Opinion
CLAIM NO. F109543
OPINION FILED AUGUST 18, 2008
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by Honorable Philip M. Wilson, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 1 represented by Honorable David Landis, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by Honorable Judy Rudd, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 3 represented by Honorable David Pake, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Reversed.
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondents appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge finding that the present claim for additional benefits is not barred by the statute of limitations. Based upon our de novo review of the entire record, without giving the benefit of the doubt to either party, we find that the present claim for additional benefits was not timely filed. Therefore, we find that this claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we hereby reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
The facts are not in dispute. However, neither party offered up stipulations of fact; nevertheless from reading each party's brief it is clear that the parties do not dispute the facts. The Administrative Law Judge prepared a record which consists of Mr. Wilson's January 10, 2007, correspondence to the Administrative Law Judge; Mr. Jones's January 18, 2008, letter to the Administrative Law Judge; the December 4, 2007, letter from the Administrative Law Judge advising that the claim would be submitted on briefs on January 22, 2008; Mr. Wilson's January 10, 2007, correspondence requesting an extension to file his brief; and Mr. Jones's January 2, 2008, letter brief with exhibits. These exhibits consist of the pay log report reflecting benefit paid by respondent to claimant; a December 6, 2002, letter from claimant's counsel to the Commission requesting a change of physician; an October 20, 2003 letter from claimant's counsel to the Commission requesting a hearing on the respondent's suspension of medical benefits; claimant's prehearing questionnaire dated November 21, 2003, listing the only issue as claimant's entitlement to additional reasonable and related medical benefits; the January 13, 2006, correspondence from claimant's new counsel requesting a hearing on the issues of compensability, temporary disability, medical expenses, controversion and attorney fees; the February 7, 2006, letter from the Administrative Law Judge advising that the claimant has withdrawn his request for a hearing, that there is not a Form AR-C in the file, and that the file was being returned to general files; and finally, the March 2, 2006, letter from claimant's attorney to the Administrative Law Judge requesting a hearing on additional benefits for temporary disability, medical benefits, permanent impairment benefits, and wage loss.
In addition to the exhibits attached to the respondent's January 2, 2008, letter brief, the file contains a December 21, 2005 letter from claimant's attorney, Philip Wilson, advising of his representation and stating that the letter should be considered "as a claim for additional benefits." In order to have a complete record, we have "blue-backed" this letter, along with the First Report of Injury or Illness filed by the carrier on August 14, 2001; the Change of Physician order dated, January 29, 2003; the Prehearing Order and Hearing Notice filed November 24, 2004; the Rescheduled January 13, 2004 Pre-Hearing Order and Hearing notice filed November 24, 2003; the June 28, 2004, opinion filed by the Administrative Law Judge; the December 15, 2004, Full Commission opinion; the November 16, 2005, opinion filed by the Court of Appeals; and the Court of Appeals Mandate issued December 6, 2005.
The claimant sustained a compensable injury to his back on August 8, 2001. This injury was accepted as compensable by the respondents and the claimant was provided temporary total disability and medical benefits. Respondents controverted additional medical benefits after November 12, 2002. Respondent's Pay Log report reflects that the claimant last received temporary total disability benefits on December 3, 2002, and that he last received medical treatment on June 19, 2003. (The claimant did undergo an Independent Medical Examination by Dr. Jim J. Moore on March 9, 2004, at respondent's request.) The claimant never filed an AR-C with the Commission.
