{"id":"alj-H306653-2025-02-07","awcc_number":"H306653","decision_date":"2025-02-07","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Clinton Steele","employer_name":"Gemini Motor Transport","title":"STEELE VS. GEMINI MOTOR TRANSPORT AWCC# H306653 February 07, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STEELE_CLINTON_H306653_20250207.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"STEELE_CLINTON_H306653_20250207.pdf","text_length":4280,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nAWCC FILE No H306653 \n \nCLINTON STEELE, EMPLOYEE       CLAIMANT \n \nGEMINI MOTOR TRANSPORT dba LOVES \nTRAVEL STOP & COUNTRY STORE, EMPLOYER         RESPONDENT \n \nINDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ \nBROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., CARRIER/TPA           RESPONDENT \n  \n \n \nOPINION FILED 7 February 2025 \n \n \nHeard before Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (AWCC) Administrative Law \nJudge JayO. Howe on 8 January 2025 in Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nThe pro se claimant did not appear. \n \nThe Barber Law Firm, Ms. Karen McKinney, appeared for the respondents. \n \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE \n \n A hearing on the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was held on this matter in Little \nRock, Arkansas, on 8 January 2025. This case relates to an alleged workplace injury \nsustained on or about 23 April 2023.  \nA Form AR-C was filed by the claimant, through counsel, on 9 October 2023, \nclaiming gradual onset of lower back pain. The respondents denied the claim and retained \nMs. Karen McKinney, who entered her appearance via an email dated 13 November 2023. \n The respondents first moved for a dismissal for lack of prosecution on 16 April 2024. \nThe claimant objected to the dismissal on 7 May 2024. He also filed his prehearing \ninformation on that date. The respondents then filed their prehearing information on 3 \nJune 2024. After a prehearing conference, a Prehearing Order was filed on 19 June 2024, \nsetting the matter for a hearing on 18 September 2024. \n\nSTEELE- H306653 \n2 \n \n Then, on 15 August 2024, the claimant’s counsel advised, by way of a letter dated 14 \nAugust 2024, that he no longer represented the claimant in this matter. The hearing was \nremoved from the docket, and a letter dated 5 September 2024 was sent to the claimant \nasking whether he objected to his attorney’s withdrawal from the matter. The claimant did \nnot respond to that letter to object to the withdrawal of his counsel. An Order granted the \nwithdrawal was entered on 1 October 2024. \n On 2 October 2024, the respondents filed a second Motion to Dismiss the claim. \nTherein, they argued that more than six months had passed since the filing of the AR-C on \nthe claim. They also argued that the claimant’s refusal to participate in the discovery \nprocess, since those requests were propounded first in November of 2023 and then again in \nJune of 2024, evidenced his lack of prosecuting his claim. \n Notice of the respondents’ second motion was sent to the claimant, consistent with \nAWCC practices, via First Class Mail and Certified Mail, on 7 November 2024. Notice of the \nhearing on that motion was sent in the same fashion on 2 December 2024. When mailings \nare returned to the AWCC as not accepted or undeliverable, those mailings are appended to \nthe claim’s file. This file contains no such returned mailings. \nThe respondents appeared on 8 January 2025, presented their motion, and offered \nsupporting evidence into the record. As argued by the respondents at the hearing, the file \nreflects no bona fide request for a hearing on an issue ripe for litigation in this claim in the \nrelevant time preceding the filing of their motion. The claimant did not appear to resist the \ndismissal of his claim, which bolsters the respondents’ argument that he has either \nabandoned the claim or refused to prosecute it. The respondents offered a number of \ndocuments into the record which, collectively, were admitted as Respondents’ Exhibit No 1. \nThe exhibit included ninety-two (92) pages of relevant filings, deposition testimony,  and \ncorrespondence. \n\nSTEELE- H306653 \n3 \n \n Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(4) states that a matter may be dismissed without \nprejudice after six months without a bona fide request for a hearing. Our Rule 99.13 \nprovides for a dismissal for failure to prosecute an action upon application by either party. \nBased on the record, the available evidence, and the arguments of the respondents’ counsel, \nI find that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted and that the matter \nshould be dismissed without prejudice. \nORDER \n The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT \nPREJUDICE. \nSO ORDERED. \n________________________________ \n       JAYO. HOWE \n       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC FILE No H306653 CLINTON STEELE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GEMINI MOTOR TRANSPORT dba LOVES TRAVEL STOP & COUNTRY STORE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED 7 February 2025 Heard before ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:43:25.131Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H306653-2025-02-07","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/STEELE_CLINTON_H306653_20250207.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}