ALEXANDER v. TEXARKANA HOUSING AUTHORITY, 1996 AWCC 59

CLAIM NO. E301179

BARRY ALEXANDER, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. TEXARKANA HOUSING AUTHORITY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED APRIL 1, 1996

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant appears pro se.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN, III, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Decision of Administrative Law Judge: Set aside and remanded.

[1] OPINION AND ORDER
[2] The claimant appeals an opinion filed by the administrative law judge on October 11, 1995. In that opinion, the administrative law judge granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim, apparently concluding that the claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations. However, no hearing was held to allow the parties to develop a record nor was a record otherwise developed. In this regard, the determination of whether the Statute of Limitations bars a claim involves an application of the statute to the facts of the claim. Before we can make any findings with regard to this issue, a record must be developed upon which a decision can be based. Consequently, after reviewing this matter, we find that the administrative law judge’s decision must be set aside and that the claim must be remanded to the administrative law judge with instructions to conduct such proceedings as may be necessary for resolution of the issues presented by the parties.

[3] In reaching this decision, we note that the respondents’ argument concerning summary judgments and supporting affidavits is wholly without merit. First, the formal rules of civil procedure cited by the respondents simply are not applicable to proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705 (a)(1) (Supp. 1995); see also, Ark. R. Civ. Pro. 1. Furthermore, the Arkansas Court of Appeals has expressly held that summary judgment procedures do not apply to matters before the Workers’ Compensation Commission. InTracor/MBA v. Flowers, 41 Ark. App. 186, 850 S.W.2d 30 (1993), the Court made the following comments:

We do not agree that the summary judgment procedure provided by Rule 56 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure applies to matters filed in the Workers’ Compensation Commission. No authority for this view is cited by appellant and the appellee cites Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which expressly provides that the Rules apply in the Circuit, Chancery, and Probate Courts. The Commission is not mentioned.

[4] Therefore, we find that the respondents’ argument must be rejected.

[5] Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the administrative law judge’s decision must be set aside and remanded with instructions for the administrative law judge to conduct such proceedings as are necessary to develop a record in this matter and to file an opinion and order setting forth findings and conclusions based on that record.

[6] IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner

[7] Commissioner Holcomb concurs.