CLAIM NO. E811762
LOUIS JOHNSON, JR., EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. SMI JOIST COMPANY, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT NO. 1 and HIGHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY/LINDSEY MORDEN INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT NO. 1 and SECOND INJURY FUND, RESPONDENT NO. 2
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JANUARY 24, 2000
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by RONALD M. CHAUFTY, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Arkansas.
Respondents No. 1 represented by GILL A. ROGERS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by TERRY PENCE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
[1] This case comes on for review before the Commission on the motion of respondent #1 for an extension of time in which to file a brief.
[2] After consideration of the motion of respondent #1, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that respondent’s motion must be denied.
[3] The initial brief of respondent #1 was due December 17, 1999. On December 16, 1999, counsel for respondent #1 requested via a phone call to the Clerk of the Commission an extension of the briefing schedule until January 3, 2000. Opposing counsel had no objection. The Clerk of the Commission requested that the motion for an extension be made in writing which the Clerk would then respond to with a letter granting that extension. The record reflects that counsel for respondent #1 attempted that day to fax to the Clerk of the Commission a letter motion for an extension. The record also reflects that due to an unexplained transmission failure no motion was received by the Clerk’s Office, accordingly the anticipated correspondence granting the requested extension was never sent.
[4] On December 30, 1999 counsel for respondent #2 filed a letter with the Clerk’s Office stating that the deadline for respondent #1 to file a brief had passed and no brief had been received by his office or filed with the Clerk. Based upon this respondent #2 advised the Clerk’s Office that it waived the right to file a brief in this matter. Counsel for opposing parties were forwarded copies of this letter. On January 3, 2000 a letter was sent from the Clerk’s Office to all parties acknowledging receipt of the December 30, 1999 letter from respondent #2 and requesting that counsel for claimant advise whether he intended to file a brief.
[5] On January 3, 2000 respondent #1 filed via fax its brief on appeal. On January 4th the Clerk of the Commission wrote to counsel for respondent #1 advising that the submitted brief was untimely and therefore would not be accepted. After speaking with the Clerk’s Office respondent #1 filed on January 5th, via fax, a letter motion requesting that the originally requested extension of time until January 3, 2000 now be granted.
[6] Correspondence from the Commission establishing the original briefing schedule clearly states that “[a]ny extension request must be submitted in writing prior to the due date.” Respondent #1’s motion was not timely filed in writing. Since that motion was untimely filed, we find it must be denied. See, McGraw v.Arkansas Delivery Services, Full Workers’ Compensation Commission, Opinion filed March 31, 1999.
[7] Accordingly, we find that motion of respondent #1 for extension of time in which to file a brief should be, and hereby is, denied.
[8] IT IS SO ORDERED.
[9] _______________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
_______________________________ PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
_______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
