{"id":"alj-H307361-2025-08-14","awcc_number":"H307361","decision_date":"2025-08-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Adam Franklin","employer_name":"Garland County Sheriff’s Department","title":"FRANKLIN VS. GARLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AWCC# H307361 August 14, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["knee"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FRANKLIN_ADAM_H307361_20250814.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"FRANKLIN_ADAM_H307361_20250814.pdf","text_length":11177,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H307361 \n \n \nADAM K. FRANKLIN, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nGARLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nAAC/RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT                                                                      \n          \n                                                                                              \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 14, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Hot Springs, Garland County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant, pro se, did not appear for the dismissal hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Carol Lockard-Worley, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on July 25, 2025, in the above-referenced matter pursuant to Dillard v. \nBenton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), to determine whether \nthis case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-\n9-702 (Repl.  2012), and Arkansas  Workers’ Compensation Commission  Rule  099.13 (now \ncodified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \nAppropriate notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe  record  consists  of  the hearing transcript  of July  25, 2025, and  the  documents held \ntherein.  Commission’s Exhibit 1 consisting of ten pages has been marked accordingly, and the \n\nFranklin – H307361 \n \n2 \n \nRespondents introduced into evidence an exhibit consisting of eight numbered pages, which was \nthus marked Respondents’ Exhibit 1. (Of  note,  the  hearing  transcript  erroneously states  that \nRespondents’ exhibit consists of nine pages).  Both exhibits were introduced into evidence without \nobjection.  \n                                                               Background \n The procedural history of this claim is as follows:  \n The Claimant’s former attorney filed  a  Form  AR-C  with  the  Commission  on November \n21, 2024, alleging that the Claimant sustained a compensable injury on October 21, 2023, while \nworking for the respondent-employer.  Per this document, the Claimant allegedly injured his left \nknee in a work-related accident.  Under the Claim Information section of the Form AR-C, it shows \nthat  the  Claimant  requested  only additional workers’ compensation benefits.  These benefits \nincluded  a  claim  for additional temporary  total  disability compensation, additional temporary \npartial disability benefits, rehabilitation, additional medical expenses, additional permanent partial \nbenefits, and attorney fees.    \n  The Respondents’ claims  specialist filed  a  Form  AR-2, with  the Commission  on \nNovember 9, 2023, accepting compensability of the claim for a compensable left knee injury.  \n Subsequently,  there was no  action whatsoever taken on  the  part  of  the  Claimant  to \nprosecute his claim or otherwise pursue settlement of it. \n However,  the  Claimant’s  attorney  filed  a  motion  to  withdraw  from  representing  the \nClaimant  in  this  claim.    On April  23,  2025,  the  Full  Commission  entered  an  order  granting  the \nmotion.    \n Since this time, the Claimant has not taken any action to pursue or resolve his claim.  \n\nFranklin – H307361 \n \n3 \n \nTherefore, on or about May 27, 2025, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure \nto  Prosecute, with  the  Commission.  The Respondents notified  the  Claimant  of  said  motion \npursuant to a certificate of service sent via the United States Postal Service on that same date.      \nSubsequently, on May 29, 2025, my office sent a letter-notice informing the Claimant of \nthe Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and a deadline of twenty days for filing a written response.  \nThis letter was sent via first-class and certified mail.   \nInformation received by the Commission from the United States Postal Service confirms \nthat they were unable to deliver the item sent via certified mail to the Claimant’s residence on June \n13, 2025, because an unidentified individual refused delivery of this item.  Yet the notice sent by \nfirst-class mail was returned to the Commission on June 8, 2025, marked undeliverable.   \n Per a Hearing  Notice generated  on June  19,  2025, my  office  notified  the  parties  that  a \nhearing had been scheduled on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said dismissal hearing was \nscheduled  for 9:30 a.m., at  the Transportation  Depot,  in Hot  Springs,  Arkansas.  This hearing \nnotice was sent via first-class and certified mail. \nInformation  received  from  the  Postal  Service  shows  that  the  hearing  notice sent via \ncertified mail was delivered to the Claimant’s residence on June 30,  2025.  Said  hearing  notice \nsent  via  certified mail was delivered to the Claimant’s residence and left with an unidentified \nindividual.  The signature of the recipient of this item is illegible.  However, on June 24, 2025, the \nnotice sent  via  first-class  mail was returned  to  the Commission.   Based  on  the foregoing, the \nevidence preponderates that the Claimant had notice of the dismissal hearing.     \nA hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant \ndid not appear for the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their attorney.  The \nRespondents’ counsel argued, among other things, that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute \n\nFranklin – H307361 \n \n4 \n \nhis claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Counsel  further  noted  that  the  Claimant  did  not \nappear at the hearing to object to the dismissal or request a hearing.  As such, Counsel moved that \nthis claim be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702, and Commission \nRule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)). \nAdjudication   \nTherefore, the statutory provision and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable \nin the Respondents’ 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 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d), reads as follows: \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            A review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue his claim \nfor additional workers’ compensation benefits, but he has failed to do so.  Specifically,  the \nClaimant has not requested a hearing or otherwise made any effort to prosecute his claim since the \nfiling of  the  Form  AR-C more  than  six  (6)  months ago; and  nor  has  he  resisted  the motion to \n\nFranklin – H307361 \n \n5 \n \ndismiss  his claim despite  having  received  notice  of  the dismissal hearing. Thus, the  evidence \npreponderates that the Claimant has clearly failed to prosecute this claim for additional workers’ \ncompensation benefits.  Furthermore, 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, and Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), this claim \nfor additional workers’ compensation benefits is hereby respectfully dismissed without prejudice \nto  the  refiling of  it within  the limitation  period specified  under  the  Arkansas  Workers’ \nCompensation Act (referred to herein as the “Act”). \n                           FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on the  record  as  a  whole,  I  hereby  make  the  following  findings  of  fact  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 Claimant’s former attorney filed a Form AR-C in May 2024.  Since this \ntime, the Claimant has not requested a hearing or shown that he wishes to \npursue this claim for additional workers’ compensation benefits.  \n \n3. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \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 evidence  preponderates  that  the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim for lack of prosecution is well founded, and should be hereby granted, \nwithout  prejudice,  per  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and  Commission  Rule \n099.13(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)) to the refiling of it within \nthe limitation period specified by law.  \n             \n \n \n \n\nFranklin – H307361 \n \n6 \n \n                                               ORDER \n \nBased  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is made pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code  \nAnn. §11- 9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), without \nprejudice to the refiling of this claim within the limitation period specified under the Act. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n     \n                                   \n                                                             _____________________________ \n  CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                     Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H307361 ADAM K. FRANKLIN, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GARLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT AAC/RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 14, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Hot Spr...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:35.292Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H307361-2025-08-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/FRANKLIN_ADAM_H307361_20250814.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}