Opinion
CLAIM NO. F113145
ORDER FILED MAY 7, 2003
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HONORABLE MIKE J. ETOCH, JR., Attorney at Law, Helena, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by HONORABLE WILLIAM C. FRYE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Full Commission on the respondents' motion to strike the claimant's notice of appeal. After considering the respondents' motion, the claimant's response, and all matters properly before the Commission, we find that the respondents' motion must be denied.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a) provides:
11-9-711. Finality of order or award — Review.
(a) AWARD OR ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE OR SINGLE COMMISSIONER — REVIEW. (1) 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.
(2) Any other party to the dispute may cross appeal by filing a written petition for cross appeal within fifteen (15) days after the notice of appeal is filed in the office of the Workers' Compensation Commission, except that in no event shall a cross appellant have less than thirty (30) days from the receipt by him of the order or award within which to file a notice of cross appeal.
In the present case, the Administrative Law Judge filed an opinion and order on January 24, 2003 awarding some benefits and denying other benefits. On January 27, 2003, the claimant's attorney filed a request for clarification as to the benefits awarded. On February 3, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge filed an amendment to her January 24, 2003 opinion and order clarifying the extent of benefits owed by the respondent. The claimant's attorney notified the Clerk of the Commission on February 7, 2003 that he would no longer be representing the claimant.
On February 21, 2003, the Commission received a letter from the pro se claimant requesting a hearing. This letter was apparently forwarded by the Clerk's Office to the Administrative Law Judge, rather than to the Full Commission. On March 6, 2003, the claimant filed another letter specifically requesting an appeal of his case to the Full Commission.
In their motion to strike, the respondents note that the deadline to file a timely petition for review was February 26, 2003, so that the claimant's letter filed on March 6, 2003 could not be considered a timely notice of appeal. We agree. However, we point out that the claimant's letter filed on February 21, 2003 was timely filed within 30 days of receipt of the Administrative Law Judge's January 27, 2003 opinion and order. For the reasons discussed below, we also find that the letter filed on February 21, 2003 adequately states a "petition for review" within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711.
It appears that no court has addressed the minimum requirements under Arkansas law to adequately state a "petition for review" within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a). However, 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 Co., 43 Ark. App. 37, 858 S.W.2d 146 (1993). Moreover, the Commission has 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 Workers' Compensation Commission, June 8, 1993 (Claim No. D901716). Likewise, in Geraldine Hornaday v Smith Roberts Timber Company, Full Workers' Compensation Commission, February 6, 1996 (Claim No. D807079), the Commission unanimously found that an ambiguous letter was sufficient to state a petition for review. In Hornaday, the letter identified (1) the claimant, (2) the Administrative Law Judge, (3) the claim number, (4) the relevant hearing date, and (5) conveyed the general idea that the claimant wanted the Full Commission to review the Administrative Law Judge's decision.
In the present case, the claimant's letter filed on February 21, 2003 identifies (1) the claimant, (2) the respondent, (3) the claim number, and (4) requests a hearing. While the ambiguity in the claimant's request would not likely have existed had his letter requested a "review" instead of a "hearing," we point out that the Full Commission in its discretion may conduct a hearing and accept additional evidence on appeal. See generally, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(a)(6)(A). Consequently, we do not consider the claimant's use of the word "hearing" instead of the word "review" as constituting a defective petition for review. We find that the claimant's letter filed on February 21, 2003 instead provides sufficient relevant information to qualify as a timely filed petition for review within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-711(a). Therefore, the respondents' motion to dismiss must be, and hereby is, denied.
Finally, as we interpret the claimant's response to the respondents' motion, the claimant is now satisfied to proceed with our conducting ade novo review of the existing record. The Clerk of the Commission is accordingly directed to establish a new briefing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
______________________________ SHELBY W. TURNER, Commissioner
Commissioner Yates dissents.