| IN RE: RANDY C. SQUANCE | ) | DOCKET NO. 00 14707 |
| ) | ||
| CLAIM NO. T-689766 | ) | ORDER DENYING EMPLOYER'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER |
| ) |
The claimant, Randy C. Squance, filed an appeal on July 26, 2000, from an order of the Department of Labor and Industries dated June 15, 2000. The order affirmed an order dated December 23, 199, that denied the claimant's application to reopen the claim. On August 7, 2001, our industrial appeals judge issued a Proposed Decision and Order that reversed the Department order and remanded the matter with directions to issue an order reopening the claim for medical treatment and such other action as required. On August 29, 2001, we received from the self-insured employer a request for extension of time in which to file a petition for review. The time for filing a petition for review was extended until September 17, 2001, having received no petition for review, the Board issued an Order Adopting Proposed Decision and Order.
On September 25, 2001, we received from the self-insured employer a letter requesting us to vacate the Order Adopting Proposed Decision and Order. The Board has authority to consider a timely motion filed under CR60(b)(1). Wells v. Olsten Corp., 104 Wn. App. 135 (2001). After consideration of the self-insured employer's motion, the claimant's response and the records and files contained hereine, we determine that the employer's motion must be denied. The provisions of RCW 51.52.104 govern the filing of petitions for review. The statute is clear in its mandate, that absent the filing of a petition for review within either 20 days of communication of the Proposed Decision and Order or within an extended time allowed by the Board, the Proposed Decision and Order of our industrial appeals judge shall be deemed adopted as the Board's final determination. Because a petition for review was not filed within the time for filing a petition for review as extended, RCW 51.52.104 requires that the Proposed Decision and Order be adopted.
In this instance, the statement of the self-insured employer's attorney indicates that after a timely request for an extension of time to file a petition for review no response was received until the Order Adopting Proposed Decision and Order. Our records reflect that the self-insured employer's attorney was sent a letter indicating that the time in which to file a petition for review was extended to September 17, 2001. The representative should have known to follow-up on a request for an extension of time prior to the expiration of the 20 days. We note that the granting of an extension of time is permissive and the Board is not required to extend the time merely because a party makes a request. If a party has not received notification of an extension, it seems that the appropriate manner in which to proceed for any party requesting an extension of time is to take steps to ensure that the extension has been granted. Otherwise, a party should proceed as if there had been no extension and file a petition for review within 20 days of receipt of the Proposed Decision and Order. We consider it inexcusable to wait more than 30 days, as was done here, without contacting the Board to verify the status of the request of an extension of time in which to file a petition for review. The attorney's failure to ascertain whether the request for an extension had been granted does not justify relief. We do not consider the failure as excusable neglect under CR 60(b)(1). See, e.g., B&J Roofing v. BIIA, 66 Wn. App. 871 (1992). [2]
Accordingly, there has been no showing sufficient to justify relief in this matter. Because the adoption of the Proposed Decision and Order, as our final order, is the only permissible outcome of this matter, the employer's motion for relief must be denied.
It is so ORDERED.
DATED: January 24, 2002
BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS
/s/
THOMAS E. EGAN Chairperson
/s/
FRANK E. FENNERTY, JR. Member
/s/
JUDITH E. SCHURKE Member