{"id":"alj-H401198-2025-02-21","awcc_number":"H401198","decision_date":"2025-02-21","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Quienton Rogers","employer_name":"Warren Oil Company","title":"ROGERS VS. WARREN OIL COMPANY AWCC# H401198 February 21, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROGERS_QUIENTON_H401198_20250221.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"ROGERS_QUIENTON_H401198_20250221.pdf","text_length":10862,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H401198 \n \n \nQUIENTON C. ROGERS, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nWARREN OIL COMPANY,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nBERKLEY CASUATY CO., /BERKLEY \nINDUSTRIAL COMP., INSURANCE \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                               RESPONDENT                                                                      \n          \n                                                                                              \nOPINION FILED FEBRURARY 21, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative  Law  Judge Chandra  L.  Black, in Forrest  City, St.  Francis \nCounty, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, failed to appear for the dismissal hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Melissa  Wood, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A  hearing  was  held  on February 14,  2025,  in  the above-referenced  matter pursuant  to \nDillard v. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), to determine \nwhether this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. Code \nAnn. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \nAppropriate notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the transcript of February 14, 2025, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  Commission’s Exhibit 1 consists of four (4) pages, which has been marked accordingly, \n\nROGERS – H401198 \n \n2 \n \nand the Respondents introduced into evidence an exhibit consisting of eight (8) pages, and it was \nthus marked Respondents’ Exhibit 1.     \n                                                               Background \n The procedural history of this claim is as follows:  \n The Claimant’s attorney filed  a  Form  AR-C  with  the  Commission  on  May  28,  2024, \nalleging that the Claimant sustained a compensable injury on February 12, 2024, while working \nfor  the  respondent-employer.    Per  this  document,  the  Claimant  reported  that  he  sustained  a \ncompensable injury to his right foot during a work accident.  The claim information section of the \nForm  AR-C shows that  the  Claimant  requested  only  initial  benefits.    These  benefits  included  a \nclaim   for   temporary   total   disability compensation,   temporary   partial   disability benefits, \nrehabilitation, medical benefits, and possibly benefits under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-505 (a).    \n  The Respondents’ claims specialist filed a Form AR-2, with the Commission on February \n20, 2023, controverting  the  claim  in  its  entirety.  At  that  time,  the  respondent-insurance carrier \nstated position included the following: “The employee was not engaged in any work activity when \nthe incident occurred; the employee reported that he was taking a break when he jumped off the \ndock resulting in an injury; and the claim was not reported when it occurred and what he did was \na safety violation.”   \n There was no action whatsoever taken on the part of the Claimant to prosecute his claim or \npursue. \n However, on August 14, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw from \nrepresenting  the  Claimant  in  this  claim.    On  August  30,  2024,  the  Full  Commission  entered  an \norder granting the motion of Claimant’s attorney to withdraw as counsel. \n Since this time, the Claimant has not taken any action to pursue or resolve his claim.  \n\nROGERS – H401198 \n \n3 \n \nTherefore, on December 4, 2024, the Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to \nProsecute, with the Commission.  The Respondents notified the Claimant of said motion pursuant \nto a certificate of service sent via the United States Postal Service on December 3, 2024.      \nSubsequently, on December 6, 2024, my office sent a letter-notice informing the Claimant \nof the Respondents’ motion to  dismiss,  and  a  deadline of  twenty  (20)  days  for  filing  a  written \nresponse.  This  letter  was  sent  via  first-class  and  certified  mail.   Information  received  by  the \nCommission from the United States Postal Service confirms that they were unable to deliver this \nitem to the Claimant because it was “unclaimed”, and they were unable to forward it.  As a result, \non December 30, the Postal Service returned this notice to the Commission.  However, the notice \nsent by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \n Per a Hearing Notice generated on January 3, 2025, the Commission notified the parties \nthat this claim had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said dismissal \nhearing  was  scheduled  for  12:30 p.m., at  the St.  Francis  County  Courthouse,  in  Forrest City, \nArkansas.  This hearing notice was sent via first-class mail and certified mail. \nInformation received from the Postal Service shows that this item was also “undeliverable” \nand went “unclaimed.” Said notice was returned to the Commission on February 3, 2025.  Howe \nver, the notice sent via first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  Based on the \nforegoing, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant received notice of the dismissal hearing.     \nA hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant \ndid not appear for the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their attorney.   \nThe  Respondents’  counsel essentially argued that  the Claimant  has  failed  to timely \nprosecute his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  As such, Counsel moved that this claim \n\nROGERS – H401198 \n \n4 \n \nbe  dismissed for  failure  to  prosecute under Ark. Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and Commission Rule \n099.13.  \nAdjudication   \nTherefore, the statutory provision and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable \nin the Respondents’ request for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) states:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for compensation, no bona fide \nrequest for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim may, upon \nmotion and after hearing, be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claim \nwithin limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \n \nFurthermore, Commission Rule 099.13 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 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            A review of the evidence shows that the Claimant has had ample time to pursue his claim \nfor workers’ compensation benefits, but he has failed to do so.  Specifically, the Claimant has not \nrequested a hearing or otherwise made any effort to prosecute his claim since the filing of the Form \nAR-C more than six (6) months ago; and nor has he resisted the motion to dismiss his claim despite \nhaving received notice of the dismissal hearing.   \n\nROGERS – H401198 \n \n5 \n \nHere,  the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has clearly failed  to  prosecute  this \nclaim for initial workers’ compensation benefits.  Furthermore, I am convinced that the Claimant \nhas abandoned his claim.   \nTherefore,  after  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  I  find that  the Respondents’ \nmotion to dismiss for a lack of prosecution to be well taken.  I thus find that pursuant to Ark. Code \nAnn.§11-9-702,  and Commission  Rule  099.13,  this  claim  for initial workers’  compensation \nbenefits is hereby respectfully dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of it within the limitation \nperiod specified under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”). \n                           FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW \nBased  on 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 Claimant’s former attorney filed a Form AR-C in May 2024.  Since this \ntime, the Claimant has not requested a hearing or indicated that he wishes \nto pursue this claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  \n \n3. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n4. Appropriate notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            5. The evidence  preponderates  that  the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim for lack of prosecution is well founded, and should be hereby granted, \nwithout  prejudice,  per  Ark.  Code  Ann. §11-9-702,  and  Commission  Rule \n099.13, to the refiling of it within the limitation period specified by law.  \n \n                                                           ORDER \n \nBased  upon  the  foregoing findings, I  have  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits.  This dismissal is made pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code  \n\nROGERS – H401198 \n \n6 \n \nAnn. §11- 9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice to the refiling of this claim  \nwithin the limitation period specified under the Act. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n     \n                                                          ______________________________ \n                                                                                                CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                                                                                Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H401198 QUIENTON C. ROGERS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WARREN OIL COMPANY, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT BERKLEY CASUATY CO., /BERKLEY INDUSTRIAL COMP., INSURANCE INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED FEBRURARY 21, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge C...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:43:46.252Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H401198-2025-02-21","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/ROGERS_QUIENTON_H401198_20250221.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}