{"id":"alj-H307026-2024-10-31","awcc_number":"H307026","decision_date":"2024-10-31","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Jerome Braswell","employer_name":"Devil Dog Management, LLC","title":"BRASWELL VS. DEVIL DOG MANAGEMENT, LLC AWCC# H307026 October 31, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["hip"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRASWELL_JEROME_H307026_20241031.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"BRASWELL_JEROME_H307026_20241031.pdf","text_length":11536,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H307026 \n \n \nJEROME BRASWELL, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nDEVIL DOG MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a \nG1 STAFFING, EMPLOYER                                                                                 RESPONDENT                                                                                              \n \nTECHNOLGY INSURANCE CO./AM TRUST NORTH AMERICA, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                               RESPONDENT  \n                                                                                        \n          \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 31, 2024   \n \nA hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Pulaski County, Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, did not appear at the hearing.        \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable William C. Frye, Attorney at Law, North Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A  hearing  was  held  on October 30,  2024 ,  in  the  present  matter  pursuant  to Dillard  v. \nBenton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), to determine whether \nthe above-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule \n099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken at the dismissal hearing. \nThe  record  consists  of  the  transcript  of the October 30,  2024, dismissal hearing  and  the \ndocuments held therein.  Specifically, Commission’s Exhibit 1 includes thirteen (13) total pages \n\nBraswell-H307026 \n \n2 \n \nof  correspondence,  pleadings  and  various  other  forms related  to  this  claim, along  with  tracking \ninformation from the United States Postal Service; and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consisting of two \n(2) pages, which includes the twenty day-letter, and the Form AR-C. \n                                                                 Procedural History \n On October 26, 2023, the Claimant’s former attorney filed with the Commission a claim \nfor Arkansas workers’ compensation benefits on behalf of the Claimant via a Form AR-C.  Per \nthis document, the Claimant alleged that he sustained injuries to his left hip and other whole body \nduring the course and in the scope of his employment with the respondent-employer, August 24, \n2023.   According  to  this  document,  the  Claimant  asserted  his  entitlement  to  both  initial  and \nadditional workers’ compensation benefits.   \n  The respondent-insurance-carrier filed a Form AR-2, with the Commission on November \n8,  2023, wherein  they accepted this  as  a compensable “medical-only” claim.   However,  the \nRespondents stated on this form that they did not have any documentation to support any loss of \ntime.   \nFollowing the filing of the Form AR-C on October 26, 2023, there was no action taken on \nthe part of the Claimant to prosecute this claim by way of a bona fide request for a hearing on the \nmerits.  \nHowever, on April 8, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed with the Commission a motion to \nwithdraw from representing the Claimant in this matter.  There being no objection to the motion \nfor the Claimant’s attorney to withdraw as counsel of record, the Full Commission entered an \nOrder on May 3, 2024, granting the motion to withdraw.      \nStill, there was no action on the part of the Claimant to prosecute this claim by way of a \nbona fide request for a hearing, nor did he take any other affirmative action to pursue this claim.  \n\nBraswell-H307026 \n \n3 \n \nAs a result, the Respondents filed a letter-motion to dismiss this claim with the Commission \non  or  about September  3,  2024.    The  Respondents mailed the  Claimant  a  certified  copy  of  the \ndismissal letter. \n The  Commission  sent  a letter to  the Claimant on September  3, 2024, informing the \nClaimant of the Respondents’ motion,  and  a  deadline of twenty  (20)  days, for  filing  a  written \nresponse.  Said letter was mailed to the Claimant by both first-class and certified mail.  Tracking \ninformation received by  the Commission from the United States Postal Service shows that they \ndelivered this parcel of mail to the Claimant on September 5, 2024.  Moreover, the letter sent by \nfirst-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \nThere was not any type of reply or response from the Claimant.  \n Therefore,  on September  24,  2024,  the  Commission notified the  parties via  a  Notice  of \nHearing that this claim had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said \nhearing was scheduled for October 30, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Little Rock at the Arkansas Workers’ \nCompensation Commission. \nSaid  letter  was  mailed  to  the  Claimant  by  both  first-class  and  certified  mail.   The \ninformation received from the Postal Service shows that they were unable to deliver the hearing \nnotice to the Claimant.  Hence, the notice was returned to the Commission with an inscription on \nthe outside of the envelope indicating that they were unable to deliver this parcel of mail to the \nClaimant.   Nevertheless,  the notice letter  sent  by  first-class  mail  has  not  been  returned  to  the \nCommission.  Hence, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant received proper notice of the \ndismissal hearing.  \nAccordingly, the dismissal hearing was held as scheduled.  