Shelton v. Freeland Pulpwood

yy
James SHELTON v. FREELAND PULPWOOD, Cigna
Insurance Companies, and Second Injury Fund

CA 95-515                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                  Court of Appeals of Arkansas
                           Division I
                Opinion delivered March 20, 1996


1.   Workers' compensation -- denial of compensation by Commission
     -- findings of fact required to justify denial. --  When the
     Commission denies compensation, it is required to make
     findings sufficient to justify that denial; a satisfactory,
     sufficient finding of fact must contain all the specific facts
     relevant to the contested issue or issues so the reviewing
     court may determine whether the Commission has resolved these
     issues in conformity with the law; the Commission must find as
     facts the basic component elements on which its conclusion is
     based.  

2.   Workers' compensation -- when a finding of fact is sufficient
     to permit meaningful review. --  A finding of fact sufficient
     to permit meaningful review is a "simple, straightforward
     statement of what happened, not a statement that a witness, or
     witnesses, testified thus and so."

3.   Workers' compensation -- Commission merely recited testimony -
     - case reversed and remanded for specific findings of fact. --
     Where the Commission adopted the opinion of the Administrative
     Law Judge as its own and that opinion was almost exclusively
     a recitation of testimony, rather than findings based on that
     testimony, the appellate court was unable to determine the
     facts on which the Commission relied in reaching its
     conclusion; where the Commission fails to make specific
     findings of the fact on which it relies to support its
     decision, reversal and remand is appropriate.


     Appeal from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission;
reversed and remanded.
     Denver L. Thornton, for appellant.
     Shackleford, Shackleford, & Phillips, P.A., by:  Brian H.
Ratcliff, for appellees Freeland Pulpwood and Cigna Insurance
Companies.
     David L. Pake, for appellee Second Injury Fund.

     James R. Cooper, Judge.
*ADVREPCA5*
                                DIVISION I



                                        CA95-515

                                                          March 20, 1996


JAMES SHELTON                           APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS'
          APPELLANT                     COMPENSATION COMMISSION
                                        [E919250]

VS.                                     
                                        

FREELAND PULPWOOD                       REVERSED AND REMANDED
          APPELLEE







                          James R. Cooper, Judge.


     The appellant in this workers' compensation case was injured
in the course of his employment with the appellee, Freeland
Pulpwood.  He filed a claim for benefits and asserted that he was
totally and permanently disabled.  After a hearing, the Commission
found that the appellant was not totally and permanently disabled,
but had instead sustained a permanent partial disability of 17% to
the body as a whole.  From that decision, comes this appeal.
     For reversal, the appellant contends that the Commission erred
in failing to find that he was totally and permanently disabled. 
We reverse and remand because the Commission's findings are
insufficient to justify the denial of benefits.
     When the Commission denies compensation, it is required to
make findings sufficient to justify that denial.  Wright v.
American Transportation, 18 Ark. App. 18, 709 S.W.2d 107 (1986). 
A satisfactory, sufficient finding of fact must contain all the
specific facts relevant to the contested issue or issues so the
reviewing court may determine whether the Commission has resolved
these issues in conformity with the law.  Id.  The Commission must 
find as facts the basic component elements on which its conclusion
is based.  Cagle Fabricating & Steel, Inc. V. Patterson, 309 Ark.
365, 830 S.W.2d 857 (1992).    
     A finding of fact sufficient to permit meaningful review is a
þsimple, straightforward statement of what happened . . . not a
statement that a witness, or witnesses, testified thus and so."   
Wright v. American Transportation, supra, 18 Ark. App. at 21. In
the case at bar, the Commission adopted the opinion of the
Administrative Law Judge as its own.  That opinion is almost
exclusively a recitation of testimony, rather than findings based
on that testimony.  Almost every sentence is preceded by "claimant
testified," "Dr. Callaway opined," or similar language and,
consequently, we are unable to determine the facts on which the
Commission relied in reaching its conclusion.  Where, as here, the
Commission fails to make specific findings of the fact on which it
relies to support its decision, reversal and remand is appropriate.
     Reversed and remanded.
     Pittman and Rogers, JJ., agree.