{"id":"alj-H300887-2023-10-12","awcc_number":"H300887","decision_date":"2023-10-12","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Torrence Shelton","employer_name":"Diamond Constr. Co., Inc","title":"SHELTON VS. DIAMOND CONSTR. CO., INC. AWCC# H300887 OCTOBER 12, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SHELTON_TORRENCE_H300887_20231012.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"SHELTON_TORRENCE_H300887_20231012.pdf","text_length":6277,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H300887 \n \nTORRENCE L. SHELTON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nDIAMOND CONSTR. CO., INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nACCIDENT FUND INS. CO. OF AMERICA, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                     RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION AND ORDER FILED OCTOBER 12, 2023, \nGRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, October 10, 2023, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Mr. Torrence L. Shelton, pro se, of North Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, \nfailed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Carol Lockard Worley, Worley, Wood & \nParrish, P.A., Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing was conducted on Tuesday, October 10, 2023, to determine whether this claim \nshould be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2023 \nLexis Replacement) and Commission Rule 099.13 (2023 Lexis Repl.). \n The respondents filed a  (second) motion to dismiss with the Commission on August 15, \n2023,  requesting  this  claim  be  dismissed  without  prejudice  for  lack  of  prosecution.  (The \nrespondents previously had filed a motion to dismiss with the Commission on August, 10, 2023.)  \nIn accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice \nof the respondents’ motion to dismiss, as well as a copy of the hearing notice at his addresses of \nrecord  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS),  First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt \nrequested. The Rainwater, Holt & Sexton law firm initially had represented the claimant in this \n\nTorrence L. Shelton, AWCC No. H300887 \n2 \n \nmatter;  however,  the  claimant  apparently  became  unhappy  with  their  representation,  which  he \nexpressed in a handwritten letter to the ALJ dated August 28, 2023. This letter stated the claimant \nwas, “...requesting  a  hearing  for  reason  I  am  not  being  properly  represented  in  my  case  on  the \nmatter.” (See, Commission’s file, herein incorporated by reference into the record; see, infra.). But \nsignificantly, the claimant did not request a hearing on the merits of his claim, nor did he nor has \nhe ever stated what specific benefits he is seeking.  \n  Also  significantly,  the  claimant  failed  and/or  refused  to  appear  at  the  subject  hearing  to \nexplain  his  letter,  and/or  to  request  a  hearing.  While  apparently  the  claimant  did  appear  at  the \nCommission on the day of the hearing, he decided to leave the Commission premises before the \nhearing was held. In addition, the respondents’ highly credible and well-respected counsel advised \non  the  record  the  claimant  refused her attempt to lead him to the Commission’s Legal Advisor \nDivision  where  he  could  have  visited  with  a  legal  advisor.  Instead,  the  claimant  simply  left  the \nbuilding and, ultimately, failed and/or refused to appear at the subject hearing.   \n The  record  herein  consists  of  the  hearing  transcript  and  any  and  all  exhibits  contained \ntherein and/or attached thereto, as well as the Commission’s entire file in this matter. \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4), as well as our court of appeals’ ruling \nin Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), \nthe Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the respondents’ motion to dismiss. Rather \nthan  recite  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  record,  suffice  it  to  say  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nintroduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively reveals the claimant has failed \nand/or refused to prosecute his claim and, apparently, has chosen to abandon his claim at this time. \n\nTorrence L. Shelton, AWCC No. H300887 \n3 \n \n Therefore, after a thorough consideration of the facts, issues, the applicable law, and other \nrelevant matters of record, I hereby make the following: \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1.   The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2.   After having received due and legal notice of the respondents’ motion to  \n   dismiss, as well as due and legal notice of the subject hearing, the claimant \n   failed and/or refused to appear at the hearing. Therefore, the \n      claimant has waived his right to a hearing on the respondents’ motion to  \n   dismiss.  \n \n3.   The claimant has failed to prosecute his claim and, moreover, to date has  \n failed to request a hearing on the merits of his claim. The Commission does  \n not have jurisdiction over the claimant’s current complaint that his counsel  \n allegedly did not “properly represent” him in this matter.  \n \n4.   Therefore, the respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice filed with \n   the Commission on August 15, 2023, should be and hereby is GRANTED \n   pursuant to both Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-702(a)(4) and Commission  \n   Rule 099.13. \n \n Nothing in this opinion and order shall be construed to prevent the claimant, any attorney \nhe may hire to represent him, or  any person  acting  on his behalf  from  refiling this claim, if the \nclaim is refiled within the deadlines set forth in Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-9-402.  \n The  respondents  shall pay  the  court  reporter’s  invoice  within  twenty  (20)  days  of  their \nreceipt thereof. \n IT IS SO ORDERED.                                                                                                                                       \n                                                                        ______________________________ \n                                                                        Mike Pickens \n                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H300887 TORRENCE L. SHELTON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DIAMOND CONSTR. CO., INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND INS. CO. OF AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION AND ORDER FILED OCTOBER 12, 2023, GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJU...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:01:41.153Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H300887-2023-10-12","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/SHELTON_TORRENCE_H300887_20231012.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}