{"id":"alj-G908137-2023-01-09","awcc_number":"G908137","decision_date":"2023-01-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Lexington Arthur","employer_name":"Staffmark Investments, LLC","title":"ARTHUR VS. STAFFMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC AWCC# G908137 JANUARY 9, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//ARTHUR_LEXINGTON__G908137_20230109.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ARTHUR_LEXINGTON__G908137_20230109.pdf","text_length":6069,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. G908137 \n \nLEXINGTON S. ARTHUR, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nSTAFFMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nINDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ \nCCMSI \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                     RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION AND ORDER FILED JAUNUARY 9, 2023 \nHOLDING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN \nABEYANCE FOR 45 DAYS \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, January 4, 2023, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge  (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe  claimant,  Mr.  Lexington  S.  Arthur,  pro  se,  of  Hot  Springs,  Garland  County,  Arkansas, \nappeared in person at the hearing.  \n \nThe  respondents  were  represented  by  the  Honorable  Jarrod  Parrish,  Worley,  Wood  &  Parrish, \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n  A hearing was conducted on Wednesday, January 4, 2023, to determine whether this claim \nshould be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2022) \nLexis  Replacement)  and  Commission  Rule  099.13  (2022  Lexis  Repl.).  The  respondents  filed  a \nletter  motion  to  dismiss  with  the  Commission  on  November  14,  2022,  requesting  this  claim  be \ndismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.  \n           In accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the claimant was mailed due and proper legal \nnotice of both the  respondents’ motion to dismiss as well as a copy of the hearing notice at his \ncurrent addresses of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail,  \n\nLexington S. Arthur, AWCC No. G908137 \n \n2 \n \nReturn Receipt Requested, which he  received on  November 19, 2022. (Commission Exhibit 1). \nBy letter dated November 29, 2022, the claimant attached a copy of the Form AR-C that he initially \nfiled with the Commission. He stated he wanted... \n                     ...to request a continuance of my workers’ compensation claim due  \n                     to additional medical expenses. The employer is aware that I have a  \n                     lifetime of medical procedures required due to my workplace injuries.  \n                     I also need my medical records. \n \n(AWCC File, Claimant’s Letter to the Commission dated November 29, 2022, Claimant’s Exhibit \n1).  \n          The hearing was recessed to allow the claimant (as well as his father and grandmother who \nattended the hearing with him) the opportunity to talk to one of the Commission’s legal advisors \nand, thereafter, to the respondents’ attorney. When the parties went back on the record it appeared \nthere  may  exist  an  issue  as  to  what  extent  the  claimant  may  require  future  medical  treatment – \nspecifically, “continued vascular lab surveillance for life.” (Cl’s Ex. 1A; Respondents’ Ex. 1).  \n The  record  herein  consists  of  the  hearing  transcript  and  any  and  all  exhibits  contained \ntherein and attached thereto, as well as the Commission’s entire file in this matter by reference. \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4), as well as our court of appeals’ ruling \nin Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), \nthe Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the respondents’ motion to dismiss. Rather \nthan  recite  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  record,  suffice  it  to  say  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nintroduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively demonstrates the claimant has \nneither requested a hearing made an informed decision not to pursue this claim. \n\nLexington S. Arthur, AWCC No. G908137 \n \n3 \n \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and other \nrelevant matters of record, and as I advised the parties on the record at the hearing, I hereby make \nthe following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n 2. The ALJ will hold in abeyance a decision on the respondents’ subject motion to \n                  dismiss without prejudice for a period of 45 days, or until Monday, February 20, \n                  2023 (since 45 days from the hearing date falls on a Saturday). \n \n      3.         The parties have 45 days from the hearing date, or until Monday, February 20, \n                  2023, to obtain any and all additional information they require and to attempt to  \n                  resolve any and all outstanding issues, if any remain.  \n \n      4.        If, after the expiration of this 45-day time-period the claimant does not request, in \n                 writing (with a copy to the respondents’ attorney, of course), a hearing before the \n                 Commission and advise both the Commission and the respondents exactly what \n                 specific issues he believes are ripe for a hearing, the ALJ will grant the respondents’  \n                 motion to dismiss filed November 14, 2022, without prejudice, and without the \n                 necessity of either the respondents filing another motion, and without holding \n                 another hearing on the motion. \n \n     If they have not already done so, the respondents shall pay the court reporter’s invoice within \n \n twenty (20) days of the filing of this opinion and order. \n \n     IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n \n                                                                                               ______________________________ \n                                                                                               Mike Pickens \n                                                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G908137 LEXINGTON S. ARTHUR, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT STAFFMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ CCMSI INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER FILED JAUNUARY 9, 2023 HOLDING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOU...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:11:04.647Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-G908137-2023-01-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//ARTHUR_LEXINGTON__G908137_20230109.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}