{"id":"alj-H402560-2025-03-14","awcc_number":"H402560","decision_date":"2025-03-14","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Marcus Calaham","employer_name":"American Rheinmetall Munition, Inc","title":"CALAHAM VS. AMERICAN RHEINMETALL MUNITION, INC. AWCC# H402560 March 14, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["back"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CALAHAM_MARCUS_H402560_20250314.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"CALAHAM_MARCUS_H402560_20250314.pdf","text_length":12591,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H402560 \n \n \nMARCUS CALAHAM (DEC’D), \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nAMERICAN RHEINMETALL MUNITION, INC.,   \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT     \n \nLIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CORP., \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT  \n          \n \nOPINION FILED MARCH 14, 2025   \n \nA dismissal hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in El Dorado, \nUnion County, Arkansas. \n \nClaimant, unrepresented/pro se, failed to appear at the hearing.        \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Zachary  F. Ryburn, Attorney  at  Law, Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE      \n \n A hearing was held on March 5, 2025, in the present matter pursuant to Dillard v. Benton \nCounty Sheriff’s Office,  87  Ark.  App.  379, 192  S.W.  3d  287  (2004),  to  determine  whether  the \nabove-referenced matter should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of Ark. \nCode Ann. §11-9-702, and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule 099.13.  \nAppropriate Notice of this hearing was had on all parties to their last known address, in the \nmanner prescribed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \n The  record  consists  of  the  transcript  of the March 5,  2025, dismissal hearing  and  the \ndocuments held therein.  Specifically, included in the record is Commission’s Exhibit No. 1 \n\nCALAHAM – H402560 \n \n2 \n \nconsisting of eight (8) pages, and Respondents’ Exhibit 1 comprising of (13) pages was introduced \ninto evidence.  Both exhibits were introduced without any objection. \n                                                      Procedural Background \n The procedural history of this claim is as follows: \n This cause of action for a claim of workers’ compensation benefits was brought  by  the \nestate  of the deceased Claimant.  It appears that the Claimant’s surviving  widow/spouse filed  a \nclaim for death benefits and other additional benefits.  On May 23, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney \nwrote a letter to the Commission advising that he had been retained by the Claimant’s widow in \nthe above-referenced matter.  Also, on May 23, the widow’s attorney filed a Form AR-C with the \nCommission alleging that the Claimant sustained compensable injuries during the course and in \nthe scope of his employment with the respondent-employer, which resulted in his death on April \n10,  2024.   According  to this  document, the attorney asserted entitlement to both  initial  and \nadditional workers’ compensation benefits.  In fact, the attorney checked off all the boxes for every \nconceivable benefit under the law and noted on this document that a claim for death benefits was \nbeing  made.   At  that  time, the Claimant’s attorney requested that the claim be referred to an \nAdministrative Law Judge for a hearing.    \n The respondent-insurance-carrier’s attorney wrote the following letter to the Commission: \n“In response to the recently filed Form C in this matter, the claim is denied.”  Said letter was filed \nwith the Commission on May 31, 2024. \n As a result, the Clerk of the Commission, assigned/transferred this claim to my office for \na hearing.  On June 24, 2024, my office sent Prehearing Questionnaires and Preliminary Notices \nto  the  parties.  Both  parties filed timely  responses.   Therefore,  on  August  28,  2024,  I  filed  a \nPrehearing Order in this claim setting forth the parties’ stipulations, contentions, and issues to be \n\nCALAHAM – H402560 \n \n3 \n \npresented at  the  hearing.   Said hearing  was  scheduled  for  November  6, 2024, in  El  Dorado, \nArkansas.  \n However, on October 25, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney sent an email to my office stating, \nin relevant part: “... There is ongoing discovery that needs to be completed before we can proceed.  \nIn light of this, will you please send this back to general files until the parties complete discovery \nand then we will request that it be reassigned to your office for a hearing.”  \n Therefore, on October 25, 2024, I canceled the full hearing and returned the claim to the \nCommission’s general files.    \n Subsequently on October 28, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney wrote to the Commission \nstating that the Claimant’s widow informed him that she wished to terminate the attorney-client \nrelationship.  Counsel for the Claimant stated that he was asserting an attorney’s fee agreement \nand  asked  that  he  be  removed  as  attorney  of  record.    He  also asked  that notice  be  taken  of  his \nattorney’s lien and that documentation of this be made on the file.  \n In an Order filed on November 15, 2024, the Full Commission granted the motion for the \nClaimant’s attorney to withdraw as counsel of record in this matter.     \nSince this time, there has been no affirmative action taken on the part of the Claimant to \nprosecute his claim or otherwise pursue benefits.  In fact, the Claimant has not made a request for \na bona fide hearing since May 2024.  \nTherefore,  on or  about January 21,  2025, the  Respondents filed with  the  Commission a \nRespondents’ Motion to Dismiss, along with a certificate of service to the Claimant’s surviving \nspouse.  Per  this  documentation,  the  Respondents  confirmed  that  they  served  a  true  and  correct \ncopy of the foregoing pleading upon the Claimant’s widow via regular mail and by way of a faxed \ncopy.  