The claimant's first contact with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission came through a letter from his then attorney, Krisofer Richardson, dated December 6, 2002, requesting a change of physician. This request was addressed and disposed of via the January 29, 2003, Change of Physician Order. Claimant next contacted the Commission on October 20, 2003, requesting a hearing on "Respondent's wrongful suspension of reasonable and related medical care." In his Prehearing Questionnaire response, the claimant further characterized his request as a request for additional medical treatment. A hearing was held on this request on March 19, 2004, before Administrative Law Judge Andrew L. Blood. Judge Blood issued an opinion on June 28, 2004, finding that the claimant was entitled to additional medical treatment which was promptly appealed to the Full Commission. On December 15, 2004, the Full Commission issued and Opinion and Order reversing the Administrative Law Judge and finding that the additional medical treatment requested was not reasonable and necessary. This opinion was timely appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. On November 16, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Full Commission's denial of additional medical treatment. The Court of Appeals Mandate was filed on December 6, 2005. Accordingly, the claimant's October 20, 2003, request for additional medical benefits was fully and finally disposed of by the December 6, 2005, Court of Appeals Mandate.
The claimant filed a request for additional benefits on December 21, 2005.
In finding that the statute of limitations does not bar claimant's request for additional benefits, the Administrative Law Judge found that the March 19, 2004 hearing was a claim for additional medical benefits and that the parties "specifically reserved" all other issues. A thorough review of the Prehearing Order and Hearing Notice filed November 24, 2004, the Rescheduled January 13, 2004 Pre-Hearing Order and Hearing notice filed November 24, 2003, and the June 28, 2004, opinion filed by the Administrative Law Judge clearly reveals that the parties never reserved any additional issues, either implicitly or explicitly. At best, the Administrative Law Judge stated in the final sentence of his Award that "Matters not addressed herein are expressly reserved." As the only request for benefits before the Commission at that time was whether the claimant was entitled to additional medical treatment was fully addressed and disposed of, there were no other matters pending before the Commission to reserve. The Administrative Law Judge had no authority to reserve issues that had yet to be raised. Moreover, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge was reversed by the Full Commission. Accordingly, whether it reserved any additional issues became moot when the opinion was not affirmed.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(1) (Repl. 2002) provides the time limitations for filing an initial claim for workers' compensation:
A claim for compensation for disability on account of an injury, other than an occupational disease and occupational infection, shall be barred unless filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission within two (2) years from the date of the compensable injury. . . .
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(b)(1) (Repl. 2002) sets forth the time limitations for filing a claim for additional compensation:
In cases where any compensation, including disability or medical, has bee paid on account of an injury, a claim for additional compensation shall be barred unless filed with the commission within one (1) year from the date of the last payment of compensation or two (2) years from the date of injury, whichever is greater.
There is no question that the claimant did not file an initial claim for compensation as the claim was accepted by respondents as compensable and benefits were immediately initiated. It is also undisputed that the claimant never filed an AR-C with the Commission officially requesting additional benefits. The only requests the claimant has made of the Commission have come through correspondence from his attorneys. Claimant's first request for any type of workers' compensation benefits was the December 6, 2002, request for a change of physician. This request was addressed and disposed of via the January 29, 2003, Change of Physician Order. Claimant's second request filed on October 20, 2003, only requested additional medical benefits. No other benefits were requested. The request for additional medical benefits was addressed through the March 19, 2004, hearing and subsequent Administrative Law Judge, Full Commission and Court of Appeals opinions, with the Court of Appeals Mandate issued on December 6, 2005. It is also undisputed that the claimant last received compensation benefits on June 19, 2003, and that the claimant did not inquire about additional benefits until attorney Philip Wilson filed his December 21, 2005, letter with the Commission advising that it was a claim for "additional benefits." Mr. Wilson did not clarify which additional benefits the claimant sought until his January 13, 2006, correspondence requested a hearing on compensability, temporary disability, medical expenses, controversion and attorney fees.
