{"id":"alj-H302397-2024-08-28","awcc_number":"H302397","decision_date":"2024-08-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Joshua Jackson","employer_name":"Shearers Foods, LLC","title":"JACKSON VS. SHEARERS FOODS, LLC AWCC# H302397 August 28, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Joshua_H302397_20240828.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Jackson_Joshua_H302397_20240828.pdf","text_length":6061,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H302397 \n \nJOSHUA JACKSON, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nSHEARERS FOODS, LLC, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nFARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT  \n \nTRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, August  23,  2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant represented himself, Pro Se, McCrory, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Guy Alton Wade, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nBACKGROUND \n \n  This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  Respondents.  A \nhearing was conducted on August 23, 2024, in Jonesboro, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in \nthe  case.  Claimant, according to the Commission’s file, is Pro  Se. Admitted  into  evidence was \nRespondent Exhibit 1, Form AR-C, Form AR-2, correspondence, notice, consisting of 11 pages. I \nhave blue-backed Form AR-1, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on April 13, 2023, a Form AR-C was filed by then-attorney, Laura Beth \nYork, purporting that Claimant sustained injuries to his head, and left shoulder during the course \nof employment, on February 10, 2023.  On April 19, 2023, a Form AR-1 was filed stating these \ninjuries occurred while adjusting boxes on a pallet and a box fell striking Claimant on the back. \nThe Respondent/Employer was made aware of Claimant’s injuries the same day it occurred, \n\nJACKSON, AWCC No. H302397 \n \n2 \n \nFebruary 10, 2022. The form further states that the Claimant worked as a warehouse worker for \nRespondent/Employer.  On April 19, 2023, Respondents filed a Form AR-2 accepting contusion \ninjuries on his head  and  left shoulder. Claimant’s attorney, Tanner Thomas, who worked in the \nsame firm as Laura Beth York, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on June 5, 2023. The Motion \nwas granted on June 15, 2023, by the Full Commission. Respondents’ counsel, Guy Alton Wade, \nentered his appearance April 17, 2024, and filed a Motion to Dismiss. The motion alleges a failure \nto  prosecute  by  the  Claimant. Claimant  was  sent notice of  the  Motion  to  Dismiss certified and \nregular First-Class Mail on April 24, 2024, to the address of record. Both the certified and First-\nClass letters were returned to the Commission.  \nThe Claimant was then mailed due and proper legal notice of the hearing date via the United \nStates Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular \nFirst-Class Mail on May 23, 2024, to his address of record. The certified notice was not claimed \nby Claimant. The hearing notice sent regular First-Class mail was returned to the Commission with \na  handwritten  address  of 611  First  Street,  Tuckerman,  Arkansas  72473,  not  323  Boyd  Street, \nNewport, Arkansas 72112, the address of record. Out of precaution, a hearing notice was sent to \nthe 611 First Street address via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, \nReturn Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail on June 6, 2024. Again, the notices were \nreturned to the Commission. The hearing took place on August 23, 2024, and the Claimant was \nnot present. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nTherefore,  after  a  thorough  consideration  of  the  facts,  issues,  the  applicable  law,  and the \nevidentiary record, I hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n\nJACKSON, AWCC No. H302397 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the August 23, 2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents  have  proven  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that Claimant  has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.   \n   \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with AWCC Rule 099.13, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith proper notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. Claimant did not claim the certified \nhearing notice sent to his address of record. However, the hearing notice sent U.S. First-Class mail, \nto  his  address  of  record,  was  not  returned  to  the  Commission.  The  Claimant  is  responsible  for \nkeeping the Commission updated on his current address. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the \nevidence that Claimant received reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing.  \nAWCC Rule 099.13 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an \naction pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form AR-C on April \n13, 2023. Since then, no bona fide request for a hearing has occurred. Therefore, I do find that the \nRespondents  have  proven by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  failed  to \nprosecute his claim. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is granted, without prejudice. \n      IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n                                                                                               ______________________________ \n                                                                                               Steven Porch \n                                                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H302397 JOSHUA JACKSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT SHEARERS FOODS, LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 28, 2024 Hearing conducted on Friday, August 23, 2024, before the Arkan...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:50:36.262Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H302397-2024-08-28","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jackson_Joshua_H302397_20240828.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}