{"id":"alj-H204703-2024-05-07","awcc_number":"H204703","decision_date":"2024-05-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Clifton Forbes","employer_name":null,"title":"FORBES VS. TRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SVCSAWCC# H204703May 7, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["cervical","thoracic","lumbar"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Forbes_Clifton_H204703_20240507.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Forbes_Clifton_H204703_20240507.pdf","text_length":6480,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H204703 \n \nCLIFTON FORBES, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nTRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SVCS, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nACE AMERICAN INS. CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nESIS, INC., \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 7, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, April 12,  2024,  before  the  Arkansas  Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Mr. Clifton Forbes, pro se, of Jonesboro, Arkansas, did not appear in person at the \nhearing.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by  the Honorable  Jason  Ryburn;  however,  the  Motion  to \nDismiss was argued by the Honorable Michael Ryburn, 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 12, 2024, in Jonesboro, 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 Commission Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence, and Certified U.S. \nMail return receipts, consisting of nine pages. I have also blue-backed Forms AR-2 and AR-C, as \ndiscussed infra. \nThe record reflects on June 30, 2022, a Form AR-C was filed in this case, reflecting that \nClaimant purportedly sustained injuries to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine on \n\nFORBES, AWCC No. H204703 \n \n2 \n \nApril 21, 2022. The record does not state how the alleged injury occurred when reviewing Forms \nAR-2 and AR-C; no Form AR-1 was filed in this claim. The Form AR-C was filed by Claimant’s \nthen-lawyer,  Neal  Hart,  who entered  his  appearance on  June 30,  2022.  The  Respondents  were \nrepresented  by  Attorney  Jason  Ryburn. The  Respondents  initially  accepted  the  claim  and \nconfirmed that acceptance in a letter to the Commission dated June 30, 2022. The Claimant filed \nfor a Change of Physician with the Commission on July 5, 2022. The Claimant was being treated \nby  Dr.  John  Brophy  and  requested  to  be  treated  by  Dr.  Dominic  Maggio.  The  Respondents,  in \nanother letter to the Commission dated July 8, 2022, changed their position on compensability and \nnow  denies  the  claim in  its  entirety. Respondents  filed  a  Form  AR-2 on  August  2,  2022, \nrepresenting that the claim had no objective findings. As a result, Claimant was informed by the \nCommission, in a letter dated August 5, 2022, that the request for a change of physician could not \nproceed since the Respondents were controverting the claim in its entirety.   \nAttorney Hart  filed  a  Motion  to  Withdraw  as  Counsel  from  the  claim  on  September  25, \n2023. The Commission granted the motion on October 16, 2023. Respondents then filed a Motion \nto  Dismiss  on  December  6,  2023. Claimant  was  sent  notice of  the Motion  to Dismiss  from  the \nCommission on December 8, 2023, to Claimant’s last known address. He did not respond to the \nmotion, so a hearing was set. In accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed \ndue and proper legal notice of both the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and the hearing notice at \nhis current  address  of  record  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS),  First  Class  Certified \nMail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail. The certified notice was signed by \nthe Claimant on March  6, 2024, at the address of record and the  regular  First-Class mail notice \nwas not returned. The hearing took place on April 12, 2024. As previously stated, the Claimant \ndid not show up to the hearing. \n\nFORBES, AWCC No. H204703 \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: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the April 12, 2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. The Claimant has failed to prosecute this claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted.     \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent  with both Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-702(a)(4) and  AWCC  Rule 099.13, the \nCommission scheduled and conducted a hearing, with proper notice, on the Respondents’ Motion \nto Dismiss. Commission Exhibit 1 provides multiple signed Certified U.S. Mail Return Receipts. \nOne receipt dated January 27, 2024, signed by Janelle Forbes, Claimant’s wife, establishes notice \nof the Motion to Dismiss. The other Certified U.S. Mail Return Receipt was dated March 6, 2024, \nand was signed by the Claimant himself and establishes notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing \ndate, at which the Claimant did not appear.  \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 has not filed a request for a \nhearing since the filing of his June 30, 2022, Form AR-C. Even when he received Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss on January 27, 2024, he failed to take that opportunity to object and request a \nhearing. Therefore,  I  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that the  Claimant  has violated \nAWCC Rule  099.13 in  failing  to  prosecute  his  claim.  Thus, Respondents’ Motion  to  Dismiss \nshould be granted. \n\nFORBES, AWCC No. H204703 \n \n4 \n \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is granted, and this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n \n                                                                                               ______________________________ \n                                                                                               Steven Porch \n                                                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H204703 CLIFTON FORBES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TRINITY RAIL MAINTENANCE SVCS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT ESIS, INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 7, 2024 Hearing conducted on Friday, April 12, 2024, befo...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:57.735Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H204703-2024-05-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Forbes_Clifton_H204703_20240507.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}