    "sha256": "1c63971b3ae5fceb9c0a357028b4b6967a89862f9c4cd3f08371057baa56f815",
    "simhash": "1:ce9cc0a0199fce19",
    "word_count": 1374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Howard, J., dissents as to the 20% penalty award."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FRANK J. ROONEY, INC. and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. v. Lloyd D. PITTS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Marian F. Penix, Judge.\nThis is a Workers\u2019 Compensation case.\nIn September 1975 the Claimant sustained wide-spread permanent brain damage due to anoxia secondary to a cardiac arrest resulting from an acute myocardial infarction. Since that time the Claimant has been confined to the hospital and it is anticipated he will remain so for the remainder of his life. Initially the Respondent controverted the claim. On August 23, 1976 the Administrative Law Judge Charles E. Davis found the claim compensable and awarded total and permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, past and future, with current medical totaling $45,251.05 and accumulating at about $2,500 per month. The Respondent appealed to the Commission and later dismissed the appeal. There was no specific medical bills placed in the record at the August 23 hearing.\nExtensive correpondence took place between the counsel for the Claimant and Respondent Insurance Company concerning the unpaid medical expenses. At further hearing on November 29, 1976 it was determined the Respondent was liable for a 20% penalty on the unpaid medical expenses. At a January 17, 1977 hearing Judge Davis ruled the respondent could not question the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses accumulated prior to the August 23, 1976 hearing. On February 3, 1977 Judge Davis entered an order permitting Respondent to have a registered nurse view the Claimant\u2019s treatment for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and necessity of the type of medical treatment the Claimant was receiving. Another hearing on January 17, 1977, continued on March 31, 1977, concerned the reasonableness and necessity of the type medical treatment being received by the Claimant.\nIn January 1977 the Respondent paid the $19,182.15 bill owed to Washington Regional Medical Center but refused to pay the $44,726.20 bill owed Fayetteville City Hospital.\nIn an August 28, 1978 order by Administrative Law Judge Jay Tolley the Claimant was awarded a 20% penalty on the sum of $44,726.20 as reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred, the Claimant\u2019s attorney was awarded a 10% fee on said penalty. On appeal to the full Commission the order was affirmed. The Circuit Court affirmed the Commission.\nI\nThe Respondent appeals alleging error in the order directing the Respondent to pay a 20% penalty pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1319(f). Respondent contends there had never been an \u201caward\u201d.\nThe reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment is an issue to be determined by the Commission. The Respondent Insurance Company was being asked to pay a substantial amount of medical expenses in excess of $40,000 and entitled to a hearing and determination on the issue of reasonableness and necessity without being assessed a 20% penalty. The August 23, 1976 opinion did not deal with the exact amount of medical to be paid. The Respondent Company was never permitted to submit evidence to show the expenses at Fayetteville City Hospital were unnecessary and unreasonable. There has never been any evidence, nor decision, with reference to the reasonableness and necessity of the $44,726.20 bill. The lower court erred as a matter of law. The Respondent was ordered to pay a 20% penalty on medical expenses, the exact amount of which had never been awarded. The statute \u00a7 81-1319(f) specifically requires there be an award:\n(f) If any installment, payable under the terms of an award, is not paid within 15 days after it becomes due there shall be added to such unpaid installment an amount equal to 20% thereof, which shall be paid . . .\nThe August 23, 1976 opinion held \u201cRespondents are liable for all medical expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Claimant.\u201d After this opinion Respondent received a $77,152.66 bill. The bills had not been introduced at the August 23 hearing. This bill was compromised and paid on April 5, 1977. This was done without there ever having been an order directing the payment of a sum certain. At the August 8, 1978 hearing, the new Administrative Judge Jay Tolley, held the Respondent liable for a 20% penalty on a medical bill that had long been compromised and paid on April 5, 1977.