Opinion
CLAIM NO. C713948
OPINION FILED JULY 10, 1995
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE DONALD FRAZIER, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE J. MICHAEL PICKENS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
OPINION AND ORDER
The respondents appeal an order filed by the administrative law judge on May 31, 1994. In that order, the administrative law judge denied the respondents' motion for a credit to recover costs from the claimant which had been awarded in a prior opinion and order. After reviewing this matter, we find that the respondents' motion must be granted. Therefore, we find that the administrative law judge's decision must be reversed.
On September 10, 1993, the administrative law judge filed an opinion and order which, among other things, ordered the claimant to reimburse the respondents for fees and expenses associated with the litigation of this claim, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714 (1987). No appeal was taken from the administrative law judge's order. The respondents subsequently made demand on the claimant's attorney for $360.00, which represents court reporting fees and expenses. However, the claimant has not paid these costs, and she has moved out of state. Consequently, on May 18, 1994, the respondents filed the motion currently under consideration, seeking a credit of $360.00 against the payment of any future workers' compensation benefits they may owe the claimant. The claimant, through her attorney, has objected to the respondents' motion.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals has found that an express grant of statutory authority to this Commission also carries the authority for this commission to make such orders and to impose such sanctions as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose underlying the express grant of authority.Harrington Construction Co. v. Williams, 45 Ark. App. 126, 872 S.W.2d 426 (1994); see also, Loosey v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 23 Ark. App. 137, 744 S.W.2d 402 (1988). In the present matter, the administrative law judge ordered the claimant to pay the respondents' litigation expenses pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714 (1987). This statute authorizes the assessment of costs against any party who has instituted or continued the proceedings. However, there is no express provision in the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Law addressing the enforcement of orders such as this. In this regard, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-712 (1987) authorizes the filing of final compensation orders or awards with the circuit clerk, and this statute provides that the order or award can then be enforceable as are judgments of the circuit court. However, this statute only applies to "the money allowance payable to the employee." Therefore, this statute does not provide a mechanism for the enforcement of orders entered pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714.
Consequently, we find that the statutory grant of authority provided by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714 also carries with it the authority for the Commission to make such orders and to impose such sanctions as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute. Clearly, the purpose of this statute is to place the costs of proceedings instituted or continued without being reasonably necessary on the party who made such proceedings necessary. If this grant of authority did not carry with it the authority for the Commission to make such orders and to impose such sanctions as are reasonably necessary to enforce the order for costs, then parties would be without any means of enforcing the Commission's order, and the statute would be rendered absolutely meaningless.
Accordingly, we find that the express grant of the authority to assess costs provided by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714 also carries the authority to make such orders and to impose such sanctions as are reasonably necessary to enforce the express grant of authority. Furthermore, we find that granting respondents a credit against future compensation owed to the claimant is a reasonable and necessary way to enforce an order entered pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714, although we recognize that this is not the only means that can be utilized to enforce such an order. Therefore, in the present claim, we find that the respondents' motion for a credit in the amount of $360.00 against compensation owed to the claimant in the future must be, and hereby is, granted. Consequently, we find that the administrative law judge's decision must be reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DISSENTING OPINION
I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority finding that respondent is entitled to a credit to recover costs assessed against claimant pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714 (1987). In my opinion, the Commission has no authority to act in such a manner.
As recognized by the majority, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-712 (1987), requires claimants to file a copy of an award in the office of circuit clerk and enforce the award as a judgement and lien. Thus, the Commission cannot enforce its awards for compensation benefits. The majority relies on Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-714 (1987) as authority for allowing respondent a credit in the present case. However, the statute states that whether a proceeding is frivolous or brought without reasonable grounds and the assessment of cost therefor will be done by "the court having jurisdiction of proceedings in respect of any claim. . ." (Emphasis added). Since the legislature chose to specifically authorize "the court," as opposed to the Commission, to assess costs for proceedings brought without reasonable grounds, the Commission has no authority to allow respondent a credit to recover such cost.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner