CLAIM NO. E812771, E812772, E812773
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 16, 2001.
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE MARK VELASQUEZ, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE RICHARD SMITH, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
This matter is currently before the Full Workers’ Compensation Commission on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Claimant’s Appeal. Having considered the respondents’ Motion, the claimant’s response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the respondents’ Motion must be granted.
On March 8, 2001, an Administrative Law Judge entered an Opinion in this case. Ths Opinion was mailed certified, return receipt requested, to the claimant’s attorney. The claimant was represented by Mr. Mark Velasquez at the time of the hearing. The certified mail receipt indicates that the claimant’s attorney received the Opinion on March 12, 2001. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a), the claimant had thirty days in which to file his Notice of Appeal with the Commission. The claimant did not file a Notice of Appeal until May 8, 2001. The claimant stated in his letter that his attorney was no longer doing workers’ compensation cases. However, he failed to docket the Notice of Appeal with the Commission in a timely fashion.
Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a)(1) (Repl. 1996), the Opinion of the Administrative Law Judge became final unless the claimant filed an Appeal within thirty days from receipt of the Opinion. The procedural requirements set forth in the statute are mandatory or jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with. Cooper Industrial Products v. Meadows, 5 Ark. App. 205, 634 S.W.2d 400 (1982); Lloyd v. Potlatch Corporation, 19 Ark. App. 335, 721 S.W.2d 670 (1986). Therefore, the Opinion of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final and the Full Commission cannot review it if the petition for review is not received within thirty days, as set forth in the statute. Moreover, the rule of unavoidable casualty does not apply to the failure to file a Notice of Appeal in a timely manner. Williams v. LoveConstruction Company, 31 Ark. App. 198, 790 S.W.2d 921 (1990). Since the claimant’s Appeal was not filed within the required thirty days, the Appeal was untimely and the Commission has no jurisdiction to review it.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Claimant’s Appeal to the Commission must be, and hereby is, granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner