Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 178 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CA11-859 Opinion Delivered February 22, 2012 TOMMY R. KIMBLE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, HINO MOTORS MFG. USA, INC., [NO. F801104] TOKIO MARINE MGMT., and DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY FUND APPELLEES REBRIEFING ORDERED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Tommy Kimble appeals the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision which found that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a compensable heart attack while working for appellee Hino Motors. Kimble argues on appeal that the Commission’s decision is not supported by the evidence. We cannot reach the merits of Kimble’s appeal because his brief and addendum are deficient. Kimble’s jurisdictional statement fails to comply with Rule 1-2(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which requires the first paragraph of the statement to “concisely state all issues of law raised on appeal” in “terms and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail.” The second paragraph “shall” state whether or not the appeal raises any “question(s) of legal significance for jurisdictional purposes.” Here, Kimble’s jurisdictional
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 178 statement is nothing more than a statement of the case. In addition, Kimble’s argument fails to comply with Rule 4-2(a)(7), because it does not include a standard of review for the issue on appeal and it makes reference to testimony and materials without a reference to the page number in the abstract, record, and/or addendum at which such testimony and materials are found. There is also a violation of Rule 4-2(a)(8) in that Kimble’s addendum does not include his notice of appeal from the Commission’s opinion. Kimble has also failed to include necessary exhibits, such as his medical records and his time card, in his addendum. Further, page eight of the ALJ’s decision is missing from the addendum, and items that are included in the addendum are not consecutively numbered. We direct counsel to file a substituted brief that complies with our rules. 1 The substituted brief, abstract, and addendum shall be due fifteen days from the date of this opinion. After service of the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum, the appellee shall have the opportunity to revise or supplement its brief in the time prescribed by the court. We remind counsel that the examples we have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies. Counsel should carefully review the rules to ensure that no other deficiencies exist. Failure to file a compliant brief within fifteen days could result in the Commission’s decision being summarily affirmed for noncompliance with our rules. 2 Rebriefing ordered. HART and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree. Alvin L. Simes, P.A., for appellant. Dover, Dixon Horne PLLC, by: Joseph H. Purvis, for appellees. 1 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2011). 2 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). 2
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 178 3
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.