LONG v. L.E.G. ENTERPRISES, INC., 1999 AWCC 354

CLAIM NO. E715075

THAD LONG, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. L.E.G. ENTERPRISES, INC., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 24, 1999

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

Claimant appeared Pro Se.

Respondent represented by RANDY P. MURPHY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

[1] ORDER
[2] This matter is currently before the Commission on the respondent’s motion to strike the claimant’s brief. The claimant did not file a response to the respondent’s motion. After considering the respondent’s motion and the claimant’s lack of response thereto, we find that the respondent’s motion should be granted. [3] This matter is currently on appeal to the Commission from an opinion issued on August 2, 1999, where the Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 11, 1997 through June 23, 1998, and medical benefits. The claimant has filed his appeal with the Commission Pro Se. [4] On October 1, 1999, the claimant filed a brief with the Commission. The brief appears to be filed on behalf of the claimant but it is not signed and fails to identify the individual that prepared the brief. The preparer sent copies to the claimant and his family but the respondents were not served with a copy of the brief. The claimant’s brief fails to comply with Rule 18 of the Commission’s Rules. Rule 18 requires that briefs be served on all other known parties and bear an appropriate certificate of service. The claimant’s brief in this case clearly fails to comply with these requirements. [5] The brief also fails to follow the procedure set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-717(B), which states:

A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his claim, request for benefits, request for additional benefits, controversion of benefits, request for a hearing, pleading, motion, or other papers, and state his address.

[6] The brief in this case does not contain a signature by an attorney or the claimant. [7] Therefore for all the reasons set forth herein, we find that the respondent’s motion to strike the claimant’s brief should be and hereby is granted. We assure the parties that the claimant’s appeal will be conducted de novo. The Commission will review the record and will not consider any evidence that is not contained within the Commission’s record. [8] IT IS SO ORDERED. [9] _______________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman

_______________________________
MIKE WILSON, Commissioner

[10] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.