Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 134
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CA 10-277
DEBRA FLOERCHINGER
Opinion Delivered February 16, 2011
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
[NO. F806434]
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR
MEDICAL SCIENCES and PUBLIC
EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION
APPELLEES
REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Debra Floerchinger, pro se, appeals from a Workers’ Compensation Commission
decision denying her benefits, based upon its finding that she failed to prove that she suffered
a compensable injury. Floerchinger argues, among other things, that she suffered a number of
medical conditions as a result of her workplace environment. We cannot reach the merits of her
claim at this time because she has submitted a brief that violates the Rules of the Supreme Court
and Court of Appeals. We have no choice but to order rebriefing.
Violations of our rules can be found in both Floerchinger’s abstract and her addendum.
Our abstracting rules provide, in relevant part:
(5) Abstract. The appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the
transcripts (stenographically reported material) in the record. Information in a transcript
is material if the information is essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction,
to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 134
(A) Contents. All material information recorded in a transcript (stenographically reported
material) must be abstracted. . . .
(B)
Form.
The
abstract
shall
be
an
impartial
condensation,
without
comment
or
emphasis, of the transcript (stenographically reported material). The abstract must not
reproduce the transcript verbatim. No more than one page of a transcript shall be
abstracted without giving a record page reference. In abstracting testimony, the first
person
(“I”)
rather
than
the
third
person
(“He
or
She”)
shall
be
used.
The
question-and-answer format shall not be used. In the extraordinary situations where a
short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person narrative without losing important
meaning, however, the abstract may include brief quotations from the transcript.
1
Floerchinger’s abstract consists of twenty-seven numbered paragraphs, most with a
heading describing the testimony and an “abstract” of the testimony relevant to that heading.
This is contrary to the instruction that the abstract be “an impartial condensation, without comment
or emphasis, of the transcript.” Further, it is evident that Floerchinger has not abstracted all
material portions of the hearing before the ALJ. Rather, she has identified those portions most
helpful to her case and displayed them in a light most favorable to her position. There was a
substantial amount of evidence regarding preexisting conditions, yet most of this evidence is
absent from the abstract. The substantial-evidence standard of review in workers’ compensation
cases requires this court to affirm if the Commission’s decision displays a substantial basis for
the denial of relief.
2
And we cannot review this case without a brief that outlines all of the
evidence considered by the Commission, including that evidence adverse to Floerchinger.
In a similar vein, Floerchinger’s addendum is also deficient. An addendum should contain
1
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5).
2
Neal v. Sparks Reg’l Med. Ctr., 104 Ark. App. 97, 289 S.W.3d 163 (2008).
-2-
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 134
all documents “that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand
the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.”
3
Like the addendum, this may necessarily include
documents adverse to the appellant’s case. Here, both Floerchinger and the Public Employee
Claims Division submitted medical records to support their respective positions. But the only
medical records in Floerchinger’s addendum were those presented by Floerchinger. She omitted
any medical records presented by the Division, some of which were relevant in providing an
accurate view of her medical history. We must be able to review these records, as they may
provide support for the Commission’s decision.
We recognize that Floerchinger is representing herself and that appellate practice can
frustrate even experienced attorneys. Nonetheless, Arkansas appellate courts have always held
pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys with respect to complying with the
rules.
4
We cannot relax our rules, even when one of the parties is particularly sympathetic.
Following our supreme court, we order rebriefing when deficiencies are present.
5
We do not do
this for the sake of placing barriers to the appellate process. Rather, as our supreme court
explained:
While it may cause additional delay and expense to the appellant, this court does
not order rebriefing either thoughtlessly or needlessly. To the contrary, we do so only
3
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8).
4
See Hooker v. Farm Plan Corp., 331 Ark. 418, 962 S.W.2d 353 (1998); Jewell v. Ark. State
Bd. of Dental Exm’rs, 324 Ark. 463, 921 S.W.2d 950 (1996); Fruit v. Lockhart, 304 Ark. 457, 802
S.W.2d 930 (1991).
5
See, e.g., Ridenoure v. Ball, 2010 Ark. App. 572.
-3-
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 134
after considered thought, analysis, and examination of both the briefs and record on
appeal. We do so, not to waste the time of counsel or the money of litigants, but to
ensure that we can achieve the utmost of judicial economy and efficiency in deciding the
appeals and, more importantly, to ensure that every litigant before this court receives the
justice he or she seeks and deserves. For that reason, this court, as well as the court of
appeals, should, and must, be consistent in our application of our rules to every case and
every litigant, and both courts must enforce those rules in a consistent fashion to achieve
the order and predictability that the appellate process requires.
6
To this end, we order Floerchinger to file a substituted brief that complies with our rules
within fifteen days from the date of entry of this opinion.
7
Before filing the substituted brief, we
encourage her to review the rules and to ensure that no other deficiencies are present. She can
also view a model brief at http://courts.arkansas.gov/aoc/forms.cfm
. After service of the
substituted brief, the Public Claims Division shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement
its brief in the time prescribed by the court. If Floerchinger fails to file a compliant brief within
the prescribed time, we may affirm the Commission’s decision for noncompliance with our
rules.
8
Rebriefing ordered.
HART and WYNNE, JJ., agree.
6
Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 306, at 4 n.2, 319 S.W.3d 234, 236 n.2 (2009).
7
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3), (c)(2) (allowing parties who file a deficient brief an
opportunity to file a conforming brief).
8
See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
-4-
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.