{"id":"alj-H208461-2024-02-22","awcc_number":"H208461","decision_date":"2024-02-22","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Hansford Gourley","employer_name":"Nevada County","title":"GOURLEY VS. NEVADA COUNTY AWCC# H208461 FEBRUARY 22, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GOURLEY_HANSFORD_H208461_20240222.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GOURLEY_HANSFORD_H208461_20240222.pdf","text_length":8800,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n  \n                                                        AWCC CLAIM NO.: H208461 \n \nHANSFORD GOURLEY (DEC’D)  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                   \n \nNEVADA COUNTY,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                           RESPONDENT  \n \nASSOC. OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, WC TRUST,              \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                       RESPONDENT \n \nAAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA)                                                        RESPONDENT \n                                                                                                                                                                                  \n                                               \nOPINION FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2024    \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not appear at the hearing. \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Jarrod Parrish, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \nThis  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  pursuant  to  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on  October  24,  2023,  in  Little  Rock, \nArkansas.  Thus, the sole issue for determination is whether this claim should be dismissed due to \nthe Claimant’s failure  to  prosecute  it  under  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702  (Repl.  2012),  and/or \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13. \n The  Claimant,  per  my  review  of  Commission  records  is  pro  se,  failed  to  appear  at  the \nhearing. The record consists of the October 24, 2023, hearing transcript.  Admitted into evidence \nwas Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence and forms related to this claim, consisting \n\nGOURLEY – H208461 \n \n2 \n \nof  seven  numbered  pages.    Additionally,  in  order  to  adequately  address  this  matter  under  Ark. \nCode Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1) (Repl. 2012)(Commission must “conduct the hearing  . . . in a manner \nwhich best ascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I have blue-backed to the \ncorrespondence from the Commission’s file on this claim, consisting of three pages.  In accordance \nwith Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, ___ S.W.3d ___, these documents have been \nserved on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \nReasonable notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all the parties in the manner set by \nlaw.   \n No testimony was taken at the hearing. \n                            Background \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: \nThe deceased Claimant’s widowed representative, Christy Gourley,  filed  a  Form  AR-C \nwith  the  Commission  on  December  15,  2022,  asserting  the Claimant’s entitlement to workers’ \ncompensation benefits.  Per this document, the Claimant’s wife alleged that he sustained a fatal \nheart  attack  while  working  for  the  respondent-employer.    The  date  of  the Claimant’s alleged \naccidental  work-related  injury  was  November  2,  2022.  According  to  this  document,  the \nClaimant’s widow did not mark any of the boxes for workers’ compensation benefits.  Yet, at that \ntime, there was no request for a hearing made.       \nOn or about December 5, 2022, the Respondents filed a Form AR-2 with the Commission \ncontroverting liability of this claim in its entirety.   Specifically, the claims adjuster wrote: “Denied. \nNot a result of a work-related incident.”  \nStill, the Claimant has not attempted to pursue or otherwise resolve this claim for workers’ \ncompensation benefits since the filing of the Form AR-C in December 2022. \n\nGOURLEY – H208461 \n \n3 \n \nOn  August  29,  2023,  the  Respondents  filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  with  the  Commission \naccompanied by a certificate of service to the Claimant’s widow indicating that they served a copy \nof the pleading on her by depositing a copy thereof in the United States Mail.   \nThe Commission sent a letter advising the Claimant of the Respondents’ motion on August \n31, 2023, via both certified mail and first-class mail.  Per this letter, the Claimant was given twenty \n(20) days from the date of that letter to file a response to the motion.  \nThe  letter  mailed  to  the  Claimant  by  first  class  mail  has  not  been  returned  to  the \nCommission.    However,  the  letter  mailed  to  the  Claimant  by  certified  mail  was  left  with  an \nindividual at her last known address listed with the Commission.  \nStill, to date, there has been no response from the Claimant in this regard. \nOn  September  20,  2023,  the  Commission  sent  a  Notice  of  Hearing  to  the  parties  letting \nthem  know  that  a  hearing  was  scheduled  for  October  24,  2023, on the Respondents’ motion  to \ndismiss. \nSaid notice was mailed to the Claimant by certified and first-class mail.       \nTracking information received by the Commission from the United States Postal Service \ndid not show any delivery information on this item.  However, the letter mailed to the Claimant \nvia first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.     \nThere was no response from the Claimant.   \nHowever,  a  hearing  was  in  fact  conducted on the Respondents’ motion  to  dismiss  as \nscheduled.  The Claimant failed to appear at the hearing to object to this workers’ compensation \nclaim  being  dismissed.    Nevertheless,  the  Respondents’  attorney  moved  that  this  claim  be \ndismissed under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission Rule 099.13 due to the Claimant’s \nspouse failure to prosecute it.  \n\nGOURLEY – H208461 \n \n4 \n \nReview of the evidence shows that the Claimant has failed to respond to the written notices \nof this Commission and did not appear at the hearing to object to the dismissal.  Moreover, since \nthe  filing  of  the  Form  AR-C  in  December  2022,  the  Claimant  has  not  requested  a  hearing.  \nConsidering all the foregoing, I am persuaded to conclude that the Claimant has abandoned this \nclaim for workers’ compensation benefits.  \nAccordingly,  based  on  my  review  of  the  documentary  evidence,  and  all  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission, I find that the Respondents’ motion  to  dismiss  this  claim  is \nwarranted under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of this Commission.  \nSaid  dismissal  is without  prejudice,  to  the  refiling  of  this  claim  within  the  limitation  period \nspecified by law. \n                                  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased on the record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law \nin accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim. \n \n2. Claimant’s widow filed a Form AR-C with the Commission on December \n15,  2022, in this matter asserting the Claimant’s entitlement to workers’ \ncompensation  benefits  due  to  an  incident  occurring  at  work in  November \n2022. \n \n3. Since this time, and the filing of the Form AR-C, the Claimant has failed to \nmake a bona fide request for a hearing in this matter.    \n \n4. The Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss this claim in September 2023. \n \n5.         Reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and hearing was had on all the \nparties.    The  Claimant  has  failed  to  respond  to  the  notices  of  this \nCommission and did not appear at the hearing to object to this claim being \ndismissed.   \n \n6.         The evidence preponderates that the Respondents’ motion for dismissal is   \n            warranted.   \n\nGOURLEY – H208461 \n \n5 \n \n \n7.        That the Respondents’ motion to dismiss is hereby granted pursuant to Ark.  \nCode Ann. §11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 without prejudice, to the refiling of \nthe claim within the specified limitation period.   \n \nORDER \nIn accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, this claim is  \nhereby dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission Rule \n099.13, to the refiling of it within the specified limitation period.        \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n                                                                     ________________________________ \n                                                                                     CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                    Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC CLAIM NO.: H208461 HANSFORD GOURLEY (DEC’D) EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT NEVADA COUNTY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ASSOC. OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, WC TRUST, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR (TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 2...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:57:35.256Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208461-2024-02-22","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GOURLEY_HANSFORD_H208461_20240222.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}