{"id":"alj-H301708-2024-03-21","awcc_number":"H301708","decision_date":"2024-03-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Frederick Williams","employer_name":"Hi-Way Paving, Inc","title":"WILLIAMS VS. HI-WAY PAVING, INC. AWCC# H301708 & H301713 MARCH 21, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:1","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WILLIAMS_FREDERICK_H301708-H301713_20240321.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"WILLIAMS_FREDERICK_H301708-H301713_20240321.pdf","text_length":6194,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NOS. H301708 & H301713 \n \nFREDERICK WILLIAMS, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nHI-WAY PAVING, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n                                 \nCINCINNATI CASUALTY CO./ \nCINCINNATI INS. CO. \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                     RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE  \nFILED MARCH 21, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Little Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant, Mr. Frederick Williams, pro se, of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, failed \nand/or refused to appear at the hearing. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Karen H. McKinney, Barber Law Firm, \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n  A hearing was conducted on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, to determine whether these two \n(2) separate claims should be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-\n9-702(a)(4) (2023 Lexis Replacement) and Commission Rule 099.13 (2023 Lexis Replacement). \n The respondents filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (MTD) with the Commission \non January  19,  2024, requesting these claims be  dismissed without  prejudice for  lack  of \nprosecution. Consistent with the applicable Arkansas law, the Commission mailed a copy of both \nthe respondents’ MTD, and the subject hearing notice via the United States Postal Service (USPS), \nCertified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested, by  letter  dated February  15,  2024,  to his last  known \n\nFrederick Williams, AWCC No. H301708 & H301713 \n \n2 \n \naddress  of  record  with  the  Commission. (Commission  Exhibit  1;  Respondents’  Exhibit  1). \nThereafter, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond in any way to either the Commission or \nto  the  respondents;  and  he  failed  and/or  refused  to  appear  at  the  subject  hearing.  The  claimant \nnever objected in any way to the respondents’ MTD. \n          It should be noted the claimant was represented by counsel at the time both of these two (2) \nclaims were filed on his behalf; however, by motion filed with the Commission on December 1, \n2023, the claimant’s attorney requested to withdraw as  his  counsel.  By Commission  order  filed \nJanuary 9, 2024, the Full Commission granted the claimant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw as \ncounsel. (RX1 at K). \n            I hereby incorporate the facts stated in the respondents motion to dismiss filed January 9, \n2024, as though they were set forth word-for-word herein. \n The  record  herein  consists  of the  hearing  transcript  and  any  and  all exhibits  contained \ntherein and attached thereto. \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) (2022 Lexis Repl.), as well as our court \nof appeals’ ruling in Dillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark.  App. 379, 192 S.W.3d \n287 (Ark. App. 2004), the Commission scheduled and conducted  a hearing on the respondents’ \nMTD. Rather than recite a detailed analysis of the record, suffice it to say the preponderance of \nthe evidence introduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively demonstrates the \nclaimant has both failed and/or refused to prosecute his two (2) claims, and he has failed and/or \nrefused to request a hearing within the last six (6) months on the two (2) claims. \n\nFrederick Williams, AWCC No. H301708 & H301713 \n \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: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n 1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n 2. After the Commission mailed due and legal notice of the respondents’ MTD \n                  filed January 9, 2024, to the claimant’s last known address of record with the \n                  Commission, the claimant failed and/or refused to respond to the motion in any \n                  way; failed and/or refused to object to the subject MTD; and failed and/or refused \n                  to request a hearing on either or both of the two (2) subject claims. \n \n            3.         The claimant failed and/or refused to appear at the subject hearing and, therefore, \n                        has waived his right to a hearing on the MTD. \n \n      4.         The claimant has failed to request a hearing either on the merits, or on any issue \n                  related to either of these (2) claims within the last six (6) months. \n \n 5. The respondents’ MTD without prejudice filed with the Commission on January \n                  9, 2024, should be and hereby is GRANTED. \n      \n      6.         Therefore, the two (2) aforementioned subject claims hereby are dismissed without \n                  prejudice to their refiling pursuant to the deadlines prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. \n                  § 11-9-702(a) and (b), and Commission Rule 099.13. \n \n This opinion shall not be construed to prohibit the claimant, his attorney, any attorney he \nmay retain in the future, or anyone acting legally and on his behalf from refiling either or both of \nthese two (2) claims if the claim(s) is (are) refiled within the applicable time periods prescribed by \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a) and (b). \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 \nMP/mp","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS. H301708 & H301713 FREDERICK WILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HI-WAY PAVING, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CINCINNATI CASUALTY CO./ CINCINNATI INS. CO. INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED MARCH 21, 2024 Hearing conducted on Tu...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:56:49.435Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H301708-2024-03-21","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/WILLIAMS_FREDERICK_H301708-H301713_20240321.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}