{"id":"alj-H402326-2025-01-28","awcc_number":"H402326","decision_date":"2025-01-28","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Randy Carpenter","employer_name":"Pbt Management Solutions, LLC","title":"CARPENTER VS. PBT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC. AWCC# H402326 January 28, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:9","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carpenter_Randy_H402326_20250128.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Carpenter_Randy_H402326_20250128.pdf","text_length":6229,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H402326 \n \nRANDY CARPENTER, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nPBT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nNORGUARD INS. CO., \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA                                                                            RESPONDENT  \n \n \nOPINION FILED JANUARY 28, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, January 7,  2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, Mr. Randy Carpenter, Pro Se, of Cabot, Arkansas, did not appear in person at the \nhearing.  \n \nThe Respondents  were represented by  the Honorable Dillon  Cordel, of  the  firm  Anderson, \nMurphy, and Hopkins, 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 January 7, 2025, 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 tow  truck driver.  The  date  for \nClaimant’s alleged injury was on April 1, 2024. He reported his injury to Respondent/Employer \non April 5, 2024. Respondents admitted Respondents’ Exhibit 1, Motion to Dismiss, consisting of \n2 pages. Also admitted into evidence was a blue-backed amended Form AR-1, amended Form AR-\n2, Form AR-C, copy of certified return receipt dated November 20, 2024, and a copy of certified \nreturn receipt dated December 18, 2024, as discussed infra. \n\nCARPENTER, AWCC No. H402326 \n \n2 \n \n \nThe  record  reflects  on April 4,  2024,  a  Form  AR-C  was  filed  with  the  Commission \npurporting that Claimant while hooking up a side-by-side tripped and fell injuring his right arm, \nshoulder, and head. On April 12, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission purporting \nthat Claimant’s date of disability was April 4, 2024. On April 16, 2024, an amended Form AR-1 \nwas filed purporting a new date of disability of April 1, 2024. Also on April 16, 2024, a Form AR-\n2 was filed by Respondents accepting compensability as medical only. Respondents next filed an \namended Form AR-2 denying compensability due to a lack of objective findings.  \nThe Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 30, 2024, requesting this claim be \ndismissed for a lack of prosecution. The Claimant was sent, certified and regular U.S. Mail, notice \nof the Motion to Dismiss from my office on November 5, 2024, to his last known address. The \ncertified motion notice  was unclaimed  by  Claimant as  noted on  the November  20,  2024,  return \nreceipt. The motion notice was also sent regular U.S. Mail and was not returned to the Commission. \nClaimant  did not respond  to  the  Motion,  in  writing,  as  required. Thus,  in  accordance  with \napplicable Arkansas law, the Claimant was mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ \nMotion to Dismiss hearing date at his current address of record via the United States Postal Service \n(USPS),  First  Class  Certified  Mail,  Return  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-Class  Mail,  on \nDecember  2,  2024.  The  certified  notice  was unclaimed according  to  the  return  receipt  dated \nDecember 18, 2024. The notice sent regular First-Class Mail was not returned. Thus, the hearing \ntook  place  on January  7,  2025.  And  as  mentioned  before,  the  Claimant  did  not  show  up  to  the \nhearing. \n \n \n\nCARPENTER, AWCC No. H402326 \n \n3 \n \n \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 January 7, 2025, \nhearing. \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).   \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 sent \nto the Claimant’s address of record was unclaimed; however, the hearing notice sent regular First-\nClass mail was not returned to the Commission. The Claimant has the responsibility of supplying  \n\nCARPENTER, AWCC No. H402326 \n \n4 \n \n \nthe Commission with his current address. Thus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that \nreasonable 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 April \n4,  2024.  Since  then,  he  has  failed  to  request  a bona  fide hearing.  Therefore,  I  do  find  by  the \npreponderance of the evidence that Claimant has failed to prosecute his claim by failing to request \na 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. H402326 RANDY CARPENTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT PBT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT NORGUARD INS. CO., INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JANUARY 28, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compe...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:44:49.168Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402326-2025-01-28","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Carpenter_Randy_H402326_20250128.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}