Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 263 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA10-639 CAL JONES Opinion Delivered APRIL 6, 2011 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. E901291] SMITH-BLAIR, INC., and PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO. APPELLEES AFFIRMED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Cal Jones appeals a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that his claim for a permanent anatomical rating to the body as a whole was barred by res judicata and that he had failed to prove that he was suffering from reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). In an opinion dated February 23, 2011, we declined to reach the merits of Mr. Jones’s appeal because his abstract, brief, and addendum were woefully deficient. We ordered Mr. Jones to file a compliant brief within fifteen days, or the decision of the Commission would be summarily affirmed. On March 10, 2011, Mr. Jones once again tendered a noncompliant brief. We note that Mr. Jones has been given ample opportunity to comply with our rules. Mr. Jones first attempted to file his brief on July 30, 2010, but his brief was rejected by the clerk for noncompliance. The clerk’s office sent Jones a letter explaining his deficiencies and
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 263 provided him with a copy of the rules, as well as a copy of a compliant brief for reference. He was given seven days to resubmit a compliant brief. Jones thereafter filed a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file his brief. We granted him a ninety-day extension. Despite the extra time allowed by the court, Mr. Jones filed another noncompliant brief. We then gave him an additional fifteen days to bring his brief into compliance with our rules. He has failed to do so. Appellants, even those who proceed pro se, are responsible for following the rules of appellate procedure, and pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. Perry v. State, 287 Ark. 384, 699 S.W.2d 739 (1985); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984). As the brief before us is still not in compliance, we summarily affirm the Commission’s decision. Affirmed. GLOVER and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree. 2
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.