{"id":"alj-H303519-2024-06-14","awcc_number":"H303519","decision_date":"2024-06-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Willie Thompson","employer_name":null,"title":"THOMPSON VS. UNION COMPRESS WHSE. WEST MEMPHIS LLCAWCC# H303519June 14, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Thompson_Willie_H303519_20240614.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Thompson_Willie_H303519_20240614.pdf","text_length":7727,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H303519 \n \n \nWILLIE L. THOMPSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nUNION COMPRESS WHSE. WEST MEMPHIS LLC, \n EMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nBRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INS. CO., \n CARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JUNE 14, 2024 \n \nHearing  before Chief Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on June  14, \n2024, in Forrest City, St. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Zachary F. Ryburn, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a Motion  to Dismiss  by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on June  14,  2024, in \nForrest  City,  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   without   objection   were Commission   Exhibit   1 and \nRespondents’,   forms,   pleadings,   and   correspondence   related   to   this   claim, \nconsisting of twenty-five (25) and seven (7) pages, respectively. \n\nTHOMPSON – H303519 \n2 \n \n The record reveals the following procedural history: \n The  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness,  filed  on June  1,  2023,  reflect  that \nClaimant purportedly suffered an injury   in   the   form   of   ulnar   compression \nsyndrome at  work  on or  around  May  19,  2023.   Per  the original  and  amended \nForms AR-2 filed on June 1, 2023, and June 8, 2023, respectively, Respondents \ninitially  accepted  the  claim as  a  medical-only  one  before  also  paying  temporary \ntotal disability benefits pursuant thereto. \n On July  12,  2023,  through  then-counsel Mark  Peoples,  Claimant  filed  a \nForm AR-C, alleging that he was entitled to the full range of additional benefits in \nconnection with the alleged gradual onset injury to his arm.  Peoples in an email \naccompanying  this  filing made  clear  that no hearing  was  being  requested at  that \ntime.   Curiously,  while  the  adjustor  wrote  the  Commission  on  July  17,  2023,  to \nreiterate  that  the  claim  had  been  accepted  and  that  both  medical  and  temporary \ntotal  disability  benefits  were  being  furnished,  just  one  week  later,  in a  second \namended  Form  AR-2 filed  on July  24,  2023, Respondents  reversed  course  and \ncontroverted   the   claim   in   its   entirety.    Respondents’ counsel entered   his \nappearance on July 20, 2023. \n On November 13, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Petition.  The matter was \nassigned  to  me,  and  I  scheduled  a  hearing  thereon  for  December  22,  2023,  in \nMarion,  Arkansas.    However,  the  parties  notified  me  that  the  petition  was  being \nwithdrawn, so I cancelled the hearing.  On January 2, 2024, the file was returned \nto the Commission’s general files. \n\nTHOMPSON – H303519 \n3 \n \n On February 20, 2024, Peoples moved to withdraw from his representation \nof  Claimant.    In  an  Order  entered  on March  20,  2024,  the  Full  Commission \ngranted the Motion to Withdraw under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The record reflects that no further action was taken on the case until March \n22, 2024, when Respondents filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, contending that \ndismissal of the claim was warranted due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute it.  On \nMarch 26,  2024, my  office wrote  Claimant,  requesting  a  response  to  the  motion \nwithin 20 days.   This  correspondence  was  sent  by  both  certified  and  first-class \nmail to the Little Rock address for Claimant listed in the file and on his Form AR-\nC.   Someone  with  an  illegible  signature  signed  for  the  certified  letter on April  1, \n2024; and the  first-class  correspondence  was not returned to  the  Commission.  \nHowever, no response by Claimant to the motion was forthcoming. \n On April  23,  2024, a hearing on Respondents’ motion was scheduled for \nJune 14, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. at the St. Francis County Courthouse in Forrest City.  \nThe Notice of Hearing was sent to Claimant by certified and first-class mail to the \nsame address as used previously.  As before,  the certified letter was claimed by \nsomeone with an illegible signature (by all appearances, the same individual who \nclaimed  the  20-day  letter) on  April  29,  2024;  and  the first-class  letter  was  not \nreturned. \n The  hearing  proceeded  as  scheduled on May  2,  2024.    Claimant  failed  to \nappear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents  appeared  through  counsel  and  argued \nfor dismissal under AWCC R. 099.13. \n\nTHOMPSON – H303519 \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 claim. \n2. The  parties  were  provided  reasonable  notice  of  the Motion  to \nDismiss and of the hearing thereon. \n3. Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim. \n4. Dismissal of this claim is warranted under AWCC R. 099.13. \n5. The claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \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)(discussing, inter alia, Rule 13). \n The  evidence  adduced  at  the  hearing  shows  that  Claimant  has arguably \ntaken no action in pursuit of his claim since the filing of his Form AR-C on July 12, \n2023.   To  the  extent  that  his  efforts  to  resolve  the  claim  amicably  were \n\nTHOMPSON – H303519 \n5 \n \nprosecutorial, those ended with the withdrawal of the Joint Petition before it was to \nbe  heard  on  December  22,  2023.   Moreover, Claimant failed  to  appear  on  the \nJune  14,  2024, hearing  to  argue  against  dismissal  of  the  claim,  despite  the \nevidence showing that both he and Respondents were provided reasonable notice \nof  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  and  of  the  hearing  thereon.    Thus,  the  evidence \npreponderates that dismissal 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 \nfind  that  the  dismissal  of  this  claim  should  be  and  hereby  is  entered without \nprejudice.\n1\n \nCONCLUSION \n In  accordance  with  the  Findings  of  Fact  and  Conclusions  of  Law  set  forth \nabove, this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \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). \n\nTHOMPSON – H303519 \n6 \n \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H303519 WILLIE L. THOMPSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT UNION COMPRESS WHSE. WEST MEMPHIS LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JUNE 14, 2024 Hearing before Chief Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on June 14, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:52:50.596Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303519-2024-06-14","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Thompson_Willie_H303519_20240614.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}