Opinion
CLAIM NO. E806236
ORDER FILED AUGUST 25, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by EILEEN HARRISON, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by WILLIAM G. BULLOCK, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Texas.
ORDER
[2] This matter is currently before the Commission on the respondent's motion for recusal of the Administrative Law Judge. In addition, the respondents request that the Commissioners recuse from this case. In their motion, the respondents contend that counsel for the claimant, being a former employee of the Commission, and being a former co-worker of the Administrative Law Judge, brings a familiarity to the case which renders the Administrative Law Judge unable to render a fair and impartial decision. Respondents request that the Commission appoint a special Administrative Law Judge and if necessary special Commissioners to hear this case.The decision of whether to recuse in a case must originate with the trial judge, and is within the trial court's discretion.Massongill v. County of Scott, 337 Ark. 281, ___ S.W.2d ___ (1999); Trimble v. State, 336 Ark. 437, ___ S.W.2d ___ (1999);Ayers v. State, 334 Ark. 258, 975 S.W.2d 88 (1998). In this case, the decision to recuse must originate with Judge Blood. Judge Blood has not acted upon the motion to recuse; therefore, it is premature for the Commission to consider. Further, the Commission cannot order the recusal of Judge Blood as it is a decision that is personal to Judge Blood. Such a decision is, however, reviewable on proper appeal. Sturgis v. Skokos, 335 Ark. 41, 977 S.W.2d 217 (1998), Black v. Van Steenwyk, 333 Ark. 629; 970 S.W.2d 280 (1998). Because of the number of practitioners now active in the field, who were formerly associated with the Commission or its present employees, the potential for additional litigation in this area is of concern.
In our opinion, the motion is filed prematurely with the Commission. Judge Blood has not had a chance to consider the respondent's motion for recusal. This case should be remanded back to Judge Blood for him to rule on the motion. Further, it is also premature for the Commission to consider a motion for recusal of the Commissioners because this matter is currently not before the Commission on appeal on the substantive issues. The Commission must consider recusal motions very carefully. Our proceedings must be, and be seen to be, fair and impartial.
Therefore, after considering the motion we find that the motion is hereby denied and that this matter is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge to consider.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
Chairman Coffman and Commissioner Humphrey concur.