Haley Lewis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Services, Office of Long Term Care

2020 Ark. App. 548

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: December 2, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 548 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Date: 2021-07-22 09:49:33 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION II 9.7.5 No. CV-20-166

HALEY LEWIS Opinion Delivered: December 2, 2020 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 06CV-17-115] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF HONORABLE ROBERT BYNUM MEDICAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF GIBSON, JUDGE LONG TERM CARE APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Haley Lewis, a former employee at a long-term residential-care facility for

mentally and physically impaired adults, petitioned for judicial review of appellee Arkansas

Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Services, Office of Long Term Care’s

finding that she committed adult maltreatment and its subsequent listing of appellant on the

Adult Maltreatment Registry. She argues that (1) the maltreatment allegations were not

investigated in accordance with statutory provisions; (2) this court’s decision in Williform v.

Arkansas Department of Human Services,1 although delivered after the administrative hearing

was held in this case, should apply retrospectively; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to

support a finding that appellant committed adult maltreatment. Due to deficiencies in

1 2018 Ark. App. 314, 551 S.W.3d 401. appellant’s abstract, we cannot reach the merits of her arguments at this time and order

rebriefing.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) (2019) provides:

The appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts (stenographically reported material) in the record. Information in a transcript is material if the information is essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.

Here, appellant’s less than two-page abstract is composed of just over one page of testimony

from the August 22, 2017 hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ), followed by

two statements made by appellee’s attorney at the September 18, 2019 circuit court

proceeding. Because appellant’s appeal is taken pursuant to the Administrative Procedure

Act, our review is directed toward the decision of the administrative agency and not that of

the circuit court.2 The record reveals that the transcript of the August 2017 administrative

proceeding consists of nearly seventy pages of testimony; yet, as noted, appellant has

condensed it to roughly one page in her appellate brief. With that in mind, particularly

considering that sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we find appellant’s abbreviated

abstract woefully inadequate to decide the issues on appeal.

Due to appellant’s failure to comply with our abstracting rules, we order appellant to

file a substituted brief curing the deficiency within fifteen days from the date of entry of this

order.3 While we have noted the deficient abstract, we strongly encourage appellant’s

counsel to review our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies exist, as any subsequent

2 Williform, supra. 3 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).

2 rebriefing order may result in affirmance of the order or judgment due to noncompliance

with Rule 4-2.4

Rebriefing ordered.

KLAPPENBACH and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Gibson & Keith, PLLC, by: Paul W. Keith, for appellant.

Nick Windle, Arkansas Department of Human Services, for appellee.

4 See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3); see also Carter v. Cline, 2011 Ark. 266 (per curiam). 3