Dura Craft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty, 5--4972
| Decision Date | 15 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4972,5--4972 |
| Citation | 247 Ark. 125,444 S.W.2d 562 |
| Parties | DURA CRAFT BOATS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. George A. DAUGHERTY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Riddick Riffel, Little Rock, for appellants.
Clifton Bond, Monticello, for appellee.
Dura Craft Boats, Inc., as employer, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, as carrier, bring this appeal from an order of the circuit court holding that a workmen's compensation claim of appellee, as employee, was not barred by the statute of limitations. Appellants assert that the claim was barred by Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--1318(b) (Repl.1960). Appellants also seek reversal of that part of the judgment of the trial court awarding claimant compensation for permanent partial disability. We find that the circuit court was correct in reversing the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission holding that the claim was barred but in error in undertaking to award compensation to the claimant.
Daugherty sustained a compensable injury on April 6, 1963. He was paid temporary total disability benefits for a period of thirteen weeks and two days. The last payment of compensation was in September of 1963. Thereafter the claimant retained the services of James A. Ross as his attorney. Mr. Ross filed a claim in his behalf on December 8, 1964. The exact nature of this claim is not disclosed by the record before us. On January 11, 1965, Daugherty's attorney and the carrier were advised by the Secretary of the Commission that the claim was being placed upon the 'hold' docket and that the commission would not take any further action in regard thereto unless requested by one or both of the interested parties.
On October 21, 1965, Mr. Ross addressed the following letter to the claims manager of the carrier:
'I have lost all contact with Mr. Daugherty, and will ask to be relieved as attorney of record.' 1
On October 24, 1965, the claims manager of the carrier requested the commission to dismiss the claim for lack of prosecution. On October 26, 1965, the commission entered an order dismissing the claim for lack of prosecution. This order recited the receipt of the claim on December 8, 1964, and the lack of action by the claimant thereafter to prosecute his claim. A letter was addressed by the Secretary of the Commission to the claims manager of the carrier and to the attorney for the claimant on October 26, 1965. The record reflects the receipt of this letter and copy of the order of dismissal by both Ross and the carrier's claims manager on the following day.
On December 7, 1966, a claim for permanent partial disability was filed by Mr. Clifton Bond on behalf of the claimant. Mr. Bond had been employed by the claimant at some time in 1966.
At a hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Commission, appellee contended that the order of dismissal was void on the ground that the claimant did not have notice and was, therefore, denied due process. The commission held that the statute of limitations had run on the claim filed in December 1966. Daugherty then appealed to the Circuit Court of Drew County. On this appeal, the judgment now before us was entered.
Appellant contends that the order of dismissal was valid and properly served. In support of his position that the order of dismissal was void, the appellee urges that Ark.Stat.Ann. § 29--107 (Repl.1965) be aplied. We agree with the appellant that this section, relied upon by the trial court, is not applicable to an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. This section by its own language applied only to judgments and orders of the courts of this state.
The Workmen's Compensation Commission is not bound by technical or formal rules of procedure. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--1327 (Repl.1960). The commission is specifically authorized to make such rules and regulations as may be found necessary for the purpose of administering the provisions of the act. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--1342(f) (Repl.1960). The third paragraph of Rule 13 of the Commission reads:
'Upon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in an action pending before said Commission, requesting that said claim be dismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties thereto enter an order dismissing said claim for want of prosecution.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc. v. Fowler
...210, 216 S.W.2d 386; Davis v. Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc., 239 Ark. 632, 393 S.W.2d 237, 17 A.L.R.3d 986; DuraCraft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty, 247 Ark. 125, 444 S.W.2d 562. Not only is the commission not a court, it really could not be. One of the indicia in determining whether or not......
-
Terminal Van and Storage v. Hackler, CA
...with Rule 13 of the Workers' Compensation Commission. In making this argument the appellee relies upon Dura Craft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty, 247 Ark. 125, 444 S.W.2d 562 (1969). As pointed out by both the administrative law judge and the Commission, the Rule 13 notice requirement is entirely......
- Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Perryman
-
Arkansas Sav. and Loan Ass'n Bd. v. Central Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 74--56
...themselves; that responsibility belongs to the administrative agency, which sees the witnesses as they testify. Dura Craft Boats v. Daugherty, 247 Ark. 125, 444 S.W.2d 562 (1969). The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, through the circuit court, to the Board for such further proce......