CLAIM NO. E506388
LINDA JO ROBINSON, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. GARDNER NURSING HOME, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and ALEXSIS, CARRIER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED DECEMBER 3, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by KENNETH E. BUCKNER, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by BETTY J. DEMORY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER
[2] This case comes on review before the Full Commission on claimant’s motion to accept her untimely filed brief and for rehearing. After consideration of claimant’s motion, respondent’s response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that claimant’s motion should be denied.
[3] A hearing before the Administrative Law Judge was conducted on February 1, 1996. On March 21, 1996, the Administrative Law Judge rendered an opinion finding that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on April 8, 1995. On April 25, 1996, claimant filed a notice of appeal with the Full Commission. A briefing schedule was entered and claimant’s brief was scheduled to be due on June 14, 1996. Claimant filed a motion to request an extension of time within which to file her brief and requested that additional evidence be admitted into evidence. On August 12, 1996, we entered an order granting claimant’s motion for an extension of time and denying her request to admit additional evidence. A new briefing schedule was established on September 10, 1996 advising claimant that her brief was now due on October 4, 1996. Claimant’s brief was not filed with the Commission until October 10, 1996, six days late. Clearly, claimant’s brief was not filed in a timely fashion in accordance with the briefing schedule. Accordingly, we find that claimant’s motion to file an untimely brief should be denied. However, we must point out that the mere fact that claimant’s brief is not accepted does not render her appeal moot. It is our duty to make a de novo review of the record developed before the Administrative Law Judge. Our review can be done without a brief being filed.
[4] As part of claimant’s brief which she attempted to file in an untimely fashion, claimant made a motion for a rehearing. Since the motion is not considered part of claimant’s brief, the motion itself is acceptable. However, based upon our review of the file, we find that the motion for rehearing must be denied. We have already addressed the issue of claimant’s request to submit additional evidence in our opinion filed August 12, 1996. Claimant has failed to raise any new issues which were not raised or addressed by our August 13th order. Accordingly, for those reasons set forth in our August 12th order, we find that claimant’s motion for a rehearing should be denied.
[5] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L HOLCOMB, Commissioner
[6] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
