{"id":"alj-H306149-2024-05-28","awcc_number":"H306149","decision_date":"2024-05-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Garrett Moore","employer_name":"Hino Motor Mfg USA Inc","title":"MOORE VS. HINO MOTOR MFG USA INC. AWCC# H306149 MAY 28, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Moore_Garrett_H306149_20240528.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Moore_Garrett_H306149_20240528.pdf","text_length":6583,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H306149 \n \nGARRETT MOORE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nHINO MOTOR MFG USA INC, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nFIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 28, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Wednesday, May 3,  2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission (the Commission), Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Porch, in Forrest City, \nSt. Francis County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Mr. Garrett R. Moore, pro se, of Paragould, Arkansas, did not appear in person at \nthe hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Jason M. Ryburn, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nBACKGROUND \n \n  This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  Respondents.  A \nhearing was conducted on May 3, 2024, in Forrest City, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in the \ncase. Claimant, who according to Commission records is pro se, failed to appear at the hearing. \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a laborer. The Claimant injured his \nleg and knee on July 16, 2023. He reported this injury to his Respondent/Employer on September \n22,  2023. Admitted  into  evidence  was Respondent  Exhibit  1,  Form  AR-C and Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss, totaling two pages. Commission Exhibit 1, correspondence, and Certified U.S. \nMail return receipts, consisting of six pages. I have also blue-backed Form AR-1 and Form AR-2, \nas discussed infra. \n\nMOORE, AWCC No. H306149 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on September 21, 2023, a Form AR-C was filed with the Commission \nthrough Claimant’s then-attorney, Mark Peoples. On September 28, 2023, a Form AR-1 was filed \nin this case, reflecting that Claimant purportedly sustained an injury to his leg and knee on July \n16, 2023. The record does not reflect which leg and knee was injured nor does it reflect how the \ninjury occurred. Respondents on September 29, 2023, filed a Form AR-2, representing that there \nwas no evidence to support a work-related injury. Attorney Jason Ryburn entered his appearance \non behalf of the Respondents on November 7, 2023.  \nOn February  5,  2024, Attorney Peoples, filed  a  Motion  to  Withdraw  as  Counsel. There \nPeoples  alleges  the  Claimant  has  failed  or  refused  to  communicate  with  him  for  several  weeks, \ndespite his numerous and repeated attempts. The Motion was granted on February 26, 2024. \nThe Respondents next filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 1, 2024, requesting this claim \nbe dismissed for a lack of prosecution. The Claimant was sent a certified notice of the Motion to \nDismiss to his last known address of record on March 6, 2024. The certified notice was unclaimed.  \nHowever,  the  same  notice  was  also  sent  regular  First-Class  mail  on  the  same  day  and  was  not \nreturned to the Commission. Nevertheless, the Claimant did not respond to the notice in writing. \nThus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal \nnotice of both the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and the hearing notice at his current address of \nrecord  via  the  United  States  Postal  Service  (USPS),  First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt \nRequested, and regular First-Class Mail. The certified notice was claimed by Claimant on April 1, \n2024. The hearing took place on May 3, 2024. As mentioned before, the Claimant did not show \nup to the hearing. \n \n \n\nMOORE, AWCC No. H306149 \n \n3 \n \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 of fact and conclusions of law: \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice of  the May 3,  2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under AWCC Rule 099.13.  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \nDISCUSSION \n Consistent with AWCC Rule 099.13, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith  proper  notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. Commission  Exhibit  1  provides \nmultiple Certified U.S. Mail Return Receipts. One receipt dated April 1, 2024, was served on the \nClaimant. Despite receiving this notice, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. The Claimant \nwas initially made aware of the Motion to Dismiss when it was sent to him March 6, 2024, via \ncertified and  regular  First-Class  mail.  He  did  not  claim  the  certified letter.  However,  the notice \nsent  regular  First-Class  U.S.  Mail  was  not  returned  to  the  Commission. Thus,  I  find  by  the \npreponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to both parties.  \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  filed  his  Form  AR-C  on \nSeptember 21, 2023, and since then has taken no action in furtherance of this claim. When notice \nof the Motion to Dismiss hearing was received by him on April 1, 2024, he failed to appear or send \n\nMOORE, AWCC No. H306149 \n \n4 \n \nany correspondence objecting to the motion or requesting a hearing. In this regard, the Claimant \nhas  failed  to  do  the  bare  minimum  in  prosecuting  his  claim.  Therefore,  I  do  find  by  the \npreponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his  claim. And  as  a  result, \nRespondents’ 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. H306149 GARRETT MOORE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HINO MOTOR MFG USA INC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 28, 2024 Hearing conducted on Wednesday, May 3, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commis...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:54:47.749Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H306149-2024-05-28","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Moore_Garrett_H306149_20240528.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}