ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

EN BANC

CA03-1299

September 29, 2004

BAXTER REGIONAL MEDICAL AN APPEAL FROM ARKANSAS

CENTER WORKERS' COMPENSATION

APPELLANT COMMISSION [E112173]

V.

ARLENE DIXON DISSENTING OPINION TO GRANT

APPELLEE OF MOTION BY APPELLEE FOR

ADDITIONAL BRIEF TIME

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge

I would vote to deny appellee's motion for extension to file a brief. In most instances I vote to extend litigants additional time to file briefs. I do so because we are better served as appellate judges by receiving arguments from all parties to an appeal. Yet, no litigant has a right to indefinitely postpone the time to file a brief. There comes a point when additional delay in receiving briefs works as an undue burden on the litigating parties. Until the briefs are filed, the appeal cannot be submitted for decision. Until the appeal is submitted, we cannot decide the questions presented by the appeal. Until we decide the appeal, the litigants are in limbo regarding their rights and responsibilities.

The one-volume record from this workers' compensation appeal was first lodged in our court on November 17, 2003, ten months ago. On December 22, 2003, we granted a motion to supplement the record and remanded the record to the Commission for that purpose. The one-volume supplemented record was lodged on February 12, 2004. Appellant's brief was timely filed on March 11, 2004. Counsel for appellee checked out thetwo-volume record (the original record plus the one-volume supplement) on April 8, 2004, three days before the thirty-day period in which the brief for appellee would have been due. Since that time we have granted four requests for additional time (April 12, May 19, July 28, and August 25, 2004). When we entered our order on August 25, I joined the decision to grant thirty additional days for appellee to file her brief, but indicated that would be my final vote to extend the briefing schedule. At that time, appellee's brief was due September 25, 2004. On September 8, appellee filed her fifth motion to extend the briefing schedule, again requesting thirty additional days to file the brief.

I do not question the good faith of counsel for appellee. However, at some point our court must decide whether we mean anything by the time periods we prescribe for litigants to submit the documents they expect us to consider in deciding appeals. While there is no hard and fast rule for how long it should take a litigant to file a brief in a workers' compensation appeal involving a two-volume record, we have already given appellee 151 days to file her brief. I see no reason to further delay the time for submitting this appeal for decision. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the decision to grant appellee's request for thirty additional days to file her brief. I am authorized to state that Judge Crabtree joins this opinion.