{"id":"alj-H202631-2023-08-28","awcc_number":"H202631","decision_date":"2023-08-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Abraham Kassees","employer_name":"Best Park, LLC","title":"KASSEES VS. BEST PARK, LLC AWCC# H202631 AUGUST 28, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back","knee"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//KASSEES_ABRAHAM_H202631_20230828.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"KASSEES_ABRAHAM_H202631_20230828.pdf","text_length":9651,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H202631 \n \n \nABRAHAM KASSEES, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nBEST PARK, LLC,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                    \n \nBRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n  \nSUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT  \n                       \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2023   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \n \nRespondents  represented  by  the  Honorable  Zachary  F.  Ryburn,  Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A  hearing  was  held  on  July  12,  2023  in  the  above-captioned  case  pursuant  to  Dillard  v. \nBenton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), for a determination \nof  whether  this  claim for  workers’  compensation  benefits  should  be  dismissed  due  to  the \nClaimant’s failure to prosecute it under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012) \nand Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was attempted on all parties to their last known address, \nin the manner prescribed by law.   \n\nKassees – H202631 \n \n2 \n \nThe  record  consists  of  the  transcript  of  the  July  12,  2023,  hearing  and  the  documents \ncontained therein. Additionally, the entire Commission’s file has been made a part of the record.  \nIt is hereby incorporated herein by reference.    \n                                                                    Discussion \n On  April  27,  2022,  the Claimant’s attorney  filed  a  Form  AR-C  with  the  Commission \nasserting  his  entitlement  to  Arkansas workers’  compensation  benefits.  He  alleged  that  the \nClaimant sustained compensable injuries to his back, left side, left knee, and groin on March 17, \n2022, while performing his employment duties for the respondent-employer.  Counsel asserted the \nClaimant’s entitlement to only additional workers’ compensation benefits.  Specifically, counsel    \nrequested  additional workers’ compensation benefits  for  the  Claimant,  namely  in  the  form  of \ntemporary  total  disability,  temporary partial disability, rehabilitation and an attorney’s  fee  in \nconnection with this claim. \n The respondent-insurance carrier filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission on April 4, 2022, \naccepting  this  as  a  medical  only  claim.    Further,  the  adjuster  explicitly  stated  on  this  form  the \nfollowing: “Partial Denial/The  employer/carrier  is  denying  indemnity  in  whole.    Compensable \nmedical benefits.  Light duty work is available with the employer.”    \n On May 10, 2022, the  claims specialist for the  carrier wrote a letter to the Commission.  \nSpecifically,  the  specialist  wrote: “In  response  to  the  Form  AR-C  filed  in  this  matter,  the \nRespondents have controverted the above referenced claim its entirety.”   \nAs a result, the prehearing process was started by the Commission.  On October 26, 2022, \na Prehearing Order was entered in this matter setting the claim for a full hearing on November 30, \n2022.  However, on November 18, 2022, the parties notified the Commission that they had reached \na settlement agreement in this matter and asked that the full hearing be removed from the docket,  \n\nKassees – H202631 \n \n3 \n \nwhich  was  done.  At  that  time,  the  parties  filed  with  the  Commission  a  proposed  Joint \nPetition for Final Settlement and a Joint Petition Hearing was scheduled in lieu of the full hearing.  \nThe Respondents filed with the Commission a revised settlement agreement changing some of the \nlanguage regarding the previous medical expenses. \nOn November 28, 2022, the Claimant’s attorney notified the Commission via email that \nthe  Claimant  was  having  second  thoughts  about  the  settlement  and  that  he  needed  a  little  more \ntime  to  think  about  it.    Therefore,  the  settlement  hearing  was  removed  from  the  docket  and  the \nclaim was forwarded to the Clerk’s Office for the case to be returned to the Commission’s general \nfiles. \n On  December  22,  2022,  the  Claimant’s  attorney filed  a  motion  to  withdraw  from \nrepresenting the Claimant in his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  The Full Commission \ngranted the motion for the Claimant’s attorney to withdraw from representing the Claimant in this \nmatter on January 5, 2023.  \n The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the case on January 6, 2023, with a certificate \nof  service  to  the  Claimant, as  a  copy  of  the  above  pleading  was  mailed  to  the  Claimant.    The \nClaimant requested a hearing on February 10, 2023, and he also asked for more time to prepare.  \nHence,  the  prehearing  process  was  started  all  over  again  on  February  13,  2023.    However,  the \nClaimant notified the Commission on March 1 that he needed more time to get well and finish his \nongoing medical tests.  Therefore, on March 6, 2023, the Claimant was given an additional ninety \n(90) days to recuperate and prosecute his claim.  As a result, the Respondents’ motion for dismissal \nof this claim was held in abeyance.   \nYet, during this three-month period of time, the Claimant did not take any action to resolve \nhis claim and he failed to request a hearing.  \n\nKassees – H202631 \n \n4 \n \nTherefore, on June 6,  2023, the Respondents’ attorney sent  an  email to the Commission \nrequesting a ruling on their motion because he had not heard from the Claimant.          \n  Pursuant  to  a  Hearing  Notice  dated June  13,  2023,  the  Commission  notified  the  parties \nthat a hearing was scheduled to address the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim due to a \nlack of prosecution.  The notice was sent to the Claimant via certified and first-class mail.  Said \nhearing was scheduled for July 12, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. in Little Rock, Arkansas at the Commission.  \nThe hearing notice was returned to the Commission marked unable to locate any delivery \ninformation.  \nStill, there has been no response from the Claimant.  \n Subsequently, a hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion for dismissal \nas scheduled.  The Claimant failed to appear at the dismissal hearing.  However, the Respondents \nappeared through their attorney.   \nCounsel explicitly noted that the Claimant has failed to promptly prosecute his claim for \nworkers’ compensation benefits  since  the  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C  in  April  2022.    Therefore, \ncounsel  moved  that  this  claim  be  dismissed  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  and  Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution.  \nThe record before me proves that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute his claim for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  The Claimant failed to appear at the hearing to object to his claim \nbeing dismissed and he has not responded to the hearing notice of this Commission.  Under these \ncircumstances,  I  am  compelled  to  find  that  the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has \nabandoned  his  claim.  Accordingly,  per  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  and  Rule  099.13  of  this \nCommission,  I  find  that  this  claim  should  be  and  is  hereby  respectfully  dismissed, without \nprejudice to the refiling of it with the limitation period specified by law.   \n\nKassees – H202631 \n \n5 \n \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 (Repl. 2012): \n1.        The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission, a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim due to a lack of prosecution of by the Claimant, for which a hearing \nwas held. \n \n3. The  Claimant  has  not  made  a  bona  fide  request  for  a  hearing  since  his \nattorney  was  allowed  to  withdraw  from  representing  him  in  this  matter, \nwhich was some eight months ago.  Hence, the evidence preponderates that \nthe  Claimant  failed  to  prosecute  his claim  for  workers’  compensation \nbenefits.      \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was tried on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for a lack of prosecution is \nhereby granted, without prejudice, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 \nand  Commission  Rule  099.13,  to  the  refiling  of  it  within  the  limitation \nperiod specified by law.  \n \nORDER \n In accordance with the findings set forth above, this claim is hereby dismissed pursuant to \nArk.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  and  Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule  099.13, \nwithout prejudice, to the refiling of it, within the limitation period specified by law.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n  \n                              _______________________________ \n               HON. CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H202631 ABRAHAM KASSEES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BEST PARK, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT SUMMIT CONSULTING, LLC, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2023 Hearing held befo...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:04:20.177Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H202631-2023-08-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//KASSEES_ABRAHAM_H202631_20230828.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}