Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dura Craft Boats, Inc. v. Daugherty
Citations: 247 Ark. 125; 444 S.W.2d 562; 1969 Ark. LEXIS 1073Docket: 5-4972
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 15, 1969; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Dura Craft Boats, Inc. and Employers Insurance of Wausau are appealing a circuit court order that ruled the workmen's compensation claim of employee Daugherty was not barred by the statute of limitations. The appellants argue that the claim is barred under Ark. Stat. Ann. 81-1318. The circuit court correctly overturned the Workmen’s Compensation Commission's ruling that the claim was barred but erred by awarding compensation to Daugherty. Daugherty suffered a compensable injury on April 6, 1963, and received temporary total disability benefits for approximately 13 weeks, with the last payment in September 1963. Daugherty’s attorney filed a claim on December 8, 1964, but the claim was put on hold by the Commission, which required further action from the parties involved. In 1965, Daugherty's attorney withdrew due to lack of contact, prompting the carrier to request dismissal of the claim for lack of prosecution, which the Commission granted on October 26, 1965. Daugherty later contended that he was not notified of the dismissal, arguing a violation of due process. The Commission ruled that the statute of limitations had expired on a subsequent claim filed on December 7, 1966. Daugherty appealed this ruling. The appellants maintain the dismissal was valid and properly served, while Daugherty argues for the applicability of Ark. Stat. Ann. 29-107, which the court found inapplicable to the Commission’s order, affirming that the Commission is not bound by strict procedural rules. The Commission is authorized to create rules for administering the act, including dismissing claims for lack of prosecution upon reasonable notice. The procedural rule mandates that a claimant must receive reasonable notice before their claim is dismissed for lack of prosecution, allowing the claimant the opportunity to contest the dismissal and demonstrate that it lacks merit. In this case, no notice was provided, which is intended to protect the claimant's rights. The absence of notice before dismissal is critical, as post-dismissal notice does not offer the same protection. The court referenced prior cases indicating that a party not properly notified is entitled to have a decree vacated. Daugherty, the claimant, asserted he did not receive the dismissal notice, as there was no proof of delivery, and he had moved addresses. Testimony confirmed that there was no contact regarding the dismissal prior to its issuance. Given these circumstances, the trial judge's determination that the dismissal order was void is upheld. The circuit court improperly attempted to assess the extent of Daugherty's permanent disability, a matter that should have been decided by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, necessitating a remand to the Commission for further proceedings. There is no evidence that Daugherty’s attorney requested the Commission's involvement prior to the dismissal.