 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation5/10/2000
a narrative of the videotape so that appellant could more easily abstract such evidence. However, we find no rule of evidence or procedure that speaks of such a requirement. Appellant raises this argument for the first time on appeal. We do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. Teague v. C & J Chem. Co., 55 Ark. App. 335, 935 S.W.2d 605 (1996).
However, even if we did address this issue, appellant's argument would fail. It is the appellant's burden to abstract the record to demonstrate error, and we will not go to the record to determine that reversible error occurred. Couch v. First State Bank, 49 Ark. App. 102, 898 S.W.2d 57 (1995). Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an appellant to reproduce an exhibit that cannot be abstracted in words and attach it to the copies of the abstract filed with the court. A videotape does not ordinarily lend itself to abstracting in a brief, but failure to abstract the prejudicial parts of a videotape or a transcript precludes consideration of the videotape on appeal. Evans v. State, 326 Ark. 279, 931 S.W.2d 136 (1996). Therefore, appellant should have reproduced the video and attached it to all copies of his abstract or at least abstracted the prejudicial portions of the videotape. Without the videotape, we cannot properly review the facts that were presented to the Commission. Consequently, we cannot reach appellant's remaining arguments on appeal as they would require consideration of the videotape.
On cross-appeal, appellee argues that the Commission's finding that appellee controverted payment of anatomical impairment in excess of 10% is not supported by substantial evidence. The Commission's opinion stated:
[Appellee] has controverted the 5% additional PPD (anatomical impairment rating). [Appellee] admitted paying additional TTD until July, 1998, but the 5% additional impairment rating, as such, was not paid. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the 5% PPD has been controverted, as the 20% wage loss disability, awarded.
We believe that appellee did in fact controvert the additional 5% permanent partial disability benefits because appellee only made payments in the form of temporary total disability benefits.
Direct appeal is affirmed. Cross appeal is affirmed.
Pittman and Meads, JJ., agree.
|