{"id":"alj-H204423-2023-05-09","awcc_number":"H204423","decision_date":"2023-05-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Jones","employer_name":"Ug2, LLC","title":"JONES VS. UG2, LLC AWCC# H204423 MAY 9, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//JONES_JAMES_H204423_20230509.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JONES_JAMES_H204423_20230509.pdf","text_length":9318,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H204423 \n \n \nJAMES C. JONES, JR., \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nUG2, LLC,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                    \n                                                                                                                                                                                             \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 9, 2023   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, failed to appear for the hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on April 26, 2023 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) (Repl. 2012), and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule \n099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was attempted on all parties to their last known address, \nin the manner prescribed by law.   \nThe  record  consists  of  the  transcript  of  the  April  26,  2023,  hearing  and  the  documents \ncontained therein.  The remainder of the Commission’s file has also been made a part of the record.  \nIt  is  hereby  incorporated  herein  by  reference.  The Respondents’ Hearing Exhibit consisting of \ntwenty-one numbered pages has been marked Respondents’ Exhibit 1.     \n\nJones  – H 204423 \n \n2 \n \n                                                                 Discussion \n On July 7,  2022, the Claimant wrote a letter to the Commission, to request a hearing on \nhis claim.  At that point, this matter was assigned to Former Administrative Law Judge Terry Don \nLucy,  who  forwarded  the  preliminary  documents  to  the  parties.  The  Claimant  completed  the \nprehearing documents and returned them to the Commission on August 23, 2022.   Specifically, \nthe  Claimant  alleged  that  he  sustained  an  injury  to  his  left  foot  while  moving  heavy  pallets.  \nAccording to the Claimant, one of the pallets fell on his left foot and broke it.  The Claimant stated \nthat his reason for requesting a hearing was because he wished to obtain eight months of back pay \nfor the time missed from work.  The Claimant’s alleged injury occurred on June 13, 2021.       \n  The  respondent-insurance-carrier  filed  a  Form  AR-2  with  the  Commission  on June  27, \n2022 stating that this was a medical only claim.  However, the carrier also indicated on this form \nthat they were controverting the claim on the grounds of: “No medical evidence of an injury.” \nPursuant to the Claimant’s request for a hearing on July 7, 2022, this claim was scheduled \nfor prehearing telephone conference on September 28, 2022.  Former Administrative Law Judge \nTerry Don Lucy conducted this telephone conference.  At the time of the telephone conference, \nthe Claimant advised to “just forget about it,” with respect to his  claim  and  shortly  thereafter \nterminated  his  participation  in  the  conference  call.    As  a  result,  this  claim  was  returned  to  the \nCommission’s general files on September 28.   \nSince  this  time,  the  Claimant  has  taken  no  action  whatsoever  to  prosecute  his  claim  for \nbenefits.      \n Subsequently, on or about February 6, 2023, the Respondents filed with the Commission a \nrequest to dismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution. Respondents forwarded a copy of this \nrequest for dismissal to the Claimant via the United States Postal Service. \n\nJones  – H 204423 \n \n3 \n \nThe  Commission  sent  a  notice of the Respondents’ motion  to  the  Claimant  last  known \naddress  on  February  7,  2023.    Per  this  correspondence,  the  Claimant  was  given  a  deadline  of \nFebruary 21, 2023 for filing a written response to the Respondents’ motion.  \n Yet, there was no response from the Claimant. \nTherefore, pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated February 23, 2023, the Commission notified \nthe parties that a hearing was scheduled to address the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim \ndue to a lack of prosecution.  Said hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., at the \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n However,  on  the  day  of  the  hearing,  the  United  States  Postal  Service  returned  the \nClaimant’s notice to the Commission essentially marked, “undeliverable.”     \n A hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant \nfailed to appear at the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their attorney.   \nCounsel  essentially  noted  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  timely  prosecute  his  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  Counsel also noted that there has been no attempt on the part of \nthe Claimant to resolve his claim since the telephone conference of September 28, 2022, at which \ntime the Claimant indicated that he wished not to pursue his claim.  Therefore, counsel moved that \nthis claim be dismissed for a lack of prosecution and the fact that the Claimant has indicated that \nhe does not wish to pursue it. \nThe record before me shows that a request for a hearing has not been filed by or on behalf \nof the Claimant since the time of the prehearing telephone of September 28, 2022.  Hence, since \nthe filing of his claim for benefits more than six months ago, the Claimant has failed to prosecute \nhis claim.  Of significance, the Claimant failed to appear at the dismissal hearing, and he has not \n\nJones  – H 204423 \n \n4 \n \nobjected  to  his  claim  being  dismissed  or  responded  to  the  notices  of  this  Commission.  More \nimportantly, the Claimant has indicated that he does not wish to pursue his claim.  \nHence, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Claimant has abandoned his claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, considering he has not objected to his claim being dismissed \nor made a bona fide request for a hearing since the filing of the claim.  More, the Claimant has \nindicated that he is not interested in pursuing his claim.   \nTherefore,  the  evidence  before  me  demonstrates  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  is \nwarranted, without prejudice, to the refiling of it within the limitation period specified by law.  I \nfurther find that said dismissal should be and is hereby made pursuant to the provisions of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13. \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. On July 7, 2022, the Claimant requested a hearing on his claim.  Since the \nfiling  of  his  claim  more  than  six  months  ago,  the  Claimant  has  failed  to \nprosecute  his  claim  and  has  not made  a  bona  fide  request  for  a  hearing.  \nHowever, since this time, the Claimant has indicated that he does not wish \nto pursue his claim.    \n \n3. On February 6, 2023, the Respondents filed with the Commission a motion \nto dismiss this claim for a lack of prosecution, primarily on the basis that \nthe Claimant has indicated that he does not wish to pursue his claim.    \n \n4. A hearing was held on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, but the Claimant \nfailed to appear at the hearing, and he has not objected to his claim being \ndismissed or responded to the notices of this Commission. \n \n5. The evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed to prosecute this \nclaim  under  the  provisions  of  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702,  and  Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.   \n\nJones  – H 204423 \n \n5 \n \n \n6. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was attempted on all parties to \ntheir last known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            7. The Respondents’ motion  to  dismiss  is  hereby  granted  without  prejudice \npursuant  to  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702,  and  Commission  Rule  099.13,  to \nthe refiling of it within the limitation period specified by law.  \n \nORDER \n \n In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, this claim \nis hereby dismissed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission Rule 099.13, without prejudice to the refiling of it within the limitation period as  \nspecified by law.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H204423 JAMES C. JONES, JR., EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UG2, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 9, 2023 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:07:20.010Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204423-2023-05-09","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//JONES_JAMES_H204423_20230509.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}