Court Opinion

ID: 9730055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:59:23.340964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:03.676803
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur with the result reached. Alcoa did not properly request the opportunity to present additional evidence. Several of its “documents” were simply hearsay statements and no substantial effort was made to comply with 640 I AC 1-11-8.
While I cannot accept the majority premises that for purposes of right to counsel employers are different from claimants, or that the failure of appellant to give the Northeastern 2d citation to Sandlin v. Rev. Bd. (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 328 results in a waiver of error, I am forced to agree that Alcoa has not presented a basis for reversal. The problem had its inception because Alcoa failed to attend the hearing of February 5, 1981 of which it apparently had proper notice, including where the hearing was to be held. I find the case *61distinguishable from Sandlin on that basis. Sandlin attended his hearing. He thereby preserved the prejudice resulting from his not being advised of the right to counsel. Alcoa failed to attend its hearing, and while it asserts on appeal that its agent went to the wrong place, it has failed to properly present any such issue in the record. I do not believe it can claim harmful error because it was not advised it had the right to counsel at a hearing it simply failed to attend.
I therefore concur in result.