{"id":"alj-H204316-2023-05-19","awcc_number":"H204316","decision_date":"2023-05-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Ronald Parr","employer_name":"Humane Society Of Pulaski Co","title":"PARR VS. HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI CO. AWCC# H204316 MAY 19, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:4"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PARR_RONALD_H204316_20230519.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"PARR_RONALD_H204316_20230519.pdf","text_length":4860,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H204316 \n \nRONALD A. PARR, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nHUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI CO., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                RESPONDENT  \n \nTECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                   RESPONDENT  \n \nAMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                   RESPONDENT  \n \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 19, 2023 \n \nHearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on May 18, 2023 in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se. \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Mr. William C. Frye, Attorney at Law, North Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on May 18, 2023, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, who is pro se, did not appear for the hearing.  Respondents were \nrepresented at the hearing by Mr. William C. Frye, Attorney at Law, of North Little Rock, \nArkansas.      In   addition   to   Respondents’   argument,   the   record   consists   of   the \nCommission’s file–which has been incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. \n The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on May 17, 2022, where he \npurportedly injured his whole body.  This incident allegedly occurred when Claimant was \ncleaning a septic tank during the course and scope of his employment. Claimant called \n\nPARR – H204316 \n \n \n2 \nRespondents’ counsel, William C. Frye, on July 8, 2022, stating that he wants to pursue \nhis  claim.  Since  then, this  case  has  been  inactive  until  Respondents  filed  a  Motion  to \nDismiss  due  to  the  lack  of  prosecution.  A  hearing  was  held  on May  18,  2023,  in  Little \nRock,  Arkansas  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss.  As  previously  stated,  the  Claimant  did  not \nappear for the hearing. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole  and  other  matters  properly  before  the \nCommission,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in \naccordance with 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. \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).   \n\nPARR – H204316 \n \n \n3 \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 \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 After consideration of all the evidence, I find that Claimant and Respondents were \ngiven  reasonable  notice,  at  the  addresses  provided  by  each  party,  for  the Motion  to \nDismiss hearing under Rule 13. I further find that Claimant has abridged this rule. Thus I \nfind Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion 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. H204316 RONALD A. PARR, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 19, 2023 Hearing before Adm...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:07:49.291Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204316-2023-05-19","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/PARR_RONALD_H204316_20230519.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}