{"id":"alj-H301443-2023-10-31","awcc_number":"H301443","decision_date":"2023-10-31","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Adam Conrad","employer_name":"M R Utilities Inc","title":"CONRAD VS. M R UTILITIES INC. AWCC# H301443 OCTOBER 31, 2023","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:4"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//Conrad_Adam_H301443_20231031.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Conrad_Adam_H301443_20231031.pdf","text_length":4786,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H301443 \n \n \nADAM J. CONRAD, EMPLOYEE  CLAIMANT \n \nM R UTILITIES INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                RESPONDENT \n \nSTONETRUST COMMERCIAL \nINSURANCE  COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA            RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 31, 2023 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  Steven  Porch  on  October  27,  2023,  in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant represented himself Pro Se. \n \nThe  Respondents  were  represented  by  Mr.  Zack  Ryburn, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  filed  by \nRespondents on August 28, 2023.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on October \n27, 2023, in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The Claimant himself was not present at the hearing. \nRespondents  were  represented  at  the  hearing  by  Mr.  Zack  Ryburn  who  argued  the \nmotion.  In addition to Respondent’s argument, the record consists of the Commission’s \nfile–which has been incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. \n The evidence reflects that Claimant’s injury occurred on January 27, 2023, where \nhe allegedly injured himself while walking into his home. Claimant’s exact injury is unclear. \nThis incident allegedly has some connection to his employment. Since filing h is Form C \non February  28, 2023, this  case  has  been  inactive  until  Respondents  filed  a  Motion to \nDismiss due to the lack of prosecution. A hearing was held on October 27, 2023, in  \n\nCONRAD H301443 \n \n \n2 \n \nJonesboro, Arkansas on the Motion to Dismiss. As previously stated, the Claimant was \nnot present for the hearing. The Claimant was served through both certified and first class \nmail. Commissions’ file shows that the certified letter was signed for at the address of the \nClaimant on September 28, 2023.  \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole  and  other  matters  properly  before  the \nCommission,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  in \naccordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over  this \nclaim. \n2. All parties received reasonable and timely notice of the Motion to Dismiss and the \nhearing thereon pursuant to AWCC R. 099.13. \n3. Respondents  did  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion to Dismiss should be, and hereby is, granted without prejudice. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the  claim  be \ndismissed for want of prosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable \nnotice  to  all  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for  want  of \nprosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \n\nCONRAD H301443 \n \n \n3 \nUnder  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-705(a)(3)  (Repl.  2012),  Respondents  must  prove  by  a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  dismissal  should  be  granted.  The  standard \n“preponderance of the evidence” means the evidence having greater weight or convincing \nforce.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium \nCorp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n A claimant’s testimony is never considered uncontroverted.  Nix v. Wilson World \nHotel,  46  Ark.  App.  303,  879  S.W.2d  457  (1994).  The  determination  of  a  witness’ \ncredibility and how much weight to accord to that person’s testimony are solely up to the \nCommission. White v. Gregg Agricultural Ent., 72 Ark. App. 309, 37 S.W.3d 649 (2001).  \nThe Commission must sort through conflicting evidence and determine the true facts.  Id.  \nIn so doing, the Commission is not required to believe the testimony of the claimant or \nany other witness, but may accept and translate into findings of fact only those portions \nof the testimony that it deems worthy of belief.  Id. \n After consideration of all the evidence, I find that Claimant and Respondents were \ngiven reasonable notice for the Motion to  Dismiss hearing under Rule 13. I further find \nthat Claimant has abridged this rule. Thus, I find Respondent’s Motion should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is hereby granted without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H301443 ADAM J. CONRAD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT M R UTILITIES INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STONETRUST COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 31, 2023 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Steven Porch on October 27, 2023, in Jon...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T23:02:24.995Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301443-2023-10-31","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads//Conrad_Adam_H301443_20231031.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}