{"id":"alj-H208829-2024-06-10","awcc_number":"H208829","decision_date":"2024-06-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Thomas Sailor","employer_name":null,"title":"SAILOR VS. GREENBRIER CO. INC.AWCC# H208829June 10, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sailor_Thomas_H208829_20240610.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Sailor_Thomas_H208829_20240610.pdf","text_length":6257,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H208829 \n \nTHOMAS SAILOR, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nGREENBRIER CO. INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nSENTRY CASUALTY CO., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 10, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, May 24, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Mr. Thomas Sailor, was represented by the Honorable Andy Caldwell, Little Rock, \nArkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by  the Honorable Carol  Lockard  Worley,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. Ms. Worley’s law partner Jarrod Parrish argued the motion. \n \n \nBACKGROUND \n \n  This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  Respondents.  A \nhearing was conducted on May 24, 2024, in Jonesboro, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in the \ncase. Claimant’s attorney waived his appearance and did not attend the motion hearing. \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a welder. Admitted into evidence \nwas Respondent Exhibit 1, correspondence, and pleadings, consisting of twelve pages. I have also \nblue-backed Form AR-1, March 26, 2024, signed Agreed Order and Andy Caldwell email dated \nApril 11, 2024, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on December 19, 2022, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission.  \nThis form reflects that Claimant allegedly injured his right hand when the hose for a huck gun had \na  hole  in  it  thus  allowing  the  oil  pressure  to  build  and  spray  through  his  glove  causing  a  small \n\nSAILOR, AWCC No. H208829 \n \n2 \n \nwound on November 14, 2022.  This alleged injury was reported to the Respondent/Employer on \nthe same day. On January 6, 2023, Respondents filed a Form AR-2 with no statement of position \nas to whether they were accepting or controverting the claim. Claimant on March 27, 2023, filed \na  Form  AR-C, that further  alleged  that  the  injury  occurred  during  the  course  and  scope  of  his \nemployment. Attorney  Carol  Worley  entered  her  appearance  on  behalf  of  the  Respondents  on \nFebruary 14, 2024.  \nThe parties  have  submitted  an  agreed  order  to  pay  the  Claimant  benefits  along  with  his \nlegal counsel fee on March 26, 2024. The agreed order upon approval includes a stipulation that \nboth parties would agree to a dismissal of the claim without prejudice. I approved and signed the \nagreed order on the same day. On March 29, 2024, Respondents’ counsel emailed me an order to \ndismiss the claim without prejudice. I have interpreted both the request to sign the order and the \ndismissal without prejudice stipulation found in the agreed order as an official request for a motion \nto dismiss hearing.  \nThus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper \nlegal notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing notice at his current address of record via the United \nStates Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular \nFirst-Class Mail. The certified notice was not claimed by the Claimant, but the notice sent regular \nFirst-Class Mail did not come back to the Commission. On April 11, 2024, Claimant’s counsel \nstated, via email, he had no objection to a dismissal without prejudice and stated his client waives \nhis right to a hearing on Motion to Dismiss hearing. The hearing took place on May 24, 2024. The \nmotion was argued by the Honorable Jarrod Parrish. \n \n \n\nSAILOR, AWCC No. H208829 \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 of fact and conclusions of law: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the May 24, 2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with AWCC Rule 099.13, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith proper notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. Respondents argued that both parties \nstipulated to a dismissal without prejudice through the agreed order and that Claimant’s counsel’s \nemail again confirmed no objection to a dismissal without prejudice. I interpret these statements \nas Claimant’s refusal to go any further and prosecute his claim beyond the March 26, 2024, agreed \norder. This position runs counter to AWCC Rule 099.13.  \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 filed his Form AR-C on \nMarch 27, 2023. Since then, Claimant has consented to an approved agreed order that contained a \nstipulation for the dismissal of his claim without prejudice. Based on the foregoing, I do find the \nRespondents have proven by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  failed  to \nprosecute his claim. And as a result, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n\nSAILOR, AWCC No. H208829 \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. \n \n      IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n \n                                                                                               ______________________________ \n                                                                                               Steven Porch \n                                                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H208829 THOMAS SAILOR, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GREENBRIER CO. INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SENTRY CASUALTY CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 10, 2024 Hearing conducted on Wednesday, May 24, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (the C...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:52:33.834Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H208829-2024-06-10","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sailor_Thomas_H208829_20240610.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}