{
  "id": 4017444,
  "name": "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES v. The Honorable Vann SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "2007-04-30",
  "docket_number": "06-6",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "486",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "369 Ark. 484"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "255 S.W.3d 870"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "254 S.W.3d 726",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4017024,
        4016179
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/369/0345-01",
        "/ark/369/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 Ark. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        4017024
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/369/0345-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 Ark. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3655725
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/366/0584-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 321,
    "char_count": 5428,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.12589788053280326
    },
    "sha256": "90c36b5d144292aecbd88bdf46c52b1c5b0db27906df24962a18e0bd5408402b",
    "simhash": "1:4b9fc3c12772330f",
    "word_count": 903
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:01:48.941240+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES v. The Honorable Vann SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), petitions this court for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, a writ of certiorari, to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, instructing the court that it is without jurisdiction to grant Karen Blaylock\u2019s request for an increase of her Medicaid Community Spouse Monthly Income Allowance (CSMIA) and Medicaid Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CRSA), until her husband applies for Medicaid.\nAfter her husband, Alan Blaylock, was allegedly injured in the couple\u2019s residence, Karen petitioned the circuit court for an increase in her CSMIA and CRSA in anticipation of Alan\u2019s applying for Medicaid benefits. In his response, Alan urged the court to grant the relief his wife had requested. The Blaylocks contended that the court had jurisdiction to adjust the Medicaid allowances prior to Alan\u2019s application for Medicaid benefits. DHHS intervened and moved for summary judgment, maintaining that federal law does' not create a justiciable claim within the parameters of Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court denied DHHS\u2019s motion, determining that it had jurisdiction to hear the couple\u2019s request for an increase in the allowances.\nOn January 4, 2006, this petition followed. On May 16, 2006, Karen provided this court with documentation that Alan had passed away and that she had been lawfully appointed by the circuit court as administratix of his estate. However, the documentation did not contain an order of revivor from the circuit court. We remanded the matter to the circuit court in order to determine whether such an order was appropriate. See Ark. Dep\u2019t of Human Servs. v. Smith, 366 Ark. 584, 237 S.W.3d 79 (2006) (per curiam).\nThe circuit court subsequently determined that Alan\u2019s death did not extinguish the cause of action and that revivor was appropriate. DHHS, joined by Karen, then asked this court to reinstate the petition. We granted the motion to reinstate the petition to this court\u2019s active docket on April 5, 2007, and directed the parties to supplement the record with the order of the circuit court on remand within fifteen days of that date, stating that we would \u201cdecide the case on the original briefs.\u201d See Ark. Dep\u2019t of Human Servs. v. Circuit Ct. of Pulaski County, 369 Ark. 345, 254 S.W.3d 726 (2007) (per curiam).\nThe case is now back before us, but we are unable to consider the merits of the petition at this time. In its brief, DHHS states that this is an action for extraordinary relief, and \u201c[t]he record does not contain testimony. The matter [was] submitted on the pleadings. No abstract is necessary.\u201d However, the trial court held a hearing in this matter. Although no testimony was taken, the parties\u2019 attorneys nonetheless offered the trial court extensive arguments on the pertinent issues, and the circuit court\u2019s order specifically references the hearing that was held on July 27, 2005.\nArkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) requires an appellant\u2019s abstract to contain \u201csuch material parts of the . . . colloquies between the court and counsel ... as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the court for decision.\u201d DHHS failed to abstract the hearing held in the circuit court. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(b)(3) explains the procedure to be followed when an appellant has failed to supply this court with a sufficient brief. The rule provides as follows:\nWhether 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 (8). 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.\nArk. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2006).\nWe hereby order DHHS to submit a substituted brief that contains an abstract of the July 27, 2005 hearing. DHHS is directed to file the substituted brief within fifteen days from the entry of this order. Mere modifications of the original brief will not be accepted. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). According to Rule 4-2(b)(3), if DHHS fails to file a complying abstract and addendum within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the Rule.\nRebriefing ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard Barthold Dahlgren, for appellant.",
      "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Patricia Bell, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES v. The Honorable Vann SMITH\n06-6\n255 S.W.3d 870\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 30, 2007\nRichard Barthold Dahlgren, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Patricia Bell, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 514,
  "last_page_order": 516
}