[1] We first mention our inability to reach, at least directly, the trial court's Equal Protection Clause ruling, because that constitutional issue was never raised before the Commission. In this respect, we cite the settled law in Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982), where the court of appeals adopted the rule that, even though the Workers' Compensation Commission may not have the authority to declare statutes unconstitutional, such constitutional issues should first be raised at the Administrative Law Judge or Commission level because such issues often require an exhaustive analysis that is best accomplished by an adversary proceeding, which can be done only at the hearing level. The Hamilton court concluded that requiring constitutional issues to be considered by the Commission can assure such issues will be thoroughly developed before an appellate court is asked to rule on a statute's validity.

This precise question has been considered in the context of other administrative agencies, such as the Workers' Compensation Commission. In Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982), the court of appeals held that questions of constitutional magnitude must be addressed at the administrative agency level before such questions will be considered preserved for appeal. The [ Hamilton] court wrote as follows: Until now, this court has not been asked whether constitutional questions must first be presented at the Commission I level.

[2, 3] This precise question has been considered in the context of other administrative agencies, such as the Workers' Compensation Commission. In Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982), the court of appeals held that questions of constitutional magnitude must be addressed at the administrative agency level before such questions will be considered preserved for appeal. The court wrote as follows:

The same applies to constitutional arguments not raised at the agency level. See Arkansas Health Servs. Agency v. Desiderata, Inc., 331 Ark. 144, 958 S.W.2d 7 (1998) (approving the rule adopted by the court of appeals in Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982) that even though the Workers' Compensation Commission may not have authority to declare statutes unconstitutional, such constitutional issues should first be raised at the Administrative Law Judge or Commission level, because such issues often require an exhaustive analysis that is best accomplished by an adversary proceeding, which can only be done at the hearing level). Because the issue was not properly developed before the Board, we do not review the question of whether the statute is unconstitutionally broad in giving the Board unbridled discretion.

1976), were unconstitutional because they violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution; but, if constitutional, (2) the statutes should be interpreted to run from the date of discovery or the time at which the claimant knows or should reasonably be expected to know of the injury. The court of appeals, citing Quality Excelsior Coal Co. v. Smith, 233 Ark. 67, 342 S.W.2d 480 (1961), held against appellant on his second point, but it remanded the case, specifically directing the Commission to consider and decide the constitutional arguments regarding the silicosis statutes of limitations. See Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982). On remand, the Commission upheld the constitutionality of the silicosis limitations statutes, Ark. Stat. Ann. 18-1314 (a)(7) and 1318(a)(2), but in appellant's second appeal, the court of appeals again refused to reach the constitutional questions although those issues were argued and briefed before the Commission and the court of appeals.

Our supreme court has held that, although an administrative agency does not have the authority to declare a statute unconstitutional, a constitutional issue must nonetheless be raised before the administrative agency to preserve the issue for appeal. AT&T Commc'ns of the SW., Inc. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 344 Ark. 188, 40 S.W.3d 273 (2001). This principle applies to appeals from the Workers' Compensation Commission. Shaw v. Commercial Refrigeration, 36 Ark. App. 76, 818 S.W.2d 589 (1991); Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982). In refusing to address a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal in AT&T Communications, the supreme court adopted our reasoning in Hamilton:

Arkansas Statutes Annotated §§ 81-1314(a)(7) and -1318(a)(2) (Repl.1976). In Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark.App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982), we noted the general rule that the constitutionality of a statute will not be considered if raised for the first time on appeal, citing Sweeney v. Sweeney, 267 Ark. 595, 593 S.W.2d 21 (1980). Despite the rule in Sweeney and in light of the unusual circumstances of this case, appellant was allowed a rare opportunity "to present and argue his constitutional issue."

In reaching this decision, we note that the claimant challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Law, as amended by Act 796. Although constitutional questions must be raised at the Commission level, those questions can only be decided by a court of law. International Paper Co. v. McBride, 12 Ark. App. 400, 678 S.W.2d 375 (1984); Hamilton v. Jeffrey StoneCo., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 375 (1984); Swafford v.Tyson Foods Inc., 2 Ark. App. 343, 621 S.W.2d 862 (1981). Therefore, we decline to address the constitutional questions raised by the claimant.

Under Arkansas law, litigants are barred from raising constitutional issues before state courts that were not first raised at the administrative level. Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723, 725 (1982) ; see also Ark. Health Servs. Agency v. Desiderata, Inc., 331 Ark. 144, 958 S.W.2d 7, 8 (1998) (finding that because a party “did not raise its Equal Protection Clause argument until its appeal to the circuit court ... under the Hamilton rule, it is barred from arguing that issue now.”); Ark. Bd. of Exam'rs in Counseling v. Carlson, 334 Ark. 614, 976 S.W.2d 934, 941 (1998) (finding that a party's “failure to raise the due-process arguments before the Board [at the administrative hearing level] precludes its consideration by this court on appeal.”). Based on the Hamilton rule, constitutional claims can be and must be raised at the administrative level to preserve such claims for appeal before the state courts.

even though the Workers' Compensation Commission may not have the authority to declare statutes unconstitutional, such constitutional issues should first be raised at the Administrative Law Judge or Commission level because such issues often require an exhaustive analysis that is best accomplished by an adversary proceeding, which can be done only at the hearing level.Carter v. Georgia-Pac. Resins, Inc., 368 Ark. 19, 22, 242 S.W.3d 616, 618 (2006) (quoting Ark. Health Servs. Agency v. Desiderata, Inc., 331 Ark. 144, 148, 958 S.W.2d 7, 8 (1998); Moses v. Hanna's Candle Co., 366 Ark. 233, 237, 234 S.W.3d 872, 874-75 (2006); Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 335, 641 S.W.2d 723, 725 (1982). See supra notes 99-103 and accompanying text.