{"id":"alj-H402779-2025-12-10","awcc_number":"H402779","decision_date":"2025-12-10","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Samuel Gamble","employer_name":"Domtar Corporation","title":"GAMBLE VS. DOMTAR CORPORATION AWCC# H402779 December 10, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:5","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GAMBLE_SAMUEL_H402779_20251210.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"GAMBLE_SAMUEL_H402779_20251210.pdf","text_length":11427,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nCLAIM NO.: H402779 \n \n \nSAMUEL GAMBLE, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nDOMTAR CORPORATION,  \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                            RESPONDENT                                                                                                       \n \nTRAVELERS CASUALTY INS. CO. OF AMERICA, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                       RESPONDENT                                                                      \n          \n                                                                                              \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 10, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the Honorable Aaron L. Martin, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. \nMr. Martin waived his appearance at the hearing.        \n \nRespondents represented  by the Honorable Guy  Alton  Wade, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                         Statement of the Case      \n \n A dismissal hearing  was  held  on December 10, 2025,  in  the above-referenced  matter \npursuant to Dillard v. Benton County Sheriff’s Office, 87 Ark. App. 379, 192 S.W. 3d 287 (2004), \nto determine whether this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under the provisions of \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission Rule \n099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110(d)). \nAppropriate notice of this hearing was tried on all parties to their last known address, in \nthe manner instructed by law.   \nNo testimony was taken. \nThe record consists of the transcript from the December 10, 2025, dismissal hearing and \nthe documents held therein.  Commission’s Exhibit 1 consisting of two pages has been marked, \n\nGamble – H402779 \n \n2 \n \naccordingly; and  the Respondents  introduced  into  evidence  an  exhibit  consisting  of eight \nnumbered pages, which was thus marked Respondents’ Exhibit 1.  Both exhibits were introduced \ninto evidence without objection.  \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  June 24,  2024, \nalleging that the Claimant sustained an accidental injury on April 17, 2024, while working for the \nrespondent-employer.  According to this document, the Claimant sustained multiple bodily injuries \nwhen  he  was  hit  by  a  train.  Per  the  Form  AR-C,  the Claimant  requested  initial  workers’ \ncompensation benefits in the form of temporary total disability compensation, temporary partial \ndisability, permanent total disability benefits, an attorney’s fee, and medical expenses.      \n  On April 26,  2024,  the Respondents’ claim  professional filed  a  Form  AR-2,  with  the \nCommission denying compensability of the claim.  Per this form, the Respondents controverted \nthe claim on the grounds that the Claimant was not in the course and scope of his employment at \nthe time of his accidental injury of April 17, 2024.   \n The Claimant has not requested a hearing since the filing of his Form AR-C on June 24, \n2024.  This filing clearly occurred more than six (6) months ago. \n Subsequently,  there  was  no  action  taken  on  the  part  of  the  Claimant  to  prosecute  or \notherwise pursue his workers’ compensation claim.  Hence, the Claimant has not made a bona fide \nrequest for a hearing since the filing of the Form AR-C in July 2024.     \nTherefore, on or  about November  6,  2025, the Respondents  filed a  letter with  the \nCommission stating: “Please accept this letter as the Respondents request for dismissal due to the \nlack of prosecution of this claim.  Claimant has not requested a hearing or pursued this matter since \n\nGamble – H402779 \n \n3 \n \ndiscovery responses were provided.  By copy of this correspondence, I am notifying the Claimant \nof our motion.”  \nSubsequently, on November 10, 2025, my office sent a letter-notice to the Claimant and \nhis attorney informing them of the Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and a deadline of twenty (20) \ndays for filing a written response.  The notice was sent to the Claimant’s attorney via e-mail.  This \nletter was also sent to the Claimant by both first-class and certified mail.  The information retrieved \nfrom the Postal Service shows that the letter sent to the Claimant via certified mail was delivered \nto his home.  The return receipt request shows that the Claimant signed for delivery of the notice.  \nMoreover, the letter-notice sent by way of first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \nPer a Notice of Hearing generated on December 2, 2025, my office notified the parties that \na hearing had been rescheduled on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said dismissal hearing \nwas  set for December  10,  2025, in Little  Rock, Arkansas.    The  Claimant  and  his  attorney  were \nmade aware of the hearing via email and via the U.S. Postal Service.   \nOn  December  2,  2025,  the  Claimant’s  attorney drafted the  following  email  to  the \nCommission: “Claimant has no objection to a dismissal without prejudice.”      \nBased  on  the foregoing, the  evidence clearly preponderates  that  the  Claimant received \nappropriate notice of the dismissal hearing.     \nA hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant’s \nattorney waived his appearance at the hearing.  However, the Respondents appeared through their \nattorney.   \nAt  the  hearing,  the Respondents’ counsel argued,  among  other things, that  the Claimant \nhas failed to timely prosecute his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  Counsel further noted \nthat  the  Claimant’s attorney has indicated that  he  does  not  object  to  the  case  being  dismissed \n\nGamble – H402779 \n \n4 \n \nwithout  prejudice.   As  such, The Respondents’ counsel moved that  this  claim  be  dismissed for \nfailure to prosecute under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and Commission Rule 099.13 \n(now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), without prejudice. \n             Adjudication  \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) 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 the limitation periods specified in subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. \nAlso, Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) provides:  \nCommission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d), reads as follows: \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 since the filing of the Form AR-C in June 2024 which was done more than six \n(6) months ago.  Moreover, there has been no bona fide action taken by the Claimant to pursue or \n\nGamble – H402779 \n \n5 \n \notherwise resolve his claim since the filing of it.  Most significantly, the Claimant does not object \nto his claim being dismissed without prejudice. \n Accordingly, the  evidence  preponderates  that  the  Claimant  has clearly failed  to timely \nprosecute his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.   Additionally,  the  Claimant  does  not \nobject to a dismissal without prejudice.   \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.   \nI thus find that pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§11-9-702 (Repl. 2012), and Commission Rule \n099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), this claim for  workers’ compensation benefits \nis hereby respectfully dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of it within the limitation period \nspecified under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act (referred to herein as 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 filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in  June \n2024.  Since this time, the Claimant has not requested a hearing.  \n \n3. The Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim,  for  which  a  hearing  was  held.  The Claimant  does  not  object  to  a \ndismissal without prejudice. \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 a lack  of  prosecution is  well  founded,  and  should be  hereby \ngranted, without   prejudice, per Ark.   Code   Ann. §11-9-702,   and \nCommission Rule  099.13(now  codified  at  11  C.A.R. § 25-110  (d)) to  the \nrefiling of it within the limitation period specified by law.  \n\nGamble – H402779 \n \n6 \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  \nAnn. §11- 9-702, and Commission Rule 099.13 (now codified at 11 C.A.R. § 25-110 (d)), without \nprejudice to the refiling of it within 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.: H402779 SAMUEL GAMBLE, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT DOMTAR CORPORATION, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT TRAVELERS CASUALTY INS. CO. OF AMERICA, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 10, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, P...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:34.858Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402779-2025-12-10","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/GAMBLE_SAMUEL_H402779_20251210.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}