Opinion
CLAIM NO. F609346
ORDER FILED MARCH 7, 2011
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE DOUGLAS M. CARSON, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Respondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE JAMES ARNOLD, II, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE DAVID PAKE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
This claim is presently before the Commission on remand from the Court of Appeals. In a decision delivered February 2, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case to the Commission for the Commission to make findings of fact that are detailed and specific. The Court found that the Commission's findings do not contain all the specific facts relevant to the contested issue. Specifically, the Commission's findings do not address the testimony of Mr. Travis Rushing, and the Court was unable to say whether his testimony was "disbelieved, overlooked, disregarded arbitrarily." Vijil v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., 2011 Ark. App. 87, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2011). Accordingly, we find that this matter must be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for consideration of the evidence in the record of the testimony of Mr. Rushing in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________ A. WATSON BELL, Chairman
________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
________________________________ PHILIP A. HOOD, Commissioner