This was done on January 17, 2025.          \n\nCALAHAM – H402560 \n \n4 \n \n  The  Commission  sent  a letter to  the Claimant’s surviving spouse on January  21,  2025, \ninforming her of the Respondents’ motion, and a deadline of twenty (20) days, for filing a written \nresponse.  This notice was sent via first-class and certified mail by way of the United States Postal \nService.   \nHowever, the Postal Service informed the Commission on January 23, 2025, that this item \nwas delivered to the Claimant’s widow’s residence and left with an individual.  Although the proof \nof delivery bears a signature, it is illegible.  Also, the letter sent to the Claimant’s surviving spouse \nvia first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  \nNevertheless, there has been no response from the Claimant’s surviving spouse.   \n  Pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated February 11, 2025, the Commission notified the parties \nthat the matter had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.  Said hearing \nwas scheduled for March 5, 2025, at the Union County Courthouse, in El Dorado, Arkansas.  This \nnotice was sent via the United States Postal Service by way of first-class and certified mail.   \nThe tracking information received from the Postal Service shows that they delivered this \nitem to the Claimant’s residence on February 14, 2025.  This return receipt request shows that the \nClaimant’s widow signed for delivery of this notice of hearing.  The letter  notice  sent  to  the \nClaimant’s widow by first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.  Still, there was no \nresponse from the Claimant’s widow.  However, based on the foregoing, I find that the Claimant’s \nsurviving spouse was provided with proper notice of the dismissal hearing.    \n Nevertheless, a hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  \nThe Claimant failed to appear at the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their \nattorney.  Counsel for the Respondents argued, among other things, that the Claimant’s widow has \n\nCALAHAM – H402560 \n \n5 \n \nfailed to prosecute this claim for workers’ compensation benefits and that it should be dismissed \nfor want of prosecution per the laws and rules of the Commission as presented in his motion.  \n                                          Adjudication \nTherefore, the statutory provisions and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Rule applicable \nin the Respondents’ motion for dismissal of this claim are outlined below:  \nSpecifically, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) provides:  \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 \nCommission Rule 099.13 reads:  \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 \nA review of the evidence shows that the Claimant’s surviving spouse has had ample time \nto pursue this claim for workers’ compensation benefits, but she has failed to do so.  Specifically, \nthe surviving spouse has not requested a hearing or otherwise tried to prosecute this claim since \nMay 2024, when her former attorney made a request for a hearing.  Most notably, the Claimant’s \nwidow has  not  responded  to  the  Notices  of  this  Commission, nor  has  she challenged the \n\nCALAHAM – H402560 \n \n6 \n \nRespondents’ motion  for dismissal of  her  claim.  Hence,  the evidence before  me clearly \npreponderates  that  the Claimant’s  widow has  failed  to  prosecute  this  claim  for  workers’ \ncompensation  benefits.  Moreover, I  am  convinced  that  the Claimant’s surviving  spouse has \nabandoned this claim.   \nAfter  consideration  of  the  evidence before  me,  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 \nperiods specified under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”). \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: \n1. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction of this \nclaim.  \n \n2. The Respondents  filed  with  the  Commission a Motion to  Dismiss  this   \nclaim, for want of prosecution for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. The Claimant’s widow has not requested a hearing since May 2024.  Hence, \nthe evidence  preponderates  that she has  failed  to  prosecute this  claim  for \nworkers’ compensation benefits based upon the relevant provisions of Ark. \nCode Ann.§11-9-702 and Rule 099.13 of this Commission.       \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 Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss this claim due to a lack of prosecution \nis well-founded.  Therefore, the motion is hereby granted, pursuant to Ark. \nCode Ann.§11-9-702 and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice, to \nthe refiling of it within the limitation period specified by law.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\nCALAHAM – H402560 \n \n7 \n \n                                               ORDER \n \n Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I have no alternative \nbut  to  dismiss  this  claim  for workers’ compensation benefits.  This  dismissal is  hereby  ordered \npursuant to the Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 and Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice, to the \nrefiling of this claim within the limitation periods specified under the Act. \n          IT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n                              _______________________________ \n               CHANDRA L. BLACK \n               ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: H402560 MARCUS CALAHAM (DEC’D), EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT AMERICAN RHEINMETALL MUNITION, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CORP., CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 14, 2025 A dismissal hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:42:34.814Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402560-2025-03-14","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/CALAHAM_MARCUS_H402560_20250314.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}