{"id":"alj-H205039-2023-04-28","awcc_number":"H205039","decision_date":"2023-04-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Lance Jackson","employer_name":"Midwest Logistics System, Ltd","title":"JACKSON VS. MIDWEST LOGISTICS SYSTEM, LTD AWCC# H205039 APRIL 28, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//JACKSON_LANCE_H205039_20230428.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JACKSON_LANCE_H205039_20230428.pdf","text_length":8779,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H205039 \n \n \nLANCE JACKSON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nMIDWEST LOGISTICS SYSTEM, LTD,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                    \n \nMIDWEST EMPLOYERS’ CASUALTY COMPANY,  \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT                           \n          \nGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.,                                                                                                                                  \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                     RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 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 for the hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Jarrod Parrish, 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.  \n\nJackson  – H205039 \n \n2 \n \nIt is hereby incorporated herein by reference.  The Respondents’ Hearing Exhibit Packet consisting \nof ten numbered pages was marked as Respondents’ Exhibit 1.     \n                                                                 Discussion \n On  August  24,  2022,  the Claimant’s attorney filed  with  the  Commission  a  claim  for \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits  on  behalf  of  the  Claimant  by  way  of  a  Form  AR-C.  \nSpecifically, the Claimant’s attorney alleged: “During  and in  the  course  of  his  employment  he \nsuffered  injuries  to  his  back,  torso,  and  other  whole  body.”    These  alleged  injuries  occurred  on \nMarch  14,  2022.    His  attorney checked all the boxes for both initial and additional workers’ \ncompensation benefits.        \n  The  respondent-insurance-carrier  filed  a  Form  AR-2  with  the  Commission  on July  14, \n2022, wherein they accepted compensability as a \"medical only” claim.  \n On  or  about  November  8,  2022, the Claimant’s attorney filed with the Commission a \nmotion to be relieved as counsel of record.   The Full Commission entered an order granting the \nmotion for Claimant’s attorney to withdraw as counsel for the Claimant in this matter on or about \nNovember 18, 2022. \nSince this time and the filing of the Form AR-C, there has been no action on the part of the \nClaimant to prosecute this claim, or otherwise pursue benefits.  \nOn February 22, 2023, the Respondents filed with the Commission a Motion to Dismiss \nfor  Failure  to  Prosecute,  along  with  a  Certificate  of  Service.    Hence,  that  same  day,  the \nRespondents mailed a copy of said motion to the Claimant via the United States Postal Service. \nThe  Commission  sent  a  notice of the Respondents’ motion  to  the  Claimant  last  known \naddress  on  February  28,  2023.    Per  this  correspondence,  the  Claimant  was  given  a  deadline  of \nMarch 20, 2023, for filing a written response to the Respondents’ motion.  \n\nJackson  – H205039 \n \n3 \n \n Yet, there was no response from the Claimant. \nTherefore, pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated March 22, 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 11:00 a.m., at the \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n However,  on  April  17,  2023,  the  United  States  Postal  Service  returned  the Claimant’s \nnotice 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 noted that there has been no attempt on the part of the \nClaimant  to  interact  with  the  Respondents  in  resolving  and/or  otherwise  prosecuting  his  claim.  \nMoreover, nor did the Claimant appear at the hearing to object to the dismissal of his claim, and \nhe has not done anything to pursue the claim since the filing of the Form AR-C in August 2022, \nwhich was over eight months ago.  Therefore, counsel moved that this claim be dismissed under \nthe provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission \nRule 099.13. \nThe record before me shows that a request for a hearing has not been filed by or on behalf \nof the Claimant since the filing of the Form AR-C, which was over more than six months ago.  Of \nsignificance, the Claimant failed to appear at the dismissal hearing, nor has he objected to his claim \nbeing dismissed, or responded to the notices of this Commission.  Hence, the preponderance of the \nevidence shows that the Claimant has abandoned his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  \nTherefore, the dismissal of this claim is warranted, without prejudice, to the refiling of it within \n\nJackson  – H205039 \n \n4 \n \nthe limitation period specified by law.  I further find that said dismissal should be and is hereby \nmade  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702,  and Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation 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 August 24, 2022, the Claimant’s attorney filed a Form AR-C, with the \nCommission, alleging that the Claimant sustained injuries to his back, torso, \nand other whole body.   \n \n3. The respondent-insurance-carrier filed a Form AR-2, with the Commission \non or about July 14, 2022, accepting this claim as a “medical only” claim.     \n \n4. The Full Commission entered an order granting the Claimant’s attorney \nmotion to withdraw from representing him in this matter on November 18, \n2022.     \n \n5. Since the filing of the Form AR-C more than eight months ago, the Claimant \nhas failed to prosecute his claim and he not taken any action to advance it \nto a hearing.    \n \n6. On  February  22,  2023,  the  Respondents  filed  with  the  Commission, a  \nMotion  to  Dismiss  for  Failure  to  Prosecute.   A  hearing  was  held  on  the \nmotion,  but  the  Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing,  and  he  has  not \nobjected to his claim being dismissed. \n \n7. 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 \n8. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was attempted on all parties to \ntheir last known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            9. 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 \n\nJackson  – H205039 \n \n5 \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 \nspecified by law.  \n        IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               HON. CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H205039 LANCE JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MIDWEST LOGISTICS SYSTEM, LTD, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT MIDWEST EMPLOYERS’ CASUALTY COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 28, 202...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:09:00.376Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205039-2023-04-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//JACKSON_LANCE_H205039_20230428.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}