# Kildow v. Baldwin Piano & Organ

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · July 2, 1997 · 58 Ark. App. 194

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671450

## Case

- **Full name:** Lilly KILDOW v. BALDWIN PIANO & ORGAN
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 2, 1997
- **Citations:** 58 Ark. App. 194; 948 S.W.2d 100; 1997 Ark. App. LEXIS 528
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meads
- **Judges:** Crabtree, Stroud, Roaf, Meads, Neal, Griffen
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671450

## Opinion text

Margaret Meads, Judge, concurring. I concur with the majority opinion, which reverses the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission in this case for lack of substantial evidence. That finding, in my judgment, makes it unnecessary for us to reach appellant’s argument that the Commission’s interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (5)(A)(ü)(a) (1996), is erroneous.
The majority opinion clearly and logically reaches the conclusion that reasonable minds could not agree that appellant’s assembly fine work does not qualify as “rapid repetitive” in the ordinary and generally accepted meaning of the words, and I agree with it. Having so determined, there is no need for interpretation of the statute.
Neal, J., joins in this concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671450. Public record. Not legal advice.