JOHNSON-SCOTT v. PILOT CORPORATION TRAVEL CENTER, 2003 AWCC 81

CLAIM NO. F111433

LARHONDA JOHNSON-SCOTT, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. PILOT CORPORATION TRAVEL CENTER, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY/RISKCO MANAGEMENT, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED APRIL 28, 2003

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

Claimant appeared PRO SE.

Respondents represented by HONORABLE FRANK B. NEWELL, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Full Commission on the respondent’s motion to file a belated cross-appeal in order to preserve a statute of limitations defense. After considering the respondent’s motion and all other matters properly before the Commission, we deny the respondent’s motion for two reasons.

First, the procedural requirements for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with. Cooper Industrial Products v. Meadows, 5 Ark. App. 205, 634 S.W.2d 400 (1982). Because the procedural requirements are jurisdictional, they cannot be waived, and the Commission has no authority to extend the appeal times provided by statute. Id. See also Kim Hare v. Aalf’s Manufacturing, Inc., Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Order filed April 16, 2002 (E910179)[claimant’s untimely notice of cross-appeal dismissed].

Second, although the respondent’s motion seeks to preserve a statute of limitations defense, the respondents fail to cite in their motion where that issue was timely raised before the Administrative Law Judge, and we do not see that issue discussed in the hearing transcript before us.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed herein, the respondent’s motion to file a belated appeal is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner

Commissioner Yates dissents.