{"id":"alj-H301282-2025-12-15","awcc_number":"H301282","decision_date":"2025-12-15","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Duane Thomas","employer_name":"Saracen Casino Resort","title":"THOMAS VS. SARACEN CASINO RESORT AWCC# H301282 December 15, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOMAS_DUANE_H301282_20251215.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"THOMAS_DUANE_H301282_20251215.pdf","text_length":3927,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC FILE No H301282 \n \nDUANE R. THOMAS, EMPLOYEE        CLAIMANT \n \nSARACEN CASINO RESORT, EMPLOYER                     RESPONDENT \n \nLUBA CASUALTY INSURANCE CO./  \nLUBA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CARRIER                  RESPONDENT \n  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 15 DECEMBER 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) \nAdministrative Law Judge JayO. Howe on 6 November 2025 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant appeared pro se. \n \nWorley, Wood & Parrish, P.A., Mr. Jarrod Parrish, appeared for the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Pine \nBluff, Arkansas, on 6 November 2025. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury  \nRespondents’ Exhibit No 1, which consisted of one index page and eight pages of documents; \nand Commission’s Exhibit No 1, which consisted of two pages of Postal Service delivery \nreceipts from Commission correspondence with the claimant. Also, I have blue-backed to \nthis opinion two requests from the claimant (one file-marked on 25 February 2025; the \nother file-marked on 5 March 2025) indicating his wish to proceed in litigating his case. In \naccordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 549, \nthese documents are being served on the parties in conjunction with this opinion. \nOn 25 February 2025, the claimant filed a letter asking to “start a claim.” Then, on 5 \nMarch 2025, he specifically requested a hearing. After conducting a telephone conference, a \nPrehearing Order was entered on 24 June 2025. The respondents later requested that this \n\nD. THOMAS- H301282 \n2 \n \nclaim be dismissed under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) for the claimant’s failure to cooperate in \ndiscovery.  \n Notice of the respondents’ motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nCommission practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail. Notice of the hearing on the \nrespondents was sent in the same manner. The claimant appeared at the hearing to argue \nagainst the dismissal of his claim. \nFINDINDGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole, I hereby make the following findings of fact \nand conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. \n2. The parties were provided with reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss \nand the hearing on the motion. \n \n3. The evidence does not preponderate in favor of finding at this time that the \nclaimant has failed to prosecute his claim under 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d). \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied without prejudice. \n \nDISCUSSION \nBoth parties appeared at the hearing. As cited by the respondents in their motion, \n11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d) provides for a dismissal for failure to prosecute an action upon \napplication by either party and reasonable notice.  \nThe claimant did not dispute that he had failed to cooperate in the scheduling of his \ndeposition in this claim. He offered several excuses for his noncooperation. I reminded him \nof my admonition during the prehearing conference that he was expected to participate in \nthe discovery process, which included making himself available at a convenient time for the \nscheduling of his deposition. The claimant stated that he understood that any further \nfailures to comply with discovery or other directives from the Commission could result in \nthe dismissal of his case. \n\nD. THOMAS- H301282 \n3 \n \nSince the hearing, the claimant has coordinated with the respondents in scheduling \nhis deposition. Another prehearing conference will be set after the deposition is completed \nso that this matter may be set for a hearing.  \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H301282 DUANE R. THOMAS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SARACEN CASINO RESORT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LUBA CASUALTY INSURANCE CO./ LUBA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 15 DECEMBER 2025 Heard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:43.232Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301282-2025-12-15","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/THOMAS_DUANE_H301282_20251215.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}