BERIHUN v. S T S HOLDINGS, INC., 2004 AWCC 130

CLAIM NO. F309837

WORKENH BERIHUN, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. S T S HOLDINGS, INC., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, COMMERCE INDUSTRY INSURANCE, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 26, 2004

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

Claimant appeared PRO SE.

Respondents represented by HONORABLE SCOTT MORGAN, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

ORDER
An Administrative Law Judge filed an opinion on April 30, 2004. A copy of this opinion was sent to the parties by certified mail, return receipt requested. The certified mail receipt indicates that claimant received a copy of the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion on May 4, 2004. The certified mail receipt was returned marked “Refused — Return to Sender.” Claimant claims that he refused the envelope because it had not been sealed. However, he did not contact anyone at the Commission to obtain a new copy of the Judge’s opinion until June 4, 2003. Claimant had until June 3, 2004 to file his notice of appeal. However, claimant’s notice of appeal was not filed until June 25, 2004. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal on June 24, 2004.

Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a)(1) (Supp. 2003), the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge became final unless claimant filed an appeal within 30 days from the receipt of the opinion. The procedural requirements set forth in the statute are mandatory or jurisdictional and require strict compliance. Cooper Industrial Products v. Meadows, 5 Ark. App. 205, 634 S.W.2d 400 (1982); Lloyd v. Potlatch Corp., 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 30 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. William v. Luft Construction Co., 31 Ark. App. 198, 790 S.W.2d 921
(1990).

Therefore, after considering the respondent’s motion, the claimant’s response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we grant the respondent’s motion to dismiss claimant’s notice of appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
_______________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner

Commissioner Turner dissents.