{"id":"alj-H108896-2023-12-13","awcc_number":"H108896","decision_date":"2023-12-13","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Randy Turner","employer_name":"Hytrol Conveyor Co., Inc","title":"TURNER VS. HYTROL CONVEYOR CO., INC. AWCC# H108896 DECEMBER 13, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:2","granted:5"],"injury_keywords":["hip"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Turner_Randy_H108896_20231213.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Turner_Randy_H108896_20231213.pdf","text_length":5372,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H108896 \n \nRANDY TURNER, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nHYTROL CONVEYOR CO., INC., \nEMPLOYER/SELF INSURED                                                                           RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 13, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  Steven  Porch  on  December  8,  2023,  in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented himself Pro Se. \n \nThe  Respondents  were  represented  by  Mr.  Randy  Isbell,  Attorney  at  Law,  Jonesboro, \nArkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  motion  to  dismiss  filed  by  the \nRespondent on May 2, 2023, on this accepted claim. A hearing was set on  August 25, \n2023,  in  Jonesboro,  Arkansas.  The  Respondent  subsequently  requested  to  have  the \nmotion held in abeyance after learning that Claimant had an issue with the payment of \nsome of his medical bills. The Commission held the motion in abeyance. Respondent has \nnow requested a hearing on its motion to dismiss, five months later, due to Claimant’s \nlack  of  prosecution.  A hearing on  the  motion  was  conducted on  December  8, 2023,  in \nJonesboro, Arkansas. Claimant was present at the hearing when Respondent’s counsel \nargued the motion.   \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, including Commission’s Exhibit 1, six pages \nof non-medical records, and the argument of both the pro se Claimant and Respondents’ \n\nTURNER H108896 \n \n \n2 \ncounsel, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance \nwith Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over  this \nclaim. \n2. All parties received reasonable and timely notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the \nhearing thereon pursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. \n3. Respondents  did  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, granted without prejudice. \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 \n\nTURNER H108896 \n \n \n3 \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 The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on October 15, 2021, when \nthe plastic chain he was sitting on broke causing him to fall injuring his right leg and hip. \nRespondents accepted this claim as compensable and paid benefits. Since Claimant filed \nhis Form C on September 16, 2022, this claim has been inactive. \n After  considering  all  of  the  evidence,  I  find  that  Respondents  motion  should  be \ngranted  under  Rule  13.  Claimant  stated  during  the  hearing  that  he  concedes  to  the \ndismissal of his claim because he feels he has been paid all of the benefits that he was \nowed. I  have informed  him that he did not have to concede to the dismissal and could \nrequest  a  full-hearing. Claimant  expressed  that  he  did  not  want  a  full-hearing.  I  further \ninformed him that he is entitled to have an attorney present to represent him in this matter. \nHe stated that he did not want an attorney. I also made the Claimant aware that he could \nspeak with a legal advisor who could guide him on his claim. He stated that he did not \nwant to use a legal advisor. He further advised the Commission that he has no desire in \nprosecuting this claim since he  has  received what he believes he is owed. Thus, I find \nthat  the  Respondent has  proven  by  the  preponderance of  the  evidence  that  its motion \nshould be granted. \n \n \n\nTURNER H108896 \n \n \n4 \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  set  forth  above, \nRespondent’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H108896 RANDY TURNER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HYTROL CONVEYOR CO., INC., EMPLOYER/SELF INSURED RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 13, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on December 8, 2023, in Jonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. Claimant ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:59:28.231Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H108896-2023-12-13","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Turner_Randy_H108896_20231213.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}