Teasley v. Hermann Companies, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
1ConcurrenceWendell Griffen, Judge
I agree that Arkansas Code Annotated § 11-9-715 (a) (4) (Repl. 2002), as amended by Act 1281 of 2001, requires the result we reach in this case. However, I write separately to emphasize the inequity of the current workers’ compensation scheme, which awards attorney’s fees for controverted indemnity benefits but completely insulates employers and workers’ compensation insurers from liability for attorney’s fees incurred for obtaining controverted medical benefits. The inequity of this scheme should not be ignored, particularly because it cuts against the long-recognized rationale under…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pickens-Bond Construction Co. v. CaseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
- Aluminum Co. of America v. HenningSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Harvest Foods v. WashamCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1996
- Ragon v. Great American Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
- Jones v. Union Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.