{"id":"alj-H303635-2024-04-30","awcc_number":"H303635","decision_date":"2024-04-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Paul Ullrich","employer_name":null,"title":"ULLRICH VS. DIAMOND STATE TRUCKING, INC.AWCC# H303635April 30, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ULLRICH_PAUL_H303635_20240430.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ULLRICH_PAUL_H303635_20240430.pdf","text_length":4877,"full_text":"1 \n \nBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO. H303635 \n \nPAUL ULLRICH,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nDIAMOND STATE TRUCKING, INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT \n \nARKANSAS TRUCKING ASS’N SELF-INSURED FUND/ \nCCMSI \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n                                                                                                                     \n \nOPINION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE \nFILED APRIL 30, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Thursday, April 25, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mike Pickens, in Texarkana, \nMiller County, Arkansas. \n \nThe claimant was represented by the Honorable Gregory R. Giles, Moore, Giles & Matteson, \nL.L.P., Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas. \n \nThe respondents were represented by the Honorable Guy Alton Wade, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, \nLittle Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.  \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n        A hearing was conducted on Thursday, April 25, 2024, pursuant to the respondents’ motion \nto  dismiss  without  prejudice pursuant  to Ark. Code  Ann. §  11-9-702(a)(4)  (2024 Lexis \nReplacement) and Commission Rule 099.13 (2024 Lexis Repl.), with which the claimant, through \nhis attorney of record, voluntarily concurs. \n       During  the  course  of the parties’ prehearing teleconference  conducted in this matter on \nWednesday, April 9, 2024, both the claimant’s and respondents’ attorneys agreed this claim should \nbe  dismissed  at  this  time  for  the  aforementioned  reasons.  Consequently,  at  that  time  the \nrespondents’ made a motion to dismiss, and the claimant, through his attorney, concurred in the \nrespondents’ motion. Pursuant to the applicable law, the Commission mailed a hearing notice to \n\nPaul Ullrich, AWCC No. H106924 \n2 \n \nthe parties, and both the claimant’s and respondents’ attorneys appeared in person at the scheduled \nhearing. The  record  herein  consists  of the  hearing  transcript and  any  and  all exhibits  contained \ntherein and attached thereto. \nDISCUSSION \n        Consistent with Ark. Code Ann.§ 11-9-702(a)(4), as well as our court of appeals’ ruling in \nDillard vs. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W.3d 287 (Ark. App. 2004), \nthe Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing on the respondents’ motion to dismiss. Rather \nthan  recite  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  record,  suffice  it  to  say  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence \nintroduced at the hearing and contained in the record conclusively reveals the claimant does not \nwish to proceed with the prosecution of his claim at this time and, therefore, he voluntarily concurs \nwith the respondents’ motion to dismiss the claim at this time, so long as the dismissal is without \nprejudice to its refiling if and when the claim becomes ripe for hearing. \n        Therefore,  after a thorough consideration of  the facts, issues, the applicable law,  and other \nrelevant matters of record, I hereby make the following: \n \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction of this claim. \n \n2. The claimant herein voluntarily concurs with the respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim made during the course of the parties’ Tuesday, April 9, 2024, prehearing \nteleconference.  \n \n3. Therefore, the respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice with which the claimant \nvoluntarily  concurs should  be and hereby is GRANTED; and this  claim is  dismissed \nwithout  prejudice to  its  refiling  pursuant  to  the  deadlines  prescribed by Ark.  Code  Ann. \nSection 11-9-702(a) and (b), and Commission Rule 099.13. \n \n\nPaul Ullrich, AWCC No. H106924 \n3 \n \n        This Order shall not be construed to prohibit the claimant, his attorney, any attorney he may \nretain in the future, or anyone acting legally and on his behalf from refiling this claim if it is refiled \nwithin the applicable time periods prescribed by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a) and (b). \n        If they have not already done so, the respondents hereby are ordered to pay the court reporter’s \ninvoice within twenty (20) days of their receipt thereof. \n        IT IS SO ORDERED. \n                                                            \n____________________________                                                                                      \n                                                                        Mike Pickens \n                                                                          Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMP/mp","preview":"1 BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. H303635 PAUL ULLRICH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DIAMOND STATE TRUCKING, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT ARKANSAS TRUCKING ASS’N SELF-INSURED FUND/ CCMSI CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED APRIL 30, 2024","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:55:48.806Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H303635-2024-04-30","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ULLRICH_PAUL_H303635_20240430.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}