The statute of limitations is tolled when a claimant files a request for additional benefits that is never acted upon by the Commission.Barnes v. Fort Smith Public Schools, 95 Ark. App. 248,___ S.W.3d ___ (2006); Eskola v. Little Rock School District, 93 Ark. App. 250 218 S.W.3d 372 (2005). In the present claim, the initial request for benefits in the form of a change of physician and the claim for additional medical benefits were fully acted upon by the Commission. This claim is factually similar to Barnes v. Fort Smith Public Schools, supra. The claimant in Barnes, filed a claim requesting a hearing on her entitlement to additional temporary total disability benefits. A hearing was held and Barnes was eventually denied said benefits. As in Barnes, the claimant in the present claim filed a request for a change of physician and then a request for additional medical benefits. The Change of Physician was granted via an order filed January 29, 2003. A hearing was held on the request for additional medical benefits and the claim was eventually denied. Thus, the claimant's initial requests for additional benefits were fully acted upon. As the request for additional medical benefits was timely filed and acted upon, the statute of limitations was never tolled by the filing of the October 20, 2003, request for additional medical benefits. The claimant did not file another request for additional benefits until December 21, 2005. Two years from the date of injury would have been August 8, 2003. One year from the last payment of benefits would have been June 19, 2004; this would be the applicable limitations period because it is greater than two years from the date of the compensable injury. Because the claimant did not file another request for benefits until December 2005, according to A.C.A. § 11-9-702(b), clamant's 2005 claim for additional benefits is barred by the statute of limitations.
In finding that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, we further find that the March 19, 2004, hearing fully disposed of all issues raised by the claimant. Had there been a filing or request for any other additional benefits, the March 19, 2004, hearing only addressed and disposed of the request for additional medical benefits, and any other requests would have tolled the statute of limitations as to those issues. See, Sisney v. Leisure Lodges, 17 Ark. App. 96, 704 S.W.2d 173 (1986); VanWagner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007). In VanWagner the claimant filed a request for benefits within the statutory period in which she request among other benefits, additional permanent partial disability benefits. A hearing was held in 1995, and both parties agreed not to litigate the issue of permanent partial disability. Accordingly, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that VanWagner's subsequent claim for permanent partial disability benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations as the initial request for these benefits tolled the statute of limitations on any claim filed yet not acted upon. In the present claim, all claims filed were timely, and properly acted upon through the March 19, 2004, hearing. Although the Administrative Law Judge stated in his opinion that "Matters not addressed herein are expressly reserved" it is clear that the hearing and subsequent opinions addressed all issues raised through the claimant's October 20, 2003, request for additional medical benefits. Therefore, the language used by the Administrative Law Judge reserving matters not addressed in the opinion was superfluous. Moreover, as the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge was reversed and the Full Commission opinion did not preserve any issues; but rather concluded by denying and dismissing the claim.
Finally, with regard to the issue raised by claimant's counsel that the claimant had up to one year from the final order ending litigation to file a claim for additional benefits, this has been clearly rejected by the Arkansas Court of Appeals. In Baxter County Regional Hospital v. Dixon, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007), the Court of Appeals stated:
However, even were we to agree that the present claim was one for additional benefits rather than for modification of a prior order, the Commission's finding of timeliness would still be in error. The Commission's finding that the one-year statute of limitations had not run was based on the period between its order denying benefits in November 1996 and the new request for benefits in October 1997. However, this finding was premised on the mistaken assumption that the statute of limitations begins to run anew at the termination of a proceeding. . .that denies all requested benefits. As noted above, section 81-1318(b) bars claims for additional benefits that are not filed within two years form the date of injury or one year from the last payment of compensation. . . . Simply put, an order denying all requested benefits does not allow a claimant an additional year in which to file a claim for additional benefits. Arkansas Statute Annotated § 81-1318(b) and A.C.A. § 11-9-702(b) measure the passage of time from the provision of benefits, not from their denial.
(Emphasis Added). Accordingly, the Full Commission opinions relied upon by the claimant to file a claim within one year after a final order ending litigation have been effectively overruled by the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
The claimant's initial request for additional medical benefits was fully disposed of through the March 19, 2004, hearing and subsequent opinions. No issues or claims filed by the claimant were left pending after the hearing.
The claimant did not file any additional request for additional benefits until December 21, 2005. The statute of limitations ran on this claim on June 19, 2005. Therefore, the claimant's claim for additional benefits was not timely filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
___________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
Commissioner Hood dissents.