Absolute Care Mgmt. v. Stacy
2017 Ark. App. 654
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Absolute Care Management and insurer Guarantee Insurance appealed a Workers’ Compensation Commission decision that Letha Stacy was performing employment services when injured in a one-vehicle wreck.
- The Court of Appeals did not reach the substantive employment-services issue because of multiple appellate‑briefing deficiencies by appellants.
- The court identified specific rule violations under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2, including: failure to provide record page references for abstracted transcript testimony; incorrect record page citations; inclusion of deposition transcripts in the addendum; and omission of post‑hearing briefs ordered by the ALJ from the addendum.
- The court found appellants’ statement of the case improperly argumentative and lacking required page references, and noted repeated failures to cite abstract/addendum page numbers in the argument section.
- The court ordered rebriefing: appellants must file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum complying with Rule 4-2 within 15 days, warning that further noncompliance could lead to affirmance for noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stacy was performing employment services at injury | Stacy (appellee) argued the injury arose from employment (as found by Commission) | Absolute Care challenged Commission finding (asserted error) | Not reached — appeal ordered rebriefing for procedural noncompliance |
| Whether appellants complied with Rule 4-2(a)(5) on transcript abstraction | Appellants attempted to abstract testimony | Appellants failed to provide required record page references and gave incorrect page citations | Held: Noncompliant; citation errors noted; rebriefing ordered |
| Whether depositions/transcripts may be placed in addendum | Appellants included deposition transcript in addendum and cited addendum | Rule prohibits transcripts (including depositions) in addendum; must abstract with page refs | Held: Improper; violates Rule 4-2; rebriefing ordered |
| Whether statement of the case and argument complied with Rule 4-2(a)(6) and (7) | Appellants presented statement and argument with substantive assertions | Statement was argumentative and lacked supporting abstract/addendum page references; arguments lacked required citations | Held: Noncompliant; rebriefing ordered; counsel warned to review rules |
Key Cases Cited
- None with official reporter citations were cited in the opinion (opinion references Erwin v. Frost without an official reporter citation).