Second Injury Fund v. Edmond Lewis and Tyson Foods, Inc.

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION II

SECOND INJURY FUND

APPELLANT

V.

EDMOND LEWIS AND TYSON FOODS, INC.

APPELLEES

CA00-632

January 31, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

[NO. D802596, E812216, E812217]

APPEAL DISMISSED

The claimant in this workers' compensation case sustained compensable back injuries in 1988, 1992, and 1997. The claimant also suffered from liver disease that was unrelated to his employment. After a hearing on the issues of the extent of his permanent disability, Second Injury Fund liability, and attorneys' fees, the administrative law judge found that he failed to prove that his compensable injuries were the major cause of his loss in wage-earning capacity. The claimant appealed this decision to the full Commission, which vacated the decision of the administrative law judge and remanded for the administrative law judge to make additional findings. From that order of remand, comes this appeal.

For reversal, the Second Injury Fund contends that the Commission erred in vacating the administrative law judge's findings and in directing the administrative law judge to

disregard evidence of claimant's liver disease on remand. We dismiss the appeal because the order of remand was not a final, appealable order. American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 33 Ark. App. 82, 801 S.W.2d 55 (1991); Baldor Electric Co. v. Jones, 29 Ark. App. 80, 777 S.W.2d 586 (1989); Samuels Hide & Metal Co. v. Griffin, 23 Ark. App. 3, 739 S.W.2d 698 (1987). To permit an appeal from such an order would encourage piecemeal, slow, and expensive litigation, the antithesis of the expedited procedure for the relief of injured workers that the Workers' Compensation Act was intended to provide. The issues raised by the appellant may well be mooted by the Commission's decision following remand, but if they are not, they can be addressed in an appeal from a final order awarding compensation.

Appeal dismissed.

Jennings and Neal, JJ., agree.