The Claimant did not appear at \nthe hearing, but the Respondents appeared through their attorney.  Counsel for the Respondents \n\nBraswell-H307026 \n \n4 \n \nbasically argued that  the Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his claim for workers’ compensation \nbenefits, as no request for a hearing has ever been made.  He further noted that the Claimant has \nnot taken any action to prosecute his claim in over more than six (6) months.  More specifically, \ncounsel noted that the Claimant has not taken any action to advance his claim since the filing of \nthe Form AR-C, which was done one year ago.   \nTherefore, the Respondents’ attorney moved that this claim be dismissed pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and/or Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice.  \nAdjudication \nThe statutory provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable  in  the \nRespondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, no \nbona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice \nto the refiling of the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section. \n \nCommission Rule 099.13 reads:  \n \nThe Commission may, in its discretion, postpone or recess hearings at the instance \nof either party or on its own motion.  No case set for hearing shall be postponed \nexcept by approval of the Commission or Administrative Law Judge. \n \nIn the event neither party appears at the initial hearing, the case may be dismissed \nby  the  Commission  or  Administrative  Law  Judge,  and  such  dismissal  order  will \nbecome  final  unless  an  appeal  is  timely  taken  therefrom  or  a  proper  motion  to \nreopen  is  filed with  the  Commission  within  thirty  (30)  days  from  receipt  of  the \norder. \n \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an  action \npending before the Commission, requesting that the claim be dismissed for want of \nprosecution, the Commission may, upon reasonable notice to all parties, enter an \norder dismissing the claim for want of prosecution.  (Effective March 1, 1982) \n \n\nBraswell-H307026 \n \n5 \n \n            The Respondents accepted this claim as compensable and have paid some benefits to and \non behalf of the Claimant for his accidental work-related injury of August 24, 2023.  Hence, this \nis a claim for additional benefits.  \nWith that in mind, my review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time \nto  pursue  his claim  for additional workers’ compensation benefits, but  he has  failed  to  do  so.  \nSpecifically, the Claimant has not requested a hearing or otherwise made any effort to prosecute \nhis claim for workers’ compensation benefits since the filing of the Form AR-C, more than one \nyear ago; and nor has he resisted the motion for dismissal or even responded to the notices of this \nCommission.  Hence,  the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute or \notherwise pursue this claim for additional workers’ compensation benefits.  Moreover, considering \nthat  the  Claimant did  not respond  to  the  notices  of  this  Commission  and  did  not  appear  at  the \ndismissal hearing to oppose the motion, I am convinced that the Claimant has abandoned his claim.          \nTherefore,  after  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  I  find that the Respondents’ \nmotion to dismiss for a lack of prosecution to be well taken.  I thus find that pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn.§11-9-702 (d), and Commission Rule 099.13, this claim for additional workers’ compensation \nbenefits should  be  dismissed without  prejudice to  the  refiling of  it within  the limitation  period \nspecified under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”). \n                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBecause  of the  record  as  a  whole,  I hereby  make  the  following  findings  of facts and \nconclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n\nBraswell-H307026 \n \n6 \n \n3. The Claimant has not requested a hearing since his former attorney filed the \nForm AR-C, which was done more than one year ago.  Hence, the evidence \npreponderates  that  the  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits based upon the relevant provisions of the \nspecified  statute,  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702(d),  and  Rule  099.13  of  this \nCommission.       \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution \nis  hereby  granted, without  prejudice,  per  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and \nCommission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation period \nspecified by law.  \n \n                                               ORDER \n \n Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I have no alternative \nbut to dismiss this claim for additional workers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is pursuant \nto Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d), and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice to the refiling  \nof this claim within the limitation period specified under the Act. \n           IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               Chandra L. Black \n               Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H307026 JEROME BRASWELL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DEVIL DOG MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a G1 STAFFING, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TECHNOLGY INSURANCE CO./AM TRUST NORTH AMERICA, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 31, 2024 A hearing was held before Administr...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:48:21.313Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H307026-2024-10-31","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/BRASWELL_JEROME_H307026_20241031.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}