Opinion
CLAIM NO. E615941
OPINION FILED MAY 11, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by FREDERICK S. SPENCER, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by NEAL L. HART, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge: Vacated and Remanded.
OPINION AND ORDER
[2] Respondents appealed and claimant cross-appealed an opinion and order filed by the Administrative Law Judge on December 11, 1998. In that opinion and order, the Administrative Law Judge found that claimant was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits; however, he awarded additional temporary total disability benefits. In his opinion, the Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this claim.
2. Pursuant to the stipulations of the parties and the record, the employment relationship existed at all pertinent times, including November 25, 1996; the claimant sustained compensable injuries on that date; and the respondents have accepted the claim as compensable and have paid benefits for medical care and temporary total disability.
3. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the claimant reached the end of his healing period February 28, 1997.
4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of the injury was $306.25, and that his benefits for temporary total disability have been underpaid and should be made current by an immediate lump sum payment.
5. The preponderance of the evidence fails to show that the claimant has sustained compensable anatomical impairment or permanent wage loss disability as a result of his compensable injury.
6. The evidence of record fails to demonstrate that either Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-521 (g), or Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (16), is unconstitutional.
7. The respondents have controverted the payment of benefits hereinafter awarded and the claimant's attorney is entitled to the maximum statutory attorney's fee thereon payable one-half by the claimant and one-half by the respondents.
After conducting a de novo review of the record, we find that the Administrative Law Judge's December 11, 1998, decision must be vacated and this claim must be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for additional findings. Conspicuously absent from the Administrative Law Judge's opinion and order is any analysis whatsoever with respect to the constitutional issues. In Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 6 Ark. App. 333, 641 S.W.2d 723 (1982), the Court of Appeals stated that: "Constitutional questions often require an exhaustive analysis which is best accomplished by an adversary proceeding." Since his opinion contains only bare conclusions, we are of the opinion that the Administrative Law Judge must fully develop the constitutional issues claimant raised. Therefore, we remand this matter back to the Administrative Law Judge and direct him to fully set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which he relies to support his determination with respect to the constitutional issues. Thus, we make no findings on the merits of this claim at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________