Staffmark, Inc.; Ace American Insurance Company; And Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. v. Lexington S. Arthur

2025 Ark. App. 61
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedFebruary 5, 2025
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Staffmark, Inc.; Ace American Insurance Company; And Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. v. Lexington S. Arthur, 2025 Ark. App. 61 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025).

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

Ford Motor Co. v. Harper
107 S.W.3d 168 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2003)
Hernandez v. Simmons Industries
752 S.W.2d 45 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1988)
Mid-State Construction v. Sealy
761 S.W.2d 951 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 Ark. App. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staffmark-inc-ace-american-insurance-company-and-cannon-cochran-arkctapp-2025.