{"id":"alj-H102591-2024-01-11","awcc_number":"H102591","decision_date":"2024-01-11","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Salvador Romero","employer_name":"Tyson Poultry, Inc","title":"ROMERO VS. TYSON POULTRY, INC. AWCC# H102591 JANUARY 11, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROMERO_SALVADOR_H102591_20240111.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ROMERO_SALVADOR_H102591_20240111.pdf","text_length":3337,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H102591 \n \nSALVADOR R. ROMERO, EMPLOYEE      CLAIMANT \n \nTYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER               RESPONDENT \n \nTYSON POULTRY, INC./TYNET CORP., CARRIER/TPA          RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 11 JANUARY 2024 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative  Law \nJudge JayO. Howe, 11 January 2024, in Pine Bluff, Jefferson County, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant failed to appear. \n \nMr. J.  Matthew Mauldin,  Attorney-at-Law  of  Little  Rock,  Arkansas,  appeared for  the \nrespondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Pine Bluff, \nArkansas, on 11 January 2024.  This case relates to a workplace injury sustained on 21 March \n2020.  A Form AR-4, dated 31 March 2021, was first filed with the Commission showing that \na number of benefits were paid to the claimant on his compensable injury/injuries.  A Form \nAR-C, dated 28 April 2022, was eventually filed on the claimant’s behalf by counsel with the \nWren Law Firm. The Wren Law Firm later requested to be relieved as counsel for the \nclaimant, and that request was granted by the Full Commission in an order dated 28 \nFebruary 2023. \n On 23 October 2023 the respondents filed the immediate Motion requesting that this \nmatter be dismissed for lack of prosecution.  Notice of the respondents’ Motion and then \nnotice of a hearing date for that Motion were sent to the claimant on 25 October 2023 and 20 \nNovember 2023, respectively.  I will note that it is the Commission’s practice for any mail \n\nROMERO- H102591 \n2 \n \nrelated to Motions to Dismiss is sent to a pro se claimant via USPS First-Class mail and \nUSPS Certified Mail.  Returned or undeliverable mail is added to the claimant’s file. The \nFirst-Class mailings of the above-noted notices were not returned to the Commission, but the \nCertified copies of those mailings were returned to the Commission as “unclaimed.”  \nThe  claimant  did  not  file  an  objection  to  the  dismissal  or  appear  at  the  hearing  to \nargue against the respondents’ Motion.  As argued by the respondents at the hearing, the file \nreflects no request for a hearing on a claim in the relevant time preceding the filing of that \nmotion.  Notice  of  that  motion  and  notice  of  the  hearing  on  that  motion  were  sent  to  the \naddress provided by the claimant, and the claimant chose not to appear to resist the Motion \nto Dismiss this  action.  The  respondents  appeared,  presented  their Motion,  and  offered \nsupporting evidence into the record. \n Arkansas Code  Annotated §11-9-702(a)(4)  states  that  a  matter  may  be  dismissed \nwithout prejudice after six (6) months without a bona fide request for a hearing.  Our Rule \n99.13 provides for a dismissal for failure to prosecute an action upon application by either \nparty.  Based on the record, the available evidence, and the arguments of the respondents’ \ncounsel, I find that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted and that the matter \nshould be dismissed without prejudice. \nVI.  ORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE. \nSO ORDERED. \n \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H102591 SALVADOR R. ROMERO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TYSON POULTRY, INC./TYNET CORP., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 11 JANUARY 2024 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:58:21.532Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H102591-2024-01-11","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROMERO_SALVADOR_H102591_20240111.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}