{"id":"alj-H201776-2024-05-17","awcc_number":"H201776","decision_date":"2024-05-17","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Braudrick","employer_name":"Cal Ark International Inc","title":"BRAUDRICK VS. CAL ARK INTERNATIONAL INC. AWCC# H201776 MAY 17, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","neck","shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Braudrick_James_H201776_20240517.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Braudrick_James_H201776_20240517.pdf","text_length":7181,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H201776 \n \nJAMES BRAUDRICK, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nCAL ARK INTERNATIONAL INC., \nSELF-INSURED/EMPLOYER                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nCCMSI, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 17, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, April 16, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Mr. James Braudrick, pro se, of Comanche, Oklahoma, did not appear in person at \nthe hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Guy Wade, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nBACKGROUND \n \n  This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  Respondents.  A \nhearing was conducted on April 16, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in the \ncase. Claimant, who according to Commission records is pro se, failed to appear at the hearing. \nAdmitted  into  evidence  was Respondent  Exhibit  1,  pleadings, correspondence, and  Motion  to \nDismiss   hearing   notice,   consisting   of   nine   pages, Commission   Exhibit   1,   pleadings, \ncorrespondence, and Certified U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of eight pages. I have also blue-\nbacked Forms AR-1, AR-2, and AR-C, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on March 1, 2022, a Form AR-1 was filed in this case, reflecting that \nClaimant  purportedly fell while  walking on  February 15,  2022. Whether  he  was  walking  for  a \nwork-related purpose when he fell or what caused his fall is unclear from the evidentiary record. \n\nBRAUDRICK, AWCC No. H201776 \n \n2 \n \nNevertheless, the  Claimant  reported  his  injuries to  the  Respondent/Employer  the  same  day. \nRespondents filed a Form AR-2 on March 2, 2022, representing that the claim was controverted \nbut they would pay for the authorized Concentra medical bills.  The Claimant filed a Form AR-C \nthrough his then-attorney Mark Peoples on June 23, 2023, setting out his injuries. There he alleged \nhe sustained injuries to multiple body parts including ribs, elbow, knee, neck, and shoulder when \nhe fell. Respondents’ attorney Guy Wade entered his appearance on July 6, 2023. \nAttorney Peoples, on September 5, 2023, filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, \nciting “differences of opinion regarding the prosecution of the claim” as the reason for the motion. \nThe Motion was granted on September 13, 2023. \nThe Respondents next filed  a Motion to Dismiss on February 14,  2024, requesting  this \nclaim be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Motion further stated that the “claimant has done \nnothing to pursue this matter and has failed to even request any benefits.” The Claimant was sent \ncertified notice of  the Motion  to Dismiss  from  the  Commission  on February 15,  2024.  The \nClaimant received that notice on February 20, 2024, when it was left with him at his last known \naddress. The Claimant had twenty days to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. The Claimant did not \nrespond  to the Motion  to  Dismiss in  writing. In  accordance  with  applicable  Arkansas  law,  the \nClaimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of both the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and \nthe  hearing  notice  at  his current  address  of  record  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS), \nFirst Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail. The certified \nnotice was returned without being served, but the regular First-Class mail notice was not returned. \nThe hearing took place on April 16, 2024. As previously mentioned, the Claimant did not show up \nto the hearing. \n \n\nBRAUDRICK, AWCC No. H201776 \n \n3 \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nTherefore,  after  a  thorough  consideration  of  the  facts,  issues,  the  applicable  law,  and the \nevidentiary record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the April 16, 2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents  have  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that Claimant  has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with AWCC Rule 099.13, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith proper notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. Commission  Exhibit  1  provides \nmultiple Certified U.S. Mail Return Receipts. One receipt dated March 28, 2024, was not claimed \nby the Claimant. This receipt would have established that the Motion to Dismiss Hearing notice \nwas served on the Claimant. However, the same notice was also sent to the Claimant’s address of \nrecord by First-Class U.S. Mail on March 13, 2024, and did not return to the Commission. The \nClaimant  is  responsible  for  providing  the  Commission  with  his  current  address. Moreover,  on \nFebruary  20,  2024,  twenty-two  days  before  the  hearing  notice  was  sent  out,  the  Claimant  was \ndirectly served with notice of the Motion to Dismiss. That motion was served at the same address \nof record. Therefore, there is no reason for me to believe the Claimant did not receive the notice \nof  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  hearing  date  via  First-Class  U.S.  Mail. The Respondents’ counsel \n\nBRAUDRICK, AWCC No. H201776 \n \n4 \n \nappeared at the hearing and argued his motion. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence \nthat reasonable notice was given to both parties.  \nAWCC Rule 099.13 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an \naction pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form AR-C on June \n23, 2023, and since then has taken no action in furtherance of this claim. When notice of the Motion \nto  Dismiss  was  received  by him on  February  20,  2024,  he  failed  to  respond  to  the  Motion  by \nobjecting and requesting a hearing in writing. In this regard, the Claimant has failed to do the bare \nminimum in prosecuting his claim. Therefore, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nClaimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his  claim  by  failing  to  request  a  hearing. Thus, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is granted, without prejudice. \n \n      IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n \n                                                                                               ______________________________ \n                                                                                               Steven Porch \n                                                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H201776 JAMES BRAUDRICK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CAL ARK INTERNATIONAL INC., SELF-INSURED/EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CCMSI, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 17, 2024 Hearing conducted on Wednesday, April 16, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compens...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:54:28.770Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H201776-2024-05-17","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Braudrick_James_H201776_20240517.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}