Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 134 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA12-231 Opinion Delivered FEBRUARY 27, 2013 SALLY L. THOMAS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. EASTERN DISTRICT [NO. CV2007-154] NADAV SHARON, M.D. and OZARKS REGIONS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., HONORABLE GERALD K. CROW, d/b/a ST. JOHN’S HOSPITAL JUDGE APPELLEES REBRIEFING ORDERED BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge Appellant Sally Thomas appeals from the Carroll County Circuit Court’s denial of her motion for new trial following a jury’s verdict finding that she sustained no damages that were proximately caused by the stipulated negligence of appellees, Nadav Sharon, M.D., and Ozarks Regions Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a St. John’s Hospital - Berryville. Because of deficiencies in Thomas’s addendum, we are unable to reach the merits of her argument at this time and therefore order rebriefing. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) (2012) provides that the appellant’s brief shall contain an addendum, which shall include true and legible copies of the non-transcript 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. Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) provides a list of documents that the addendum must contain. Thomas’s original complaint,
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 134 as a basic pleading, is an essential component of the addendum. While the deficiencies in Thomas’s addendum must be corrected, complete rebriefing is not necessary. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). Thomas is directed to file a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days to include all the necessary pleadings and orders in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8). See, e.g., Davis v. Davis, 2012 Ark. App. 270. We encourage counsel to carefully review the record and rules prior to filing the supplemental addendum. Rebriefing ordered. GLOVER and BROWN, JJ., agree. Taylor Law Partners, LLP, by: Timothy L. Brooks, for appellant. Cox, Cox & Estes, PLLC, by: Walter B. Cox, for appellee. 2
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.