{"id":"alj-H400804-2024-12-03","awcc_number":"H400804","decision_date":"2024-12-03","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Javier Saucedo","employer_name":"Rbd Holdings LLC","title":"SAUCEDO VS. RBD HOLDINGS LLC AWCC# H400804 December 03, 2024","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Saucedo_Javier_H400804_20241203.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Saucedo_Javier_H400804_20241203.pdf","text_length":6880,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H400804 \n \nJAVIER VILLAR SAUCEDO, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nRBD HOLDINGS LLC, \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nOLD REPUBLIC INS. CO., \nINSURANCE CARRIER                                                                                     RESPONDENT  \n \nCCMSI, \nTPA                                                                                                                        RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 3, 2024 \n \nHearing conducted on Friday, November 8, 2024, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Mr. Javier Villar Saucedo, Pro Se, of Blytheville, Arkansas, did not appear in person \nat the hearing.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable Eric Newkirk, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents.  \nA hearing on the motion was conducted on November 8, 2024, in Little Rock, Arkansas.  Claimant, \naccording to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe Claimant worked for the Respondent/Employer as a driver. The date for Claimant’s \nalleged injury was on January 8, 2024. He reported his injury to Respondent/Employer on February \n6, 2024. Respondents admitted Respondents’ Exhibit 1, pleadings, consisting of 28 pages. Also \nadmitted into evidence was a blue-backed copy of certified return receipt dated October 16, 2024, \nand a copy of certified return receipt dated September 25, 2024, as discussed infra. \n\nSAUCEDO, AWCC No. H400804 \n \n2 \n \nThe record reflects on February 2, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed with the Commission, by \nthen-attorney Mark Peoples, purporting that Claimant worked for Big River Steel when he injured \nhis finger. On February 8, 2024,  a  Form  AR-1  was  filed  with  the  Commission  purporting  that \nClaimant’s type of injury to his finger was a strain. Also on February 8, 2024, a Form AR-2 was \nfiled by  Respondents denying  compensability and  the  existence  of  an  employer/employee \nrelationship. Claimant’s then-counsel, Mark Peoples, filed an amended Form AR-C on February \n7,  2024, naming RBD  Holdings,  LLC, as Claimant’s employer.  Respondent/Employer RBD \nHoldings, LLC, filed a Form AR-1 on February 16, 2024, acknowledging  alleged finger injury. \nOn February 16,  2024, Respondents, RBD  Holdings, LLC also filed  a  Form  AR-2 denying \ncompensability  and  the  existence  of  an  employer/employee  relationship. Hereinafter  the  term \n“Respondents” shall include  RBD  Holdings, LLC  as  the Respondent/Employer,  not  Big  River \nSteel. Big River Steel filed a Form AR-4, on February 20, 2024, closing its file on Claimant. \nOn May 6, 2024, Claimant’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. The reason \nfor the Motion was Claimant’s consistent lack of communication with his counsel. The  Full \nCommission granted Claimant’s counsel Motion on May 23, 2024.  \nThe Respondents next filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 7, 2024, requesting this claim \nbe  dismissed  for a lack  of  prosecution. The  Claimant  was  sent,  certified  and  regular  U.S.  Mail, \nnotice of the Motion to Dismiss from my office on September 10, 2024, to his last known address. \nThe  certified motion notice was returned  to  the  Commission on  the  September  25,  2024. The \nmotion notice was also sent regular U.S. Mail and was not returned to the Commission. Claimant \ndid not respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. Thus,  in  accordance  with  applicable \nArkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to \nDismiss hearing date to his current address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), \n\nSAUCEDO, AWCC No. H400804 \n \n3 \n \nFirst Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular First-Class Mail, on October 4, \n2024. The certified notice was returned to the Commission on October 16, 2024.  The first-class  \nnotice sent was not returned.  The hearing took place on November 8, 2024. And as mentioned \nbefore, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \nII.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \n After reviewing the record as a whole and other matters properly before the Commission, \nI hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Ark. Code \nAnn. § 11-9-704 (Repl. 2012):  \n1. The Commission has jurisdiction over this claim. \n \n2. The  Claimant  and  Respondents  both  had  reasonable  notice  of  the November 8, \n2024, hearing. \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 \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n AWCC 099.13 provides: \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. \n \nSee generally Johnson v. Triple T Foods, 55 Ark. App. 83, 85, 929 S.W.2d 730 (1996).   \n\nSAUCEDO, AWCC No. H400804 \n \n4 \n \nConsistent with AWCC Rule 099.13, the Commission scheduled and conducted a hearing, \nwith reasonable notice, on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss. The certified hearing notice was \nreturned  to  the  Commission on October 16,  2024, per  the  return postal notice  bearing  the  same \ndate.  However, the notice that was sent first-class U.S. Mail did not return to the Commission.  \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to both parties.  \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 \nFebruary 7, 2024. Since then, he has failed to request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do find by \nthe  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  failed  to prosecute  his claim  by  failing  to \nrequest a hearing. 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 hereby granted, and Claimant’s claim is dismissed without prejudice. \n IT IS SO ORDERED. \n      ________________________________ \n      STEVEN PORCH \n      Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. H400804 JAVIER VILLAR SAUCEDO, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT RBD HOLDINGS LLC, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO., INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT CCMSI, TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 3, 2024 Hearing conducted on Friday, November 8, 2024, before the Arkansas ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:45:03.863Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H400804-2024-12-03","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Saucedo_Javier_H400804_20241203.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}