{"id":"alj-H308051-2024-08-06","awcc_number":"H308051","decision_date":"2024-08-06","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Lee Jones","employer_name":null,"title":"JONES VS. PHILLIP SCOTT EVERETTAWCC# H308051August 6, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:7","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jones_Lee_H308051_20240806.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Jones_Lee_H308051_20240806.pdf","text_length":6083,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H308051 \n \nLEE ROBERT JONES, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nPHILLIP SCOTT EVERETT, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nSTONETRUST COMMERCIAL INS. CO., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT  \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 6, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Thursday, August  2,  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 represented himself, Pro Se, McCrory, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Zackery F. Ryburn, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nBACKGROUND \n \n  This  matter  comes  before  the  Commission  on  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  by  Respondents.  A \nhearing was conducted on August 2, 2024, in Forrest City, Arkansas. No testimony was taken in \nthe  case.  Claimant, according to the Commission’s file, is Pro  Se. Admitted  into  evidence was \nRespondent  Exhibit  1, Form  AR-C,  and  Order  dismissing  Bryce  Brewer  as  attorney  of  record, \nconsisting of 2 pages. I have blue-backed Form AR-1, Form AR-2, a copy of Claimant’s letter to \nCommission received July 22, 2024, and  an email from Melanie Miller dated July 31, 2024, as \ndiscussed infra. \nThe record reflects on December 13, 2023, a Form AR-C was filed by then-attorney, Bryce \nBrewer, purporting that Claimant sustained injuries to his right shoulder, right arm, left arm, and \nchest when he was involved in a moving vehicle accident on September 3, 2022.  On December \n21, 2023, a Form AR-1 was filed stating the Respondent/Employer was made aware of Claimant’s  \n\nJONES, AWCC No. H308051 \n \n2 \n \ninjuries the same day it occurred, September 3, 2022. The form further states the Claimant worked \nas a laborer for Respondent/Employer.  On December 28, 2023, Respondents files a Form AR-2 \nthat  formally  controverted  the  claim.  Respondents’  counsel,  Zachary  Ryburn,  entered  his \nappearance on December 28, 2023. Respondents’ counsel, Jason Ryburn, entered his appearance \non January 30, 2024. Claimant’s counsel, Bryce Brewer, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel \non May 7, 2024. The motion was granted on June 4, 2024. The Respondents next filed a Motion \nto Dismiss on June 13, 2024. The motion alleges, in short, a failure to prosecute by the Claimant. \nClaimant was sent notice of the Motion to Dismiss certified and regular First-Class Mail on June \n24, 2024. The Claimant responded to the motion in writing on July 22, 2024. The Claimant did not \nobject to the dismissal and wanted the Commission to close his case.  \nDespite receiving Claimant’s letter agreeing to the dismissal, the Claimant was mailed due \nand proper legal notice of the hearing date via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class \nCertified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and  regular First-Class Mail on July 29, 2024, to his \naddress of record. The certified notice was not claimed by Claimant. However, the regular First-\nClass mail hearing notice was not returned to the Commission. The Claimant was also emailed the \nhearing notice on July 29, 2024. A phone call was made to Claimant by my assistant on July 31, \n2024, confirming that he received notice of the hearing. The Claimant confirmed that the hearing \ndate  is  August  2,  2024,  at  10:30  am,  in  Forrest  City,  Arkansas. The  hearing did  take place on \nAugust 2, 2024, and the Claimant was not present. \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 \n\nJONES, AWCC No. H308051 \n \n3 \n \n \n \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the August 2, 2024, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents  have  proven  by  a  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. Claimant did not claim the certified \nhearing notice sent to his address of record. However, the hearing notice sent U.S. First-Class mail, \nto  his  address  of  record,  was  not  returned  to  the  Commission.  The  Claimant  is  responsible  for \nkeeping the Commission updated on his current address. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the \nevidence that Claimant received reasonable notice of the Motion to Dismiss hearing.  \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  filed his Form AR-C on \nDecember 13, 2023. Since then, no bona fide request for a hearing has occurred. Therefore, I do \nfind that  the  Respondents  have  proven by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has \nfailed to prosecute his claim. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \nCONCLUSION \n Based  on  the Findings  of Fact  and Conclusions  of Law set forth above, Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss is granted, without prejudice. \n\nJONES, AWCC No. H308051 \n \n4 \n \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. H308051 LEE ROBERT JONES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PHILLIP SCOTT EVERETT, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT STONETRUST COMMERCIAL INS. CO., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 6, 2024 Hearing conducted on Thursday, August 2, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:49:47.945Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H308051-2024-08-06","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Jones_Lee_H308051_20240806.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}