Gwin v. R.D. Hall Tank Co., CA
| Decision Date | 16 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 10 Ark.App. 12,660 S.W.2d 947 |
| Parties | Thomas GWIN, Appellant, v. R.D. HALL TANK COMPANY, Employer and Crum & Forster, Incorporated, Carrier, Appellees. 83-222. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Whetstone & Whetstone, Little Rock, for appellant.
Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, Little Rock, for appellees.
Thomas Gwin appeals from a determination of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that his attorney is not entitled to have the remaining attorney's fees allowed him by the Commission in one lump sum because an order filed on November 30, 1981 regarding the manner in which attorney's fees were to be paid had become res judicata. We agree with the Commission.
On March 27, 1978 the Commission found that Thomas Gwin was permanently and totally disabled and awarded him full benefits as provided in the Act. It also awarded his attorney the maximum attorney's fees allowable on the controverted portions of the claim. The award made no provision for the manner in which the attorney's fees would be paid but the carrier made these payments in quarterly installments. A subsequent petition filed by Gwin for allowance of mileage expense incurred for medical treatment also included a petition that his attorney's fees be paid biweekly. On November 31, 1981 the Administrative Law Judge entered an order allowing the mileage expense and directing that the attorney's fees be paid "on a biweekly basis as accrued." Although Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81-1332.1 (Supp.1983) authorizing the Commission to approve lump sum attorney's fees for legal services was then in effect, no request for lump sum payment of attorney's fees was made. In this respect this case is distinguished from Aluminum Co. of America v. Neal, 4 Ark.App. 11, 626 S.W.2d 620 (1982) where we approved an order authorizing lump sum payment of fees awarded on a weekly basis prior to the effective date of the Act. There the issue of the manner of payment could not have been raised in the prior hearing.
Almost a year later a petition was filed asking that the balance of attorney's fees be paid in one lump sum as provided in § 81-1332.1. The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination that the order of November 30, 1981 was a bar to the relief requested under the doctrine of res judicata. The appellant contends that the Commission erred in that ruling. We disagree.
Generally speaking res judicata applies where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of an issue by a court of competent jurisdiction on all matters litigated and those matters necessarily within the issue which might have been litigated. Wells v. Ark. Public Service Commission, 272 Ark. 481, 616 S.W.2d 718 (1981). Although the Compensation Commission is not a court, its awards are in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gahr v. Trammel, 85-1612
...S.W.2d 718, 719 (1981); The Estate of Knott by Knott v. Jones, 14 Ark.App. 271, 687 S.W.2d 529, 531 (1985); Gwin v. R.D. Hall Tank Co., 10 Ark.App. 12, 660 S.W.2d 947, 948 (1983). When these conditions are satisfied, a judgment affirming an administrative decision, and, in some instances, t......
-
Craven v. Fulton Sanitation Service, Inc.
...143, 718 S.W.2d 114 (1986); Tuberville v. International Paper Co., 18 Ark.App. 210, 711 S.W.2d 840 (1986); Gwin v. R.D. Hall Tank Co., 10 Ark.App. 12, 660 S.W.2d 947 (1983). In Andrews, this court While the compensation commission is not a court, it exercises quasi-judicial functions in its......
-
Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, Div. of Children and Family Services, Special Nutrition Program v. Arkansas Child Care Consultants, Inc.
... ... See Mohawk Tire & Rubber Co. v. Brider, 259 Ark. 728, 536 S.W.2d 126 (1976); Gwin v. R.D. Hall Tank Co., 10 Ark.App. 12, 660 S.W.2d 947 (1983). In other ... ...
-
Leslie v. Bolen
...S.W.2d at 706; and (4) must have been essential to the prior judgment, Jetoco, S.W.2d at 707. See also Gwin v. R.D. Hall Tank Co., 10 Ark.App. 12, 660 S.W.2d 947, 948 (Ark.App.1983). The criteria set out in Wells and Jetoco parallel the criteria set out by this court in Lovell. Applying the......