Opinion
CLAIM NO. F201682
OPINION FILED JANUARY 10, 2006
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the Honorable Frederick S. "Rick" Spencer, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the Honorable Jeremy Swearingen, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
In the above-styled matter, the claimant moves the Full Commission to allow a "first substituted brief." The Full Commission denies the claimant's motion. However, as the cross appellant, claimant's "first substituted brief" will be filed as cross-appellant's reply to the respondents' reply brief.
The parties stipulated, among other things, that the claimant sustained compensable injuries to his upper extremities on September 1, 2001. On November 1, 2004, the Commission received the respondents' Motion In Limine To Exclude Dr. Vann Smith's Records And Testimony For Failure To Meet Evidence Standards Of Rule 702 And Daubert/Kumbo Cases. On May 26, 2005, an administrative law judge entered an Order Granting Motion In Limine.
The respondents argue that the claimant is now attempting to introduce evidence which was "stricken" by the administrative law judge in the Order Granting Motion In Limine. However, the administrative law judge's ruling on the motion in limine was not a final ruling on the admissibility of the evidence in question, but only interlocutory, tentative, or preliminary in nature. Conagra, Inc. v. Strother, 68 Ark. App. 120, 5 S.W.3d 69 (1999). A ruling on a motion in limine is subject to reconsideration and change. Id. Moreover, the administrative law judge's ruling on the respondents' motion in limine was not a final, appealable order. See, Rowell v. Curt Bean Lumber Co., 73 Ark. App. 237, 40 S.W.3d 344 (2001).
The Full Commission denies the instant claimant's motion to file his brief as a "first substituted brief" but grants his request to file the brief. It appears to be a reply to respondents' arguments. We note that both parties have appealed an opinion filed by the administrative law judge on September 9, 2005. Thus, as a cross-appellant he can file a reply brief. That is how this "first substituted brief" will be treated. The Full Commission directs the Clerk of the Commission to place the matter on our submission docket, so that the Full Commission can adjudicate the substantive relevant issues of the claim, pursuant to the provisions of Act 796 of 1993.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
_______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
_______________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner