Law Offices of Craig L. Cook v. Dir.

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 486ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. E-12-1135
THE LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG L. Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
COOK
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
V. [NO. 2012-BR-02795]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES, and JUNE
GURGEL-ANTESKI
APPELLEES REBRIEFING ORDERED
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
The Law Offices of Craig L. Cook (hereinafter “Cook” or “the law firm”) appeals the
decision of the Arkansas Board of Review that awarded unemployment-compensation
benefits to appellee June Gurgel-Anteski. The claimant was found to have been an employee
of the law firm who was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with the
work. Cook contends that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence, requiring
reversal. We order rebriefing.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (2012) sets forth the requirements for appellate
briefs. In this instance, appellant’s brief does not contain the decisions of the administrative
agency from which it appeals, namely the decisions of the Appeal Tribunal and Board of
Review, as part of the addendum. Those decisions must be included pursuant to Rule 4-
2(a)(8)(A)(i). Additionally, appellant’s brief includes an abstract of the testimony, but it does
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 486not include material “colloquies between the court and counsel” as mandated by Rule 4-
2(a)(5)(A). The transcript reflects a discussion on the record prior to testimony being taken
about the issues presented for decision, which is essential for us to determine what is properly
before us for review. We order appellant to include an abstract of that colloquy. Pursuant
to Rule 4-2(b)(3), we afford appellant the opportunity to cure these deficiencies within fifteen
days of the date of this opinion. Failure to file a compliant brief within fifteen days could
result in the Board’s decision being summarily affirmed for noncompliance with our rules.
After service of the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum, the Department of Workforce
Services shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement its brief in the time prescribed by
the court, or to rely on the brief previously filed in this appeal. See Moody v. Director, 2013
Ark. App. 350.
Rebriefing ordered.
WHITEAKER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
The Law Offices of Craig L. Cook, by: Trella A. Sparks and Craig L. Cook, for appellant.
Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.
2