{"id":"alj-H101998-2023-07-11","awcc_number":"H101998","decision_date":"2023-07-11","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Thurman Farris","employer_name":"Nice Pak Products, Inc","title":"FARRIS VS. NICE PAK PRODUCTS, INC. AWCC# H101998 JULY 11, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","denied:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Farris_Thurman_H101998_20230711.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Farris_Thurman_H101998_20230711.pdf","text_length":7643,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H101998 \n \n \nTHURMAN FARRIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nNICE PAK PRODUCTS, INC., \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nHARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 11, 2023 \n \nHearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on  July 7, 2023, \nin Jonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se. \n \nRespondents  represented  by  Mr.  A.  Gene Williams,  Attorney at  Law,  Jonesboro, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on  July  7,  2023,  in \nJonesboro, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant was pro se.  \nWithout  objection,  the  Commission’s  file  on  the  claim  has  been  incorporated \nherein in its entirety by reference. \n The record reveals the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  February  24,  2021,  Claimant \npurportedly  suffered  an  injury  to  his  upper  torso on February  20,  2021, when  he \nbecame  pinned  between  two  forklifts  at  work.  According  to  the  Form  AR-2  filed \n\nFARRIS – H101998 \n \non  November  17,  2021,  Respondents  accepted  the  claim  as  a  medical-only  one \nand furnished benefits pursuant thereto. \n Then-counsel Daniel Wren entered his appearance before the Commission \non behalf of Claimant on March 11, 2021.  No Form AR-C accompanied this filing, \nhowever.    Respondents’  counsel  followed  suit  on  June  3,  2021.    On  January  4, \n2022  , Wren moved to withdraw from his representation of Claimant.  In an order \nentered  on  January  14,  2022,  the  Full  Commission  granted  the  motion  under \nAWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n Claimant  sent  a  handwritten  communication  that  was  received  by  the \nCommission on July 1, 2022.  It reads: \n6-  23-22 \n \nHi: \n \nMy name is Thurman Farris. \nI want you to open my case. \n \nMy number \n870-317-3317 \n \n/s/ Thurman Farris \nThank you \n \nThe   Legal   Advisor   Division—to   whom   the   file   was   initially   assigned—sent \nquestionnaires   to   the   parties.      Both   responded   by   agreeing   to   mediate.  \nRespondents’ counsel  went  further,  writing  on  July  20,  2022:   “We  have  no  clue \nwhat Mr. Farris wants.   He was released [from] medical care in September 2021 \nand  we  have  heard  nothing  from  him  since.”    At  a  July  28,  2022, legal  advisor \n\nFARRIS – H101998 \n \nconference that had been scheduled, any outstanding issues were resolved.  The \nfile was returned to the Commission’s general files that same day. \n The  record  reflects  that  no  further  action  took  place  on  this  claim  until \nMarch 27, 2023, when Respondents filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.  Therein, \nthey  argued  that  dismissal  of  the  claim  was  warranted  under  AWCC  R.  099.13, \nand  alleged  that  Claimant had  not  prosecuted  his  claim  for  eight  months.    On \nMarch  28,  2023,  my  office  wrote  Claimant,  asking  for  a  response  to  the  motion \nwithin 20  days.    This  certified  letter  was  claimed  on  April  6,  2023,  by  someone \nwith   an   illegible   signature;   and   the   first-class   letter   containing   the   same \ncorrespondence,  likewise  sent  to  the  address  supplied  to  the  Commission  by \nClaimant,   was   not   returned.      Nonetheless,   no   response   from   him   was \nforthcoming.      On   May   15,   2023,   a   hearing   on   Respondents’   motion   was \nscheduled for July 7, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. at the Craighead County Courthouse in \nJonesboro,  Arkansas.    The  Notice  of  Hearing  was  sent  to  Claimant by  certified \nand  first-class  mail  to  the  same  address  as  before.    In  this  instance,  Claimant \nsigned  for  the  certified  letter  on  May  18,  2023.    The  first-class  letter  was  never \nreturned.    Thus,  the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  notice  reached  its  proper \ndestination. \n The hearing proceeded as scheduled on July 7, 2023.  Claimant appeared \nat the hearing and testified, objecting to a dismissal.  He asked that, in the event \nthat  this  matter  is  not  dismissed,  a  hearing  be  scheduled  on  his  entitlement  to \nadditional benefits.  Respondents, in turn, argued for dismissal under the Rule 13. \n\nFARRIS – H101998 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions  of  law  are  hereby  made  in  accordance  with  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-\n704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction \nover this matter. \n2. No Form AR-C has ever been filed in connection with this matter. \n3. No other document before the Commission in this matter constitutes \na  claim  for  additional  benefits  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  § 11-9-702(c) \n(Repl. 2012). \n4. Respondents’ Motion  to  Dismiss  is  denied  because  no  claim  exists \nto be subject to dismissal. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13 reads: \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in \nan action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim \nbe  dismissed  for  want  of  prosecution,  the  Commission  may,  upon \nreasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim \nfor want of prosecution. \n \nSee  generally  Johnson  v.  Triple  T  Foods,  55  Ark.  App.  83,  85,  929  S.W.2d  730 \n(1996)(discussing, inter alia, Rule 13). \n Under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(3)  (Repl.  2012),  Respondents  must \nprove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  this matter  should  be  dismissed.  \n\nFARRIS – H101998 \n \nThis  standard  means  the  evidence  having  greater  weight  or  convincing  force.  \nBarre 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 No  Form  AR-C  has  been  filed  in  this  case.    That  is  the  means  for  filing a \n“formal  claim.”   See  Yearwood  v.  Wal-Mart  Stores,  Inc.,  2003  AR  Wrk.  Comp. \nLEXIS  739,  Claim  No.  F201311 (Full  Commission  Opinion  filed  June  17,  2003).  \nSee also Sinclair v. Magnolia Hospital, 1998 AR Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 786, Claim No. \nE703502 (Full Commission Opinion filed December 22, 1998)(a claim is “typically” \nfiled via  a  Form  AR-C).    While  a  Form AR-1  was  filed,  that  does  not  suffice  to \ninstigate a claim.  Id. \n Per Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(c) (Repl. 2012): \nA claim for additional compensation must specifically state that it is \na  claim  for  additional  compensation.    Documents  which  do  not \nspecifically  request  additional  benefits  shall  not  be  considered  a \nclaim for additional compensation. \n \n(Emphasis added)  See White Cty. Judge v. Menser, 2020 Ark. 140, 597 S.W.3d \n640. \n My  review  of  the  Commission’s  file  discloses  no  document  sufficient  to \nconstitute a filing of a claim for additional benefits under the standard cited above.  \nBecause  no  claim  has  been  filed,  it  follows  that  there  is  no  claim  subject  to \ndismissal  per Respondents’  motion.    The Motion  to  Dismiss  thus  must  be,  and \nhereby is, denied. \n\nFARRIS – H101998 \n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  set  forth \nabove, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H101998 THURMAN FARRIS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NICE PAK PRODUCTS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 11, 2023 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on July 7, 2023, in Jonesboro...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:05:08.321Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H101998-2023-07-11","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Farris_Thurman_H101998_20230711.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}