# American Transportation Co. v. Payne > Court of Appeals of Arkansas · November 30, 1983 · 10 Ark. App. 56 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683279 ## Case - **Full name:** AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CO. and ARGONAUT INSURANCE CO. v. Charles PAYNE - **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas - **Decided:** November 30, 1983 - **Citations:** 10 Ark. App. 56; 661 S.W.2d 418; 1983 Ark. App. LEXIS 923 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mayfield - **Judges:** Cloninger, Mayfield, Corbin - **Cited by:** 14 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/9683279 ## Opinion text Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge, concurring. I concur in the results reached by the majority but think it might be beneficial to discuss more fully the appellant’s contention that the Commission erred in reviewing the administrative law j udge’s decision relating to rehabilitation and disability when the claimant’s notice of appeal had expressly waived review of those issues. In the first place, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1323 (b) (Repl. 1976) contains these provisions: If an application for review is filed in the office of the Commission within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of the award, the full Commission shall review the evidence, or if deemed advisable, hear the parties, their representatives and witnesses, and shall make awards, together with its rulings of law .... Almost twenty years ago, the Arkansas Supreme Court held those provisions to mean that it was the duty of the Commission to make a finding according to a preponderance of the evidence and not whether there was substantial evidence to support the referee’s decision. Ark. Coal Co. v. Steele, 237 Ark. 727 , 375 S.W.2d 673 (1964). In recent years this court has reaffirmed that holding. Dedmon v. Dillard Dept. Stores, 3 Ark. App. 108 , 623 S.W.2d 207 (1981); Roberts v. Leo Levi Hospital, 8 Ark. App. 184 , 649 S.W.2d 402 (1983). That de novo review is obviously incongruous with the contention that the Commission’s review is limited to the issues set out in the request for review. It is, of course, within the Commission’s statutory authority to make rules and regulations to administer the act and process the claims filed for compensation. See Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 81-1342 (f) and 81-1343 (9) (Repl. 1976). The Commission’s Rule 25 (a) provides that parties appealing from the decision of an administrative law judge shall specify in the notice of appeal, or cross-appeal, all issues to be presented, but this does not negate the Commission’s statutory authority of review. Moreover, any reasonable construction or interpretation given its rules by the Commission is entitled to great weight upon judicial review and some relaxation of them, in the Commission’s discretion, is permissible. Mohawk Rubber Co. v. Buford, 259 Ark. 614 , 535 S.W.2d 819 (1976). It should be remembered that parties cannot make a binding lump-sum settlement unless the Commission finds it is in the claimant’s best interest, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1319 (k) (Supp. 1983); and no employee can make a valid agreement to waive his right to compensation, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1320 (a) (Supp. 1983). Considering the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the scope and authority it gives the Commission to accomplish that purpose, I think the Commission clearly had the discretion to remand this matter to the law judge for further proceedings in regard to the issues of rehabilitation and disability. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683279. Public record. Not legal advice.