Court Opinion

ID: 9682849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:18:31.455582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:42.598627
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I am not prepared to say that the appellant is or is not disabled from work as a result of the robbery or as a result of the firing. Nor do I believe that this court (or, for that matter, the Court of Appeals or the Commission) is able to render a just decision regarding appellant’s claim due to the completely erroneous statement of fact found in the Commission’s opinion. The Commission found it “significant that Wade became distraught and began crying during the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge when questioned about the ESD problems but not while describing the robbery.” (Emphasis added.) The record reflects otherwise. I agree with the disposition made by the Court of Appeals. See Wade v. Mr. C. Cavenaugh’s and Cigna Insurance Co., 25 Ark. App. 237, 756 S.W.2d 923 (1988). The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the statement of the facts by the Administrative Law Judge was incomplete, and that the summary of the record as considered by the Commission was inaccurate and downright misleading. Although there is no reason to suspect that it was intended to be incomplete and inaccurate, it nevertheless came out that way. The crux of the matter is that the Administrative Law Judge did not listen to all of the evidence, and he did observe the appellant cry when her termination was mentioned. However, the full record discloses that she also cried on several other occasions, including those times when the robbery was mentioned. This court’s standard of review on appeal is whether the decision of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence. Henson v. Club Products, 22 Ark. App. 136, 736 S.W.2d 290 (1987); and Boyd v. General Industries, 22 Ark. App. 103, 733 S.W.2d 750 (1987). This court does not reverse a decision of the Commission unless we are convinced that fair minded persons with the same facts before them could not have arrived at the conclusion reached. Henson, supra; and Boyd, supra. There was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding, but the Commission’s decision appears to have been substantially based on a completely erroneous interpretation of the record — i.e., that the appellant did not become visibly upset when the robbery was being discussed. The Commission was consequently handicapped and has not yet had an opportunity to rule on the case with all of the relevant evidence before it. The evidence does not compel a decision one way or the other as to whether the appellant’s emotional problems stemmed from the robbery or from the firing or from both. However, it is clear that the Commission did not have a full picture before it in making its decision. In fairness to the appellant and the Commission, the case should be remanded as directed by the Court of Appeals. The Commission is entitled to rely on the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, but when the decision of the Commission is founded upon a completely erroneous interpretation of the record, the decision should not be allowed to stand. The majority opinion of this court recognized that the statement of the facts in the Commission’s decision was in error. This court then dismisses this significant error by stating that “[t]he short answer is that the first incident [when the robbery was discussed] was not as intense as the later ones.” The majority simply does not address the argument that the decision of the Commission apparently was based on a completely erroneous statement of fact. Fair minded men with different facts before them can and do arrive at different conclusions. Since the Commission did not have an opportunity to make a determination based upon all of the evidence, I would affirm the action of the Court of Appeals in remanding the case to the Commission for consideration on its merits.