CLAIM NO. E804869
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JANUARY 12, 2005
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HON. LAURA McKINNON, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by HON. WALTER A. MURRAY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
Presently before the Commission is respondents’ Motion to Correct the Record, to Strike Claimant’s Brief, and to Establish a New Briefing Schedule. After consideration of respondents’ motion, claimant’s response thereto, and all other matters presently before the Commission, we find that while the respondents’ motion to Correct the Record and to Strike the Claimant’s Brief has merit, it should nevertheless be denied. With regard to respondents’ Motion to Establish a New Briefing Schedule, we find that due to the postponement in briefing as a result of this matter being placed on the Commission’s Motion Docket, respondents’ motion should be granted.
In her brief initially filed November 29, 2004, claimant abstracted the record and failed to indicate that claimant’s exhibit # 3, was a proffered exhibit. A review of the official transcript correctly identifies claimant’s exhibit #3 as a proffered exhibit, not an exhibit that was admitted into evidence. The Full Commission is charged with conducting a de novo review of the entire record. The record clearly reflects that claimant’s exhibit # 3 was submitted, but not introduced into the record. Accordingly, we find that respondents’ Motion to Correct the Record is moot. Having found that the record does not require correction, it is likewise clear that the claimant’s brief did not clarify for the Commission the fact that claimant’s exhibit # 3 was not accepted into evidence when the claimant abstracted the record. Nevertheless, the Commission is savvy enough to discern this fact and overlook the claimant’s improper classification of the proffered exhibit. Therefore, we find that the respondents’ Motion to Strike the Claimant’s Brief should be denied. Respondents’ brief was initially due on December 17, 2004; however with the filing of these motions and the placement of this claim on the Commission’s Motion Docket, the respondents properly requested an extension to file its brief. Accordingly, we find that the respondents’ Motion to Establish a New Briefing Schedule should be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
___________________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
___________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner