STRECKER v. HOLIDAY ISLAND SUBURBAN IMPR. DIST., 1999 AWCC 67

CLAIM NO. E704665

WILLIAM STRECKER, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. HOLIDAY ISLAND SUBURBAN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WCT, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED MARCH 11, 1999

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

Claimant represented by JAY N. TOLLEY, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by J. CHRIS BRADLEY, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, Arkansas.

[1] ORDER
[2] This case comes on for review before the Commission on claimant’s motion, which is actually one to file a belated brief. Claimant has also filed a motion to remand. [3] After our consideration of claimant’s motion to file a belated brief, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that claimant’s motion should be denied. [4] Claimant’s initial brief was due January 8, 1999. On January 7, claimant filed a motion to extend the briefing schedule. Without objection by respondents, the Clerk of the Commission granted this motion and claimant’s brief became due January 22, 1999. However, claimant’s brief was not filed with the Commission until January 29, seven days after it was due. On February 3, 1999, claimant filed a motion to extend the briefing schedule. [5] 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.” (Original emphasis). Claimant’s brief and motion were filed seven days and twelve days, respectively, beyond the due date for the brief. Since claimant’s motion was untimely filed, it must be denied. [6] Further, claimant has filed a motion to remand this matter to an Administrative Law Judge for another hearing. After our consideration of this motion, respondents’ objection thereto and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that claimant’s motion to remand should be denied. [7] Accordingly, we find that claimant’s motions should be, and hereby are, denied. [8] IT IS SO ORDERED. [9] ____________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman

____________________________ PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner

____________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: E704665

Recent Posts

GLENN v. GLENN, 44 Ark. 46 (1884)

44 Ark. 46 Supreme Court of Arkansas. Glenn v. Glenn. November Term, 1884. Headnotes 1.…

1 week ago

HOLLAND v. ARKANSAS, 2017 Ark.App. 49 (Ark.App. 2017)

2017 Ark.App. 49 (Ark.App. 2017) 510 S.W.3d 311 WESLEY GENE HOLLAND, APPELLANT v. STATE OF…

8 years ago

COOPER v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES, 2017 Ark.App. 58 (Ark.App. 2017)

2017 Ark.App. 58 (Ark.App. 2017)510 S.W.3d 304GRAYLON COOPER, APPELLANTv.UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES, PUBLIC…

8 years ago

SCHALL v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2017 Ark.App. 50 (Ark.App. 2017)

2017 Ark.App. 50 (Ark.App. 2017)510 S.W.3d 302DIANNA LYNN SCHALL, APPELLANTv.UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES,…

8 years ago

Arkansas Attorney General Opinion No. 2016-094

Opinion No. 2016-094 March 21, 2017 The Honorable John Cooper State Senator 62 CR 396…

8 years ago

Arkansas Attorney General Opinion No. 2017-038

Opinion No. 2017-038 March 23, 2017 The Honorable Henry �Hank� Wilkins, IV Jefferson County Judge…

8 years ago