Lisa Sowell v. Evergreen Packaging, LLC; Ace American Insurance Company; And Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 498
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-23-498

LISA SOWELL Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
V. COMMISSON
[NO. G804085]
EVERGREEN PACKAGING, LLC; ACE
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY;
AND GALLAGHER BASSETT REBRIEFING ORDERED
SERVICES, INC.
APPELLEES

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Lisa Sowell appeals from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation

Commission’s (Commission’s) opinion and order affirming as modified the administrative

law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision. Specifically, the Commission found that the Arkansas Workers’

Compensation Act is constitutional and applicable; that the functional capacity evaluation

(FCE) was relevant and admissible; that appellant failed to prove that additional medical

treatment was reasonably necessary but that she had proved she was entitled to another

change of physician if she so desired; and that appellant was not credible and failed to prove

that she is permanently and totally disabled. Appellant argues on appeal that (1) she was

denied due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment due to the

relationship of her treating physician, Victor Vargas, to appellee Evergreen Packaging and
because1 of the workers’ compensation rules of evidence; (2) the FCE is completely subjective

and not admissible in any court; (3) Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-705(a),2 which

allows subjective evidence conflicts, with Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-102,3 which

requires objective evidence to establish a medical workers’-compensation injury; and (4)

appellant tried to preserve her employment by requesting an accommodation. We do not

reach the merits of appellant’s arguments at this time and must order rebriefing.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) provides that appellant’s brief “shall contain

a concise statement of the case and facts without argument.” However, appellant has injected

arguments throughout the statement, against our rules.

Rule 4-2(a)(7) states that arguments “shall be presented under subheadings numbered

to correspond to the outline of points to be relied upon. For each issue, the applicable

standard of review shall be concisely stated at the beginning of the discussion of the issue.”

Appellant has completely failed to comply with this requirement. All the issues have been

listed together; no standard of review has been noted at the beginning of the discussion; and

everything runs together, making it hard to decipher what argument corresponds to what

issue.4

1
“Because” was added to try and make the argument easier to follow.
2
(Supp. 2023).
3
(Supp. 2023).
4
In appellant’s reply brief, counsel notes that the issues overlap and will be discussed
collectively to avoid statements out of context. Counsel cites Federal Rule of Evidence 402,

2
Even though the issues listed above have not been raised by either party, we may raise

issues of deficiencies sua sponte.5 The mandatory language of Rule 4-2 prevents us from

overlooking counsel’s failure to comply with the rules. Accordingly, we order appellant’s

counsel to file a substituted brief curing any deficiencies within thirty days from the date of

this opinion. The list of deficiencies noted is not exhaustive, and we encourage counsel to

carefully examine our rules before resubmitting a brief. Once the substituted brief is filed,

appellee will have fifteen days to submit another brief. Otherwise, we will rely on the brief

already filed.

Rebriefing ordered.

ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Larry J. Steele PLC, by: Larry J. Steele, for appellant.

Frye Law firm, P.A., by: William C. Frye, for appellees.

which deals with the admissibility of relevant evidence and has no bearing on what is
required by our appellate rules.

5
See Christian v. SWO Props., Inc., 2024 Ark. App. 290.

3