{"id":"alj-H008231-2024-10-17","awcc_number":"H008231","decision_date":"2024-10-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Keith Monroe","employer_name":"Arkansas Department Of Correction","title":"MONROE VS. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AWCC# H008231 October 17, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MONROE_KEITH_H008231_20241017.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"MONROE_KEITH_H008231_20241017.pdf","text_length":10659,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H008231 \n \n \nKEITH MONROE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION \n(BENTON WORK RELEASE),   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT     \n \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                               RESPONDENT                                                                                  \n          \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 17, 2024   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Pulaski County, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant  represented  by  the  Honorable  Timothy  J.  Myers,  Attorney  at  Law,  Fayetteville, \nArkansas. Mr. Myers waived his appearance at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Charles H. McLemore, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A  hearing  was  held  on October 16,  2024 ,  in  the  present  matter  pursuant  to Dillard  v. \nBenton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), to determine whether \nthe above-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the transcript of October 16, 2024, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  Respondents’  Exhibit  1 consists of twelve (12) numbered   pages   of pleadings, \ncorrespondence, and various other forms related to this claim. \n\nMONROE-H008231 \n \n2 \n \n                                                                 Procedural History \n On October 6,  2022, the Claimant’s attorney filed with the Commission a claim for \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits on behalf of the Claimant via a Form AR-C.  Per this \ndocument, the Claimant alleged that he sustained injuries to his back and hip during the course and \nin the scope of his employment with the respondent-employer, October 7, 2020.  The Claimant’s \nattorney  requested  initial  benefits  in  the  form  of  temporary  total  disability compensation, \npermanent  partial  disability benefits,  rehabilitation,  and  attorney’s  fees.    He  also  requested \nadditional  benefits, including  additional  temporary  total  disability,  additional  temporary  partial \ndisability,  additional  permanent  partial,  additional  medical  expenses,  rehabilitation,  and  an \nattorney’s fee. \n Per an email dated that same date, the Claimant’s attorney requested that a hearing be \nscheduled in this matter.  However, no further action was taken in this regard.  \n  The respondent-insurance-carrier filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission on November \n10, 2020.  Per this form, the Respondents accepted this claim to be compensable.   \n No hearing was scheduled.  Instead, the Claimant requested and was granted a change of \nphysician on March 2, 2023.  The Claimant’s attorney obtained a Change of Physician Order from \nthe Commission for the Claimant to change from treating with Dr. Victor Vargas to start treating \nwith Dr. Joel Smith.   \nSince this time, the Claimant has not attempted to pursue or otherwise resolve his claim.  \nNo subsequent bona fide request for a hearing has been made in the Claimant’s case since October \n6, 2022. \n   \n\nMONROE-H008231 \n \n3 \n \n On September 24, 2024, the Respondents filed a Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss for Want \nof  Prosecution,  with  the  Commission,  along  with a  Certificate  of  Service  to  the Claimant’s \nattorney.  \n The  Commission  sent  a letter to  the Claimant  and  his attorney on September  30,  2024, \ninforming Claimant of the Respondents’ motion, and a deadline of twenty (20) days, for filing a \nwritten response.  Said letter was mailed to the Claimant by both first-class and certified mail.  The \nletter sent by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission. \nThe Claimant’s attorney sent an email to the Commission on October 8, 2024, stating, “We \nhave no objection to the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.”         \n Pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated October 8, 2024, the Commission notified the parties \nthat the matter had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said hearing \nwas  scheduled  for October 16, 2024, at the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission in \nLittle Rock, Arkansas. \nThe hearing was held as scheduled.  The Claimant’s attorney waived his appearance at the \nhearing, and the Claimant did not appear at the hearing.  The Respondents’ counsel argued that the \nClaimant has failed to prosecute his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  He further noted \nthat the Claimant has not taken any affirmative action to prosecute his claim in more than six (6) \nmonths.  More specifically, Respondents’ counsel noted that the Claimant has not taken any action \nto advance his claim since the filing of the Form AR-C, which was done more than two (2) years \nago.   \nTherefore, the Respondents’ attorney moved that this claim be dismissed pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13 with or without prejudice on this claim for \nboth initial and additional workers’ compensation benefits.   \n\nMONROE-H008231 \n \n4 \n \nAdjudication \nThe statutory provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable in the  \nRespondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4):  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim may, upon \nmotion and after hearing, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claim \nwithin limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \nAdditionally, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, no \nbona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice \nto the refiling of the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section. \n \nCommission Rule 099.13 reads:  \n \nThe Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance \nof either party or on its own motion.  No case set for hearing shall be postponed \nexcept by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \nIn the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed \nby  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law  Judge,  and  such  dismissal  order  will \nbecome  final  unless  an  appeal  is  timely  taken  therefrom  or  a  proper  motion  to \nreopen  is  filed  with  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an  action \npending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of \nprosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an \norder dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.  (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \n            A review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue his claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, but he has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant has not \nrequested a hearing or otherwise made any effort to prosecute his claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits since the filing of the Form AR-C, over two years ago; and nor has he resisted the motion \n\nMONROE-H008231 \n \n5 \n \nfor dismissal.  In fact, the Claimant’s attorney has notified the Commission in writing that he does \nnot object to this claim being dismissed without prejudice.   \nHere, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to prosecute this claim for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  Moreover, I am convinced that the Claimant has abandoned this \nclaim.   \nTherefore,  after  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  I  find that the Respondents’ \nmotion  to dismiss for  a  lack  of  prosecution to  be  well  taken.  I thus find  that  pursuant  to the \nprovisions of Ark. Code Ann.§11-9-702, and Commission Rule  099.13,  this  claim for workers’ \ncompensation benefits should be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling within the limitation \nperiod specified under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”). \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn  the  basis  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704. \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant has not requested a hearing since his attorney filed the Form \nAR-C, which was done two years ago.  Hence, the evidence preponderates \nthat   the   Claimant   has   failed   to   prosecute   his claim  for  workers’ \ncompensation benefits based upon the relevant statutory provisions of Ark. \nCode Ann. 11-9-702, and Rule 099.13 of this Commission.       \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for lack of  prosecution  is \nhereby  granted, without  prejudice,  per  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and \nCommission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation period \nspecified by law.  \n \n\nMONROE-H008231 \n \n6 \n \n                                                           ORDER \n \n Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I have no alternative \nbut to dismiss this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is per Ark. Code Ann. \n§11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice to the refiling  \nof this claim within the limitation period specified under the Act. \n          IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               Chandra L. Black \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H008231 KEITH MONROE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (BENTON WORK RELEASE), EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 17, 2024 Hearing held before Administrative Law Jud...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:47:45.638Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H008231-2024-10-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/MONROE_KEITH_H008231_20241017.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}