CLAIM NO. F000105
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 12, 2001.
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE RANDOLPH J. SHOCK, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE WALTER A. MURRAY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
This case comes on for review before the Commission on respondent’s motion to reconsider our April 27, 2001 opinion affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that claimant sustained a compensable injury.
After our consideration of respondent’s motion, claimant’s objection thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that respondent’s motion should be denied.
Respondent’s attorney objects to the Commission’s statement that “[r]espondents contend that claimant’s injury is not compensable, but offered no brief to support that position.” This statement is clearly superfluous and had no bearing whatsoever on our determination of the merits of this claim. Therefore, respondent’s motion to reconsider must be denied.
The Administrative Law Judge filed his opinion on July 28, 2000. Respondent’s brief was due on September 15. On September 15, respondent faxed a motion for a 30-day extension of time to file its brief. Thereafter, the Clerk of the Commission informed the parties that respondent’s initial brief would be due October 16, 2000. On or about September 27, 2000, attorney Jay Tolley filed a request for a two-week extension and referenced this case and file number. By correspondence dated September 28, 2000, the Clerk acknowledged and granted claimant an extension, but noted that “[r]espondent’s brief will remain due October 16, 2000.” On October 31, 2000, respondent filed another motion to extend the time within which to file its brief. In correspondence dated November 14, 2000, the Clerk acknowledged respondent’s motion and informed the parties of the confusion created by Tolley’s request for an extension for a claim in which he did not represent claimant. Respondent’s motion was placed on the Commission’s motion docket. In an order dated December 7, 2000, the Commission unanimously denied respondent’s motion for an extension because the request was not submitted prior to the due date. Respondent actually submitted its untimely brief on November 8, 2000, but we did not consider it.
In the present motion, respondent’s attorney alleges that our comment in the April opinion is in error. Additionally, respondent’s attorney states the following:
This Commission’s decision to overlook the confusion created by itself, reveals a lack of judicial temperament. This Commission should not place its own procedural confusion over the rights of parties properly before it. Improper procedures should not be placed above substance.
The comments of respondent’s counsel are not supported by the actual facts in this case. He is trying to blame the Commission for his own lack of diligence. Regardless of any confusion created by Tolley’s request, the Clerk of the Commission clearly informed respondent that its brief remained due on October 16, 2000. Respondent’s request for an extension was untimely filed on October 31, 2000. Therefore, even though respondent went ahead and submitted its brief, there was technically no brief considered by the Commission in rendering a decision on the merits.
Accordingly, we find that respondent’s motion for reconsideration should be, and hereby is, denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
Chairman Coffman concurs.
Commissioner Wilson concurs.