{"id":"alj-H401022-2025-07-23","awcc_number":"H401022","decision_date":"2025-07-23","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Michael Petz","employer_name":"Hytrol Conveyor Company, Inc","title":"PETZ VS. HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY, INC. AWCC# H401022 July 23, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Petz_Michael_H401022_20250723.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Petz_Michael_H401022_20250723.pdf","text_length":6046,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H401022 \n \nMICHAEL PETZ, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nHYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY, INC., \nSELF-EMPLOYER                                                                                             RESPONDENT  \n \nCCMSI, \nTHIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR                                                                RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED JULY 23 , 2025 \n \nHearing  conducted  on  Friday,  June  13,  2025,  before  the  Arkansas  Workers’  Compensation  \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge  (ALJ)  Steven  Porch,  in  Jonesboro, \nCraighead County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Mr. Michael L. Petz, Pro Se, of Jonesboro, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by the Honorable S. Shane Baker, Jonesboro, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \nThis matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non  February  27,  2025.  No  testimony  was  taken  in  the  case.  Claimant,  who  according  to  \nCommission records is pro se, failed to appear at the hearing. Respondents admitted Respondents \nExhibit  1,  a  written  Motion  to  Dismiss  with  a  Form  AR-C  attachment,  consisting  of  3 pages, \nRespondents’  Exhibit  2,  letter  from  Claimant  and  payment  ledger,  consisting  of  2  pages.  Also, \nadmitted  into  evidence  was  Commission  Exhibit  1,  notice,  correspondence, and certified  return  \nreceipts,  consisting  of  10 pages;  and  Form  AR-1  and  Form  AR-2  are  also  blue-backed  into  the  \nrecord, as discussed infra. \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  Respondent/Employer  as  a  machinist and  allegedly  injured  \nhimself on October 23, 2023. The record reflects that on February 9, 2024, a Form AR-C was filed \n\nPETZ, AWCC No. H401022 \n \n2 \n \nwith the Commission, purporting that Claimant was lifting a roller with another employee, when \nthe  other  employee  dropped  the  roller  causing  a  jerking  motion  that  injured  Claimant’s  right  \nshoulder. On February 20, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission purporting that this \nincident  was  reported  to  Respondent/Employer on October  27,  2023. On  February  20,  2024, a \nForm AR-2 was filed by Respondents accepting compensability of the right shoulder injury.  \nThe  Respondents  next  filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  on  February  27,  2025,  requesting  this  \nclaim be dismissed for a lack of prosecution. The Claimant was sent, certified and regular U.S. \nMail, notice of the Motion to Dismiss from my office on March 6, 2025, to his last known address. \nThe certified notice was claimed by Claimant on March 8, 2025. Claimant responded to the notice \nin writing on March 31, 2025, but did not request a hearing on his claim. Rather he mentions in \nhis letter that he spoke to the Commission’s legal advisers and was advised that he had one year \nafter  the  last  payment  of  benefits  to  file  his  claim.  But  again, he  did  not  request  a  full hearing. \nThus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal \nnotice  of  Respondents’  Motion  to  Dismiss  hearing  date  at  his  current  address  of  record  via  the  \nUnited States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and \nregular  First-Class  Mail,  on  April  16,  2025.  The  certified  hearing  notice  was  claimed  by  the  \nClaimant on April 21, 2025. The hearing took place on June 13, 2025. The Claimant did not show \nup 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\nPETZ, AWCC No. H401022 \n \n3 \n \n \n2. The Claimant and Respondents both had reasonable notice of the June 13, 2025, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to make a bona fide request for a hearing in more than six months pursuant \nto Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-  702(a)(4).  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.    \n \n  \nIII.  DISCUSSION  \nUnder Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-  702(a)(4) “If within six (6) months after the filing of a claim \nfor compensation no bona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the \nclaim  may,  upon  motion  and  after  hearing,  be  dismissed  without  prejudice...”.  Consistent  with \nArk.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-  702(a)(4),  the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a  hearing,  with  \nreasonable notice to the Claimant, on Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date. The certified \nhearing notice was claimed on April 21, 2025, per the return postal notice bearing the same date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \nArk. Code Ann. § 11-9-  702(a)(4) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, to \ndismiss an action pending before it due to a want of a bona fide request for a hearing within six \nmonths.  The  Claimant  filed  his  Form  AR-C  on  February  9,  2024.  Since  then,  he  has  failed  to  \nrequest  a  bona  fide  hearing.  Therefore,  I  do  find  by  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  \nClaimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his  claim  by  failing  to  request  a  bona  fide  hearing  within  six  \nmonths. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n \n\nPETZ, AWCC No. H401022 \n \n4 \n \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. H401022 MICHAEL PETZ, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY, INC., SELF-EMPLOYER RESPONDENT CCMSI, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 23 , 2025 Hearing conducted on Friday, June 13, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Comm...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:38:46.265Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H401022-2025-07-23","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Petz_Michael_H401022_20250723.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}