\nThe medical bills were and are astronomical in this case. Of course the Respondent had a right to investigate the reasonableness and accuracy of them. Judge Tolley recognized that the August 23, 1976 order did not specify an exact amount of medical which must be paid. He therefore sought to tie it to Judge Davis\u2019 evidentiary ruling of January 17, 1977 which was oral. The January 17 ruling was not an order nor an award, and an appeal could not be taken from it. Neither Judge Tolley nor the full Commission nor the Court below has heard the Respondent\u2019s arguments and evidence with reference to the disputed bill.\nThe Claimant and Fayetteville City Hospital could have submitted their bills to the Commission for approval pursuant to \u00a7 81-1311. Instead they sent over $70,000 in bills to Respondent directly. The Respondent was prohibited by Judge Davis from showing the medical treatment and expenses at Fayetteville City Hospital were unreasonable and unnecessary.\nJudge Tolley recognized Judge Davis\u2019 error:\nThere simply was no proof as of August 23, 1976, as to the amount of medical involved. The amount of medical involved was only known after the August 23,1976 opinion .. It thus became encumbent on the claimant if he were to have a second hearing to determine the exact amount of the responsibility of the respondents for the medical.\nJudge Tolley\u2019s error was stating \u201cThis was accomplished as a result of the January 17, 1977 hearing.\u201d This is error. How could an evidentiary ruling \u2014 which prohibited introduction of evidence on the issue \u2014 constitute a decision that $44,726.20 was reasonable? A $8,945.24 penalty has been imposed against Respondent without allowing Respondent to be heard. Applying the 20% penalty was error. There was no award which Respondent refused to pay.\nII\nRespondent contends error in applying \u00a7 81-1319(f) to an unpaid medical.\nThe Claimant attempts to distinguish our holding in Turner v. Trade Winds Inn, 267 Ark. 219 (1979) by stating it is a narrow holding pertaining only to subsection 81 -1319 (e). While the language in turn does specifically relate only to subsection (e) the philosophy which interpreted \u00a7 (e) also applies to subsection (f). We find the philosophy expressed in Turner, supra, to be controlling.\nOn March 5, 1980, this court in Model Laundry & Dry Cleaning & Sentry Insurance Co. v. Gary D. Simmons, 268 Ark. 770, 596 S.W. 2d 337 (Ark. App. 1980), held:\n. . . imposition of the penalty would raise a question to whom it should be paid.\n. . . we, by looking to the statutory langauge can see the general assembly would not have made the penalty applicable only to installments had it intended it to apply to the other payments as well.\nWe hold that the reference in \u00a7 81-1319(f) to \u2018installment, payable under the terms of the award\u2019 does not include medical and legal expenses.\nWe hold that the penalty provision of \u00a7 81-1319(f) applies only to disability benefits and has no application to medical bills.\nIll\nThe Respondent urges Aluminum Co. of America v. Henning, 260 Ark. 699, 543 S.W. 2d 480 (1976) requires a reversal on the award of maximum attorney\u2019s fees to Claimant\u2019s attorney. The Respondent interprets Henning, supra, as requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine whether maximum fees are warranted. We do not find this to be the correct interpretation of Henning. An evidentiary hearing is necessary only when the record indicates a bare minimum of services was provided. In the instant case the transcript alone is comprised of six volumes. There were five intense hearings and voluminous correspondence. The record h\u00e1rdly indicates a bare minimum of services. There is substantial evidence to support the Commission\u2019s award of maximum attorney\u2019s fees. Therefore, we must affirm on this point.\nThe 20% penalty award is reversed.\nWe affirm the award of attorney\u2019s fees.\nHoward, J., dissents as to the 20% penalty award.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Marian F. Penix, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones, Gilbreath & Jones, for appellants.",
      "Davis, Bassett, Cox & Wright, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRANK J. ROONEY, INC. and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. v. Lloyd D. PITTS\nCA 79-317\n597 S.W. 2d 120\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 26, 1980\nPetition for review denied April 21, 1980\nReleased for publication April 23, 1980\nJones, Gilbreath & Jones, for appellants.\nDavis, Bassett, Cox & Wright, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0911-01",
  "first_page_order": 947,
  "last_page_order": 952
}