{"id":"alj-H402888-2025-03-19","awcc_number":"H402888","decision_date":"2025-03-19","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"Guy Nichols","employer_name":"Wal-Mart Associates, Inc","title":"NICHOLS VS. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. AWCC# H402888 March 19, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:4","granted:1"],"injury_keywords":["shoulder"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NICHOLS_GUY_H402888_20250319.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"NICHOLS_GUY_H402888_20250319.pdf","text_length":10948,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nAWCC CLAIM NO.: H402888 \n \n \nGUY NICHOLS, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                                 CLAIMANT \n \nWAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,  \nSELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                                               RESPONDENT \n  \n          \n       OPINION FILED MARCH 19, 2025   \n \nHearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nThe Claimant, pro se, failed to appear for the dismissal hearing.         \n \nRespondents represented  by the  Honorable Michael C. Stiles, Attorney  at  Law,  Little  Rock, \nArkansas. \n \n                                                      Statement of the Case      \n \n A hearing was held on March 12, 2025, in the above-referenced matter pursuant to Dillard \nv. 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. \nOf significance, the Respondents have asked that this dismissal be granted specifically to include \nthe statutory provisions for both initial and additional workers’ compensation benefits.    \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 March 12, 2025, hearing and the documents held \ntherein.  Commission’s Exhibit 1 comprising of eighteen (18) pages, was introduced into evidence \nwithout objection, and was thus marked accordingly.     \n\nGUY – H402888 \n \n2 \n \n                                                                    History \n The procedural history of this claim includes the following:  \n On May 1, 2024, the Claimant’s former attorney filed a Form AR-C with the Commission \nalleging that the Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right shoulder while working for \nWalmart during and in the course of his employment on February 18, 2024.  Per this document, \nthe Claimant asserted his entitlement to both initial and additional workers’ compensation benefits.  \nAlso on May 1, the Claimant’s former attorney wrote  a  letter  to  the  Commission asking  the \nRespondents to state their position within fifteen (15) days.   \n  The Respondents’ claims specialist filed a Form AR-2, with the Commission on May 8, \n2024, in response to the Form AR-C.  At that time, the respondent-carrier’s stated position was \n“Claim is compensable.”   \nOn July 26, 2024, the Claimant’s attorney filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record \nin this matter for the Claimant.  Pursuant to an Order filed by the Full Commission on August 14, \n2024, the Claimant’s attorney was allowed to withdraw as counsel of record in this claim.   \n  Subsequently, there was no  action whatsoever taken on  the  part  of  the  Claimant  to \nprosecute his claim or pursue benefits.  In fact, at no time has the Claimant ever requested a hearing \nin the claim.   \nTherefore, on January  7,  2025, the Respondents  filed  a Motion  to  Dismiss Without \nPrejudice and Brief  in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, with  the  Commission,  along  with a \ncertificate of service indicating that they served a copy of the foregoing pleading on the Claimant \nvia the United States Postal Service.      \nMy  office sent  a  Notice  to  the Claimant on January 15,  2025, informing him of the \nRespondents’ motion to dismiss, and a deadline of twenty (20) days for filing a written response.  \n\nGUY – H402888 \n \n3 \n \nThis  letter  was sent  via  first-class  and  certified  mail.   Information  received  by  the  Commission \nfrom the United States Postal Service on January 30, 2025, confirms that they were unable to find \nany delivery information on this item in their records.   However, the notice sent by first-class mail \nhas not been returned to the Commission.   \n Next, pursuant to a Hearing Notice dated February 5, 2025, my office notified the parties \nthat this claim had been set for a hearing on the Respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Said dismissal \nhearing was scheduled for March 12, 2025, 10:30 a.m., with the hearing being held at the Arkansas \nWorkers’ Compensation Commission,  in Little  Rock,  Arkansas.  This  notice  was  sent  via  first-\nclass mail and certified mail. \nInformation  received  from  the  Postal  Service  shows  that  this  item  was  delivered  to  the \nClaimant’s residence, and he signed for the Hearing Notice on February 8, 2025.  The Recipient’s \nSignature section bears the Claimant’s printed name, along  with  his  signature.  Moreover, the \nnotice sent via first-class mail has not been returned to the Commission.   \nBased on the foregoing, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant received notice of \nthe dismissal hearing.      \n A hearing was in fact conducted on the Respondents’ motion as scheduled.  The Claimant \ndid  not appear for the dismissal hearing.    However, the  Respondents appeared  through  their \nattorney.   \nThe Respondents’ counsel essentially noted that the Claimant has failed to timely prosecute \nhis claim  for  workers’  compensation  benefits.  As  such, Counsel argued that  this  claim  be \ndismissed without prejudice under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-702(a)(4) and (d), as \nwell  as Commission Rule  099.13.  The Respondents’ attorney also stated that the Claimant has \nbeen paid appropriate benefits in this claim.  Counsel noted the Claimant has failed to request a \n\nGUY – H402888 \n \n4 \n \nhearing in this matter since the filing of Form AR-C, which was done more than six (6) months \nago.  Therefore, the Respondents’ attorney requested that the claim be dismissed without prejudice \nunder the foregoing statutory provisions and Commission Rule.    \n               Adjudication  \nTherefore, the statutory provisions 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 \nArk. Code Ann. §11-9-702(d) provides:  \nIf within six (6) months after the filing of a claim for additional compensation, no \nbona fide request for a hearing has been made with respect to the claim, the claim \nmay, upon motion and after hearing, if necessary, be dismissed without prejudice \nto the refiling of the claim within the limitation period specified in subsection (b) \nof this section. \n \nAdditionally, 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\nGUY – H402888 \n \n5 \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 \never requested  a  hearing  or  otherwise made  any  effort to  prosecute  his  claim  for  workers’ \ncompensation benefits since the filing of his claim more than six (6) months ago; and nor has he \nresisted  the motion  for dismissal of his workers’ compensation claim despite  having  received \nnotice of the hearing.  Hence, the evidence preponderates that the Claimant has clearly failed to \nprosecute this claim.  Furthermore, considering all the foregoing, 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(a)(4)  and  (d),  along  with Commission  Rule  099.13,  this  claim  for initial  and \nadditional workers’ compensation benefits is hereby respectfully dismissed without prejudice to \nthe refiling of it within the limitation periods specified under the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nAct (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 Respondents filed with the Commission a motion for dismissal of this \nclaim, for which a hearing was held. \n \n3. Appropriate notice of the dismissal hearing was had on all parties to their \nlast known address, in the manner prescribed by law.    \n \n            4. The evidence  preponderates  that  the Respondents’ motion to dismiss this \nclaim due  to  a lack  of  prosecution is  well  founded,  and  should be  hereby \ngranted, without prejudice, under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-\n\nGUY – H402888 \n \n6 \n \n702(a)(4) and (d), as well as Commission Rule 099.13, to the refiling of it \nwithin the limitation periods specified by law.  \n \n                                                     \n         ORDER \n \n Based  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(a)(4) and (d), as well as Commission Rule 099.13, without prejudice to the refiling \nof this claim within the limitation periods specified under relevant law. \nIT IS SO ORDERED. \n \n \n \n        ______________________________ \n                                                                                                CHANDRA L. BLACK \n                                                                                                Administrative Law Judge","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AWCC CLAIM NO.: H402888 GUY NICHOLS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 19, 2025 Hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Chandra L. Black, in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. The Claimant, pro ...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:42:45.480Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H402888-2025-03-19","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/NICHOLS_GUY_H402888_20250319.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}