St. John's Reg'l Health Ctr. v. Bartlett

2013 Ark. App. 614
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 30, 2013
DocketCV-13-487
StatusPublished

This text of 2013 Ark. App. 614 (St. John's Reg'l Health Ctr. v. Bartlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. John's Reg'l Health Ctr. v. Bartlett, 2013 Ark. App. 614 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 614

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-13-487

ST. JOHN’S REGIONAL HEALTH Opinion Delivered October 30, 2013 CENTER and SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANTS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION V. [NO. G202264]

GREGORY D. BARTLETT APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge

Appellee Gregory D. Bartlett worked for appellants as a paramedic when he injured

his right knee on the evening of January 4, 2012. The Commission found that Bartlett had

proved that he had sustained a compensable injury and that he was entitled to medical and

temporary total-disability benefits; the employer now appeals, arguing that substantial

evidence does not support the Commission’s decision. We cannot reach the merits of

appellants’ arguments because we must order rebriefing.

First, the addendum does not include appellee’s medical records, which are instead

abstracted. Rule 4-2(a)(8) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

requires that the addendum include “any document essential to an understanding of the case

and the issues on appeal.” We hold that the medical records in a workers’ compensation case

in which compensability is at issue are essential to an understanding of the case and must be Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 614

included in the addendum. In addition, we note that the abstract is not in first person, as

required by Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B).

Appellants have fifteen days from the date of this order to file a substituted brief that

conforms with our rules. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We emphasize that the examples we

have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies; counsel should carefully

review the rules and ensure that no other deficiencies exist.

Rebriefing ordered.

GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.C., by: Patricia L. Musick and Christopher S. Moberg,

for appellants.

Tolley & Brooks, P.A., by: Evelyn E. Brooks, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ark. App. 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-johns-regl-health-ctr-v-bartlett-arkctapp-2013.