Opinion
CLAIM NO. E209360
OPINION FILED MARCH 16, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE JAY TOLLEY, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Respondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE NATHAN CULP, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE TERRY PENCE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
[2] This matter comes on for review by the Full Commission on Respondent No. 2's Motion to Dismiss claimant's appeal. After consideration of Respondent No. 2's Motion to Dismiss, Respondents No. 1's response, claimant's response, and all matters properly before the Commission, we find that the respondent's motion must be denied.The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Law allows parties to petition the Full Commission for review of an order or award of an administrative law judge. The applicable statute governing the time for filing an appeal to the Full Commission states the following:
A compensation order or award of an administrative law judge or a single commissioner shall become final unless a party to the dispute shall, within thirty (30) days from the receipt by him of the order or award, petition in writing for a review by the full commission of the order or award.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a)(1) (1987). The procedural requirements set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a)(1) are mandatory and jurisdictional, and consequently, must be strictly complied with. Cooper Industrial Products v. Meadows, 5 Ark. App. 205, 634 S.W.2d 670 (1986). Therefore, the decision of the administrative law judge becomes final, and the Full Commission cannot review the decision unless a "petition for review" is received within the thirty (30) day period set forth in the statute.
In the present case, the administrative law judge filed an opinion and order on December 18, 1998. The claimant received a copy of the administrative law judge's decision on December 19, 1998. On January 19, 1999, the Commission received from the claimant's attorney a document entitled "Brief In Support Of Claimant's Position." On January 22, 1999, in a letter to the claimant's attorney, the Clerk of the Commission acknowledged the claimant's brief in support of the claimant's position but noted that she had received no formal appeal and was returning the case to general files pending clarification. On January 25, 1999, the Commission received a Notice of Appeal from the claimant. On January 28, 1999, Respondent No. 2 filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Respondent No. 2 contends that the "claimant did not serve her notice of appeal on the parties, or the Commission, within thirty (30) days of the date of the opinion." Alternatively, the claimant contends that her brief, "which was filed within the thirty day period of time, will serve as sufficient notice of appeal."
The first issue which we must determine is whether the document received by the Commission on January 19, 1999 was timely filed so as to preserve the claimant's appeal. The thirty (30) day deadline to file a notice of appeal fell on January 18, 1999. However, this date being a holiday, the deadline is extended to January 19, 1999. See, Vickie Clark v. K-D Tools, Full Commission opinion filed March 15, 1994 (Claim No. E302016); see also, Ark. R. Civ. P 6;Ashcraft v. Quimbly, 2 Ark. App. 174, 617 S.W.2d 390 (1981). Since the 30th day in the present case fell on a holiday, we find that the document received by the Commission on the 31st day was timely filed to preserve the claimant's appeal.
The second issue which must be determined is whether the document filed by the claimant's attorney on January 19, 1999, meets the minimum requirements to classify as a petition for review. While it appears that no court has addressed the minimum requirements under Arkansas law to state an adequate "petition for review", in Cook v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 21 Ark. App. 29, 727 S.W.2d 862 (1987) the Arkansas Court of Appeals discussed the minimum requirements necessary for correspondence to the Commission to constitute a claim for additional compensation for the purposes of tolling the applicable Statute of Limitations. In that case, the Court held that an attorney's correspondence notifying the Commission that he has been employed to assist a claimant in connection with unpaid benefits is sufficient to state a claim for additional compensation where the correspondence also lists the claimant's name, the employer's name and the WCC file number.Id., See also, Garrett v. Sears Roebuck and Company, 43 Ark. App. 37, 858 S.W.2d 146 (1993). Moreover, we have interpreted Cook as requiring that correspondence intended as a claim for additional benefits (1) identify the claimant, (2) indicate that a compensable injury has occurred, and (3) convey the idea that compensation is expected.R. L. Martin v. Hamlin Seed Company, Full Commission opinion filed June 8, 1993 (Claim No. D901716); Geraldine Hornaday v. Smith Roberts Timber Company, Full Commission opinion filed February 6, 1996 ( D807079); Judy Smith v. Acadia Marketing, Full Commission opinion filed August 14, 1998.
In the present case, we find that the claimant's brief received January 19, 1999, identifies (1) the claimant, (2) the employer, (3) the claim number, (4) the legal issue involved in the claim (compensation rate) and (5) that the claimant's attorney disputes the analysis of the administrative law judge on that issue. In addition, we find that the claimant's brief conveys the general idea that the claimant's attorney requests the Full Commission to review the administrative law judge's decision.
Therefore, we find that the claimant's brief in support of claimant's position received January 19, 1999, adequately petitions for review the administrative law judge's decision in her claim. Because the claimant's brief was timely filed within the period prescribed by statute, we also find that the respondent's motion to dismiss the claimant's appeal must be, and hereby is, denied. We hereby direct the Clerk of the Commission to set a briefing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Commissioner Wilson concurs.