{"id":"alj-H307185-2024-10-21","awcc_number":"H307185","decision_date":"2024-10-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Larry Crawford","employer_name":"Riceland Foods, Inc","title":"CRAWFORD VS. RICELAND FOODS, INC. AWCC# H307185 October 21, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Crawford_Larry_H307185_20241021.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Crawford_Larry_H307185_20241021.pdf","text_length":7595,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H307185 \n \n \nLARRY T. CRAWFORD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT \n \nRICELAND FOODS, INC., \nEMPLOYER RESPONDENT \n \nSAFETY NAT’L CASUALTY CORP., \nCARRIER RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED OCTOBER 21, 2024 \n \nHearing  before  Administrative  Law  Judge  O.  Milton  Fine  II  on October  18,  2024, in \nJonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, not appearing. \n \nRespondents represented by Mr. Eric Newkirk, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This   matter   comes  before  the   Commission   on  the   Motion   to   Dismiss   by \nRespondents.    A  hearing  on  the  motion  was  conducted  on October  18,  2024,  in \nJonesboro, Arkansas.  No testimony was taken in the case.  Claimant, who according to \nCommission records is pro se, failed to appear at the hearing.  Admitted into evidence \nwere  Commission  Exhibit  1 and Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, correspondence \nand forms related to this claim, consisting of 21 and 22 pages, respectively. \n The record reflects the following procedural history: \n Per  the  First  Report  of  Injury  or  Illness  filed  on November  10,  2023,  Claimant \npurportedly  suffered  an  injury  to  his left knee while  walking  to work  on October  31, \n2022.   He  related  that he  slipped and  twisted  his  knee  while  rearranging  bags  on  a \n\nCRAWFORD – H307185 \n \n2 \n \npalletizer.    According  to  the  Form  AR-2  that  was  filed  on November  10,  2023, \nRespondents accepted the claim as a medical-only one. \n On November 2, 2023, through then-counsel Mark Alan Peoples, Claimant filed a \nForm AR-C.  Therein, he alleged that his client was entitled to the full range of additional \nbenefits.  In  an  email accompanying this  filing,  Peoples  stated  that  he  was  “not \nrequesting a hearing.”  Respondents’ counsel entered his appearance on December 15, \n2023.  That same day, Peoples emailed the Commission, seeking a one-time change of \nphysician  on  behalf  of  his  client.    The  doctor  that  was  the  subject  of  the  request,  Joel \nSmith, M.D., declined to accept Claimant as a patient. \n On March  4,  2024, Peoples moved  to  withdraw  from  the  case.   His  motion \nincludes the following allegation:  “Claimant has failed/refused to communicate with me \nregarding this claim, despite repeated attempts.”  In an Order entered on April 10, 2024, \nthe Full Commission granted the motion under AWCC Advisory 2003-2. \n The  record  reflects  that  nothing  further  took  place  on  the  claim  until June  24, \n2024.   On that date, Respondents filed  the instant motion and brief  in  support  thereof, \nasking  for  dismissal  of  the  claim  under  AWCC  R.  099.13  and  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  11-9-\n702 (Repl. 2012).  My office wrote Claimant on June 26, 2024, asking for a response to \nthe  motion  within  20  days.    The  letter  was  sent  by  first  class  and  certified  mail  to  the \nJonesboro address  of  Claimant  listed  in  the  file  and on his Form  AR-C.   “Bobbie \nCrawford” signed for the certified letter on June 29, 2024; and the first-class letter was \nnot  returned.    Regardless,  no  response  from  Claimant  to  the  motion  was  forthcoming.  \n\nCRAWFORD – H307185 \n \n3 \n \nOn July  17,  2024,  a  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  was initially scheduled  for \nSeptember  6,  2024,  at  1:00 p.m.  at  the Craighead County  Courthouse  in Jonesboro.  \nHowever, on September 3, 2024, the hearing was re-set for October 18, 2024, at 10:30 \na.m.  at  the  same  location.   The Notice of  Hearing was  sent  to  Claimant  via  first-class \nand certified mail to the same address as before.  In this instance, Claimant claimed the \ncertified  letter on  September  5,  2024; and the  one  sent  by  first-class  mail  was  not \nreturned to the Commission. \n The  hearing  on  the  Motion  to  Dismiss  proceeded  as  scheduled  on October  18, \n2024.    