{"id":"alj-H201226-2024-06-18","awcc_number":"H201226","decision_date":"2024-06-18","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Stanley Beck","employer_name":null,"title":"BECK VS. CRANFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANYAWCC# H201226June 18, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BECK_STANLEY_H201226_20240618.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BECK_STANLEY_H201226_20240618.pdf","text_length":10780,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H201226 \n \n \nSTANLEY J. BECK, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nCRANFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT     \n \nACIG INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT  \n          \nRISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                    RESPONDENT                  \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 18, 2024   \n \nA hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, unrepresented/pro se, failed to appear at the hearing.        \n \nRespondents were represented  by the  Honorable William “Shane” M. Bridgeforth, Attorney  at \nLaw, Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A hearing was held on April 10, 2024 , in the present matter pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004),  to determine  whether  the \nabove-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702(d), 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. \n The record consists of the transcript of the April 10, 2024, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  Specifically included in the record is Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 consisting of six (6) \n\nBECK – H201226 \n \n2 \n \npages.   Additionally,  in  order  to  adequately address this  matter  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  119-\n705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing  . . . in a manner which best \nascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I have blue-backed to the record, four \ntotaled pages which includes the Form AR-C, pleadings, and correspondence.  In accordance with \nSapp  v.  Tyson  Foods,  Inc.,  2010  Ark.  App.  517,  ___  S.W.3d  ___,  these  documents  have  been \nserved on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \n                                                                 DISCUSSION \n On October 13, 2022, the Claimant filed a Form AR-C with the Commission alleging that \nhe sustained a compensable injury during the course and in the scope of his employment with the \nrespondent-employer on February 24, 2021.  Specifically, per this document, the Claimant alleged \nhe stepped in a hole and injuries his right knee while performing employment duties on a job site.  \nThe Claimant stated on the Form AR-C that tall grass obstructed his view of the hole.  However, \nthe Claimant requested only additional medical expenses, additional permanent partial disability, \nand that he be evaluated by another a doctor.      \n  The respondent-insurance-carrier filed a Form AR-2, with the Commission on February \n9, 2022, wherein they accepted compensability of the claim.  The Respondents accepted this claim \nfor  a  compensable “right  knee injury.”  It  appears  that the  Respondents  paid benefits  to  and  on \nbehalf of the Claimant for his admittedly compensable right knee injury of February 2021. \nSince the filing of the Form AR-C, there has been no affirmative action taken on the part \nof the Claimant to prosecute this claim, or otherwise pursue benefits.  In fact, the Claimant has not \never filed a request for a hearing in matter.  \nTherefore, on or about February 27, 2024, the Respondents filed a Respondents’ Motion \nto Dismiss, with  the  Commission,  along  with a Certificate  of  Service  to  the Claimant.  Per  this \n\nBECK – H201226 \n \n3 \n \ndocumentation,  the  Respondents  confirmed  that  they  served  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  the \nforegoing pleading upon the Claimant by via first-class mail on that same day.          \n  The Commission sent a Notice to the Claimant on February 28, 2024, informing him of \nthe Respondents’ motion, and a deadline of twenty (20) days, for filing a written response.  This \nnotice was sent via first-class and certified mail via the United States Postal Service.   \nHowever, the United States Postal Service informed the Commission on March 23, 2024, \nthat this item was delivered to the Claimant’s and left with an individual.  The proof of delivery \nappears to bear the Claimant’s signature.  Also, the letter notice sent to the Claimant by first-class \nmail has not been returned to the Commission.  \nNevertheless, there was no response from the Claimant.   \n  Pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated March 12, 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 April  10,  2024, at 10:30 a.m., at  the Commission,  in  Little  Rock,  Arkansas.  \nThis notice was sent via first class and certified mail via the United States Postal Service.   \nThe  information  received  from  the  Postal  Service  shows  that  they  were  unable  to  locate \nany delivery information on this item per their tracking system.  However, the letter notice sent to \nthe Claimant by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  \nStill, there was no response from the Claimant.     \n A hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant \ndid not appear at the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their attorney.  The \nRespondents’ attorney asserted  that  the Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his claim for workers’ \ncompensation benefits and that it should be dismissed for want of prosecution.  He further noted \nthat the Claimant has not asked for a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-C, which was done \n\nBECK – H201226 \n \n4 \n \nmore  than  six (6)  months  ago.   According to the Respondents’ attorney’s motion,  he  submitted \nthat this claim be dismissed based on the time timing of the events described above and the history \nof the claim. \n                                        Adjudication \nThe statutory provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable in this \nmotion for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \n Specifically, Arkansas Code Annotated §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 \nA review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue his claim \nfor additional workers’ compensation benefits, but  he has  failed  to  do  so.  Specifically,  the \nClaimant has not requested a hearing or otherwise attempted to prosecute his claim for benefits \nsince the filing of the Form AR-C, which was done more than six (6) months ago.  Most notably, \n\nBECK – H201226 \n \n5 \n \nthe  Claimant  has  not  responded  to  the  Notices  of  this  Commission, nor  has  he contested the \ndismissal request or objected to his claim being dismissed.           \nAfter consideration of the evidence before me, I find the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss \nto be well taken.  Accordingly, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (d), and Commission Rule \n099.13,  this  claim for additional workers’ compensation benefits is  hereby dismissed without \nprejudice to the refiling of it within the limitation period specified within the applicable limitation \nperiod. \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 to  Dismiss  this   \nclaim, for want of prosecution for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-\nC,  which  was done more  than  six  (6)  months  ago.    Hence,  the evidence \npreponderates  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits based upon the relevant provisions of the \nspecified  statute,  Ark.  Code  Ann.  11-9-702,  and  Rule  099.13  of  this \nCommission.       \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 for dismissal of this claim for want of prosecution \nis  hereby  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 \n \n \n \n \n\nBECK – H201226 \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 more workers’ compensation benefits.  This  dismissal is  hereby \nordered pursuant  to  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702(d), and Commission  Rule  099.13, without \nprejudice to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified under the Act. \n          IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H201226 STANLEY J. BECK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CRANFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACIG INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 18, 2024 A hearing was hel...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:52:52.651Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H201226-2024-06-18","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BECK_STANLEY_H201226_20240618.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}