Court Opinion

ID: 9671990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:46:43.100798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:13.590811
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing En Banc December 11, 1985 Melvin Mayfield, Judge. The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing pointing out that the record shows that at the hearing before the administrative law judge it was stipulated that appellant had paid weekly benefits for a period of 92 3/7 weeks. Using that stipulation, the appellant argued in its brief that at the time of the hearing before the law judge it had paid weekly benefits from date of injury, apparently without missing a week, and as a result of those voluntary payments it had paid 17 1/7 weeks more than was required for the healing period and a 20% permanent partial disability to appellee’s right foot. Thus, the appellant contended in its brief that the law judge and the commission had erred in finding it had controverted payment for those 17 1/7 weeks. Our original opinion correctly stated that the record disclosed that appellant had consistently maintained that appellee’s award for disability should be based on the scheduled injury to her foot and nothing more. However, it may be that we erred in affirming the commission’s finding that compensation for these 17 1/7 weeks was controverted.  Therefore, we remand for that single issue to be resolved. The commission should determine if compensation for any or all of this period of 17 1/7 weeks was voluntarily paid. In determining that fact, the commission should keep in mind the rule that issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to this court. Ashcraft v. Quimby, 2 Ark. App. 332, 621 S.W.2d 230 (1981). So, unless relief from the effect of controvérsion for these 17 1/7 weeks was raised before the commission, no relief in that regard should be granted even if the payments were voluntarily made. The petition for rehearing is granted and this matter is remanded for the limited purpose stated.