Martin v. Jensen Constr., Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 630
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
CA 09-210
No.
Opinion Delivered
GRADY MARTIN, JR.
September 30, 2009
V.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, [NO. F102830]
JENSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., ST.
PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO.,
and DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY TRUST FUND
APPELLEES
SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD
AND REBRIEFING ORDERED
APPELLANT
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
Grady Martin, Jr., appeals from the January 6, 2009 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’
Compensation Commission, which affirmed and adopted the decision of the administrative
law judge (ALJ). Thus, the Commission found that the medical treatment related to Martin’s
cervical spine contained in the record was reasonable, necessary, and related to his
compensable neck injuries; that Martin failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that he is permanently and totally disabled; that Martin failed to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that he is entitled to additional wage-loss disability beyond that previously
awarded; that Martin is entitled to an additional two-percent whole body anatomical
impairment rating due to his third cervical surgery performed in February 2006; and that
Martin failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that statutory penalties should be
imposed against the appellee-employer. On appeal, Martin argues that substantial evidence
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 630
does not support the Commission’s findings as to permanent and total disability or as to wageloss disability.
Appellant’s compensable neck injuries occurred in September 1999, and an ALJ
opinion was filed in this case in October 2003. Both parties appealed to the full Commission,
which rendered an opinion on March 15, 2005. After the 2005 opinion of the Commission,
appellant sought additional benefits for his injuries. The July 14, 2008 opinion of the ALJ,
which was affirmed and adopted by the Commission, relies upon the March 2005 opinion’s
“detailed account of the [appellant’s] educational history, work history, and medical
treatments related to [appellant’s] compensable neck injury” and incorporates the March 2005
opinion. However, the Commission’s March 2005 opinion is not included in the record or
in the addendum. An ALJ’s opinion in case number E812872—an entirely unrelated
matter—is included in the record. We conclude that the 2005 opinion of the Commission
in this case, which is material to our review, was omitted from the record by error or
accident. Typically, the absence of a complete record on appeal requires us to summarily
affirm. Larry v. Grady Sch. Dist., 82 Ark. App. 185, 188, 119 S.W.3d 528, 531 (2003).
However, Rule 6(e) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure allows this court to order
supplementation of the record when it is clear that something is missing as a result of error
or accident by the court reporter or circuit clerk. Id. Here, the clerk of the Commission
appears to have mistakenly included an unrelated opinion and omitted a material opinion.
Therefore, we order supplementation of the record pursuant to Rule 6(e) and rebriefing.
-2-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 630
Supplementation of the record and rebriefing ordered.
PITTMAN and BROWN, JJ., agree.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.