{"id":"alj-H103334-2023-02-08","awcc_number":"H103334","decision_date":"2023-02-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jonathan Woodall","employer_name":"Hill & Cox Corp","title":"WOODALL VS. HILL & COX CORP. AWCC# H103334 FEBRUARY 8, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WOODALL_JONATHAN_H103344_20230208.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WOODALL_JONATHAN_H103344_20230208.pdf","text_length":4808,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H103334 \n \nJONATHAN WOODALL,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nHILL & COX CORP., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT \n \nVALLEY FORGE INS. CO./ \nCNA INS. CO., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n                                                                                                                     \n \nOPINION AND ORDER TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \nFILED FEBRUARY 8, 2023 \n \nHearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission), \nAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Mr. Jonathan Woodall, pro se, of Bismarck, Hot Spring County, Arkansas, failed \nand/or refused to appear at the hearing. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Karen H. McKinney, Barber Law Firm, \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n     A hearing  was conducted on Wednesday, January 18, 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 Replacement). \n     The  respondents  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  with  the  Commission  on  December  12,  2022, \nrequesting  this  claim  be  dismissed  for  lack  of  prosecution.  Pursuant  to  the  applicable  law,  the \nclaimant was mailed a copy of the respondents’ motion to dismiss (MTD) and the hearing notice \nvia  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS),  First  Class  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested. \n(Commission  Exhibit  1).  Thereafter,  the  claimant  failed  and/or  refused  to  either  respond  to  the \nrespondents’ motion in any way, or to appear at the subject hearing. \n\nJonathan Woodall, AWCC No. H103334 \n \n2 \n \n     The record herein consists of the hearing transcript and any and all exhibits contained therein \nand attached thereto, as well as the Commission’s entire file in this matter. \nDISCUSSION \n     Consistent  with Ark.  Code  Ann.§  11-9-702(a)(4),  as  well  as  our  court  of  appeals’  ruling  in \nDillard 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’ MTD. Rather than recite \na detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the preponderance of the evidence introduced at \nthe hearing and contained in the record conclusively reveals the claimant has failed and/or refused \nto prosecute his claim at this time. \n     Therefore,  after  a  thorough  consideration  of  the  facts,  issues,  the  applicable  law,  and  other \nrelevant matters of record, I hereby make the following: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. After  having  been  mailed due  and  legal  notice  of  both  the  respondents’  MTD  and  the \nhearing notice, the claimant failed and/or refused to either respond to the MTD or to appear \nat the hearing. Therefore, the claimant has waived his right to a hearing on the respondents’ \nMTD without prejudice. \n \n3. The claimant has to date failed and/or refused to request a hearing within the last six (6) \nmonths, and he has failed and/or refused to take any action(s) to prosecute his claim. \n \n4. Therefore,  the respondents’  MTD  without  prejudice  filed  on  December  12,  2022, is \nGRANTED; and this claim hereby is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling pursuant \nto  the  deadlines  prescribed  by Ark.  Code  Ann.  Section  11-9-702(a)  and  (b),  and \nCommission Rule 099.13. \n \n     This Order shall not be construed to prohibit the claimant, his attorney, any attorney he may \nretain in the future, or anyone acting legally and on his behalf, from refiling the claim if it is \nrefiled within the applicable time periods prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a) and (b). \n\nJonathan Woodall, AWCC No. H103334 \n \n3 \n \n     The respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court reporter’s invoice within twenty (20) \ndays of its receipt thereof. \n     IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                                     \n____________________________                                                                      \n                                                                        Mike Pickens \n                                                                         Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H103334 JONATHAN WOODALL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HILL & COX CORP., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT VALLEY FORGE INS. CO./ CNA INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2023 Hearing conducted before the Arkansas Workers...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:10:12.123Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H103334-2023-02-08","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WOODALL_JONATHAN_H103344_20230208.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}