Duncan v. Carelink
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 320
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CA10-1072
Opinion Delivered
May 4, 2011
V.
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[No. F906639]
CARELINK and RISK MANAGEMENT
RESOURCES
APPELLEES
REBRIEFING ORDERED
DEBORAH DUNCAN
APPELLANT
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
Deborah Duncan appeals the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision finding
that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered compensable
injuries to her knees. Duncan claims that she suffered injuries to her neck, face, and knees on
June 1, 2009, when she was “the victim of criminal assault.” We cannot reach the merits of
her appeal because her abstract, brief, and addendum are deficient.
Duncan’s brief fails to comply with most of the briefing requirements set forth in Rule
4-2(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Her brief does not include a jurisdictional
statement, point(s) on appeal, a table of authorities, or a statement of the case as required in
Rule 4-2(a)(2), (3), (4), and (6). An informational statement and a table of contents are
included but are incomplete, a violation of Rule 4-2(a)(1) and (2). Duncan’s brief also fails to
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 320
comply with Rule 4-2(a)(5) because it does not include an abstract of the hearing held before
the administrative law judge. Duncan’s argument is more accurately described as a letter to
the “Supreme Court of Appeals” that does not contain a standard of review or cite to legal
authority as required by Rule 4-2(a)(7). Finally, Duncan’s addendum is deficient as well.
While there are a few documents 1 attached to the end of her brief, neither the ALJ and
Commission decisions nor the notices of appeal from those decisions are included. Our rules
clearly state that the addendum shall contain documents in the record on appeal that are
essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to
decide the issues on appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8).
Because of these deficiencies, we hereby order rebriefing and direct Duncan to file a
substituted brief that complies with our rules. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2010) (allowing
parties who file a deficient brief an opportunity to file a conforming brief). The substituted
brief, abstract, and addendum shall be due fifteen days from the date of this order. After
service of the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum, the appellee shall have an opportunity
to revise or supplement its brief in the time prescribed by the court.
We remind Duncan that appellants, even those who proceed pro se, are responsible
for following the rules of appellate procedure, and pro se litigants are held to the same
standards as attorneys. Perry v. State, 287 Ark. 384, 699 S.W.2d 739 (1985); Walker v. State,
283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984). Therefore, Duncan should carefully review the rules
1
These documents include a few workers’-compensation forms and several medical
records.
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 320
to ensure that her substituted brief is compliant and without other deficiencies, regardless of
whether they are listed above. If Duncan fails to file a compliant brief within fifteen days, the
decision of the Commission will be summarily affirmed for noncompliance with our rules.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2).
Rebriefing ordered.
G LADWIN and H OOFMAN , 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.
