Court Opinion

ID: 9774670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:29:18.349291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:13.035331
License: Public Domain

FONES, Justice,
dissenting.
The error in the proceeding in this case was committed by the Board of Review when it denied Plaintiff’s motion for a rehearing when she appeared with counsel obtained through the Legal Services Office in Columbia. The record in this case is replete with Plaintiff’s tardiness and she was also tardy in finding a free lawyer, but she was able to do so without a “one extra sentence on the form advising claimants that if they could not afford counsel, free or low-cost counsel might be available.”
The problem with that one sentence remedy in my opinion, is that if it is needed, it is insufficient. It should contain the name, address and telephone number of all Legal Service offices and Lawyer Referral Service offices in the area. Even then there *27will be instances when a claimant will appear without counsel and after losing seek a rehearing with counsel. When they do, I say, give them a rehearing.
I agree that all claimants are entitled to a fair hearing. I think the one sentence addition is inadequate to insure that all claimants will appear with counsel. There will always be those who will not complain until they have lost at the hearing level, regardless of what information the notice contains. The only cure for those claimants is to give them another hearing with counsel, whenever they decide to ask for it.