{"id":"alj-H400338-2025-08-14","awcc_number":"H400338","decision_date":"2025-08-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Geiger","employer_name":"City Of Highland","title":"GEIGER VS. CITY OF HIGHLAND AWCC# H400338 August 14, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:6","granted:2"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder","knee","back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GEIGER_JAMES_H400338_20250814.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GEIGER_JAMES_H400338_20250814.pdf","text_length":8838,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \nCLAIM NO.:H400338 \n \nJAMES E. GEIGER,  \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                CLAIMANT                                                    \n \nCITY OF HIGHLAND, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT              \n                                                                                  \nMUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ \nCOMPENSATION PROGRAM,               \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT                                               \n \n \nOPINION FILED AUGUST 14, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n  \nThe Claimant represented  by  the  Honorable  Kenneth  J.  Kieklak,  Attorney  at  Law,  Fayetteville, \nArkansas.  Mr. Kieklak waived his appearance at the hearing.    \n \nRespondents represented by the Honorable Mary K. Edwards, Attorney at Law, North Little \nRock, Arkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A  hearing  was  held  on the Respondents’ motion  to  dismiss  this  claim due  to a  lack  of \nprosecution, on July 23, 2025, in this workers’ compensation claim pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379,  192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004).    Here,  the  sole  issue  for \ndetermination  is whether  this  claim should  be  dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure  to timely \nprosecute it  under the  provisions  of Ark.  Code  Ann.  §11-9-702 (Repl.  2012),  and/or Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified 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.   \n\nGEIGER – H400338 \n \n2 \n \nThe  record  consists  of  the  transcript  of July 23,  2025,  hearing  and  the  documents  held \ntherein.  Respondents’ Exhibit 1 is a Documentary Exhibit made up of six numbered pages, and a \ncover sheet/Respondents’ Non-Medical Exhibit Index for a total of seven pages.\n1\n  Said exhibit was \nmade a part of the record without objection. \nNo testimony was taken at the hearing. \n               Procedural History \n On or about January 12, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed a Form AR-C alleging that he \nsustained  a  compensable  injury  in  the  course  and  scope  of  his  employment  with  the  City  of \nHighland on January 8, 2024.  The Claimant alleged that he sustained injuries to his left shoulder, \nleft knee and back, while directing traffic.   \n The  Respondents accepted  the  claim  and  began  paying  benefits  to  and  on  behalf  of  the \nClaimant.  Since the filing of the Form AR-C in January 2024, the Claimant has made no request \nfor a hearing on the merits of his claim.     \n     Subsequently, the parties reached a third-party settlement.  On March 13, 2025, an order \nwas entered approving the third-party claim.  \nStill, since this time, the Claimant has failed to make a request for a hearing and has not \ntaken any affirmative action whatsoever to pursue his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.           \nTherefore, the  Respondents  filed  a Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Failure  to  Prosecute with the \nCommission on June  23,  2025,  along  with  a  certificate  of  service to the Claimant’s attorney \nshowing that a copy of this pleading was sent to him via email.   \n \n \n1\n Although the hearing transcript shows that Respondents’ Exhibit 1 consists of seven pages; however, it \nhas a cover sheet (which has been named “Respondents’ Exhibit 1 Documentary Exhibit”) and six numbered pages \nfor a total of seven pages. \n\nGEIGER – H400338 \n \n3 \n \nOn June 24, 2025, my office sent a letter to the Claimant and his attorney letting them know \nabout the motion for dismissal of his workers’ compensation claim, along with a deadline of twenty \ndays for filing a written objection/response. \nThe Claimant’s attorney sent an email to the Commission on July 17, 2025, saying that the \nClaimant does not object to the motion to dismiss.  \nA hearing was conducted before the Commission, on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss \non July  23,  2025.    During  the  hearing,  counsel for  the  Respondents moved that  this claim  be \ndismissed due to a lack of prosecution under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and/or 11 C.A.R. §25-\n110 (d), without prejudice.  Counsel specifically noted that the Claimant’s attorney has consented \nto the dismissal and that a third-party agreement order has been entered in this claim.  \n                     Adjudication \nThe Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable in this motion for the dismissal of \nthis claim outlined below:  \n11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) 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 a 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\nGEIGER – H400338 \n \n4 \n \nReview of the records shows that more than six months have passed since the filing of this \nclaim.  However, since that time, the Claimant has failed to make a bona fide request for a hearing \nwith  respect  to his claim for  workers’  compensation  benefits.  Hence, no probative action \nwhatsoever has been put forth by the Claimant to pursue his claim.      \nBased on all the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded that the Claimant has had ample time \nto pursue this claim for workers’ compensation benefits, but he has not done so.  The issues have \nbeen  resolved  by  a  third-party  agreement  and  the  Claimant  does  not  object  to  this  claim  being \ndismissed.   Therefore,  based  on my  review  of  the documentary  evidence,  and  all  other  matters \nproperly before the Commission, I find that the Respondents’ motion to dismiss the within claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits should be  granted  pursuant  to the  provisions  of  11  C.A.R. \n§25-110(d). Accordingly,  this claim is hereby respectfully dismissed without prejudice to  the \nrefiling of it within the limitation period specified by law. \nTherefore, the issue of the dismissal of this pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. \n2012) has been rendered moot. \n                                         Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law \nOn the  basis  of  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 Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim due to a lack of prosecution, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-\nC  more  than  six  months  ago.    He  does  not object  to  his  claim  being \ndismissed.  Hence, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has failed \nto prosecute his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.      \n \n\nGEIGER – H400338 \n \n5 \n \n4. Appropriate Notice of the dismissal hearing was attempted on all parties to \ntheir last known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The Respondents’ motion to dismiss this claim for a lack of prosecution is \nhereby granted, pursuant to 11 C.A.R. §25-110 (d), without prejudice, to the \nrefiling of it within the limitation period specified by law.  \n \nORDER \nBased on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I find that per 11 C.A.R. \n§25-110 (d), this claim is hereby respectfully dismissed, without prejudice, to the refiling within \nthe limitation period specified by law.      \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n   \n \n                                                                      ________________________________ \n  CHANDRA L. BLACK  \n                                                     Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.:H400338 JAMES E. GEIGER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT CITY OF HIGHLAND, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 14, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Ro...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:37:37.375Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H400338-2025-08-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GEIGER_JAMES_H400338_20250814.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}