{"id":"alj-H205851-2024-04-09","awcc_number":"H205851","decision_date":"2024-04-09","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Gerard Brucker","employer_name":"Dredgit Corporation","title":"BRUCKER VS. DREDGIT CORPORATION AWCC# H205851 April 9, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRUCKER_GERARD_H205851_20240409.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BRUCKER_GERARD_H205851_20240409.pdf","text_length":5508,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO. H205851 \n \nGERALD A. BRUCKER, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nDREDGIT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER           RESPONDENT \n \nCOMMERCE AND INDUSTRY / AIG, \nINSURANCE CARRIER / TPA             RESPONDENT \n           \nOPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  James  D.  Kennedy  in Little  Rock,  Pulaski \nCounty, Arkansas on March 13, 2024. \n \nClaimant is pro se and appeared along with his wife. \n \nRespondents are represented by Mr. Jarrod S. Parrish, Attorney-at-Law of Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A  hearing  was  held  in  the  above-styled  matter  on March 13, 2024, in Little  Rock, \nArkansas, on respondents’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Arkansas \nCode Annotated §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act.  \nThe claimant was pro se and appeared along with his wife.  The claimant contended that he \nwas injured in an incident on or about October 8, 2022, and filed a Form AR-C, a little under \na year later, on October 8, 2022.  The respondents filed an AR-2 denying the claim based \nupon the lack of an employment relationship among other things.  The prehearing material \nwas sent to the parties on or about April 11, 2023.  The claimant responded by May 4, 2023, \nstating that he wanted to stop the process and indicating that he did not want to go forward.  \nConsequently, a Motion to Dismiss was filed on June 19, 2023, by the respondents.  Claimant \nthen  wrote  a  letter  on  July  19,  2023,  requesting  a  hearing,  and  at  that  time  the  Motion  to \nDismiss  was  held  in  abeyance.    The Claimant eventually  made  a prehearing  filing  and  a \nprehearing conference was held by phone and a hearing was set for January 16 of 2024.  Six \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n \n2 \n \n(6) days prior to the hearing, the claimant wrote indicating that he wanted to drop his claim.  \nDismissal  Interrogatories  were  forwarded  to  the  claimant, which were  never  returned  and \nconsequently this matter was set for a hearing on respondents’ Motion to Dismiss \n The respondents  contend  that twenty-nine  (29) months  have  now  passed  and  the \nclaimant has not gotten the matter to a hearing.  Further, the respondents contend that the \nclaimant worked under a contract with Respondent, Dredgit, which designates the claimant’s \nLLC  as  an  independent  contractor  and  that  payment  to  the claimant  came  from  his  own \npersonal LLC, and that consequently, the matter should be dismissed.   \nThe claimant contended at the time of the hearing to dismiss that he is working with \nthe  IRS  to  make  a  determination  if  he was an  independent  contractor  or  an  employee.  \nFurther, he stated  that  he had  two (2) employees  and  he  needed  to  figure  out  how  to  do \ndepositions.  He also contended that he had spent over one hundred (100) hours talking to \nattorneys in regard to representation about this matter, only to be told they did not want to \nrepresent him. \n The Motion to Dismiss was filed on or about June 19, 2023, requesting that the matter  \nbe  dismissed  for  failure to prosecute pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §11-9-702(a)(4) \nand  Rule  099.13.  The  claimant  was  advised  that  under  Arkansas  law,  an  attorney \nrepresenting him in regard to his Workers’ Compensation claim was required to have his fee \napproved.  Further, he was instructed that he could contact the Arkansas Bar Association to \nobtain a list of attorneys that handled workers’ compensation cases.  The claimant was further \nadvised that this matter would be taken under advisement until April 15, 2024, a day easy to \nremember due to it being tax-day, and if he had taken no affirmative action by that time, there \nwas a good chance the matter would be dismissed.  On April 5, 2024, the claimant sent an \nemail which appeared to state that the claimant was still attempting to pursue his claim without \nthe help of counsel, which he is entitled to do. \n\nBRUCKER – H205851 \n \n3 \n \nConsequently,  there  is  no  alternative  but  to  determine  that  the  claimant  has  in  fact \ntaken affirmative steps to pursue his claim.  Consequently, this matter will be promptly set for \na pretrial hearing, and the Motion to Dismiss will again be held in abeyance.  All parties are \nput on notice that no continuances will be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances \npresented to the Commission. \n Consequently, after a review of the record as a whole, to include all evidence properly \nbefore the Commission, and having an opportunity to hear the statements of the attorney for \nthe respondent and  statements  by  the claimant, and  after  the  matter  being  taken  under \nadvisement for thirty (30) days with the claimant now determined to have taken affirmative \nsteps to pursue his claim by the sending of an email on April 4, 2024, there is no alternative \nbut to find that the Motion to Dismiss will again be held in abeyance and this matter will be \nset for a prompt prehearing telephone conference.   \nORDER \n Pursuant to the above statement of the case, there is no alternative but to find that the \nMotion  to  Dismiss  is  again  taken  under  abeyance,  and  the matter  will  be  set  for  a  prompt \nprehearing telephone conference in order to pursue the claimant’s claim for benefits. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n      ____________________________ \n       JAMES D. KENNEDY \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H205851 GERALD A. BRUCKER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DREDGIT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY / AIG, INSURANCE CARRIER / TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 9, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge James D. Kennedy in Little Rock, Pulask...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:55:06.642Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H205851-2024-04-09","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRUCKER_GERARD_H205851_20240409.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}