Again,  Claimant  failed  to  appear  at  the  hearing.    But  Respondents  appeared \nthrough counsel and argued for dismissal under the aforementioned authorities. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After  reviewing  the  record  as  a  whole,  to  include  documents  and  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law \nare hereby made in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012): \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over \nthis matter. \n2. The parties were provided reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and \nof the hearing thereon. \n3. Respondents  have  proven  by  a preponderance  of  the  evidence that \nClaimant has failed to prosecute his claim under AWCC R. 099.13. \n\nCRAWFORD – H307185 \n \n4 \n \n4. The Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted; this claim for additional benefits \nis hereby dismissed without prejudice under AWCC R. 099.13. \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC R. 099.13 reads: \nUpon  meritorious  application  to  the  Commission  from  either  party  in  an \naction  pending  before  the  Commission,  requesting  that  the  claim  be \ndismissed   for   want   of   prosecution,   the   Commission   may,   upon \nreasonable  notice  to  all  parties,  enter  an  order  dismissing  the  claim  for \nwant of prosecution. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996). \n As the moving party, Respondents under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a)(3) (Repl. \n2012) must prove their entitlement to the relief requested—dismissal of the claim—by a \npreponderance  of  the  evidence.    This  standard  means  the  evidence  having  greater \nweight or convincing force.  Barre v. Hoffman, 2009 Ark. 373, 326 S.W.3d 415; Smith v. \nMagnet Cove Barium Corp., 212 Ark. 491, 206 S.W.2d 442 (1947). \n As  shown  by  the  evidence  recounted  above,  (1)  the  parties  were  provided \nreasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss and of the hearing thereon; and (2) Claimant \nhas  failed  to  pursue  his claim  because she  has  taken  no  further  action  in  pursuit  of  it \n(including  appearing  at  the October  18,  2024,  hearing  to  argue  against  its  dismissal) \nsince the  filing  of  his  change-of-physician  request  on  December  15,  2023.    Thus,  the \nevidence  preponderates  that  dismissal  is  warranted  under  Rule  13.    Because  of  this \nfinding, it is unnecessary to address the application of § 11-9-702. \n\nCRAWFORD – H307185 \n \n5 \n \n That leaves the question of whether the dismissal of the claim should be with or \nwithout  prejudice.    The  Commission  possesses  the  authority  to  dismiss  claims  with \nprejudice.  Loosey v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 23 Ark. App. 137, 744 S.W.2d 402 \n(1988).    The  Commission  and  the  appellate  courts  have  expressed  a  preference  for \ndismissals without  prejudice.   See Professional  Adjustment  Bureau  v.  Strong,  75  Ark. \n249,  629  S.W.2d  284  (1982)).    Respondents  at  the  hearing  asked  for  a  dismissal \nwithout prejudice.  I agree and find that the dismissal of this claim should be and hereby \nis entered without prejudice.\n1\n \nIV.  CONCLUSION \n In accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, \nthis claim for additional benefits is hereby dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      O. MILTON FINE II \n      Chief Administrative Law Judge \n \n \n1\n“A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ allows a new [claim] to be brought on the same \ncause of action.”  BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 825 (abridged 5\nth\n ed. 1983).","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H307185 LARRY T. CRAWFORD, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT RICELAND FOODS, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT SAFETY NAT’L CASUALTY CORP., CARRIER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED OCTOBER 21, 2024 Hearing before Administrative Law Judge O. Milton Fine II on October 18, 2024, in Jonesboro, ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:47:54.131Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H307185-2024-10-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Crawford_Larry_H307185_20241021.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}