{"id":"alj-H302793-2024-03-08","awcc_number":"H302793","decision_date":"2024-03-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Keith Sorrells","employer_name":"Lonoke County Judge","title":"SORRELLS VS. LONOKE COUNTY JUDGE AWCC# H302793 & H302794 MARCH 7, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sorrells_Keith_H302793_20240308.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Sorrells_Keith_H302793_20240308.pdf","text_length":7957,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NOS. H302793 & H302794 \n \n \nKEITH D. SORRELLS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nLONOKE COUNTY JUDGE, \n SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nASSOC. ARK. COUNTIES RISK MGMT. \n SVCS., THIRD-PARTY ADMIN. RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 8, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on March 7,  2024, in \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Ms. Carol  Lockard  Worley,  Attorney  at  Law, Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on the Motion  to Dismiss  by \nRespondents.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on March 7, 2024, in Little \nRock, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant, who according \nto  Commission  records is pro  se,  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.   Admitted  into \nevidence  was  Respondents’ Exhibit  1,  pleadings,  correspondence  and  forms \nrelated  to  this  claim,  consisting  of one  index  page  and ten numbered pages \nthereafter.  Also, in order to address adequately this matter under Ark. Code Ann. \n§ 11-9-705(a)(1)  (Repl.  2012)(Commission  must “conduct the hearing  .  .  . in  a \nmanner  which  best  ascertains  the  rights  of  the  parties”), and  without  objection, I \nhave  blue-backed  to  the  record documents from the Commission’s file on  the \n\nSORRELLS – H302793 & H302794 \n \n2 \n \nclaim,  consisting  of two pages.  In  accordance  with Sapp  v.  Tyson  Foods,  Inc., \n2010 Ark. App. 517, ___ S.W.3d ___, these documents have been served on the \nparties in conjunction with this opinion. \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n H302793.   Per  the  First Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed on May 3,  2023, \nClaimant  purportedly suffered an injury to his  lower  back at  work  on March  23, \n2023, when he was removing a large storage bin from a shelf.  According to the \nForm AR-2 that was filed on May 4, 2023, Respondents accepted the claim as a \nmedical-only one and paid benefits pursuant thereto. \n On May 1, 2023, Claimant filed a Form AR-C.  Therein, he alleged that he \nwas entitled  to medical benefits  as  a  result  of the compensable  injury that  he \nallegedly sustained.  No hearing request accompanied this filing. \n H302794.   Per  the  First Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed on May 3,  2023, \nClaimant purportedly suffered another injury to his lower back at work on April 24, \n2023, when he was escorting an inmate who became disruptive and attempted to \npull  away  from  him.  According  to the  Form  AR-2 that  was also filed on May 3, \n2023, Respondents accepted the  claim as  a  medical-only  one and paid benefits \npursuant thereto. \n On May 1, 2023, Claimant filed a Form AR-C.  Therein, he alleged that he \nwas entitled  to medical treatment.  As  before,  no  hearing  request  accompanied \nthis filing. \n\nSORRELLS – H302793 & H302794 \n \n3 \n \n The  record  reflects  that nothing  further  took  place  on either claim until \nJanuary 9,  2024.   On that  date, Respondents filed  the  instant  motion, asking  for \ndismissal  of the claims under  AWCC  R.  099.13  and  Ark.  Code  Ann. § 11-9-702 \n(Repl.  2012).    My  office wrote  Claimant on January 12,  2024,  asking  for  a \nresponse  to  the  motion within  20  days.   The  letter  was  sent  by first  class and \ncertified mail to the Jacksonville address of Claimant listed in the files and on his \nForms AR-C.  Someone  with  an  illegible  signature  claimed the certified  letter on \nJanuary 18,  2024, and the  first-class  letter  was  not  returned.   Regardless,  no \nresponse from Claimant to the motion was forthcoming.  On February 2, 2024, a \nhearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for March 7, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. \nat the Commission in Little Rock.  The notice was sent to Claimant via first-class \nand certified  mail to  the  same  address as  before.  In  this  instance,  the certified \nletter was  claimed  by  someone  with  an  illegible  signature  on  February  3,  2024; \nand  as was  the  case  previously, the first-class  letter was not returned  to  the \nCommission. \n The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss proceeded as scheduled on March 7, \n2024.  Again, Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents \nappeared  through  counsel  and  argued  for  dismissal  under the  aforementioned \nauthorities. \n\nSORRELLS – H302793 & H302794 \n \n4 \n \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and other \nmatters  properly  before  the  Commission,  the  following Findings  of Fact  and \nConclusions of Law are hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-\n704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation  Commission  has  jurisdiction \nover this matter. \n2. The  parties were  provided  reasonable notice  of  the Motion  to \nDismiss and of the hearing thereon. \n3. The  evidence  preponderates  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute \nhis two claims under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted;  these two claims for \nadditional  benefits are hereby dismissed without  prejudice under \nAWCC R. 099.13. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13 reads: \nUpon meritorious application to the Commission from either party in \nan action pending before the Commission, requesting that the claim \nbe  dismissed  for  want  of  prosecution,  the Commission  may,  upon \nreasonable notice to all parties, enter an order dismissing the claim \nfor want of prosecution. \n \nSee  generally  Johnson  v.  Triple  T  Foods,  55  Ark.  App.  83,  85,  929  S.W.2d  730 \n(1996). \n\nSORRELLS – H302793 & H302794 \n \n5 \n \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) \n(Repl. 2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the \nclaims—by a preponderance of the evidence.  This standard means the evidence \nhaving greater weight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 \nS.W.3d 415; Smith v. Magnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 \n(1947). \n As shown by the evidence recounted above, (1) the parties were provided \nreasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to Dismiss  and  of  the  hearing  thereon;  and  (2) \nClaimant  has  failed  to  pursue his two claims because he  has  taken  no  further \naction  in  pursuit  of them (including  appearing  at  the March  7,  2024, hearing  to \nargue  against its dismissal) since the filing  of  his  Forms AR-C  on May  1,  2023.  \nThus, the evidence preponderates that dismissal of both is warranted under Rule \n13.  Because of this finding, it is unnecessary to address the application of § 11-9-\n702. \n That leaves the question of whether the dismissal of the claims should be \nwith  or  without  prejudice.    The Commission  possesses  the  authority  to dismiss \nclaims  with  prejudice.  Loosey  v.  Osmose  Wood Preserving Co., 23  Ark. App. \n137,  744  S.W.2d  402  (1988).   The Commission and  the appellate courts  have \nexpressed  a  preference for  dismissals without prejudice.  See Professional \nAdjustment   Bureau   v.   Strong,   75   Ark.   249, 629   S.W.2d   284   (1982)).  \nRespondents at the hearing asked for a dismissal without prejudice.  I agree and \n\nSORRELLS – H302793 & H302794 \n \n6 \n \nfind  that  the dismissal  of  these claims should  be and  hereby is entered without \nprejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set  forth \nabove,  these two claims for  additional  benefits are hereby  dismissed without \nprejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n1\n“A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ allows a new [claim] to be brought on the \nsame cause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NOS. H302793 & H302794 KEITH D. SORRELLS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT LONOKE COUNTY JUDGE, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ASSOC. ARK. COUNTIES RISK MGMT. SVCS., THIRD-PARTY ADMIN. RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 8, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fi...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:56:03.514Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H302793-2024-03-08","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Sorrells_Keith_H302793_20240308.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}