{"id":"alj-H303479-2025-03-21","awcc_number":"H303479","decision_date":"2025-03-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Keith Justice","employer_name":"J Square, Inc","title":"JUSTICE VS. J SQUARE, INC. AWCC# H303479 March 21, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JUSTICE_KEITH_H303479_20250321.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"JUSTICE_KEITH_H303479_20250321.pdf","text_length":12004,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H303479 \n \n \nKEITH J. JUSTICE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nJ SQUARE, INC.,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT     \n \nACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE,  \nCARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR(TPA)                                        RESPONDENT                                                                    \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 21, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant  represented  by  the  Honorable Kenneth  A.  Olsen,  Attorney at  Law, Bryant,  Arkansas.  \nMr. Olsen did not attend the hearing    \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Karen  H.  McKinney, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A hearing was held on March 19, 2025, in the present matter pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004),  to  determine  whether  the \nabove-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the transcript of March 19, 2025, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  The Commission’s Exhibit consists of thirteen (13) pages of various pleadings, letters, \nand  tracking  information which  was provided to  the  Commission  by the  United  States  Postal \n\nJUSTICE – H303479 \n \n2 \n \nService.  It was marked accordingly.  Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consists of eighteen (18) pages of \npleadings, correspondence, and various other forms related to this claim. \n                                                             Procedural History \n On May 30, 2023, the Claimant filed with the Commission a claim for Arkansas workers’ \ncompensation  benefits on  his  own  behalf via  a  Form  AR-C.  Per  this  document,  the  Claimant \nalleged that he sustained multiple injuries during the course and in the scope of his employment \nwith  the  respondent-employer, on July  29,  2022.  The  Claimant  requested both  initial  and \nadditional benefits.  In  fact, he checked  off all the boxes for  every  conceivable workers’ \ncompensation benefit under the law. \n  The  respondent-insurance-carrier  filed  a  Form AR-2 with  the  Commission  on June  23, \n2023.  Per this form, the Respondents stated that they did accept this claim as a compensable claim \nfor J Square, LLC. \n The Claimant retained legal representation in this matter on or about June 21, 2023.  \n Since this time, and the filing of the claim in May 2023, the Claimant has not tried to pursue \nor otherwise resolve his claim, nor has he made a bona fide request for a hearing since the filing \nfor the Form AR-C more than six (6) months ago.  \n Therefore,  on March  4, 2023, the  Respondents filed a Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss \nwith the Commission.  \nOn or about March 18, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney objected to the motion to dismiss and \nasked  for  a  hearing.    Therefore,  I  held  the  motion  in  abeyance  and  the  prehearing  process  was \nstarted.    Therefore,  on  April  19, 2024, the  claim  was  scheduled  for  a  prehearing  telephone \nconference with the parties for May 15, 2024.  At the time of the prehearing telephone conference, \nthe parties stated that discovery had not been completed and asked that the claim be returned to \n\nJUSTICE – H303479 \n \n3 \n \nthe Commission’s general files.  This was done.  Since that time, there has been no bona fide action \ntaken on the part of the Claimant to proceed with a hearing.  \nTherefore, on January 6, 2025, the Respondents filed a Respondents’ Renewed Motion to \nDismiss with  the  Commission,  along  with a certificate  of service  to  the Claimant’s attorney.  \nHence, the Respondents forwarded a copy of said motion to the Claimant’s attorney via email.  \nMy office sent a letter to the Claimant on January 15, 2025, informing the Claimant, and \nhis attorney of the Respondents’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss, and a deadline of twenty (20) days \nfor filing a written response.  This letter was sent to the Claimant via first-class and certified mail.  \nInformation  received  by  the  Commission  from  the  United  States  Postal  Service  on  January 18, \n2025,  confirms  that  they delivered the item to the Claimant’s residence, and left it with an \nindividual.  The recipient’s signature recorded on this document is illegible.  However, the notice \nsent by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  Moreover, the letter-notice was \nsent to the Claimant’s attorney via email, and the United States Postal Service.  Yet, there has been \nno response from the Claimant’s attorney or the Claimant.    \n Subsequently, in a Hearing Notice dated February 5, 2025, my office notified the parties \nthat this claim had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ most recent motion to dismiss.  Said \ndismissal hearing was scheduled for March 19, 2025, 10:00 a.m., with the hearing being held at \nthe Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  My office sent this \nnotice to the Claimant via first-class mail and certified mail. \nTracking  information  received  from  the  Postal  Service  shows  that the  item/notice  of \nhearing was delivered to the Claimant’s residence and left with an individual on February 8, 2025.  \nThe  Signature of Recipient section of  this  document bears a signature, but  it  too  is  illegible.  \nHowever, the notice sent via first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  Likewise, \n\nJUSTICE – H303479 \n \n4 \n \nmy office forwarded a copy of the notice of hearing to the Claimant’s attorney by way of an email, \nand the United States Postal Service.  Thus far, there has been no response from the Claimant’s \nattorney or the Claimant.    \nBased on the foregoing, the evidence preponderates that both the Claimant and his attorney \nreceived notice of the dismissal hearing.      \nOn March 19, the dismissal hearing was held as scheduled.  The Claimant’s attorney did \nnot attend the hearing.  Nor did the Claimant appear at the hearing.  Nevertheless, the Respondents’ \nattorney appeared at the hearing and argued that the Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  More  specifically, the Respondents’ attorney noted  that  the \nClaimant has not taken any action to advance his claim in over a year.  Counsel further argued, \namong other  things that  the Claimant  and  his attorney have not objected  to the  claim  being \ndismissed.  Therefore, the Respondents’ attorney moved  that this claim be dismissed without \nprejudice pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13.  \nADJUDICATION  \nTherefore, the statutory provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable \nin the Respondents’ renewed request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) states:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim may, upon \nmotion and after hearing, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claim \nwithin limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, no \nbona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice \nto the refiling of the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section. \n\nJUSTICE – H303479 \n \n5 \n \n \nFurthermore, Commission Rule 099.13 reads:  \n \nThe Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance \nof either party or on its own motion.  No case set for hearing shall be postponed \nexcept by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \nIn the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed \nby  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law  Judge,  and  such  dismissal  order  will \nbecome  final  unless  an  appeal  is  timely  taken  therefrom  or  a  proper  motion  to \nreopen  is  filed with  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from either  party  in  an  action \npending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of \nprosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an \norder dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.  (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \n            A review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue his claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, but he has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant has not \nrequested a hearing or otherwise made any effort to prosecute his claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits  within  the last six  (6)  months  ago.  Nor  has the Claimant  or  his  attorney resisted  the \nrenewed motion for dismissal of this claim despite having received notice of the hearing.  Hence, \nthe  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has  clearly  failed  to  prosecute  this  claim.  \nFurthermore, considering all the foregoing, I am convinced that both the Claimant and his attorney \nhave abandoned this claim.   \nTherefore,  after  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  I  find that  the Respondents’ \nrenewed motion for dismissal of this claim for a lack of prosecution to be well founded.  I thus \nfind that pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§11-9-702(a)(4) and (d), along with Commission Rule 099.13, \nthis  claim  for initial and additional workers’ compensation benefits should  be  and is  hereby \nrespectfully dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of it within the limitation periods specified \nunder the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”). \n\nJUSTICE – H303479 \n \n6 \n \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nOn  the  basis  of  the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission a renewed motion for dismissal \nof this claim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. Appropriate notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n4. The  evidence  preponderates  that  the Respondents’ Renewed  Motion  to \nDismiss this  claim for a lack of prosecution is well founded, and should be \nhereby granted, without prejudice, per Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) and \n(d), and Commission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation \nperiods specified by law.  \n \n                                                           ORDER \n \nBased  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is made pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702(a)(4) and (d), and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice to the refiling of \nthis claim within the limitation periods specified under the Act. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               Chandra L. Black \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H303479 KEITH J. JUSTICE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT J SQUARE, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE, CARRIER/THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR(TPA) RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 21, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, Little Ro...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:42:55.913Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303479-2025-03-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/JUSTICE_KEITH_H303479_20250321.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}