{"id":"alj-H307602-2024-05-30","awcc_number":"H307602","decision_date":"2024-05-30","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Daniel Conradie","employer_name":"Driver Farms Partnership","title":"CONRADIE VS. DRIVER FARMS PARTNERSHIP AWCC# H307602 MAY 30, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["knee","neck","shoulder","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Conradie_Daniel_H307602_20240530.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Conradie_Daniel_H307602_20240530.pdf","text_length":6606,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H307602 \n \nDANIEL A. CONRADIE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nDRIVER FARMS PARTNERSHIP, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nSTONETRUST COMMERCIAL INS. CO., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \nOPINION FILED MAY 30, 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. Daniel A. Conradie, pro se, of Turrell, Arkansas, did not appear in person at \nthe hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Michael 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 allegedly \ninjured several body parts while working for Respondent/Employer on August 19, 2023. Admitted \ninto evidence was Respondent Exhibit 1, Form AR-C and Motion to Dismiss, consisting of two \npages. Commission Exhibit 1, correspondence, and Certified U.S. Mail return receipts, consisting \nof six pages. I have also blue-backed Form AR-1 and Form AR-2, as discussed infra. \nThe record reflects on November 20, 2023, a Form AR-C was filed with the Commission \nby  then-attorney  Mark  Peoples. On December 5, 2023,  a  Form  AR-1  was  filed  in  this  case, \n\nCONRADIE, AWCC No. H307602 \n \n2 \n \nreflecting that Claimant purportedly injured his groin, knee, neck, and shoulder when he slipped \nin a muddy drainage ditch when walking back from the farm fields. Respondents on December 8, \n2023, filed a Form AR-2, representing the denial of the claim. Attorney Michael Ryburn entered \nhis appearance for Respondents on November 29, 2023.  \nOn January 9,  2024, Attorney  Peoples  filed  a  Motion  to  Withdraw  citing  differences  of \nopinion  regarding  the  prosecution  of  the  claim.  The  Full  Commission  granted  the  motion  on \nFebruary  8,  2024. Respondents’ counsel then filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 12,  2024, \nrequesting this claim be dismissed for a lack of prosecution. The Claimant was sent, via certified \nand  regular  U.S.  Mail, notice of  the Motion  to Dismiss to  his last  known  address of  record on \nFebruary 13, 2024. The certified notice was unclaimed, and the notice sent regular U.S. Mail was \nreturned to the Commission. The Claimant did not leave a forwarding address with the U.S. Postal \nService. Nevertheless, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due \nand proper legal notice of the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing notification at his current \naddress of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return \nReceipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail on March 8, 2024. The certified notice was again \nunclaimed, and the notice sent regular First-Class mail was returned to the Commission. However, \nthe difference this time was that the certified mail had the word “Refused” on it and was dated \nApril 29, 2024.  Due to a hearing date change, another hearing notification was sent on March 13, \n2024, to the address of record and the First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested was \nreturned with “Refused” written on it and dated March 15, 20224, and the regular First-Class Mail \nwas returned to the Commission.  The hearing took place on May 3, 2024. As mentioned before, \nthe Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n\nCONRADIE, AWCC No. H307602 \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. No mail was claimed by the Claimant. The notices \nsent to Claimant’s last known address via regular First-Class mail were likewise returned to the \nCommission. It stands to reason that it is the responsibility of both the Claimant and Respondent \nto provide the Commission with their proper and most up to date mailing address. My review of \nthe evidence in the record is clear, the Claimant has failed to do so. Thus, given the circumstances, \nI find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \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 has filed his Form AR-C on \nNovember 20, 2023. Since then, Claimant has taken no action in furtherance of the prosecution of \nthis claim. Therefore, I do find the Respondent has proven by the preponderance of the evidence \n\nCONRADIE, AWCC No. H307602 \n \n4 \n \nthat Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim. And as a result, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss \nshould 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. H307602 DANIEL A. CONRADIE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DRIVER FARMS PARTNERSHIP, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STONETRUST COMMERCIAL INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 30, 2024 Hearing conducted on Wednesday, May 3, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensatio...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:54:54.074Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H307602-2024-05-30","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Conradie_Daniel_H307602_20240530.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}