{"id":"alj-H001216-2023-02-24","awcc_number":"H001216","decision_date":"2023-02-24","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Haynie","employer_name":"Linen King, LLC","title":"HAYNIE VS. LINEN KING, LLC AWCC# H001216 FEBRUARY 24, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1","denied:4"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HAYNIE_JAMES_H001216_20230224.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"HAYNIE_JAMES_H001216_20230224.pdf","text_length":5569,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H001216 \n \nJAMES HAYNIE, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nLINEN KING, LLC, EMPLOYER                                                                            RESPONDENT  \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, CARRIER                                  RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge Steven  Porch on  February 23,  2023 in Little \nRock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se. \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a Motion  to Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on  February 23,  2023 in Little \nRock, Arkansas.  Claimant, who is pro se, appeared in person and testified.  Respondents \nwere represented at the hearing by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, of Little Rock, \nArkansas.  In addition to Claimant’s testimony, the record consists of the Commission’s \nfile–which has been incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. \n The evidence reflects that per the First Report of Injury or Illness filed on February \n26, 2020, Claimant purportedly injured his right shoulder at work on February 14, 2020 \nwhen tearing  open  bags.    According  to  Form  AR-2  that  was filed  on March 3,  2020, \nRespondents accepted  this  injury  as  compensable  and  paid  medical  and  indemnity \nbenefits pursuant thereto.  At some point, soon after, Claimant hired legal counsel, Laura \nBeth York, who filed Form AR-C, asking for a full range of benefits on February 16, 2022.  \n\nHaynie – H001216 \n \n 2 \nHowever, on July 29, 2022, Ms. York filed a Motion to Withdraw from this case. The Full \nCommission granted Ms. York’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on August 9, 2022. Since \nthen, the case has been inactive until Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to the \nlack of prosecution. A hearing was set February 23, 2023, in Little Rock, Arkansas on the \nMotion to Dismiss. The hearing took place as scheduled. \nAt  the  hearing, the Claimant appeared  and  testified.  Respondents  argued  for \ndismissal under Rule 13. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole  and  other  matters  properly  before  the \nCommission, and having had an opportunity to hear the sworn testimony of the Claimant, \nI  hereby  make  the following findings of fact and  conclusions  of  law  in accordance  with \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over  this \nclaim. \n2. All  parties  received  notice  of  the Motion  to Dismiss  and  the  hearing  thereon \npursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. \n3. Respondents did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion to Dismiss should be, and hereby is, denied. \n5. Claimant has requested a hearing on his claim. \n6. This matter will proceed to a hearing on the merits. \n \n \n\nHaynie – H001216 \n \n 3 \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the  claim  be \ndismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable \nnotice  to  all  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for  want  of \nprosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \nUnder  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(3)  (Repl.  2012),  Respondents  must  prove  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  dismissal  should  be  granted.    The  standard \n“preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium \nCorp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879 S.W.2d  457 (1994).    The determination  of a  witness’ \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission.  White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  \nThe Commission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  \nIn so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or \nany other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions \nof the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n At the hearing, Claimant objected to a dismissal and testified that it is his desire to \nproceed to another hearing on his claim.  He is seeking additional benefits in the form of \nmedical mileage and prescription medication. \n\nHaynie – H001216 \n \n 4 \n After  consideration  of  the  evidence,  I  find  that  Claimant  and  Respondents  were \ngiven reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing under Rule 13.  I further find \nthat Claimant has not yet abridged this rule.  The Motion to Dismiss is thus denied. \n Prehearing questionnaires will be immediately issued to the parties, and this matter \nwill proceed to a full hearing on the merits. \nCONCLUSION \n Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby denied. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H001216 JAMES HAYNIE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LINEN KING, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on February 23, 2023 in Little Rock, Pulaski Co...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:10:39.336Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H001216-2023-02-24","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/HAYNIE_JAMES_H001216_20230224.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}