{"id":"alj-H304906-2024-05-01","awcc_number":"H304906","decision_date":"2024-05-01","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Luis Roldan","employer_name":null,"title":"ROLDAN VS. BRYAN BOWERS, GCB BUILDERS.AWCC# H304906May 1, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:12","granted:4"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Roldan_Luis_H304906_20240501.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Roldan_Luis_H304906_20240501.pdf","text_length":6877,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H304906 \n \nLUIS ROLDAN (DEC’D), \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nBRYAN BOWERS, GCB BUILDERS, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nTECHNOLOGY INS. CO., \nCARRIER                                                                                                             RESPONDENT \n \nAMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 1, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, April 12,  2024,  before  the  Arkansas  Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant’s widow, Mrs. Virginia Martinez-Castillo, is represented by Attorney Phillip Wells, \nof Jonesboro, Arkansas, who did not appear in person at the hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by  the Honorable William  C.  Frye, North Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n \nBACKGROUND \n \n  This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  Respondents.  A \nhearing was conducted on April 12, 2024, in Jonesboro, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in the \ncase.  Claimant, who according  to  Commission  records, is deceased, and  his  widow,  Virginia \nMartinez-Castillo, was acting as a pro se Claimant for husband’s estate at the initial filing of the \nmotion. The Respondent/Employer was made aware of his death on July 20, 2023, the same day \nit occurred. Admitted into evidence was Commission Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence, and \nCertified  U.S.  Mail  return  receipts,  consisting  of nine pages. I  have  also  blue-backed to  the \n\nROLDAN, AWCC No. H304906 \n \n2 \n \nevidentiary record Claimant’s Forms AR-1, AR-2, and AR-C, plus a letter from Phillip Wells to \nthe Commission dated March 21, 2024, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects the following procedural history: on August 3, 2023, a Form AR-C was \nfiled in this case, reflecting that Claimant died purportedly of poison inhalation. The form AR-C \nwas filed by the Claimant’s then lawyer, Mark Peoples, who entered his appearance the same day \nas the filing of the Form AR-C. The Respondents were represented by Attorney William C. Frye, \nwho entered an appearance on August 10, 2023. Respondents filed a Form AR-2 on August 14, \n2023, controverting the claim in its entirety on the grounds that Claimant was a sub-contractor and \nnot a direct employee of the insured. The Respondents further codified their controverted position \nvia email dated August 22, 2023, sent to the Commission and Claimant’s attorney.  \nPeoples filed  a  Motion  to  Withdraw  as  Counsel  from  the  claim  on  September 13,  2023. \nThe Commission granted the motion on September 26, 2023. Respondents then filed a Motion to \nDismiss on February 9, 2024. Claimant’s widow was sent notice of the Motion to Dismiss from \nthe Commission on February 12, 2024, to Claimant’s last known address. She did not respond to \nthe Motion; so a hearing was set for April 12, 2024.  \nThus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant’s widow was mailed due \nand proper legal notice of both the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and the hearing notice at her \ncurrent address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, \nReturn  Receipt  Requested, and  regular  First-Class  Mail.  The  certified  notice was  signed  by the \nClaimant’s widow at the address of record and the regular First-Class mail notice was not returned. \nThe Claimant’s widow hired Attorney Phillip Wells on March 21, 2024. He responded  to  the \nMotion to Dismiss on March 29, 2024, indicating that his client did not object to the dismissal of \n\nROLDAN, AWCC No. H304906 \n \n3 \n \nthis claim without prejudice. Attorney Wells then filed another Form AR-C, signed by the widow \nand himself.  \nSince  there  was  not  a  request  for  hearing - rather, a  concession  to  the  dismissal  without \nprejudice - the Motion to Dismiss hearing date was not continued. The hearing took place on April \n12,  2024.  The  Claimant’s widow and her  counsel requested  permission  not  to  show  up  for  the \nhearing since they were conceding to the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n \nTherefore,  after  a  thorough  consideration  of  the  facts,  issues,  the  applicable  law,  and the \nevidentiary record, I hereby make the following findings: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the April 12, 2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. The Claimant has failed to prosecute this claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted.     \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent  with both Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-702(a)(4) (Repl.  2012) and  AWCC  Rule \n099.13, the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a  hearing,  with  proper  notice, on  the \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss. Commission Exhibit 1 provides multiple signed Certified U.S. \nMail Return Receipts. One receipt dated February 14, 2024, signed by Virginia Martinez Castillo, \nthe Claimant’s widow, establishes Claimant’s notice of the Motion to Dismiss. The other Certified \nU.S. Mail Return Receipt dated March 14, 2024, was also signed by the Claimant’s widow, and \nestablishes notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing date.  \n\nROLDAN, AWCC No. H304906 \n \n4 \n \nAWCC Rule 099.13 allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to dismiss an \naction  pending  before  it  due  to  a  want  of  prosecution. The Claimant’s widow responded to the \nMotion to Dismiss, albeit late, through her current attorney who did not request a hearing. Rather, \nhe consented to the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Since no action has been taken since the \nfiling of the August 3, 2023, Form AR-C, the Respondents’ motion should be granted. Therefore, \nI find by the preponderance of the evidence that the Claimant’s widow has run afoul of AWCC \nRule 099.13 and the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is granted, and this claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \n \n      IT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n \n                                                                                               ______________________________ \n                                                                                               Steven Porch \n                                                                                               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H304906 LUIS ROLDAN (DEC’D), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT BRYAN BOWERS, GCB BUILDERS, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TECHNOLOGY INS. CO., CARRIER RESPONDENT AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 1, 2024 Hearing conducted on Friday, April 12,...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:53:36.692Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H304906-2024-05-01","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Roldan_Luis_H304906_20240501.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}