THETFORD v. ELECTRIC COWBOY, INC., 2000 AWCC 264

CLAIM NO. E910613.

MELISSA CAROL THETFORD, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. ELECTRIC COWBOY, INC., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, FREMONT COMPENSATION, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT.

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED OCTOBER 5, 2000.

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

Claimant represented by STEPHEN ARNOLD, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by JEREMY SWEARINGEN, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

ORDER

This case comes on for review before the Commission on respondent’s motion to strike claimant’s substitute brief or alternatively, allow respondent to file a reply brief in response to the substitute brief.

After our review 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.

On June 6, 2000, the ALJ found that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded certain benefits but refused to assess a penalty against respondent pursuant to § 802(e). Respondent appealed and claimant cross-appealed.

Respondent and claimant both filed their initial briefs to the Commission in a timely manner. Respondent likewise filed a timely reply brief on August 25, 2000. However, also on August 25, claimant filed what was called a “First Substitute Appellee’s Brief.” This resulted in the present motion by respondent. After comparing the two briefs filed by claimant, it appears that the substitute brief does not contain any substantive changes from the original brief. However, footnote 2 in claimant’s original brief indicates that a letter from respondent dated December 17, 1999 is attached as Exhibit 1. There is no such exhibit attached to the original brief. The substitute brief does in fact attach this document. Rather than grant respondent’s motion to strike claimant’s substitute brief or in the alternative, allow the respondent to file a reply brief in response to claimant’s substitute brief, we simply assure the parties that we will not consider the document attached to claimant’s substitute brief or any other improperly presented evidence.

Accordingly, we find that respondent’s motion should be, and hereby is, denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
______________________________ PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner