{"id":"alj-H303175-2025-04-08","awcc_number":"H303175","decision_date":"2025-04-08","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Harlan Groning","employer_name":"Williams Farms Gp","title":"GRONING VS. WILLIAMS FARMS GP AWCC# H303175 April 08, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:8","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Groning_Harlan_H303175_20250408.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Groning_Harlan_H303175_20250408.pdf","text_length":7908,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H303175 \n \n \nHARLAN GRONING, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nWILLIAMS FARMS GP, \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nTECHNOLOGY INS. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED APRIL 8, 2025 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on April  4,  2025, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented  by  Mr. William  C.  Frye,  Attorney  at  Law, North 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 April  4,  2025, in \nJonesboro,  Arkansas.    No  testimony  was  taken  in  the  case.    Claimant,  who \naccording  to  Commission  records  is pro  se,  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.  \nAdmitted into evidence was Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence \nand forms related to this claim, consisting of 11 pages.  Also, in order to address \nadequately   this   matter   under   Ark.   Code   Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(1)   (Repl. \n2012)(Commission  must  “conduct  the  hearing  .  .  .  in  a  manner  which  best \nascertains the rights of the parties”), and without objection, I have blue-backed to \nthe  record documents from the Commission’s file on the claim,  consisting  of 25 \n\nGRONING – H303175 \n \n2 \n \npages.  In accordance with Sapp v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 517, 2010 \nArk.  App.  LEXIS 549,  these  documents  have  been  served  on  the  parties  in \nconjunction with this opinion. \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed on May 16,  2023,  Claimant \npurportedly suffered an injury to multiple body parts at work on January 26, 2023, \nwhen he  was involved  in  a  rollover  truck  accident.  According  to the  Form  AR-2 \nthat  was filed on May 17,  2023, Respondents accepted the  claim as  a  medical-\nonly  one and paid  benefits  pursuant  thereto.  Respondents’ counsel entered his \nappearance before the Commission on May 19, 2023. \n On January 8, 2024, through then-counsel Laura Beth York, Claimant filed \na Form AR-C.  Therein, he alleged that he was entitled to the entire range of initial \nand additional benefits as a result of his alleged left leg, left thigh, head, left-side \nribs, back, and “other whole body” injuries.  No hearing request accompanied this \nfiling.  Respondents’ counsel on January 23, 2024, reiterated his clients’ position \nthat they had accepted the claim as compensable and had been paying benefits.  \nOn  June  15,  2023,  Respondents  requested  a  subpoena  duces  tecum  from  the \nCommission.  This was issued on June 20, 2023. \n On December 9, 2024, York moved to withdraw from her representation of \nClaimant.    Accompanying  this  motion  were  copies  of  numerous  letters  her  office \nhad  sent  Claimant,  attempting  to  make  contact  with  him.    These  attempts  were \n\nGRONING – H303175 \n \n3 \n \nunsuccessful.  In an Order entered on December 20, 2024, the Full Commission \ngranted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on the claim  until \nDecember  27, 2024.   On  that date, Respondents filed the  instant motion, asking \nfor dismissal of it under AWCC R. 099.13.  My office wrote Claimant on December \n31, 2024, asking for a response to the motion within 20 days.  The letter was sent \nby first class and certified mail to the two Reyno, Arkansas addresses of Claimant \n(one a street address, the other a post office box number) listed in the file and on \nhis Form AR-C.  Claimant signed for the certified letters on January 7, 2025, and \nthe first-class letters were not returned.  Regardless, no response from Claimant \nto the motion was forthcoming.  On January 31, 2025, a hearing on the Motion to \nDismiss was  scheduled for April  4, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. at the Craighead  County \nCourthouse in Jonesboro.   The  notice  was  sent  to  Claimant  via  first-class  and \ncertified  mail to  the  same  addresses as  before.   In  this  instance,  the certified \nletters were claimed  by “Donnie Yandell”;  and  as was  the  case  previously, the \nfirst-class letters were not returned to the Commission. \n The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss proceeded as scheduled on April 4, \n2025.    Again,  Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents \nappeared through counsel and argued for dismissal under Rule 13. \n\nGRONING – H303175 \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 claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n4. The Motion  to Dismiss  is hereby  granted; this claim for additional \nbenefits is hereby  dismissed without  prejudice under  AWCC  R. \n099.13. \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\nGRONING – H303175 \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 claim because he has taken no further action in \npursuit of it (including appearing at the April 4, 2025, hearing to argue against its \ndismissal)  since the filing  of  his  Form  AR-C  on January  8,  2024.   Thus,  the \nevidence preponderates that dismissal of the claim is warranted under Rule 13. \n That  leaves  the  question  of  whether  the  dismissal  of  the  claim  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\nGRONING – H303175 \n \n6 \n \nfind  that  the  dismissal  of  this claim  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, this claim for additional benefits is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \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 NO. H303175 HARLAN GRONING, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WILLIAMS FARMS GP, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TECHNOLOGY INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED APRIL 8, 2025 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on April 4, 2025, in Jonesboro, Craighead County, Ar...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:41:36.670Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303175-2025-04-08","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Groning_Harlan_H303175_20250408.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}