{
  "id": 1884252,
  "name": "Geneva Lee BALDWIN v. CLUB PRODUCTS COMPANY and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baldwin v. Club Products Co.",
  "decision_date": "1990-06-04",
  "docket_number": "89-329",
  "first_page": "404",
  "last_page": "407",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "302 Ark. 404"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "790 S.W.2d 166"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "300 Ark. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1886778
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/300/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-711",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(9)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-712",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1709328
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0155-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 4190,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.876,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36498537173402773
    },
    "sha256": "5603f34f0f75ecd0e6ae1db319057faae08f1a882b2613fcd02ad1f4d3ae93de",
    "simhash": "1:116c5a768f4649f8",
    "word_count": 681
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:34:09.444418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Geneva Lee BALDWIN v. CLUB PRODUCTS COMPANY and Fireman\u2019s Fund Insurance Company"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nAppellant filed a motion in circuit court seeking to have the circuit court issue an order directing appellees to comply with an order of the Worker\u2019s Compensation Commission. The appellees responded with a motion to dismiss and for sanctions and costs pursuant to ARCP Rule 11. The trial court held it was without jurisdiction to hear appellant\u2019s motion and denied appellees\u2019 request for sanctions. Both parties appeal. We affirm on both direct and cross-appeal.\nAppellant suffered a total and permanent injury in 1977. See Baldwin v. Club Products Co. & Fireman\u2019s Fund Ins. Co., 270 Ark. 155, 604 S.W.2d 568 (Ark. App. 1980). After further proceedings the full commission issued an opinion and order in 1984 directing that; \u201cAny and all reasonable and necessary medical and related expenses shall be borne by respondents [appellees].\u201d Pursuant to the order appellees have paid all of the customary medical bills. Appellant now seeks to have appellee pay for psychiatric care, treatment by an ophthalmologist, and treatment by a pain clinic. Appellees do not agree such treatment is reasonable and necessary. After appellees questioned this treatment, the appellant filed a \u201cMotion to Enforce Judgment\u201d in the circuit court. The motion prayed that the court issue an order directing the appellees to \u201cprovide the care\u201d ordered by the Commission. The trial court held it was without jurisdiction to act.\nAppellant contends that the trial court misconstrued Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-712 (1987). The argument is without merit. That statute provides that a certified copy of a \u201cfinal compensation order or award\u201d of the Worker\u2019s Compensation Commission may be entered in the judgment record of a county and, after entry by the circuit clerk, is enforceable as are judgments and liens of the circuit court. The statute is for the registration affinal compensation orders or awards. \u201cCompensation\u201d means \u201cthe money allowance payable to the employee. . . .\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-102(9) (1987). \u201cFinal\u201d may be generally said to mean an appealable order. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-711 (1987). Thus, the statute at issue, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-712 (1987), means that a money allowance, or liquidated award, which has become final, may be filed with the circuit clerk, and it then becomes a judgment and lien the same as a circuit court judgment. The statute does not in any way give the circuit court jurisdiction to determine what is a \u201creasonable and necessary\u201d expense pursuant to an order or award of the Worker\u2019s Compensation Commission. Thus, we affirm on direct appeal.\nOn cross-appeal the cross-appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to impose sanctions. The imposition of sanctions is a matter to be handled with circumspection, and the trial court\u2019s decision is due substantial deference. Bratton v. Gunn, 300 Ark. 140, 777 S.W.2d 219 (1989). The order appealed from in this case was entered on August 2, 1989. Bratton was handed down on October 9,1989, so the trial court had no way of knowing that this Court would take the opportunity afforded by Bratton to note:\nthe salutary purposes of Rule 11 and to further state the courts\u2019 interest in fair application of it. With that in mind, and notwithstanding the language in ARCP Rule 52 that makes findings of fact and conclusions of law unnecessary in decisions on motions, we believe the better practice is for the trial court to give an explanation of its decision on Rule 11 motions sufficient for the appellate courts to review.\nAlthough we do not know the reason the trial court denied the motion for sanctions, after reviewing the appellant\u2019s abstract and argument, we are convinced the appellant\u2019s attorney was making a good faith effort to assist his client in compliance with the statute. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of the motion to impose sanctions.\nAffirmed on direct and cross-appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. R. Nash, for appellant.",
      "Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Geneva Lee BALDWIN v. CLUB PRODUCTS COMPANY and Fireman\u2019s Fund Insurance Company\n89-329\n790 S.W.2d 166\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 4, 1990\n[Rehearing denied July 9, 1990.]\nJ. R. Nash, for appellant.\nBarber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0404-01",
  "first_page_order": 430,
  "last_page_order": 433
}