{"id":"alj-H403979-2025-12-16","awcc_number":"H403979","decision_date":"2025-12-16","opinion_type":"alj","claimant_name":"James Planek","employer_name":"L.V.L. Inc","title":"PLANEK VS. L.V.L. INC. AWCC# H403979 December 16, 2025","outcome":"dismissed","outcome_keywords":["dismissed:10","granted:3"],"injury_keywords":["back","strain"],"pdf_url":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Planek_James_H403979_20251216.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/","filename":"Planek_James_H403979_20251216.pdf","text_length":6307,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION \nWCC NO. H403979 \n \nJAMES PLANEK, \nEMPLOYEE                                                                                                              CLAIMANT \n \nL.V.L. INC., \nEMPLOYER                                                                                                         RESPONDENT  \n \nGREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, \nCARRIER/TPA                                                                                                    RESPONDENT \n \n \nOPINION FILED DECEMBER 16, 2025 \n \nHearing conducted on Tuesday, October 21, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation \nCommission  (the  Commission),  Administrative  Law  Judge (ALJ) Steven  Porch,  in Little  Rock, \nPulaski County, Arkansas. \n \nThe Claimant is Pro Se, of Cabot, Arkansas.  \n \nThe Respondents were represented by Mr. Eric Newkirk, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \nI.  BACKGROUND \n This matter comes before the Commission on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents \non May 1, 2025.  A hearing on the motion was conducted on October 21, 2025, in Little Rock, \nArkansas.  Claimant, according to Commission file is Pro Se, failed to appear at the hearing.  \nThe  Claimant  worked  for  the  Respondent/Employer  as driver. The date for Claimant’s \nalleged injury was on June 13, 2024. This incident was reported to the Respondent/Employer on \nJune   14,   2024. Admitted   into   evidence   was Respondents’  Exhibit 1,   pleadings,   and \ncorrespondence, consisting of 17 pages, and Commission Ex. 1, pleadings, correspondence, and \nU.S. Mail return receipts, consisting of 10 pages, as discussed infra. \nThe  record  reflects  on September 3, 2024,  a  Form  AR-C  was  filed by  Claimants  then-\nattorney, Gary Davis, purporting that Claimant sustained an injury to his low back while getting \n\nPLANEK, AWCC No. H403979 \n \n2 \n \nout of his truck. On June 21, 2024, a Form AR-1 was filed with the Commission noting that the \ntype of back injury experienced by Claimant was a strain. On June 24, 2024, a Form AR-2 was \nfiled denying compensability but  had  the  date  of  injury  as  June  6,  2024. On  August  26,  2024, \nRespondents filed an amended Form AR-2 correcting the day of injury as June 13, 2024.    \nRespondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to Claimant’s failure to prosecute his claim on \nMay 1, 2025. Claimant’s then-attorney opposed the motion in writing while simultaneously filed \na Motion to be Relieved as Counsel on May 5, 2025.  Claimant’s then-attorney, Gary Davis, reason \nfor the withdrawal request was the Claimant’s lack of communication with him. Mr. Davis motion \nwas  granted  on  June  24,  2025. The  Respondents  renewed  their  motion  to  dismiss  for  lack  of \nprosecution. The  Claimant  was  sent, on August 4,  2025, notice  of  the  Motion  to  Dismiss, via \ncertified and regular U.S. Mail, to his last known address. The certified motion notice was claimed \nby Claimant as noted on the August 7, 2025, return receipt. This notice was also sent regular U.S. \nMail and did  not  return  to  the  Commission. Despite  this,  the  Claimant  did not respond  to  the \nMotion, in writing, as required. Thus, in accordance with applicable Arkansas law, the Claimant \nwas mailed due and proper legal notice of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss hearing date at her \ncurrent address of record via the United States Postal Service (USPS), First Class Certified Mail, \nReturn  Receipt  Requested,  and  regular  First-Class  Mail,  on September 10,  2025.  The  certified \nnotice was not claimed as noted by the September 18, 2025, return receipt. Likewise, the hearing \nnotice  sent  regular  First-Class  was  not  returned  to  the  Commission. The  hearing  took  place  on \nOctober 21, 2025. And as mentioned before, the Claimant did not show up to the hearing. \n \n \n \n\nPLANEK, AWCC No. H403979 \n \n3 \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 October 21, 2025, \nhearing. \n \n3. Respondents have proven by the preponderance of the evidence that Claimant has \nfailed to prosecute his claim under 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) (formerly AWCC Rule \n099.13).  \n \n4. The Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. \n \n5. This claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.     \n \n \nIII.  DISCUSSION \n 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) 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 11  C.A.R. §25-110(d), the  Commission  scheduled  and  conducted  a \nhearing,  with  reasonable  notice, on  the Respondents’ Motion  to Dismiss. The  certified  hearing \nnotice was claimed by Claimant, per the return postal notice bearing the September 18, 2025, date. \nThus, I find by the preponderance of the evidence that reasonable notice was given to the Claimant.  \n\nPLANEK, AWCC No. H403979 \n \n4 \n \nFurthermore, 11 C.A.R. §25-110(d) allows the Commission, upon meritorious application, \nto dismiss an action pending before it due to a want of prosecution. The Claimant filed his Form \nAR-C  on September  3,  2024.  Since  then,  he  has  failed  to communicate  with  his  then-attorney, \nrespond to discovery, and request a bona fide hearing. Therefore, I do find by the preponderance \nof  the  evidence  that  Claimant  has  failed  to  prosecute  his claim. Thus, Respondents’ Motion to \nDismiss should be granted. \n \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. H403979 JAMES PLANEK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT L.V.L. INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, CARRIER/TPA RESPONDENT OPINION FILED DECEMBER 16, 2025 Hearing conducted on Tuesday, October 21, 2025, before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (...","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:33:45.302Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/alj-H403979-2025-12-16","pdf":"https://www.labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Planek_James_H403979_20251216.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/administrative-law-judge-opinions/"}}