{"id":"full_commission-G702350-2025-08-22","awcc_number":"G702350","decision_date":"2025-08-22","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Formerly-Cooney Heitman","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Correction","title":"HEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY) VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AWCC# G702350 August 22, 2025","outcome":"denied","outcome_keywords":["granted:3","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Heitman_Formerly-Cooney_Nancy_G702350_20250822.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"Heitman_Formerly-Cooney_Nancy_G702350_20250822.pdf","text_length":7925,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  G702350  \n \nNANCY HEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY), \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT NO. 1 \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \nRESPONDENT NO. 1 \n  \n  DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL                                  RESPONDENT NO. 2                             \n  DISABILITY TRUST FUND                                                              \n      \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 22, 2025 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE ANDY L. CALDWELL, Attorney at \nLaw, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. \nMcLEMORE, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 2 was excused from participating in the proceeding. \n \n ORDER \n The claimant in the above-styled matter moves to file a belated brief.  \nThe Full Commission grants the claimant’s motion.     \nAn administrative law judge filed an amended opinion on March 21, \n2025.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove \nshe was entitled to permanent partial disability benefits or the costs \nassociated with an impairment evaluation.  The claimant filed a timely petition \nfor review.  The Clerk of the Commission corresponded with the parties on \nMarch 21, 2025 and established an initial briefing schedule.  The claimant \nfiled a timely request for an extension, and the Clerk of the Commission \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY) - G702350  2\n  \n \n \nestablished a revised briefing schedule:  “Claimant’s brief will now be due \n4/18/2025.  Respondents’ brief will be due 5/2/2025.  Claimant's reply brief \nwill be due 5/9/2025.”   \nThe claimant now moves to file a belated brief.  The claimant states, \namong other things, “The deadline for the brief to be filed was inadvertently \ncalendared for incorrect date (April 25, 2025 instead of April 18, 2025....The \nundersigned respectfully requests leave to file a belated Brief in Support of \nthe Petition for Review.”   \nThe Full Commission grants the claimant’s motion to file a belated \nbrief.  See Foster v. Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, Full Commission \nOpinion filed October 17, 2024 (H204851).  We note that both parties have \nsubmitted briefs on appeal.  The Full Commission directs the Clerk of the \nCommission to issue a final briefing schedule, so that the claimant may file a \nreply brief if desired, and so that the matter may be placed on our submission \ndocket for de novo review.   \nIT IS SO ORDERED.     \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n \n \n \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY) - G702350  3\n  \n \n \nCommissioner Mayton dissents. \n \nDISSENTING OPINION \n \nI must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion finding that the \nclaimant’s Motion to File a Belated Brief should be granted.  \nThe claimant filed a timely notice of appeal to the Full Commission.  \nThe claimant’s brief was originally due on April 4, 2025, but she requested an \nextension of time to file her brief, which was granted by the Clerk’s office with \nno objection by the respondents.  As a result of the extension, the claimant’s \nbrief was due on April 18, 2025.  The claimant tendered her brief on April 25, \n2025, and was advised by the Clerk’s office it could not be accepted since it \nwas filed late.  On May 2, 2025, the claimant filed a Motion to File Belated \nBrief stating that the deadline for the brief to be filed was inadvertently \ncalendared for April 25, 2025, instead of April 18, 2025. \nOur past cases reflect when a brief is not timely filed, a motion to file a \nbelated brief must be denied.  See Webb v. Webb, Full Commission Opinion \nfiled August 8, 2011 (F907467); Garth v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Full \nCommission Opinion filed December 17, 2009 (F803409); Hickey v. \nGardisser Constr., Full Commission Opinion filed January 13, 2008 (F609988 \n& F612976). \nIn a 2009 case before the Full Commission, we considered this exact \nissue, ultimately denying the claimant’s motion to file a belated brief: \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY) - G702350  4\n  \n \n \nThe Claimant’s brief will be due October 16, \n2009.  The Claimant did not file a brief until \nOctober 22, 2009.  The claimant moves to file a \nbelated brief and states in part, \"The Claimant's \nBrief was filed 6 days late due to the error of \nClaimant's counsel in misreading the September \n10, 2009 letter from the Commission. \" Because \nthe claimant's motion was untimely filed, we find \nthat it must be denied.  See Franklin v. Cross \nCounty Judge, Workers' Compensation \nCommission F810601 (July 31, 2009). \n \nPetty v. Telling Industries, Inc., Full Commission Opinion Filed December 7, \n2009 (F812228).  \nA review of the Full Commission opinions in the past reveals the vast \nmajority of motions to file belated briefs have been granted because there \nwas no objection by the opposing party.  In the case before us, the \nrespondent has filed an objection.   \nIn the very few cases where a motion to file a belated brief has been \ngranted with an objection filed by the opposing party, there has been a \ncompelling reason or good cause to grant the motion.  See Darrell Barton v. \nArkansas State University, Full Commission Opinion filed May 28, 2010 \n(F705259) and Sara J. Mickey v. Arkansas Methodist Hospital, Full \nCommission Opinion filed August 21, 2002 (F002633). \n In Monica Condrey v. Cedar America, Full Commission Opinion filed \nAugust 1, 2001 (E914507), the claimant filed a motion to file a belated brief \nattributing the late filing of the brief due to his business travel schedule.  Even \nthough it is not noted that the respondents objected to the motion, the Full \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY) - G702350  5\n  \n \n \nCommission, on its own, denied the motion stating, “In our opinion this does \nnot justify an extension.”  \n The Full Commission stated in John Kinkade v. Tri County Ranch & \nFarm Supply, Full Commission Opinion filed October 7, 2013 (G007478), \n“Counsel for claimant acknowledges that his brief was not timely filed ‘due to \na simple mistake caused by a busy schedule’... After our consideration of the \nClaimant’s motion, Respondents’ response thereto, and all other matters \nproperly before the Commission, we find that the Claimant’s Motion to file a \nbelated brief must be and hereby is, denied. \nHere, the majority relies on Foster v. Goodwill Industries of Arkansas \nto grant the claimant’s motion, Full Commission Opinion filed October 17, \n2024 (H204851).  However, our ruling in Foster was based on an internal \nerror within the Commission wherein the Clerk’s office failed to serve the \nbriefing schedule on the respondent’s attorney.  See Id.  In the present case, \nthe claimant’s attorney simply erred in properly entering the briefing schedule \ninto his personal calendar.  There is no correlation between this issue and the \nfacts in Foster. \nOur precedent is clear that an untimely filed motion to file a belated \nbrief should be denied, especially when the opposing party has objected, \nunless under extraordinary circumstances or for good cause shown.  There \nare no extraordinary circumstances in this matter.   \n\nHEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY) - G702350  6\n  \n \n \nTo grant this motion when the opposing party has objected would \nrepresent the first time the Full Commission has granted a motion to file a \nbelated brief where the attorney requesting the motion offers no compelling \nreason or good cause for the late filing, simply stating his brief was not timely \nfiled because of his own clerical error.  Therefore, the claimant’s motion \nshould be denied. \nAccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I must dissent. \n \n \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G702350 NANCY HEITMAN (FORMERLY COONEY), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NO. 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT NO. 1 DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL RESPONDENT NO. 2","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:44.080Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G702350-2025-08-22","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Heitman_Formerly-Cooney_Nancy_G702350_20250822.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}