CLAIM NO. E702191
HERBERT BRAKE, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. THE KROGER COMPANY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, CNA, CARRIER, RESPONDENT Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JUNE 24, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by JIM R. BURTON, Attorney at Law, Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by WENDY S. WOOD, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1]
ORDER [2] This case comes on review before the Commission on the claimant’s motion to extend the briefing schedule. [3] After our consideration of the claimant’s motion, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant’s motion should be denied. [4] The claimant’s initial brief on appeal was due on April 16, 1999. The respondent’s brief was due on April 30, 1999, with the claimant’s reply brief being due on May 7, 1999. On April 14, 1999, the claimant requested an extension until May 14, 1999 for submitting his brief. The respondents had no objection to this request. By a letter dated April 20, 1999, the Clerk of the Commission granted the claimant’s requested extension. The claimant’s brief then became due May 14, 1999, with the respondent’s brief due May 28, 1999, and the reply brief by the claimant due June 4, 1999. On June 3, 1999, the claimant again requested an extension to file his brief until June 11, 1999. On June 7, 1999, the Clerk of the Commission wrote a letter to the claimant stating that she could not honor the claimant’s request for an extension because second requests must be filed by formal motion for the Full Commission’s consideration. A formal motion for continuance was filed by the claimant on June 9, 1999. [5] Correspondence from the Commission establishing the original briefing schedule clearly states that: “[A]ny extension requests must be submitted in writing prior to the due date.” (Original emphasis). The claimant’s Motion was filed five days beyond the due date for the brief. Since the claimant’s Motion was untimely filed, we find it must be denied. See, McGraw v. ArkansasDelivery Systems, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Opinion Filed March 31, 1999 (WCC No.
E315884); Strecker v. Holiday IslandSuburban Improvement District, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission Opinion Filed March 11, 1995 (WCC No.
E704665); Zarnesv. Camden Wire, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Opinion Filed February 24, 1999 (WCC No.
E714141). [6] Accordingly, we find that the claimant’s Motion should be, and hereby is, denied. [7] IT IS SO ORDERED. [8] _______________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman _______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner [9] Commissioner Humphrey concurs.