 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fred's Inc. v. Jefferson3/31/2005
d not lift, bend, or stand, and, for a second time, limited her to a sitting job. Finally, Dr. Rhodes completed a workers' compensation evaluation sheet on May 15, 2002, stating that Jefferson could not return to work until May 27, 2002. This is substantial evidence that Jefferson was entitled to temporary total disability benefits. We affirm the Commission on this point.
Fred's argued to this court in its amended petition for review that the court of appeals' reliance on the Physicians' Desk Reference to determine the use of the drug Flexeril was extra-judicial, violated Fred's procedural due process rights, and violated Ark. Code Ann. ยง 11- 9-705(a)(3) (Repl. 2002), and Polk County v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 159, 47 S.W.3d 904 (2001). In particular, Fred's took issue with the following statement in the court of appeals decision, which was taken from the Physicians' Desk Reference:
Flexeril "is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions."
Fred's, Inc., ___ Ark. App. at ___, ___ S.W.3d at ___ (quoting Physicians' Desk Reference 572 (56th ed. 2002)). Fred's underscores the fact that neither party referred to the Physicians' Desk Reference in the briefs filed in this appeal.
We do not address this issue for the simple reason that other than raising the issue in its amended petition for review, Fred's did not file a supplemental brief developing the issue or otherwise cite this court to relevant authority to support its position. This, we require. See Hart v. McChristian, 344 Ark. 656, 42 S.W.3d 552 (2001) (we do not consider an argument made without convincing argument or citation to authority to support it, where it is not apparent without further research that these arguments are well-taken); Matthews v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, 341 Ark. 5, 14 S.W.3d 482 (2000) (this court will not consider the merits of an argument if the appellant fails to cite convincing legal authority in support of that argument). Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for our review, and we affirm on this point. Though we do not reach this point, we do not mean by our silence to sanction implicitly the court of appeals' citation to the Physicians' Desk Reference, when it had not been adduced or argued by either party in the briefs.
Affirmed.
|