Opinion
CLAIM NO. E908926
ORDER FILED JUNE 11, 2003
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HONORABLE FREDERICK S. "RICK" SPENCER, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by HONORABLE TOM HARPER, JR., Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
ORDER
This case comes on for review before the Commission on claimant's motion for an extension of time to file her reply brief.
Three motions for briefing extensions are presently before the Commission, brought by the claimant on May 16, 2003, May 27, 2003, and June 2, 2003. Upon consideration of those motions, replies of respondents, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that claimant's May 16, 2003, and May 27, 2003, motions should be granted and that her June 2, 2003, motion should be denied.
Claimant has filed a total of four motions to extend this briefing schedule. On April 18, 2003, the Commission granted claimant's first motion for a 30-day extension. On May 16, 2003, claimant made a second motion for a seven-day extension which was placed on our May 21, 2003 docket. However, before we could render a ruling on this motion, claimant filed a third motion for a seven-day extended briefing schedule on May 27, 2003; and a fourth motion for extension on June 2, 2003.
Claimant's brief was due on May 19, 2003 following her first extension. Three days prior to that deadline, claimant requested an additional seven days which, if granted, would have deferred the briefing deadline to May 26, 2003. At any rate, before we could rule on that motion, claimant requested an additional seven days which, also if granted, would have moved her deadline to June 3, 2003. Claimant then filed a final motion for extension on June 2, 2003, and filed her brief with the Commission on June 5, 2003.
Respondent agreed to claimant's first three extensions, but objected to claimant's June 2, 2003 motion by letter to the Clerk of the Commission dated June 3, 2003.
Because the Commission granted an initial 30-day briefing extension, upon respondent's agreement, and because respondent additionally raised no objection to claimant's first three motions to extend the briefing schedule, the Commission grants claimant's motions of May 16, 2003 and May 27, 2003. However, the Commission denies claimant's June 2, 2003 motion to extend the briefing schedule in fairness to the respondent who objects to further delay.
Claimant has had ample time to file a brief with this Commission. Therefore, the Commission must deny claimant's June 2, 2003 motion to extend the briefing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
______________________________ JOE E. YATES, Commissioner