Staffmark, Inc.; Ace American Insurance Company; And Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. v. Lexington S. Arthur
This text of 2025 Ark. App. 61 (Staffmark, Inc.; Ace American Insurance Company; And Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. v. Lexington S. Arthur) 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.
Opinion
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 61 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-24-297
STAFFMARK, INC.; ACE AMERICAN Opinion Delivered February 5, 2025
INSURANCE COMPANY; AND APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SERVICES, INC. COMMISSION APPELLANTS
V. [NO. G908137]
LEXINGTON S. ARTHUR APPELLEE DISMISSED
CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge
This is an appeal from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the
“Commission”). The appellants argue that the Commission erred in vacating the
administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) dismissal of appellee’s claim. We dismiss because the order
appealed from was not an appealable order.
This case originated after Lexington Arthur suffered a catastrophic injury to his left
forearm on December 10, 2019, while working in the course and scope of his employment.
The claim was accepted by appellants, and they paid some benefits. Arthur initially filed a
Form AR-C or Claim for Compensation on January 13, 2022, “to request a continuance of
my worker’s compensation claim due to additional medical expenses. The employer is aware
that I have a lifetime of medical procedures required due to my workplace injuries.” Arthur filed a second Form AR-C on May 17, 2022. Appellants then filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution on November 14, 2022. The ALJ notified Arthur he had twenty days to
respond to the motion. In response, Arthur filed a third Form AR-C on November 22, 2022.
The ALJ held a hearing on the appellants’ motion to dismiss on January 4, 2023. The ALJ
stated on the record at the conclusion of the hearing that if the issues were not resolved and
Arthur failed to set a hearing within forty-five days, the claim would be dismissed. The ALJ
memorialized his January 4, 2023, oral ruling in an order and then an amended order dated
January 12, 2023, stating that the decision on appellants’ motion to dismiss would be held
in abeyance until February 20, 2023, which gave Arthur time to resolve any outstanding
issues. The amended order further provided that if within five days after February 20, 2023,
Arthur failed to properly request a hearing, the ALJ would grant the appellants’ motion to
dismiss.
On July 6, 2023, the ALJ issued an opinion dismissing the case without prejudice to
refiling. Appellants appealed to the Commission. On January 9, 2024, the Commission
vacated the ALJ’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings:
2 Following the Commission’s order, the appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on
February 9, 2024.
For an order to be appealable it must be a final order. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ.2.
Whether an order is final is a jurisdictional issue that this court has a duty to raise, even if
the parties do not. Where no final or otherwise appealable order exists, our court lacks
jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ford Motor Co. v. Harper, 353 Ark. 328, 330, 107 S.W.3d
168, 169 (2003). To be final, an order must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge
them from the action, or conclude their rights as to the subject matter in controversy.
Hernandez v. Simmons Indus., 25 Ark. App. 25, 752 S.W.2d 45 (1988). Additionally, Arkansas
courts have been clear that Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a), which specifies
appealable matters, is also applicable to workers’-compensation cases. Mid-State Constr. v.
Sealy, 26 Ark. App. 186, 187, 761 S.W.2d 951, 952 (1988). In this case, the Commission’s
order did not dismiss the parties, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights
as to the claim in controversy. On the contrary, the Commission’s order remanded the case
for further proceedings. Accordingly, because the Commission’s order was not a final order,
we do not have jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Worley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., by: Jarrod S. Parrish, for appellants.
Gary Davis, for appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ark. App. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staffmark-inc-ace-american-insurance-company-and-cannon-cochran-arkctapp-2025.