{"id":"alj-H301338-2024-06-26","awcc_number":"H301338","decision_date":"2024-06-26","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Tyshaun Ramos","employer_name":null,"title":"RAMOS VS. FOURJAY, LLC, d/b/a WENDY’SAWCC# H301338June 25, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","denied:2"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RAMOS_TYSHAUN_H301338_20240626.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"RAMOS_TYSHAUN_H301338_20240626.pdf","text_length":9366,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.:H301338 \n \n \nTYSHAUN RAMOS,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nFOURJAY, LLC, d/b/a WENDY’S, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT              \n                                                                                  \nPHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY,                \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                        RESPONDENT                                               \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMINTY COMPANY, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINSTRATOR                                                                      RESPONDENT  \n                                                                     \n \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 25, 2024   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nClaimant, pro se/unrepresented, failed to appear at the hearing.      \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Guy Alton Wade, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n On April 10, 2024, a hearing was held on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss for a lack of \nprosecution, in this alleged claim for Arkansas workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to Dillard \nv.  Benton County Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004).    Here, the  sole \nissue for determination is whether this claim should be dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure to \ntimely prosecute it  under the  provisions  of Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012),  and/or \nArkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner prescribed by law.   \n\nRAMOS – H301338 \n \n2 \n \nThe record consists of the transcript of the April 10, 2024, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.   Specifically,  Commission’s  Exhibit  1 contains a  total  of  six (6) pages;  and  the \nRespondents’ Hearing Documents Exhibit which consist of six (6) totaled pages was marked as \nRespondents’ Exhibit No. 1. \nNo testimony was taken at the hearing. \n        Procedural History \n The Claimant has asserted that he sustained a work-related injury in the course and scope \nof his employment with the respondent-employer on February 22, 2023, for which he is entitled to \nArkansas workers’ compensation benefits.    \n On May 31, 2023, the Claimant’s former attorney filed an Entry of Appearance with the \nCommission  stating  that  she  had  been  retained by  the  Claimant to  represent him in  the  above-\nreferenced claim.  However, on November 8, 2023, the Claimant’s attorney of record in this claim \nnotified the Commission that she no longer represented the Claimant in this matter.  \nSince this time, the Claimant has failed to make a request for a hearing and not taken any \naffirmative  action  to  pursue  his alleged claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  The  record \ndoes not show that the Respondents ever paid any benefits on this alleged claim.  Therefore, this \nis an alleged claim for initial benefits.  \nThe Respondents’ attorney filed  a letter motion  to dismiss with  the Commission per \ncorrespondence dated January 2, 2024.  It appears that the Respondents served this pleading upon \nthe Claimant by depositing a copy of it in the mail with the United States Postal Service.   \nOn February 13, 2024, the Commission sent a letter to the Claimant letting him know again \nabout the motion for dismissal of his claim for workers’ compensation   Said letter notice was sent \nto the Claimant by way of first-class and certified mail via the Postal Service.  Per this letter, the \n\nRAMOS – H301338 \n \n3 \n \nClaimant was given a deadline of twenty (20) days for filing a written response/objection with the \nCommission. \nIn that regard, on March 6, 2024, the Postal Service returned to the Commission the letter \nnotice sent to Claimant via certified mail.  This correspondence was marked: “Return to Sender – \nUnclaimed – Unable to Forward.”  However, the letter sent via first-class  mail  has  not  been \nreturned to the Commission. \nYet, there was no response from the Claimant whatsoever regarding the motion to dismiss \nhis alleged work-related injury.  \nOn April 10, 2024, the Commission notified the parties pursuant to an Amended Notice of \nHearing\n1\n dated March 6, 2024, that this claim had  been placed  on  the  docket for a dismissal \nhearing.   Said  hearing  was scheduled to  be  heard on  April  10,  2024, at  the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission, in Little Rock, Arkansas. \nThis hearing notice was sent to the Claimant via first-class and certified mail via the Postal \nService.    The notice mailed to  Claimant  via  certified  mail  was  returned  to  the  Commission on \nMarch 28, 2024, marked: “Return to Sender – Unclaimed – Unable to Forward.”  However, the \nhearing notice sent via first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  Therefore, the \nevidence before me preponderates that the Claimant received notice of the dismissal hearing.   \nYet once again, the Claimant did not respond or object to his alleged claim being dismissed.   \nNevertheless,  a hearing  was conducted on  the  Respondents’ motion  to dismiss as \nscheduled.  However, the Claimant failed to appear at the dismissal hearing to object to his alleged \nclaim for workers’ compensation benefits being dismissed.   The  Respondents  appeared  for  the \ndismissal hearing through their attorney.  Counsel for the Respondents argued, among other things, \n \n1\n It appears that the Hearing Notice was designated as an “Amended” Hearing Notice due to a \nclerical error.   \n\nRAMOS – H301338 \n \n4 \n \nthat the Claimant has done nothing to pursue his claim for benefits.  He specifically stated that the \nClaimant has not ever requested a hearing or responded to the motion for dismissal in any manner.  \nTherefore, the Respondents’ attorney essentially moved that this claim be dismissed due to a lack \nof prosecution under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13. \n         Adjudication \nIn  the  present  matter, the  record proves that  this  is  an  alleged claim for initial workers’ \ncompensation  benefits.   Typically,  a  Form  AR-C is  the recognized means for filing a “formal \nclaim.”  However, no Form AR-C has ever been filed in this matter.   It is well established under \nworkers’  compensation  law that  other  means  exist  to  file  a  claim  for Arkansas  workers’ \ncompensation benefits other than a Form AR-C.  On the contrary, I am unable to find any such \ndocument of record that would constitute the filing of a claim for initial workers’ compensation \nbenefits.   \nBecause no claim has ever been filed by the Claimant, I am compelled to find that there is \nno claim subject to dismissal pursuant to the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Therefore, under \nthese circumstances, the Respondents’ motion is hereby respectfully denied and dismissed in its \nentirety. \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn  the  basis  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Claimant has alleged  that  he  sustained  a  work-related  injury  on \nFebruary  22, 2023, while  performing  his  employment  duties  for  the \nrespondent-employer.  This would be considered a claim for initial benefits \nsince   there   is   no   documentation   of record   demonstrating   that the \n\nRAMOS – H301338 \n \n5 \n \nRespondents  paid  any  benefits  to, or  on  behalf of, the  Claimant  in  this \nmatter. \n \n3. The Claimant never filed a Form AR-C or requested a hearing in connection \nwith his alleged work-related claim.  Nor is there any document of record \nfiled by the Claimant or his former attorney that suffices as the filing of an \ninitial claim for benefits. \n \n4. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim due to a lack of prosecution, for which a hearing was held.    \n \n5. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was duly served on all parties \nat their last known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n6. Because no claim exists to be subject to dismissal, the Respondents’ motion \nto dismiss is respectfully denied and dismissed in its entirety.   \n \n                                                                    ORDER \n Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I have no alternative but \nto respectfully deny the  Respondents’  motion  to  dismiss  because  no  claim  for  workers’ \ncompensation benefits was ever filed by the Claimant to be subject to dismissal. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n                           \n   \n                                                                      ________________________________ \n  CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                     Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.:H301338 TYSHAUN RAMOS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FOURJAY, LLC, d/b/a WENDY’S, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMINTY COMPANY, THIRD PARTY ADMINSTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 25, 2024 Hearing held befor...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:15.646Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301338-2024-06-26","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/RAMOS_TYSHAUN_H301338_20240626.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}